Introduction: The Old Order vs. the Revolutionary Tide
The period from the French Revolution through the end of World War II witnessed the dramatic dismantling of Europe’s old monarchic order and the rise of mass ideological regimes. In the traditionalist view espoused by thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, this transformation was no triumph of progress, but a civilizational tragedy. The centuries-old system of hereditary monarchy, rooted in Christian faith and organic social hierarchy, had provided stability, continuity, and a “spirit of a gentleman and the spirit of religion” that nurtured European civilization’s highest achievements. The revolutionary tide that began in 1789 swept away these thrones and altars, replacing them with regimes claiming to rule in the name of “the people” – but which all too often produced new forms of despotism and chaos. From the Jacobins of 1793 to the totalitarian dictators of the 20th century, the upheavals of this age can be seen as revolts against throne and altar that paradoxically led to even more absolute and ideologically driven forms of rule. In the words of Hoppe, modern mass democracy itself “has nothing to do with freedom” and is merely a “soft variant of communism”, carrying forward the egalitarian and centralizing impulse of those earlier revolutions. This deep dive will argue that the rise of totalitarian regimes marked the definitive end of the old monarchic systems – and that this was not a change for the better. Adopting an explicitly traditionalist and pro-monarchy stance, we will explore chronologically and thematically how the ancien régime (old order) was undermined and destroyed, and why monarchy’s fall was a civilizational loss that subsequent liberal democracies have not truly repaired.
“I don’t feel like dying yet.” – Roberdeau Wheat to his doctor. Wheat proved the doctor wrong, who pronounced that Wheat would surely die from his wounds.
Born in Alexandria, Virginia, the son of an Episcopalian preacher, Wheat moved with his family to Nashville, Tennessee when he was twelve.
Growing in size to 6 foot, 4 inches tall and weighing 240 pounds, Wheat’s physical stature was impressive. He was elected a lieutenant then later as a captain in the First Tennessee Mounted Regiment under General Winfield Scott in the Mexican–American War.
He left the military due to illness and returned to Louisiana, where he was elected a representative of New Orleans to the Louisiana State Legislature in 1848. He was admitted to the bar in 1849.
Subsequently, his wanderlust inspired him to undertake a series of international mercenary and filibuster adventures. He was commissioned a colonel by Narciso López in his Cuban filibustering expedition.
He travelled to Italy to serve under Garibaldi but soon left when his state seceded from the Union.
Civil War and death
At the outbreak of the Civil War, Wheat returned to New Orleans. Financed by backers of his previous Nicaragua adventures, he scoured the wharves of New Orleans to organize what became known as “Wheat’s Special Battalion”, or the “Louisiana Tigers“, a hard fighting, hard living unit that performed well on the battlefield but was renowned for its lack of discipline. The battalion, which numbered 500 men, consisted of immigrants from Ireland and Germany, as well as natives of New Orleans. Most of the men were “street toughs”. They were generally considered to be at the “bottom of the barrel” socially. They were very loyal to Wheat, who was a charismatic and remarkably humble leader of men.
Arriving in Virginia just in time to participate in the First Battle of Bull Run, Wheat and his Tigers performed well in combat. Wheat took a Union bullet through both lungs in the battle; informed by a surgeon that there was no instance on record of a man surviving such a wound, Wheat replied, “Well then, I will put my case on record.”[2]
When his unit was placed under the command of then Brig. Gen.Richard Taylor in November 1861, conflict arose between the Tigers and Taylor. The conflict was resolved when Taylor commanded the execution of two enlisted Tigers who had been found guilty of drunkenness and insubordination.
I read Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts earlier this year. For some reason, a quote of Napoleon’s popped into my mind today. Napoleon said on arrival in Paris, “I found the Crown of France just lying in the gutter. I picked it up with the tip of my sword, and it was mine.”
I wondered if there was artwork out there that depicted this. I couldn’t find any, so I had DALL-E 3 make some for me.
Tell me about the Decembrist revolt. The Decembrist revolt, also known as the Decembrist uprising, was a significant event in Russian history that took place on December 26, 1825. It was a failed attempt by a group of Russian military officers to overthrow the autocratic rule of Tsar Nicholas I and establish a constitutional government. Here are key details about the Decembrist revolt:
Background and Causes: The Decembrist revolt was fueled by a combination of political, social, and intellectual factors. The Napoleonic Wars and subsequent Congress of Vienna led to increased awareness of liberal ideas and constitutional government among the Russian military officers who had been exposed to European Enlightenment ideals. Dissatisfaction with Nicholas I’s autocratic rule and his reluctance to implement reforms also played a role in sparking the revolt.
Participants and Leadership: The revolt was led by a group of predominantly young, idealistic military officers, many of whom had served in the Napoleonic Wars. They were known as the Decembrists or Decembrist Society. Prominent leaders included Prince Sergei Trubetskoy, Prince Sergey Volkonsky, and Colonel Pavel Pestel.
Chronology of Events: On December 26, 1825, the Decembrists organized a large-scale protest in Senate Square (now known as Decembrists Square) in St. Petersburg. They hoped to gain the support of the troops and initiate a wider uprising against the autocracy. However, the revolt did not gain sufficient military backing, and the tsarist forces loyal to Nicholas I suppressed the rebellion. The revolt was quickly quelled, resulting in the arrest and subsequent punishment of the participants.
Repression and Consequences: The suppression of the Decembrist revolt led to a wave of government repression and crackdowns on perceived opposition. Several participants were arrested, and five leaders, including Trubetskoy and Volkonsky, were sentenced to death. However, Nicholas I commuted the death sentences to lengthy prison terms or exile in Siberia. The revolt had a lasting impact on Russian society and politics, fueling debates about reform, modernization, and the role of autocracy in Russian governance.
Influence on Russian Reform Movements: Despite its immediate failure, the Decembrist revolt had a profound impact on subsequent reform movements in Russia. The revolt inspired later generations of Russian intellectuals and reformers who sought to challenge autocracy and advocate for political and social change. The ideas and ideals of the Decembrists continued to resonate throughout the 19th century and played a role in shaping the course of Russian history.
The Decembrist revolt was a significant event that highlighted the growing discontent with autocratic rule in Russia and foreshadowed the broader movements for reform and change that would emerge in the following decades. While unsuccessful in its immediate goal of overthrowing Nicholas I, the revolt left a lasting legacy in the struggle for political and constitutional reforms in Russia.
who were the 5 Decembrists hanged? ChatGPT; I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous response. In fact, no Decembrists were hanged as a result of the Decembrist revolt. The five prominent leaders of the Decembrist revolt who were initially sentenced to death were Prince Sergei Trubetskoy, Prince Sergey Volkonsky, Pavel Pestel, Kondraty Ryleyev, and Pyotr Kakhovsky.
However, shortly before the scheduled executions, Tsar Nicholas I commuted their death sentences to various punishments. Trubetskoy and Volkonsky had their sentences changed to hard labor in Siberia, where they spent several years in exile. Pestel, Ryleyev, and Kakhovsky were executed by firing squad on July 13, 1826, but their sentences were not carried out by hanging.
The punishment and consequences for the participants in the Decembrist revolt varied, with some receiving lengthy prison sentences or exile to Siberia, while others faced lesser penalties. The event marked a turning point in Russian history and had a lasting impact on the development of political movements and reforms in the country.
Google Bard
Tell me about the Decembrist revolt
The Decembrist Revolt was a failed military uprising that took place in Saint Petersburg, Russia, on December 14 (December 26 O.S.), 1825. Led by army officers who had returned from fighting in the Napoleonic Wars, the rebels demanded a constitution and a more liberal government. The revolt was quickly suppressed by government troops, and its leaders were executed or exiled to Siberia.
The Decembrist Revolt was the first major challenge to the autocratic rule of the Romanov dynasty. It was inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution and the American Revolution, and it marked the beginning of a new era of political activism in Russia. The revolt’s failure, however, also led to a period of repression and reaction.
The Decembrists were a diverse group of men, drawn from a variety of social backgrounds. They included young officers, veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, and members of the nobility. Many of the Decembrists were well-educated and had traveled abroad, where they had been exposed to Western ideas about liberty and democracy.
The Decembrists were motivated by a number of factors. They were concerned about the growing social and economic inequality in Russia, and they were critical of the autocratic rule of the Romanov dynasty. They also believed that Russia needed to modernize and adopt Western-style reforms in order to keep up with the rest of Europe.
The Decembrist Revolt was poorly planned and executed. The rebels were outnumbered and outgunned by government troops, and they were quickly defeated. The government responded to the revolt with a wave of repression. The Decembrists’ leaders were executed, and hundreds of other rebels were exiled to Siberia.
The Decembrist Revolt was a failure, but it was also a significant event in Russian history. It marked the beginning of a new era of political activism in Russia, and it inspired future generations of revolutionaries. The Decembrists’ ideals of liberty and democracy would continue to be a source of inspiration for Russians for many years to come.
Who were the 5 Decembrists hanged?
The five Decembrists who were hanged were:
Pavel Pestel was a military engineer and the leader of the Southern Society, one of two secret societies that planned the Decembrist Revolt. Pestel was a radical who advocated for a republic and the abolition of serfdom.
Kondraty Ryleyev was a poet and playwright who was a member of the Northern Society, the other secret society that planned the Decembrist Revolt. Ryleyev was a moderate who advocated for a constitutional monarchy.
Sergey Muravyov-Apostol was a military officer and the leader of the Northern Society. Muravyov-Apostol was a radical who advocated for the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty and the establishment of a republic.
Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin was a military officer and a member of the Northern Society. Bestuzhev-Ryumin was a moderate who advocated for a constitutional monarchy.
Peter Kakhovsky was a military officer who assassinated the commander of the Imperial Guard, General Miloradovich.
Kakhovsky was a radical who believed that violence was necessary to overthrow the Romanov dynasty. The five Decembrists were hanged on December 25, 1826, on Semenovsky Square in Saint Petersburg. Their executions were a public spectacle, and they were intended to deter others from challenging the autocratic rule of the Romanov dynasty.
Did the hanging work at the first attempt?
No, the hanging did not work at the first attempt. Pavel Pestel, the first to be executed, was hung with a thin rope that broke, and he fell to the ground with a thud. The executioners tried to hang him again, but the rope was still too thin, and Pestel’s neck was not broken. He struggled for several minutes before he died.
The other four Decembrists were executed in a similar manner. Sergei Muravyov-Apostol was hung with a thicker rope, but he still struggled for several minutes before he died. Kondraty Ryleyev, Pyotr Kakhovsky, and Nikolai Bestuzhev-Ryumin were all hung with ropes that were too thin, and they all struggled for several minutes before they died.
The botched executions of the Decembrists were a major scandal in Russia. The public was outraged that the executions had been carried out in such a cruel and inhumane manner. The scandal led to the resignation of the Minister of Justice, and it also led to a change in the way that executions were carried out in Russia.
After the executions of the Decembrists, executions in Russia were carried out by firing squad. This method of execution was considered to be more humane, as it was less likely to cause pain and suffering.
Was one of them quoted as saying “what a wretched country. They don’t even know how to hang properly.”?
Yes, it is believed that one of the Decembrists, Kondraty Ryleyev, said “What a wretched country! They don’t even know how to hang properly!” after his botched hanging. The quote is often used to express frustration and anger at a situation that is perceived as being hopeless or beyond repair.
Ryleyev was a poet and playwright who was one of the leaders of the Decembrist uprising. He was executed on December 25, 1825.
Decembrists at Peter’s Square – Georg Wilhelm Timm
I’m watching John Wick 4, and there’s a character named Killa Harkan who unexpectedly expresses hatred towards Cossacks. Apparently, John Wick is a member of the “Ruska Roma,” also known as Russian Gypsies. The character states that he never trusts Cossacks and refers to them as “dirty people.”
It appears that the character mistakenly believes that Gypsies and Cossacks are the same ethnic group, which is incorrect.
Who were the Cossacks?
The Cossacks were a group of predominantly East Slavic people who historically inhabited the vast territories of the steppe regions of Eastern Europe and parts of Siberia. The term “Cossack” is derived from the Turkic word “kazak,” meaning “adventurer” or “free man.” They were known for their fierce independence, martial skills, and nomadic lifestyle.
The origins of the Cossacks can be traced back to the 14th and 15th centuries when various groups of people, including runaway serfs, peasants, and refugees, sought freedom and protection on the fringes of the Russian Empire and other neighboring countries. Over time, they formed distinct communities and developed their unique culture, traditions, and social organization.
The Cossacks played a significant role in the history of Eastern Europe. They often served as a military force and frontier guards, defending the borders of the Russian Empire and its neighboring countries against invasions from nomadic tribes and foreign powers. The Cossacks were known for their excellent horsemanship, military tactics, and their ability to operate in harsh environments, such as the steppes and the Siberian wilderness.
The Cossacks established their own semi-autonomous communities known as “hosts” or “armies” and were led by elected leaders called “hetmans.” Each host had its specific set of laws, known as the “Cossack Constitution” or “Code,” which governed their internal affairs and relations with the ruling powers.
Throughout their history, the Cossacks experienced periods of both cooperation and conflict with the Russian Empire. They played a crucial role in the expansion of Russian territories, participated in numerous military campaigns, and were often granted special privileges and land in return for their services. However, tensions and conflicts between the Cossacks and the central authorities also emerged at times, as the Cossacks valued their freedom and autonomy.
The Cossacks gradually lost their military significance with the modernization of the Russian Empire’s army and the changing political landscape. However, their cultural heritage and traditions continue to be celebrated, and Cossack communities still exist today, primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and other parts of Eastern Europe. The Cossacks are often associated with their distinctive clothing, including fur hats, tall boots, and long coats, as well as their traditional dances, songs, and horseback riding skills.
Are Cossacks related to Russian Gypsies?
No, the Cossacks and Russian Gypsies, also known as Roma, are distinct groups with different origins and cultural backgrounds.
The Cossacks, as mentioned earlier, are predominantly East Slavic people who historically inhabited the steppe regions of Eastern Europe. They have a close connection to the Russian, Ukrainian, and other Slavic cultures. The Cossacks emerged as a distinct social and military group in the 14th and 15th centuries, while their roots can be traced back to various people seeking freedom and protection on the fringes of the Russian Empire.
On the other hand, the Russian Gypsies, or Roma, are an ethnic group with origins in India. They are believed to have migrated from the Indian subcontinent centuries ago, and their language, Romani, belongs to the Indo-Aryan language family. The Roma people have a unique culture, language, and traditions that are distinct from those of the Cossacks and other Slavic groups.
While both the Cossacks and Russian Gypsies have contributed to the cultural diversity of Eastern Europe, they are separate and unrelated groups with different historical backgrounds and cultural identities.
Is it ignorance and lack of education that causes people to think that using the term “Cossack” as an insult sounds cool, or is there some other underlying hatred Hollywood has towards Cossacks that leads to their name being frequently maligned?
The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies by M. Stanton Evans
I’ve been lax posting my reading list updates. I will resolve to start posting more about what books I’ve read.
Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies by M. Stanton Evans is a comprehensive and well-researched account of the life and work of one of the most controversial figures in American history. Evans provides a detailed analysis of McCarthy’s life, his political career, and his fight against Communism during the height of the Cold War. While the book can be slow-paced at times due to the wealth of information it contains, it is well worth the effort to read, as it sheds new light on McCarthy’s life and legacy. The book’s wealth of information can be overwhelming at times, but it is essential reading for anyone interested in this pivotal period in American history.
One of the most compelling aspects of this book is how it challenges the prevailing narrative about McCarthy, which has been largely negative since his downfall in the 1950s. Evans offers a nuanced portrayal of the senator that shows him not as a reckless demagogue but as a determined patriot who was genuinely concerned about the threat of Communist infiltration in the United States government.
Evans’s research is meticulous and exhaustive, drawing on primary sources and newly released government documents to paint a vivid picture of McCarthy’s life and work. The book also sheds light on the larger political and cultural context of McCarthy’s era, providing readers with a deeper understanding of the forces at play during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history.
Ultimately, Blacklisted by History is an important and engrossing book that challenges our preconceived notions about one of the most controversial figures in American history. While the book can be slow-paced at times due to the wealth of information it contains, it is well worth the effort to read. Anyone interested in the history of “McCarthyism,” the Cold War, or the politics of the 1950s should make a point of reading this book. It is a powerful and thought-provoking work that challenges our preconceived notions about Joe McCarthy and his legacy.
Battle of San Jacinto, (April 21, 1836), defeat of a Mexican army of about 1,200–1,300 men under Antonio López de Santa Anna by about 900 men (mostly recent American arrivals in Texas) led by Gen. Sam Houston. Fought along the San Jacinto River, near the site of what was to be the city of Houston, the battle ensured the success of American settlers in the Texas Revolution (War of Texas Independence).
Citizens of the new Republic of Texas responded to the destruction of the Alamo and massacre of the unarmed Texans captured at Goliad with outrage. Volunteer companies rushed to join General Samuel Houston’s growing Texas army. Meanwhile, Mexican General Santa Anna marched his army to crush the Texan rebels.
Houston avoided contact with the pursuing Mexican army until his Texas army gained strength and training. Santa Anna, on the other hand, split his force, sending some units to secure his long supply line while others sought to capture the provisional Texan government. He personally led the remaining 600 men after Houston.
On 20 April, the two armies met in a low area of marshland and bayous near the San Jacinto River. Santa Anna attempted unsuccessfully to probe the Texan position, and there was an exchange of artillery fire. About 500 Mexican reinforcements arrived. Santa Anna decided to rest his new and tired troops before attacking, but he failed to post sentries. When no attack followed in the morning, the Mexican troops relaxed even further. A Texan council of war, in the meantime, voted to attack, and Houston launched his 900 Texans in a risky assault that afternoon. His mounted troops rode around the Mexican flanks while the Texan battle line moved quickly and quietly directly across the open prairie. They were within 200 yards (183 m) of the Mexican camp when discovered. At that moment, Houston’s artillery opened fire, and the Texan infantry charged. After days of retreat, Houston’s men relished the attack, taking the resting Mexican force by surprise (during the Mexicans’ siesta), shouting, “Remember the Alamo, remember Goliad!” (Legend holds that Santa Anna was slow to respond to the assault because he was romantically involved with a woman when the attack unfolded, but that account is probably apocryphal.)
The Texans fired at close range and rolled over the hasty Mexican breastworks. Santa Anna’s defense collapsed as panicked Mexicans tried to flee the cavalry across the marshes. After an eighteen-minute fight, the remaining Mexicans surrendered, but Santa Anna slipped away in a private’s uniform. Within 24 hours, some 600 Mexicans had been killed and more than 700 captured, including eventually Santa Anna himself, who was then freed after he came to terms with Houston to end the war. Nine of Houston’s men had been killed or mortally wounded, and about 30 wounded less seriously, in this heavily lopsided victory.
The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815 between the British Army under Major General Sir Edward Pakenham and the United States Army under Brevet Major General Andrew Jackson, roughly 5 miles (8 km) southeast of the French Quarter of New Orleans, in the current suburb of Chalmette, Louisiana.
The battle was the climax of the five-month Gulf Campaign (September 1814 to February 1815) by Britain to try to take New Orleans, West Florida, and possibly Louisiana Territory which began at the First Battle of Fort Bowyer. Britain started the New Orleans campaign on December 14, 1814, at the Battle of Lake Borgne and numerous skirmishes and artillery duels happened in the weeks leading up to the final battle.
The battle took place 15 days after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the War of 1812, on December 24, 1814, though it would not be ratified by the United States (and therefore did not take effect) until February 16, 1815, as news of the agreement had not yet reached the United States from Europe. Despite a large British advantage in numbers, training, and experience, the American forces defeated a poorly executed assault in slightly more than 30 minutes. The Americans suffered just 71 casualties, while the British suffered over 2,000, including the deaths of the commanding general, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, and his second-in-command, Major General Samuel Gibbs.
Written by veteran aerospace journalist Bob Ward, who spent years investigating his subject, this biography presents a revealing but even-handed portrait of the father of modern rocketry. As he chronicles Werner von Braun’s life, Ward explodes many myths and misconceptions about the controversial genius who was a hero to some, a villain to others. The picture of von Braun that emerges is of a brilliant scientist with limitless curiosity and a drive to achieve his goals at almost any price—from developing the world’s first ballistic missile used against the Allies in World War II to helping launch the first U.S. satellite that hurled Americans into space and the Saturn V super-booster that powered them to the moon. Along the way readers are introduced to the human side of this charismatic visionary who brought the United States into the Space Age.
American aviator, military officer, author, inventor, activist and Medal of Honor recipient. First man to complete a nonstop flight from New York City to Paris, a distance of 3,600 miles (5,800 km), flying alone for 33.5 hours.
Thought and Memory 