Banking As the Corrupter of Society

Roy Kreitner recently published an interesting article about the perceptions of banks in 19th century United States. Published in an on-line magazine titled Common Place, he sets out to explain why banks were seen as the great corrupters of society in the Antebellum United States.

Kreitner explained that banks were not used as the safe haven for individual savings in the 1800s. “Antebellum banking in America was not, in fact, based on the numerous deposits of dispersed individuals,” he wrote. In quick summary, Kreitner suggested that banks were seen as evil because they promoted a sense of instant gratification. Credit was perceived as evil, a mechanism that allowed men to avoid hard work and still obtain the luxuries in life. As one historian described it, “patient accumulation was condemned.” Bank credit allowed individuals to invest in the dreams of the future. In other words, obtain something (bank loans) for nothing that will hopefully become something in the future. Many ambitious Americans did not agree that investing in the future was truly a weak investment at best. It was speculation of the worst kind, but a speculation that was rampant throughout society.

It is no wonder banks were perceived as institutions that corrupted and destroyed the moral fabric of society. These were organizations that promised easy returns on high risk investments in a society that could not afford failure in high risk times.

Kreitner writes an interesting article that warrants close examination.

Parentage: The Complexities of Genealogy

I have been sitting on this particular article for more than a year, debating whether to post or not. Well, a recent article in the New York Times has convinced me that I should sent this out. So, here goes:

A few years ago, in her office as First Lady, Hilary Clinton wrote a book titled, It Takes a Village. Although the book doesn’t have anything to do with Genealogy or Family History, the title implies an interesting idea for the field of Genealogy. Is a blood line truly the most important consideration in researching family history? If a person is adopted, does that diminish their family history? If it is impossible to trace their family line, does that diminish the research potential?

Sometime ago, I mentioned on my blog (www.historybybrubaker.blogspot.com 26 July 2007) that an author had estimated that in some communities in the country 25 percent of all Americans do not know, or have a misconception about their parentage. If this statistic is accurate, how does that affect Genealogy and Family History?

Here is where Hilary Clinton’s book ties into this discussion. Maybe we should consider the issue of environment over genetics. Is it more important to consider the parents a person grows up with, rather than the individual’s genetic make-up? The “nature vs. nurture” debate will go on forever. In genealogy and family history this is a very personalized question and the answer can be as simple or complex as you want. Do you consider the man and woman who raised you your parents? Or, do we really need to track down the sperm donor in an effort to complete our family trees?

And, with the advances in science, what does all of this do to our family trees? The questions become more and more difficult to answer. Because Family History is such a personalized process, how you answer the questions are also very personal. The discussion, though, will challenge us all.

Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution

After watching the Sunday morning news programs, and taking 24 hours to calm down, I find it fascinating that in the discussions about the meaning of the Constitution, NO ONE talks about Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers! Remember, Jefferson was busy in Paris when the Constitution was written while Hamilton was writing a brilliant series of essays explaining the Constitution and its implications. Want to know about the United States Constitution and its meaning? Read Hamilton!! Happy Birthday America (and no I am not confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence).

My Own List of Important Supreme Court Cases

With the recent release of the full collection of the Pentagon Papers, several news reporters have created lists of important court cases decided by the Supreme Court. The usual ones are on the list, including Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison, and McCulloch v. Maryland.

Well, I’ve decided to create my own list of important Supreme Court cases. Afterall, I minored in Journalism in college and I took a course on Communications Law back in the late 1970s. Those credentials obviously make me an absolute expert on the Supreme Court.

My credentials are important because the three court cases I would add to the list concern libel law and newspapers. The cases are: Near v. Minnesota, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and New York Times Co. v. United States. All three of these cases served to help define and clarify the court positions on prior restraint and absence of malice. I don’t remember a great deal about the communications course I took, but I do remember these three cases and the impact they had on the fields of journalism and newspaper publishing. These three cases helped refine the philosophy of freedom of the press and also create a balance between professional, journalistic responsibility and open and free society.

I felt the need to simply throw in my “two bits” regarding the important court cases in history. New York Times v. United States came about as a result of the Pentagon Papers. In a time as stressful as the 1970s, a free press is something important to acknowledge and appreciate. And, so my list exists.

Thank You For Your Service

With the coming of the Memorial Day weekend, I want to take the time to recognize the many men and women who have died in defending the country. The soldiers and sailors in the service of the United States make tremendous sacrifices to provide security for the rest of us living here. The time spent away from home, separated from their families and loved ones; it is truly a great sacrifice these men and women give so that the rest of us can remain safe and secure in our homes.

I had promised not to use the cliché,”the ultimate sacrifice” in this essay. Yet, the phrase seems so appropriate to recognize the men and women who have died in the service of the country. To the many millions of men and women who have served in the Armed Forces, I can only say “thank you for all that you have done to make my life so rewarding.”

While I am thanking people for their service, I want to recognize the men and women, also in uniform, who serve in the communities helping to protect me and my family: the police and fire departments, the emergency response teams, the paramedics and ambulance drivers and all the employees in hospitals. So many individuals work to make their community a safer place. They need to be acknowledged as well. So many people risk their lives and their well being for my protection and security, I want to say thank you to you all.

Bad News For Pinball Museum

Bad news is striking everywhere these days. The National Pinball Museum in Georgetown has been evicted from its exhibit space. The Vornado Realty Trust owns the space occupied by the museum. They are evicting the pinballers in order to renovate the building.

It is truly a sad time for all of us.

The Last Combat Veteran of WWI Dies

Claude Stanley Choules, the last combat veteran of World War One died earlier this week. There is only one remaining veteran of the war living in the world. According to newspaper reports, Florence Green is the only known surviving veteran of the war. Ms. Green served as a waitress in the Women’s Royal Air Force.

I wanted to share a few thoughts about them and their service to country, and the world. These two, and all veterans, should be honored for their sacrifices in their military service. The fact these two are the oldest surviving members is interesting, but as Mr. Choules once said, his secret to a long life was just “keep breathing.”

He made a career out of the military, first entering during the Great War at age 14. He then served in the Navy through World War II and finally retired in 1956.

I have never met Mr. Choules. In fact, I had never heard of him until I read his death announcements. It seems, though, appropriate to recognize his service and sacrifice to insure world peace. Thank you Mr. Choules.

From a historian’s perspective, I am happy to note that he wrote his memoirs, titled The Last of the Last. A brief example from the pages of his autobiography describes witnessing the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in 1918. It may prove to be an interesting book.