Caption Contest - The Signpost

Here's another one of those pictures worth a thousand words...  Except this time I keep thinking up slogans and captions and funny (or maybe profound) things to write alongside this image.  So I decided to make it a contest.




Just submit your ideas via the comments.  Winner will have his or her caption posted, and will have the option of (1) public recognition for extreme creativity, (2) continuing anonymity with the satisfaction of knowing you were more creative than all the other readers of Gryphem, or (3) a cash prize of $3.45 (the amount of money in my pockets right now) to be claimed in person at Gryphem headquarters in Virginia or via mail (please send a stamped, self-addressed envelope).  Now the picture:

What do you think?

Gryphem

- - - - - - -

THE RESULTS ARE IN!

Some arrived via the comments section and some came via email, but they arrived.  And now for the captions you've all been waiting for!

The caption contest entries included two great captions that go great together.  That is why, in a fit of extraordinary generosity, Gryphem has agreed to present both comments on the website, and also to award a financial prize of $3.45 to each of the winning contestants.

And the winners are...


"Are you sure Uncle Ralph
invited us this weekend?"

(Josie)



"Make a U-turn, go home, get in bed,
and start the day over again."

(The Orrs)

Thanks to everyone who played.

Gryphem

Reasons I Avoid Social Media

I do not use any of the most popular forms of social media.  I am not on Facebook.  I have never received a “tweet.”  I had to learn to send text messages on a trip to Mexico last year when that was the only means of communication available… but the number of texts I send in the course of a year can be counted on my fingers.

I admit that I have an account on LinkedIn, a professional networking site, which I access a few times each year to see where old friends are and what they are doing.  And, YES, I realize this is a blog, which is a form of social media.  But Gryphem  is about civic issues, social and philosophical opinions, historical comments, and observations about life.  It’s not about my personal life.  In my mind, the Gryphem blog is less social media than an electronic newspaper column.

Courtesy epic.co.uk



So why don’t I utilize the more trendy forms of social media?  Well, it is probably rooted in the same mindset that kept me from having an email account until 1999 when I was sent overseas where there were no available telephones, that kept me from buying a computer until 2001, that kept me from having a cell phone until 2004 when my employer handed me one and said, “Keep it turned on.”  But it’s more than my underlying technophobia.  Here are a few reasons I do not choose to participate in social media activities.

My first reason for declining to participate is identity theft, and the closely-related issue of privacy.  If an identity thief gets enough information from my electronic interactions, my credit and finances might be destroyed in a day.  Similarly, if people I know or work with learn things that shouldn’t be public knowledge, the results might be embarrassing or detrimental to my career.  I know that anything I put on line can never be fully recaptured.  Trying to undo an unwise publication, whether an impolite comment or an indiscrete photo, would be like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.  It just isn’t going to happen.  I choose to protect my identity, my privacy, and my dignity by not making everything about my personal life available in a public forum.

I choose not to participate in social networking because of my essential belief that, when possible, human beings should relate to one another through personal contact rather than technology.  I want to be there in person with those I care about... talk to them... look them in the eye.  I believe that people should interact in person when possible, with voice contact when necessary, or at the very least through one-on-one written correspondence. 

Electronic communication works well for transmission of strictly factual information, but it is not effective for human-to-human interaction.  Electronic communication is always incomplete.  Our human communication is much more than the words we speak.  Without physical presence we miss out on eye contact, vocal inflection, body language and intuitive non-verbal messages.  When we are not present, not seeing or hearing the voice of the other, we are apt to miss important parts of their message.  Or worse yet, we may read into their words implications that were never really there, making erroneous assumptions and hearing a message that is more about our own preconceptions than their actual intended message. 

Social media entice us, by means of easy availability, to communicate digitally rather than personally.  I believe it is not normal to communicate with bits and bytes when I might just as easily speak in person. 

Social media tempt people to ignore the friends and family who are present in order to interact via electronic means, whether phone or text or IM or web page, with others who are elsewhere.  I want to BE PRESENT wherever I am.  Social media present me with the danger of becoming so spread-out that I am not really present anywhere.

Social media are essentially impersonal.  A post on Facebook or a tweet to followers is a communiqué intended for a group, not an individual.  I would rather not interact with my friends and family as one within a large group of followers.  I prefer personal communication, not news releases.  If you are now objecting that posts and tweets do not have to be impersonal, then I direct your attention back to the paragraph about privacy. 

"Narcissistic Bathers"
by Jack Vettriano

It seems to me that social networking may – in some cases - contribute to a narcissistic mindset.  If I am constantly broadcasting every little thought or event in my life, then I will eventually give in to the illusion that there is an adoring public out there just waiting to hear what’s next with me.  The fact is, most people are less concerned about posts and texts and tweets – whoever they come from - than with what they’re going to say or do next themselves.  A wise man once told me this:  “You would worry a lot less about what people think about you if you realized how little they do.”  That may be depressing to some, but it rings true.  We all have individual concerns that are very important to us, but those concerns usually are not shared by everyone in our social network. 

Some people argue stringently that use of social media by organizations leads to a more informed workforce, and empowers all the members of the organization.  I agree to a point.  Websites and blogs can be effective for those purposes.  I’m not so sure about other social networking, though.  In my experience, organizationally-sponsored social networking tends to divert members from their primary duties as they focus on the popular concerns of the day.  They also tend to provide ready-made short-circuits to the normal organizational communication structures and established means of operation.  Of course, for all I know, all those things might be positive developments.

I believe that social networking is basically myopic.  If I use it too much, I am likely to get so focused on the concerns I constantly post and tweet, or that my on line contacts post and tweet, that I lose touch with the “big picture,” and forget what’s really important.  If I use social media too much, it might be like putting on social or professional or emotional blinders. 

Here’s one more reason I do not get too involved in the world of social media:  I just don’t care what that guy I met once, five years ago, is having for dinner.  I just don’t care about the problem that friend-of-a-friend is having with her neighbor’s cat.  I just don’t care what that electronic screen name that I’ve never met thinks about his boss.  Information overload is already a problem, and I don’t need to make it worse by involving myself in the electronic minutia of other people’s lives. 

I do care about people.  I really do.  It is because I care about people that I cannot spend my life’s time and energy focusing on small concerns or irrelevant details in the lives of people I don’t really know.  I am too busy with my very real life.  If the issues are big and real, if the people involved are very important to me, then that is another matter.  But on social networks that is not usually the situation.  If you want to be my real-world friend, I welcome that.  I am ready to get to know you.  I will learn to value you personally and to relate to you as a friend.  But if you only want to interact on line, about details of your life that don’t affect me in the slightest, then I must respectfully decline.

That’s why I don’t use social networking.  Of course, a couple of real-world people whose opinions I value tell me that the only way I will expand readership of the Gryphem blog is to get a Facebook page.  So I guess I will do that. 

Never mind.

Gryphem

Failure of the 'Comments' Experiment

Here is a problem in need of a solution.  I will be forthright.  I don’t have one. 

I read news stories on line.  I do so primarily because I want the news, the facts, the real story.  But the facts are not all that I find.  Following most on line news stories are comments.  And there is where I find the problem.

The idea of allowing the public to post comments to news stories was a great idea.  The idea was to empower ordinary people, to give the public a voice and a venue to discuss the news.  The goal was to involve people in the news story, perhaps to gain some new perspectives, or at least to build some understanding – or even a sense of camaraderie - among the readers.  What could be wrong with that? 

Nothing except the baser side of human nature.

The fact is, comments following any given news stories are overwhelmingly negative, hateful, and spiteful.  The conversations on any given comment board are much more angry and rude than anything in ordinary life.   Something about coupling anonymity with a large audience attracts the most vile among us, and encourages rudeness that would not be tolerated in another setting. 

The worst among them are called “trolls.”  They are the ones who bait others with offensive remarks, practicing intolerance and accusing everyone else of having ulterior motives for any given comment. 

Trolls launch into ideological rants, or simply bully journalists, or the persons in the news story, or anyone else who does not endorse their angry opinion.  Trolls are always anti-something.  Their goal is not to dialogue, not to understand anyone else.  Their goal is to express disgust and tear down.  Their goal is to force their angry opinions onto others by any means possible.  Their goal is to alleviate their own sense of inadequacy by spewing their inner rage out onto the rest of us.

Trolls do not play by the rules the rest of us take for granted.  They ridicule, demean, and insult with no apparent guilt.  Trolls have no conscience to keep them from hurting others indiscriminately.  Trolls are never constrained by facts.  They actually seem to find joy in making up outrageous lies to provoke other people.

Trolls are constantly off-topic, returning again and again to rant about their own pet subjects.  They tend to be extremists - ridiculously Marxist or anti-American in some cases, unbelievably xenophobic or fascist in others.  They are not bothered by the fact that their statements are usually indefensible, because they are not really concerned with truth - only with their own proclamations. 

It must be said that the angry atheist anti-religion trolls are the most pervasive and vile.  The anti-religion trolls make outlandish statements such as claiming religion is the reason for all wars, or that religious people (especially Christian people) are either manipulative liars who prey upon others for profit, or weak-minded simpletons.  They intentionally offend persons of belief by referring to the Supreme Being as a “fairy” or an “imaginary friend.”  They call the most saintly and honorable among us liars or perverts or warmongers or con artists or deluded or any other pejorative term they think will be hurtful to the strangers they hate.  Ironically, one of the most common slanders against the religious by the angry atheists on line is that they are intolerant.  And the anti-religion trolls do not only appear following news stories that involve religion.  They can inject their spite into any unrelated story with ease.  There is no escaping their hatred on line. 

[Disclaimer:  There are atheists who are not trolls.  Evidence:  A post by a decent and respectful atheist, Alom Shaha, on the UK Guardian science blog, in which he states, “Fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism.”  Unfortunately, most atheists on the comments boards are not as reasonable as Mr. Shaha.] 

Trolls produce two principal effects upon the other participants in the on line dialogue.  For other trolls, they provide validation for a predetermined extremist point of view.  This is true whether the other trolls are being emotionally validated for an outrageous opinion with which they agree, or whether they are preparing to scream back in rage of their own at one who dares to contradict their own opinion.  The other principal effect, upon people of kindness and moderation, who respect others and think rationally, is discouragement. 

Is it time to give up on the experiment?  It has become an exercise in hate-speech. 

What should we do?  Give up on commenting altogether?  That doesn’t seem right.  Freedom of speech is something we cherish in the United States.  To remove an existing forum seems wrong.

Could we employ more and stricter moderators, to cull off-topic or obviously hateful comments?  Censorship, I guess.  Not strictly illegal, but also not very democratic in spirit.  It might backfire by providing trolls with an aura of oppressed victimhood.  It is also possible that the tyranny of political correctness might take control of the discussion. 

The status quo is unacceptable.  The remedies are not much better.  But in the absence of a self-disciplined or respectful populace, I suppose there are no other real choices. 

That, friends - the absence of self-discipline and respect for one another - is the heart of the matter.  Sad, isn’t it?

One Revolutionary Idea -

with thanks to Mark Brown at www.journeyintotheword.com.

If you have other ideas, please share them.  Here at Gryphem we maintain an island of respect in a sea of slander, and we are looking for a solution.

Gryphem

The Sabbatical Foundation - A Dream

What would you do if you suddenly had a bazillion dollars?  Enough money to accomplish anything money can accomplish?  Would you buy a new car?  Quit your job?  Move somewhere exotic and buy a mansion?  Take a cruise?  Help your relatives financially?  Endow a scholarship?

Most of us have thought about this, even if we don’t talk about it.  Those of us who are reasonable know we aren’t likely ever to come into millions of dollars, because gaining wealth is a slow process, usually, and winning the lottery is so rare that anyone who expects it is being foolish.   Still, we can dream… and if I ever have the ability, here’s what I will do.

First, I will pay off all my bills, including mortgages, and put aside a certain amount to be an endowment for my future income.  It will be an amount large enough that I can live off the interest indefinitely if I need to.  Then I will make some reasonable distributions to members of my family.  This will be enough to take the edge off their financial worries, but not enough to make them think they can stop working.  I do not want to be anyone’s excuse for professional failure or sloth.

Next, I will endow a few scholarships at my alma maters, because education is important to everyone.  I will make donations to some important charities.  I will give to the kind of charities that care of people who can’t take care of themselves.  I will help foundations that work to protect our natural environment.  I will give to organizations that keep history alive for future generations, whether by a landmark trust or a project in history education or research project or a historic restoration.

Finally, I will establish something that will be my unique contribution to the betterment of humanity and the world: the sabbatical foundation.  To the best of my knowledge nothing like this exists - but it should.

My sabbatical foundation will be a foundation to make hopes and dreams real.  It will give money to deserving people with promising ideas so that they will be able to take a sabbatical from that daily grind which keeps them from pursuing their dreams.  The foundation will release individuals from everyday worries like their job or paying bills, for a year.  The goal will be for these talented and creative persons to dedicate themselves completely to their vision, for a year.  The goal of the foundation will be to unleash the potential of optimistic, motivated people who will strive to make the world a better place. 

The funds will not be handed out indiscriminately, but will be targeted toward specific motivated and capable individuals with great ideas and a plan for achieving a goal.  How these enlightened individuals will make the world a better place will vary tremendously, will be as diverse as the hopes and dreams of the people themselves.

The funds will not be handed over at once, but will, for one year, replace the wages the person will forgo in order to be devoted to his or her vision full time.  Most of the time, the financial support will be equal to the wages that will be lost; In a few cases it might be necessary to provide a bit more to enable the freed spirit the economic ability to take action necessary for pursuit of the dream.

Maybe a couple of examples will be the best way to explain.  Okay.  A factory worker in Chicago, who is also an accomplished amateur accordion player, has always secretly dreamed of traveling the world, meeting people, and sharing different kinds of music with them.  He has always believed that if he could bring people together by enabling them to share their musical ideas and traditions, they would be empowered to respect (and maybe even love) each other a little bit more.  He knows if he could only reach out and touch his amateur musician counterparts, he could contribute a tiny bit to international understanding and world peace.  But he has never been able to find the time or the money to do that.  He has a wife and two children to support.  He has no real prospect of ever being able to take a year off, nor of ever being able to afford the travel his dream would require.  He applies to the sabbatical foundation and shares his ideas about bringing people from around the world together for a musical festival.  The foundation agrees that his idea is worthwhile, so they replace the wages of the factory worker for one year while he works on making his dream a reality.  Instead of going to work, he devotes himself to making connections with amateur musicians in Asia, Africa, and South America.  He promotes his idea to those musicians, who will be his participants, and to others who will provide financing for the festival.  In the end, the event happens.  The world is a little better.  The one-time factory worker turned musical event organizer can either return to his previous job, or if he can make a living at it, he can continue in his new career beyond the sabbatical year.

A mother of three who works full time in addition to taking care of her children has always wanted to write a novel about her early life experiences.  The semi-autobiographical novel will address issues of rejection and acceptance, failure and fulfillment, and redemption.  She has made some promising attempts, but with the extraordinary demands of work and home, she does not have the time she needs to research, write, and find a publisher.   The sabbatical foundation replaces her work wages for a year, enabling her to devote time to her literary effort.  At the end of the year, she might return to her ordinary life, more fulfilled for having written her masterpiece, or perhaps she will continue to earn a living as a professional writer.

Why would I want to give people a sabbatical?  Couldn’t they just do these things themselves if they tried hard enough?  The answer to that is, usually not.  We all have only so many hours in each day, only so much energy to expend.  When all that time and energy is expended on matters of survival, there is no time or energy left for the betterment of humanity. 

Most ordinary people have great ideas, dreams of how they could help or inspire others.  But most ordinary people don’t get the opportunity to pursue those dreams fully because they are chained to the demands of everyday life.  The sabbatical foundation would enable a few – not all but a precious select few – to act on their dreams.  When we have creative, committed, energetic people suddenly realizing a lifelong dream - suddenly free to do something great – Who knows what wonderful inventions or works of art or institutions or previously unknown acts for the betterment of humanity might emerge?

I want to do this for the good people who need to act on their passion, and for the benefit of all of us.  I want to be responsible, myself, for opening the prison doors and letting them run free, for a time at least.  I want the human spirit to soar to unexpected heights.  Who knows to what wonderful places that flight might lead?

If anyone reading this has the means, and wants to take this idea and run with it, I won’t be upset if you do.  In fact, I would be ecstatic.  Please do it.  And please tell me about it so I can watch with joy.

Gryphem

Wisdom of the 90’s (Part TWO)

If you haven’t read the previous post, it might be a good idea to do so before you read this one.  It sets the stage for what will be coming next...

Welcome to Wisdom of the 90’s, Part TWO, “Loyalty, Lineage, or Logic?”

- - - - - - - - - -

At the end of the first part of this we were left wondering what the American people and government should do about France.  This question became unavoidable when Revolutionary France went to war with Britain, and both sides demanded our help and loyalty.

The American people asked themselves how two revolutions based on the same premises and with similar goals – the American Revolution and the French Revolution - could have yielded such different results.  In the United States, after a long war, monarchy was rejected, a new government was installed, and human rights were affirmed and enshrined.  In France, the Reign of Terror led to genocide of the nobility, dictators took control (although in the name of the people), and the new French nation began warring with neighboring countries. 

The American people wondered about the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  Some tried to explain why one revolution resulted in a peaceful and prosperous nation, but the other resulted in genocide and war.  Some of the explanations:

·    The American people were perhaps morally or intellectually superior, as compared to the French people. 

·    American society, being made up of immigrants from many places, was more tolerant of differences (political or religious or philosophical) than French society.

·    The oppression laid upon the American colonists before the revolution was not as severe as that laid upon the French peasant classes before their revolution; thus the reaction was more violent.

·    The superior quality of American leadership in the form of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others, exercised a moderating effect as opposed to French leadership in the form of Richelieu, and later, Bonaparte.

·    The homeland of the Americans was not the ancestral homeland; thus the King and the old system could be rejected without being destroyed. 

The French Revolution set up a situation for the United States in which all the ordinary options were unacceptable.  The choice based on heritage (alliance with Britain) would result in catastrophic involvement in a bloody European war, with American bloodshed, economic devastation, and potential loss of freedom.  The choice based on philosophical (democratic) solidarity, which was also the choice based on obligation (alliance with France) would result in catastrophic involvement in a bloody European war, with American bloodshed, economic devastation, and potential loss of freedom.  

The differences of opinion about the French Revolution, and the American reaction to it, provided the first opportunity for factions within the United States to take political sides.  This situation provided the first opportunity for political parties to form within the new nation.

Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, lead the faction which supported France.  [This faction later became the “Democratic-Republican” party.]  His side argued that France had helped the United States achieve independence, that France was only attempting to do what the United States had already done by throwing off the chains of monarchial oppression.  They argued that the United States could not in good conscience stand by while those who had helped her, those who were most like her in spirit and dedication to liberty, were beaten down by the old forces of tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, and John Adams, the Vice President and former Ambassador to Britain, led a group which took a different approach.  [This faction later became the “Federalist” party.]  They claimed that, revolution notwithstanding, American ties to Britain were greater than those to France.  They argued that the American values for which the American Revolution had been fought, originated in the concept of the Rights of Englishmen.   They argued that bonds of language, history, kinship, and economy demanded that the United States affiliate itself with Britain.  They further argued, particularly once the Reign of Terror had begun, that what was happening in France was not so much liberty as anarchy, or possibly oppression from another source.

The choice based on logic, which offered the possibility of avoiding catastrophic results, was neutrality.  The problem with that was that neutrality would’ve upset both sides asking for our assistance, would likely have resulted in American shipping and economic interests being targeted by both sides.  While neutrality likely would have prevented outright war on American soil, it also likely would have resulted in devastation of American international trade, and would have aggravated diplomatic grievances at a time when the new nation was seeking broader acceptance in the international community.

To sum it up, there were essentially three options, as they were framed for President Washington. 

(1)  The Idealists claimed that the United States should support the people of France, who helped them win their independence, who share similar democratic values, by taking the French side in the war with Britain.  They demanded the US support her philosophical brothers and sisters, the intellectual descendants of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, the French Revolutionaries.  They also pointed out that the United States had a treaty that required the United States to ally with France.

(2)  Those who valued historic and cultural ties said the United States should reject the bloodstained French Revolution and support the side with whom they shared greater historic, cultural, linguistic, familial, and economic ties by taking the British side in the war with France.  They pointed out that the treaty with France had been accomplished with the French monarchy, whom the revolutionaries had overthrown, and thus was no longer in effect.

(3)  A few appealed to logic.  They said that involvement in a bitter European war on either side could only damage the new nation, still weak and establishing itself in the world.  They claimed  United States neutrality was the only reasonable option.

The answer is not as obvious as you might think.  Demonstrating exceptional wisdom, President George Washington dealt successfully with the crisis in France by rejecting all these choices.

Okay, we have talked all around the issue.  So What Did He Actually Do?

President Washington chose an uncharted new course of action, one which seemed at first to defy the arguments of all sides.  It was firmly rooted in practical reality, as opposed to abstract logic or precedent or idealism.  It was (amazingly) ethically defensible against any charge of betrayal, or dereliction of duty.  It was remarkable in its obvious understanding of implications. 

Washington insisted that the United States honor its existing treaty with France.  France was pleased that the United States chose to remain an ally.  With the treaty in effect, the United States could not be compelled by the British or their supporters to take action against an ally (France). 

Meanwhile, the American government quietly negotiated a similar treaty with Britain.  Britain was pleased that the United States chose to become an ally.  Thus the American government could not be compelled by the French or their supporters to take action against an ally (Britain). 

In this way, the American republic emphasized its allegiance to both France and Britain.  Washington’s solution presented plausible reasons why the United States could not militarily support either side, and at the same time prevented either from taking military action against the United States.

By means of the two treaties, the United States was able to maintain good relations with both sides.  To a point.  Of course, after the fact both French and British realized just how the Americans had manipulated the situation.  And yet, the two treaties remained in effect.  Both nations could call the Americans allies, but neither could demand military assistance or take action against their ally in America.

President Washington rejected involving the United States in a war that was not in America’s best interests.  He knew that honoring the preexisting treaty with France would have involved the new nation on the French side of that war.  He knew that rejecting that treaty would, in time, have resulted in American involvement on the British side.  He knew that if the United States attempted to completely disengage from the situation in Europe, both sides would regard the United States as potentially hostile, and that “neutrality” would have had a devastating impact on the young nation. 

By rejecting the claims of idealism, cultural solidarity, and pure logic, he made real neutrality possible. 

President Washington cut a new path that he envisioned intuitively, no doubt using his military experience as a model.  In his experience, he had learned that both pure idealism and pure logic usually end in defeat.   He cut a new path based on enlightened reason which transcended the obvious options and allowed him to escape the artificial boundaries of alliances and loyalties and standing obligations.  He blazed a new trail rooted in wisdom that allowed the United States to survive and remain relatively aloof from that conflict, a conflict which evolved into the Napoleonic Wars, devastated Europe, and lasted until 1815.

What would have become of the embryonic United States if it had become embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars?  The effect on world history is beyond dramatic.  Think about it for a while… then give thanks for an astute leader who refused to be compelled by circumstances, who created his own path with courage and wisdom.

Gryphem

Wisdom of the 90's (Part ONE)

You may remember George Burns’ book entitled “Wisdom of the 90s.”  It was a great book.  This is not about that book.  This is about America during the time of the administration of President George Washington, 1789-1797.  Now on to 1792, or thereabouts...

- - - - - - - - - -

Wisdom of the 90’s - Part ONE

This is an examination of a historical instance in which the demands of obligation, precedent, and logic all failed, and in which an American President demonstrated intuitive wisdom to make the right choice in a very serious and difficult matter.

It is a story little known, even in U.S. History classes.  It is a story that explains much of how our American political parties came to be.  It is a case study in how logic and precedent (or obligation) can fail to predict the best course of action.  It contains hints about how that most elusive of human traits, wisdom, can be accessed to illuminate the truly wise course of action.  It is a story that demonstrates how, in the right circumstances and when employed by the right person, intuition can release an inner wisdom. 

The story is complicated.  In part, this is because allegiances were shifting and persons and groups were acting in ways that seem to contradict their stated ethics.  It is also because the wisdom we will look at does not involve the French Revolution itself, but the response in America to that revolution.  Because it is necessary to understand the situation before we can understand the response, I will write this in two parts.  Part ONE will address the historical background and the French Revolution itself.  Part TWO will be all about the American reaction. 

The Storming of the Bastille, July 1789

Welcome to Part ONE,

“The Situation and the Dilemma”

In 1781 the nation of France, under the authority of the French king Louis XVI, helped the new American nation come into being by providing military assistance.  Without the help of France, the Americans likely would not have succeeded in their attempted revolution.  This was particularly true at the final battle of the revolution, the Battle of Yorktown, in which the French Navy prevented reinforcements from reaching British forces.  Thus, the British Army was forced to surrender to American General George Washington. 

In 1789, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was inaugurated. 

In 1789, a revolution began in France.  The Revolutionaries in France admired the way the Americans had rejected the government of the British monarchy, how they had established a new government of their own dedicated to liberty.  The French Revolution was fueled by many of the same ideas and dedicated to many of the same goals as the American Revolution. 

The French Revolution, unlike the American Revolution, was fought in the homeland.  In the end the King and his government could not simply be rejected and left to continue their rule in the ancestral homeland.  In France the revolutionaries had to destroy King and government.  The result was a bloodbath which appalled even those who supported the stated goals of the French Revolution. 

In 1793, the French revolutionaries put their former king to the guillotine, and began the “Reign of Terror,” in which tens of thousands of French aristocracy and monarchists were executed in the streets.

In the wake of the French Revolution, France began conquering surrounding nations including Italy and the Netherlands.  The other established governments of Europe, including Britain, naturally opposed this.

Since the end of the fighting of the American Revolution in 1781, the United States of America had been at peace with Britain.  The people of America were closely affiliated with Britain by language, culture, a common history, and even family ties.

Britain wanted American help to oppose France.  The British were the forefathers and kinsmen of most Americans.  According to supporters, America’s natural allegiance was with Britain.

France wanted American help.  France had helped America win independence.  According to supporters, America shared the democratic values of the French Revolution, and owed loyalty because of the way France had supported Americans in their struggle for liberty.

The question facing the American people and government:  What to do about France?  Not an easy question to answer. 

What would you have done?  No matter how you answer that question, there was undoubtedly someone in the new United States who would’ve agreed with you, someone who would’ve violently disagreed with you, and someone who had an entirely different idea.

[To be continued in the next post…]