History

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times, by H.W. Brands ★★★★

I have continued reading biographies of the presidents of the USA and recently reviewed a biography of James Monroe. I have skipped over John Quincy Adams, a one-term president, and now resume with the biography of Andrew Jackson. There are a number of biographies available and the choice of this biography was somewhat arbitrary. It was a good decision, as this book is very readable, though with minor reservations noted below. The next presidential biography will be Polk, and then I will segue into civil war narratives. Because of an upcoming trip to the coast of South Carolina, I will next review a Revolutionary War narrative of Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox.

Andrew Jackson was the first truly controversial president, not fitting the mold of the presidents before him. Unlike the six presidents before him, Jackson was not heavily educated and grew up among normal people. He lost both parents at a fairly young age, and at the age of 12, participated in the Revolutionary War, even receiving a saber slash to his head in one altercation with a British soldier. He received a law degree by working in a law office for several years, and then moved from South Carolina to the city of Nashville, which at that time was more a colonial settlement rather than a village or city. Jackson had many struggles in the pre-presidential years and tended to get himself into trouble frequently. His marriage to a lady not yet widowed from her last husband, his penchant for duals which led to multiple bodily injuries that vexed him throughout his life, his tendency to create multiple enemies, and his impulsive spirit all lent to the controversial nature of this person.

Jackson was involved in politics early on and was voted in as senator from Tennessee, only to resign the senatorship after a year of service. This actually happened twice in his life. He eventually was commissioned by the Governor of Tennessee to be the head of the state militia. This became relevant during the War of 1812 when he was deployed on several occasions. Any student of the war of 1812 will realize that it was a poorly planned and executed endeavor, leaving one surprised that the USA came out as well as it did. Jackson’s excursions into western Florida were highly controversial as well as enacted entirely outside of the orders of the military higher-ups, even though it ultimately resulted in the USA purchasing Florida from Spain at a bargain price. The major battle that led to Jackson’s infamy was the battle of New Orleans, where he fought against a general on the British side victorious from the Napoleonic wars and with seasoned professional troops, using a ragtag bunch of militiamen. With good generalship, the battle ended as a terribly lopsided victory for Andrew Jackson.

Jackson returns home after the war, hoping to throw in the towel and retire from public life. The fates would not allow that to happen. He was nominated for president and won the popular vote. The electoral college deemed it to be a tie between him and John Quincy Adams, and after lengthy deliberations and deeming Jackson a low-life outsider not worthy of the presidency, installed Adams. This immediately set Jackson on a 4-year campaign strategy which resulted in him becoming president in 1829, and after winning a second term, until 1837. During his presidency, there were typical accusations of scandal (eg., the Eaton affair) which Jackson weathered without a problem. Jackson’s wife died just before he won the presidency, leaving a dark cloud over his eight years in office. The notable issues of his presidency were a) the Indians, b) slavery, c) Texas, d) South Carolina and the issue of nullification, and d) Biddle and the Bank of the United States.

The Indians: Jackson had both strong support from Indian populations in the South and in Florida, as well as trouble from the ever enduring fear of Indian attacks. To compound matters, those white settlers in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi simply wished the Indians to be gone, even if they adopted the culture and laws of the United States. Jackson suggested a land swap with the Indians, moving them out of sight and out of mind, west of the Mississippi. Thus became the “trail of tears”, and perhaps the South bears more of the blame than Jackson, though Jackson sought eagerly to be as kind as possible with the Indians. It is easy to view this issue from modern lenses where we don’t have to fear daily of our homes being attacked by Indians, our wives being raped, and children being adopted into the Indian family. Even in Jackson’s times, the New Englanders, who had this same problem 100 years ago, were bitterly judgmental, to their own shame. The Florida Seminoles continued unceasing trouble to the white settlers, showing that a clash of cultures had no viable remedy.

Slaves: Jackson owned slaves. He owned a lot of slaves, perhaps as many as 160+ slaves. Even though Jackson saw slavery as an evil, it also served him extreme economic benefit. Regardless of what modern libertarians claimed (that slavery would become economically unfeasible and quickly die out), the opposite was happening. Lost cause advocates falsely deem that the troubles that led to the civil war were NOT about slavery but a host of other issues, including that of tariffs. See below on the issue of South Carolina for more of this. Yet, slavery remained an issue, especially when it came time to admit Texas (and Oregon and California) to the union as states. Perhaps in some macabre sort of way, this issue still hasn’t been resolved in the USA.

Texas: In the battle of New Orleans, Jackson had both David Crockett and Sam Houston as officers in his militia. Crockett went on to die in the Alamo. Houston had a strange personal affair of having his new wife suddenly run off without notice or explanation. Houston, in despair, heads west and ultimately ends up in Texas where he leads troops to victory over Santa Anna. If there was no slave issue, Texas would have immediately become a state, but Texas allowed slaves. Thus, it became its own Republic until a later president could resolve the Texas problem.

South Carolina: Congress imposed import tariffs to encourage people to use products made in America, as well as a means of revenue. This led to a disproportionate disadvantage with the South, who had little to gain by these tariffs. South Carolina then resurrected the issue of nullification of federal law, and spoke of succession from the Union. Jackson, though a Southerner, attacked this possibility with great vehemence, though it took Henry Clay of Kentucky to propose a compromise on the tariff issue that set South Carolina at ease. Issues of nullification still bedevil the USA; aren’t sanctuary cities just another example of nullification of federal law? Some libertarians will claim that the civil war was fought over issues such as tariffs, yet the tariff issue was adequately resolved long before the first shots at Fort Sumter in 1861.

The Bank of the United States: Jackson had no love for the Federal Bank and felt that it served only the interests of the rich, the elite, and the bankers. I have no disagreement with that. When the bank charter expired, Jackson refused to renew it, and requested that the deposits be moved to the state banks. Biddle, the president of the Bank of the US decided to make life as miserable as possible for Jackson by contracting the money supply leading to an economic downturn. Jackson had the guts to hold his ground, eventually leading to moderate economic stabilization. This is a thorny issue which I’m sure will generate comments either in strong support or opposition of Jackson’s actions. Certainly, the libertarian holds up Jackson as a hero to their cause. Yet, I can see both sides of the argument for a national bank. Does not a state bank also guarantee corruption? The utilization of a rare specie (such as gold or silver) to keep bankers honest is a solution for which I would strongly agree. Outside of that, in a fallen world, there will never be a solution for graft and corruption, and that is true of all of government. This doesn’t equate with the call for no government or anarcho-capitalism, the darling of Libertarians, who remain doubly clueless about evil in the heart and soul of all mankind.

I could say much more about these issues, except that the purpose of this essay is to review a book and not to discuss the pros and cons of various issues, such as State/National banks, nullification, slavery, Indians, etc. After all, isn’t the point of reading history is to learn from the mistakes of the past? Outside of Scripture, no approach to life really works. But this begs the question: was Jackson a Christian driven by Scriptural norms? True, Jackson was a Presbyterian, and his wife Rachel was a rather devout churchgoer. But, the question still remains in the bizarre and chaotic life of Andrew Jackson as to what were his primary motivating influences?; the answer is only known by God.

In the beginning, I mentioned that I would discuss some issues with this book. The author seems to be a progressive liberal, yet keeps that disguised in writing this book. The only hints of his liberalism is his portrayal of legislative, judicial, as well as executive mayhem throughout the book. As he might contend, there never was a golden age in America, and thus, the Constitution needs to be viewed as a living document that needs constant correction. In a sense, he is correct, though the Constitution allows for correction in an orderly manner. Advocates of a fluid constitution cannot appeal to the past as proof for their diminishment of the constitution. Some oppose the Constitution on the grounds of theonomistic principles. I will not waste my time arguing against theonomists, equally clueless, as they essentially make themselves out to be God’s spokespeople. Theonomy has been tried many times throughout history with failure. It’s not that it’s a bad idea, but that it establishes a “pope” to declare God’s will in civil affairs. This is an issue that would take great lengths to discuss, and as I said before, this is a book review and not a springboard to a bevy of relevant topics.

A Reformation Debate

A Reformation Debate: John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto, Edited by John Olin with a historical forward by Lester DeKoster ★★★★

This book is constructed as follows. DeKoster provides a historical overview of the current debate, followed by the letter that Jacopo Sadoleto wrote to the people of Geneva, and then followed by a rebuttal by John Calvin. The appendix then contains a review (extracted from Calvin’s Institutes) of Calvin’s theology of justification, followed by statements from the Council of Trent regarding justification by faith. The historical setting is 1539, and Calvin is in Strasbourg, having been ousted from Geneva. Knowing of the absence of Calvin and Feril in Geneva, the Catholic Cardinal writes a letter appealing to the folk in Geneva to return to the Roman Catholic church. Geneva, realizing Calvin’s literary skills, appeals to him to write a rebuttal, which he does. Soon afterward, Calvin returns to Geneva to continue a ministry there until the end of his life.

Both Calvin and Sadoleto write eloquently, though both debaters would be labeled a touch prolix by today’s standards. Sadoleto appeals to the absence of salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church, while Calvin rebuts how the Catholic Church has turned itself into a corrupt institution that preaches a false “gospel”.

The appendix is of great value in reminding the reader as to what is at stake in this argument. The vast divide between Roman Catholic thinking on justification versus Reformed/Lutheran thinking on justification will be noted by simply reading the two statements, that of Calvin in the Institutes compared to that as found in the output of the Council of Trent. In the church where I was saved, the doctrine of justification would have fit quite well with the Council of Trent. Over time and much reading of Scripture, my leaning has turned very strongly in favor of the Reformed view of justification. I believe that Luther and Calvin got the essentials of justification correct. Still, there are canons (anathemas) of the Council of Trent which I (and most Protestants) would favorably agree with. There are a few canons that the Protestant Church has not adequately addressed. I refer as an example to canon 21 “If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema”. This statement rings loud as a parallel to the Auchterarder creed which was bitterly fought over in Scotland a century later. It reads “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we are to forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ, and instating us in our covenant with God”. Perhaps the Auchterarder creed was written in the light of and to counter canon 21, perhaps not, yet both statements need much clarification before deeming them most consistent with Biblical teaching.

James Monroe: A Life

James Monroe: A Life, by Tim McGrath ★★★★★

This book is one of many biographies that I have completed in the last few years on the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Monroe makes the fifth president that I’ve read. I’ll be skipping John Quincy Adams and going to Andrew Jackson, then Polk, and Lincoln as well as the chronology of other Civil War notables and history of the war. The authors in all the cases so far, present their biography most resembling a hagiography, viewing the world from the subject’s perspective and defending their positions. I suggest this because the subjects of the other biographies I’ve read tend to take a beating, including Washington, and are left as less-than-perfect characters. Hamilton and Jackson are the most frequently attacked, though no founding father has escaped the critical hand of contemporary biographers.

Tim McGrath gives us a picture of a great though flawed fifth president. Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine is best remembered, though Monroe played an enormous part in the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase, as well as Florida. Monroe had a somewhat elitist upbringing in Virginia on the farm, becoming a lawyer through the aid of close family members. He fought in the Revolution along the side of Washington and Lafayette but was critically wounded at the battle of Trenton, leaving him on the sidelines for the remainder of the war. After the Revolutionary War, Monroe struggled continuously with his financial situation, while alternating between being a somewhat successful lawyer, running the plantation(s) that he owned, as well as serving stints in politics. He became the American ambassador to France under Jefferson, and then the secretary of state under Madison before being voted in for two terms as president of the USA. At the inception of our republic, civil servants, including the president were woefully underpaid, so that many functions of the president, such as travel or White House dinners with foreign dignitaries, came out of the president’s own pocket. The legislature was rather stingy with funds, including necessities such as maintaining an army and navy or building infrastructure such as roads, for the good of the whole nation. What this all meant was that one had to be a person of means to even survive civil office, not exactly fulfilling the constitution’s preamble of a government “of the people” since it was a government always of the elite.

Besides learning much that I didn’t know about Monroe, I also learned that the government even in the “golden age” of the Republic was seriously disjointed, manifesting extreme disagreements that nearly cost the nation its existence (such as political battles during the war of 1812); infighting, bickering, jealousy, and downright loathing of other political figures were abundant, leading one to wonder how the nation even survived. Indeed, it was not the elitist politicians, most of them truly nominal “Christians”, but the common man and his freedom and faith that allowed our nation to thrive and grow. The rift between the North and the South was quite extreme even at this early time of the Republic, and was over issues such as tariffs and management of the Indians, though the most prominent even back in Monroe’s time was the issue of slavery. Those who argue that the Civil War was not about slavery are deluded ideologues or confused states-rightists, driven more by ideology than an interest in discovering the full historical facts. Slavery was a bitterly hot issue in Monroes’ day, and while most of the early founding fathers (eg. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) owned many slaves and knew that slavery was inconsistent with the ideals of the Constitution, they frequently expressed the wish to eliminate slavery yet had no incentive or reason to do so, so that, when each of the slave-owing president’s died, they did NOT grant their slaves freedom. Such hypocrisy is excelled only by the British, as well as many of our current politicians.

History of the Christian Church

History of the Christian Church, Complete in 8 Volumes, by Philip Schaff ★★★★

This is my second time reading through Philip Schaff’s History, though, this time including the last two volumes that discuss the German and then the Swiss Reformation. This time, I read it in digital format, as I had already given away the hard copies that I had. I actually jumped between two different digital editions as found on Amazon, and both of them were awful. The other edition had huge segments of text dropped, most notably, whenever there was a reference annotation. This edition was poorly edited with numerous spelling errors, little formatting, and no reference links. What a shame.

Schaff’s history has its good and bad points. Schaff seems oriented in the liberal German tradition, having studied under Baur and Harnack. He is Reformed in his orientation. The first time I read through this set was about 30 years ago, back when I was just becoming acquainted with church history. This time, I was considerably more well informed. I appreciated Schaff’s formatting of the book, where he separates political and ecclesiastical history, then discusses historical theology, church life and liturgical practices separately, and short descriptions of the most notable saints.

No history of the church can be written in only 8 volumes. I noted that Schaff fails to discuss many pertinent aspects of church history, including offering sufficient detail of the church councils, omitting a number of the most notable saints of the church (e.g. St. Anthony, the Stylite monks, Theodore of Mopsuesta, etc). The history of the German Reformation was nicely covered as well as the history of Zwingli, but Schaff went crazy on the history of Calvin, and editing should have reduced Calvin’s story by about a half. There is, for example, a fairly lengthy chapter of quotes from people following Calvin’s death, offering praise for Calvin and his ministry; this was totally unnecessary. Lengthy quotes from Calvin’s letters were a distraction, when a short summary commentary should have been offered.

Sadly, Schaff’s History needs an update and critical editing as well as corrections, though I doubt that it will ever be performed. There are really no quality histories of the primitive church to the Reformation that are available that are as complete as this. I’ve looked far and wide and found nothing, so I welcome recommendations. There are excellent texts that address one small aspect of church history, such as the books I had just read on the seven ecumenical councils. Our age seems to put little weight to our historical origins, much to our own loss.

Know the Creeds and Councils

Know the Creeds and Councils, by Justin S. Holcomb ★★★

Holcomb is an episcopalian priest who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary. This book was written to inform the general church-going public about the creeds and councils. I’m not sure he accomplished his task. The writing is at the 8th-grade level, i.e., fairly simplistic. There are facts that he either got wrong or was confused about. His selection as to which creeds or councils he would discuss is at times a touch problematic. I certainly appreciate that he doesn’t attack certain individuals or groups (eg., the 19-20th century Roman Catholic church) like a vicious Doberman. Unfortunately, the creeds and councils are for Christians of such intense significance that a superficial reading does the reader a disservice. Thus, I would recommend reading the book but only with the understanding that the reader uses this text as a springboard for further study.

Holcomb superficially covers the first 6 councils, omitting altogether the 7th council. Various other minor Western church councils are briefly discussed, such as the councils of Carthage and Orange regarding Pelagianism; unfortunately, the discussion was so abbreviated as to leave the reader more confused than informed. Various Catholic councils were discussed including 1st and 2nd Vatican Council and Council of Trent. The development of the Heidelberg & Westminster Confessions as well as the 39 articles of the Anglican church but nary a mention of the Formula of Concord, the Belgic Confession, and other Reformed confessions. And, no mention of the Anabaptist confessions. The deficits don’t help the reader grasp the dynamics of those who wrote the most popular Reformed confessions.

This book might be best used as a junior high school text, supplemented by teacher insights to “fill in the gaps”. Otherwise, there are better texts to read for understanding the creeds and councils of Christendom.

First Seven Ecumenical Councils

The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, by Leo Donald Davis ★★★★★

Growing up as a child, I was sternly taught that the word “ecumenical” was a bad word and that we just didn’t participate in that sort of thing. Thankfully, time and maturity have corrected that notion, while still acknowledging that “ecumenical” is not synonymous with “truth”.

Davis is a Roman Catholic theologian though he writes a book that may easily be accepted by both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike; the seven councils referred to in this text were well before the theological crises of the Reformation had occurred, and indeed, at least the first 4-6 councils were found to be acceptable to the Reformers, such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Davis quotes heavily from the Protestants, and especially such scholars and JND Kelly.

This book starts off a little slow and stodgy, though Davis is highly successful at eventually drawing the reader into the spirit of the age. Better than any of the authors I’ve read on early church history, Davis provides the detailed historical context of each of the seven councils and includes a summary of council conclusions as well as the aftermath of those councils. I am not going to go into blow-by-blow accounts of the councils, as they are too detailed, and anything other than reading the book would do one a disservice.

I find a few details most interesting. First, all of the first councils were initiated by the state, and NOT the church. Politics and religion don’t mix well, a lesson that Luther should have learned and that today’s so-called conservative pundits that identify the USA (or any other country, for that matter, including Belize) as a Christian nation or in need of Christian nationalism surely get wrong. Second, oftentimes we allow the crisis of the moment to dictate our later opinions. A perfect example is the battle between Nestorius and Cyril. Both characters were slimy and despicable in many accounts. Yet, Nestorius is branded as the heretic and Cyril is not. A recently discovered document written by Nestorius and found in Armenia demonstrates that Nestorius mentioned that the Council of Calcedon precisely stated his view. Simultaneously, the entire “heresy” of Monophysitism was generated from the writing of Cyril. Go figure.

This is a wonderful book to read and I enjoyed it from cover to cover, but only after a rough start. If you have any interest in the church, please get a copy and read it!

Truly Divine Truly Human

Truly Divine Truly Human: The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, by Stephen W. Need ★★★★

Stephen Need is an Anglican priest who has taught for many years at St. George’s College in Jerusalem. This text reflects a strong bent toward the Eastern Orthodox perspective of the seven councils. In this text, Need shows great skill in that of being a teacher and producing a book that is easy to read, with supportive summaries and tables. After a chapter describing the situation before the first council (Nicea), Need walks through each of the seven councils, identifying the theological crisis, and detailing the solutions resolved at the council. He also includes a summary of other church management decisions made at the council, such as prohibitions against the purchase of church office, or prohibitions against bishops moving from one See to another without permission.

I truly enjoyed this book and how Need painted the councils. At a few times, there were comments made leaving suspicion for Need being a liberal in the theological sphere, but that did not distract from the overall quality of the text.

Conquests and Cultures

Conquests and Cultures: An International History, by Thomas Sowell ★★★★★

Conquests and Cultures is the last of a series of three books by Thomas Sowell, the first being Race and Culture and the second Migrations and Culture. In Sowell’s words, the overarching theme of this series is to show that “racial, ethnic, and national groups have their own respective cultures, without which their economic and social histories cannot be understood.” In this text, Sowell focuses on British, African, Slavic, and American Indian cultures, though he generalizes a prevailing concept. This concept is that all civilizations have been subject to invasion and conquest, and how conquest has often enhanced a culture, and at other times has destroyed much of that culture. Beginning with the Roman Empire, Sowell demonstrates how countries that had a strong Roman presence have later come out stronger than their non-Roman counterparts, even after the demise of the Roman Empire.

It is hard to give a detailed description of this book, yet it held my interest through all of its pages. It is written from a distinctly conservative perspective, and Sowell uses his expertise in economics to further show how economic policy has affected the rise or fall of various cultures. The book is heavily referenced, and every page demonstrates a plethora of facts and details to support his thesis. I found the chapters regarding Africa and Western Hemispheric Indians to be the most fascinating, and greatly in support of the thesis of the previous book that I had recently reviewed, Not Stolen. You don’t find this stuff in standard textbooks. Reading this book will help round out one’s education with details that would never be taught in a liberal school or university.

Not Stolen

Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World, by Jeff Fynn-Paul ★★★★★

I’ve already posted several reviews of books related to the conflict between the European settlers and Indians. In this text, Fynn-Paul provides a more comprehensive review of the interactions between the Europeans and the Indians. This text offers a rebuttal to claims made beginning in the 1970s that the Americas were “stolen” from the Indians. In that, Fynn-Paul is highly successful.

Columbus was the first European mentioned, followed by the Spaniards in general, then the French and English. The Pilgrim Thanksgiving was discussed, the trail of tears, settlement west of the Mississippi, and the western Indian “wars”. In each of these times and epochs, Fynn-Paul outlined various issues. Did the Europeans slaughter the Indians? (No; generally as many Europeans died as Indians). Did the Europeans feel superior to the Indians? (Generally, no, and often regarded them as noble races). Did the Europeans steal their land? (On rare occasions, they did, but nearly always, they paid well for the land. The cover photo of this book shows the Dutch negotiating for the sale of Manhattan Island. The Dutch got a large piece of malaria-infested swamp land, while the Indians got what they considered to most valuable–useful products from Europe. Both sides were happy, and Manhattan Island had no value until the Europeans developed it). Were the native Indians peaceful? (Almost always, no. Indian life was that of constant migration and warfare. There was no sense of permanent property, and new property and hunting grounds were obtained through bloodshed). Were the Indians the true environmentalists? (To even ask the question is laughable. They had no great concern about the preservation of either flora or fauna). Was American Democracy a gift of the Iroquis Coalition? (Again, with a little bit of information, this is a laughable question, though Fynn-Paul shows that it was definitely not). Was the Trail of Tears forced migration of the southeast tribes wrong? (For the most part yes it was, and most Americans at the time felt that it was wrong. Yet it showed a struggle by the newly formed USA to solve a vexing problem. Though it is taught as a massacre, in reality, less than 5% of the Indians perished in the process. A far greater percentage of Europeans were slaughtered at the hands of Indians in their migration on the Oregon Trail. ) Was there ever a genocide, such as putatively claimed in California in the aftermath of the gold rush? (Indian populations significantly decreased, but this was multifactorial. In addition, it is impossible to get accurate population counts on the Indians before and after the gold rush, so, it is impossible to make any hard and fast claims). Did the Europeans attempt to kill off the Indians through disease? (Even the Christian high school teachers where our children attended claimed this was true, there is hardly any evidence for that. The Indian population was exceedingly sensitive to the new diseases of the old world. The Europeans made enormous efforts to offer vaccinations to the Indians, who mostly refused).

One issue was brought up that I never considered. Fynn-Paul examines the native populations before the arrival of the Europeans. The USA and Canada had only about 20,000 TOTAL Indians in the entire area which is now filled by over 300,000,000 people. The preponderance of the Indians were in central Mexico (the Aztecs) and in western South America (the Incas). These people intermarried with the Spaniards so it is now impossible to sort out the pure Spanish or pure Indians. Thus, nearly every Mexican is a mestizo, which is of combined Spanish/Native descent. Thus, the Indians remain and are prospering, thanks to the European influence in their lives.

Many questions were raised and answered in this book regarding the interactions between the European settlers and the Indians. The chapters are nicely arranged as questions which are then answered through the text. Truth be told, there were terrible wrongs committed by both the Europeans as well as the Indians, and no group had a monopoly on virtue. The last section of the book summarizes a few contemporary issues. Did Europeans commit cultural genocide? Libtard scholars cannot provide any evidence for a physical genocide of the Indians, so the only recourse is to claim that a “cultural” genocide occurred. But is that all bad? Since when is a cultural status ever stable? As an example, before the Europeans, the Indians rarely were extremely successful at hunting buffalo, that is, until the Europeans provided them horses and guns. Would anybody in their right mind consider that to be genocide? The Europeans quickly provided education to the Indians, to learn to read and write, which is also relegated as a form of genocide. Is it cultural genocide when the Europeans put a halt to the constant Indian wars? When we name things after Indians, is that a form of cultural appropriation, and thus wrong? To even ask the question shows an abundance of folly in the questioner! Are the natives owed reparations? Heavens to Murgatroyd!!!! Even now, the native Indians receive more government handouts and are offered more privileges than any other minority group, including the negro.

This book is a wonderful text to read. I learned much, and appreciate that serious academic scholarship is refuting the ridiculous claims of the new liberal academia who are hell-bent on reconstructing truth. It is easy to read, and so I highly recommend it without reservation.

The Early Church

The Early Church, by Louis Markos ★★★★

I’ve appreciated the writings and lectures of Louis Markos and found this book to have an interesting theme worth reading. It was. Markos excels in literary criticism, and that is exactly what this book does in looking at the writings of some of the early church fathers, rather than just recording their historical details. Markos addresses a variety of topics including early church sermons, early letters of the Patristic saints, writings regarding the church itself, martyr accounts, apologists for the faith, and heresy hunters. This book provides a slightly different flavor to the church fathers through focusing on the church literature per se. Thus, Dr. Markos accomplished his objective well. My only problem with the book is that I’ve essentially read all of the source documents contained in this book. It would probably be of more value to those without the exposure to the early church literature as I have had. Hopefully, the book will encourage more people to pay closer attention to early church writings.