Battle of Chalmette

     The War of 1812 is often overlooked by America because of its inconclusive outcome with no arrangements altering the political or geographical landscape in 1815. In Britain the war is seen only as a minor conflict stimulated by the Napoleonic Wars. The conclusion of the war left the British largely apathetic except to American trade, especially cotton - an issue before and after the fighting. The War of 1812, nonetheless, acted as America's second revolutionary war by solidifying the nation's identity, strengthened patriotism, and dominated federal politics for decades, but the legacy of the war itself is amplified by the events of the last major battle of the war in the defense of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi.
     From 1812-1814 the British conflict with France's powerful army prevented further extension of the British navy into American wars. These circumstances allowed America to have a free hand to maneuver in North America without retaliation by the British, but a disorganized rabble-invasion of Canada through Vermont and New York failed to instigate Canadian revolution against their British overlords.
     Although America declared war against the British for the practice of impressment and the ridiculous trade requirements for American ships, much of the country, especially the more populous, trade-dependent New England region did not look forward to war. Indeed, the declaration of war barely passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was said was America would surely lose a war it did not wish to fight.

"Many nations have gone to war in pure gaiety of heart, but perhaps the United States were the first to force themselves into a war they dreaded, in the hope that the war itself might create the spirit they lacked."
~Henry Adams

     By 1814 the British were able to turn the force of their might against the former colonies. Beginning the assault in August by combining the experience of their army and the indomitable skill of their navy, Britain quickly captured Washington D.C., the fledgling capitol city of the United States, before continuing along the Chesapeake Bay to attack Baltimore, easily one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the new country. A barraged Fort McHenry stood strong through a lengthy assault before forcing the British back and inspired one Francis Scott Key, a young lawyer from Maryland, to pen "The Star Spangled Banner" which became America's anthem. Another prong of the British offensive attempted to cut the Northern states from the Southern states along Great Lakes, but the British navy was spectacularly defeated by a stalwart, unconquerable Oliver Hazard Perry at the Battle of Lake Erie in the fall of 1814. The final major British offensive front sought control of the trade along the Mississippi River, but General Andrew Jackson successfully stopped the significantly larger British force with skill, courageous troops, and the swampy landscape.
     It is Jackson's defense that has become one of the most memorable points of the war. With a British force at least three times his own and a large naval fleet accompanying the invaders, Jackson's occupation of New Orleans seemed hopeless, tenuous at best. To keep order in the city while the British drew near, marshal law kept the city in artificial calm.
     Up until Christmas, there was little antagonistic interaction between the two sides which bespoke the Treaty of Ghent signed on Christmas Eve to end the hostilities. Because of the months it took to send word of peace, neither side new the end had come and, thus, proceeded with preparation for the upcoming battle.
     The British mistakes were many, but mainly that their commanders mistook their advantage of time, for it was time Jackson used to choose his position and prepare substantial defenses.
     On the morning of January 8, 1815, the British moved against the American force. With a thick morning fog arising from the swampy ground, the British tried to use the cover for their attack. The fog, the American's protected position from the British Naval guns, and the wide, open swampland the British marched through allowed the sharp-shooting American frontiersmen to absolutely decimate their assailants. A raised canal wall about five feet high provided the Americans with a protected defensive position while obstructing the enemies progress.
     By the end of the morning, the field looked like a lake of blood, not of the blood of the British, but of the coats of the soldiers that had marched in file against the canal. In a few hours of fighting, the Americans held all but a single section of their line and retained control of New Orleans, the Mississippi, and the country they fought to defend.
     The causalities of this battle are startling considering the vast odds. The British had 2,042 causalities including two generals; the Americans had 71 total: 13 dead, 39 wounded, and 19 missing.

     The Battle of New Orleans is a microcosm of the War of 1812. The Americans fought to defend what they already had against overwhelming might, proven military experience, and the naval dominance of the British Empire. Like the war at large, New Orleans exited the war little changed physically but with a new found energy, confidence, and enthusiasm embodied by its peoples. 

     From a material standpoint, the War of 1812 was a minor affair in British history and only mildly inconvenient for for the United States with the rebuilding of the capitol, notably the White House. War has always influenced history, and the War of 1812 is not an exception however overlooked it is. The results of the war gave the U.S. a concrete identity as a nation. They successfully defended against invasion multiple times against superior forces. This defense came against a larger, more experienced force that had defeated Napoleon months earlier. Thus, the United States became a nation in its own right and was recognized as such. The successful defenses, especially at Fort McHenry and New Orleans, inspired national unity, patriotism, and confidence that the new nation would prevail.
     One of the most significant effects of the Battle of New Orleans was the popularity of Gen. Andrew Jackson who rode that fame to the presidency where his policies affected federal affairs for decades. His stubbornness popularized the donkey as a symbol for the Democrats, the oldest and largest political party in American history, and his handling of the national bank affected budget and economic affairs until after the Civil War, thirty years later.
     America's forgotten war might seem insignificant to the War for Independence forty years earlier or the Civil War forty years later, but because events are not held up in ceremony and acclaim does not diminish the real affect. The War of 1812 helped make America what it is today just as much as its many other bloody conflicts still shape it and the world today.


 __    
Agatha Tyche

Mutinous Christmas Respite: Lest We Forget

"On earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14b (KJV)   

  

     A full century ago in a world where progress seemed inevitable, war seemed quick and glorious, and men were able to acknowledge their enemies as humans, a strange, unrepeated event occurred throughout the bloody, muddy, frozen trench lines of the Western Front of the War to End All Wars. The Christmas truce of 1914 has long been a tale of wonder, disbelief, and hope that enemies embittered and bloodied by war could reconcile differences under the universal joy of shared humanity. Due to staggering losses in the early, mobile stages of the WWI, many of the soldiers in the trench by the first winter were either reserve troops or volunteers. In December 1914 six inches of rain fell in Northern France and drenched a shocked, bloodied frame of the remaining regular troops. Percy Jones of the Queen's Westerminster Rifles wrote of the 1st Royal Fusiliers leaving the trenches after only four days on 23 December that they were, "tattered, worn, struggling, footsore, weary, and looking generally broken to pieces. Hairy, unshaved, dirty-faced . . ." These were men who were worn from living, not from fighting, in the trenches.
     The alien conditions of a stagnated war where most regular enlisted men were already buried under the shell-torn land combined and torrential rain made the newly-disturbed earthen trenches swamps of precipitous mud established an unspoken agreement from both sides to adopt a "live and let live" policy that allowed certain activities and locations to go unmolested by the constant aggression of the war.
     Charles Sorley, a British officer and poet wrote, "During the night a little excitement is provided by patrolling the enemy's wire. Our chief enemy is nettles and mosquitoes. All patrols - English and German - are much averse to the death and glory principle; so, on running up against one another . . . both pretend that they are Levites and the other is a good Samaritan - and pass by on the other side, no word spoken. For either side to bomb the other would be a useless violation of the unwritten laws that govern the relations of combatants permanently within a hundred yards of each other, who have found out that to provide discomfort for the other is but a roundabout way of providing it for themselves."

     This close proximity led to units bantering back and forth with jests, insults, and songs. The same miserable conditions between enemy regiments over several months laid the foundation for one of the most remarkable events of the war. The Germans held Christmas Eve as the most important day of Christmas festivities and erected Christmas trees embellished with candles along the trench lines against official orders. The lights initially confused British and French forces, but the singing of "Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Silent Night, Holy Night)" cemented the tidings of the season. On Christmas day, wines, cakes, and trinkets were exchanged by both sides and, possibly,  impromptu games of football took place over parts of No Man's Land not pocketed with shell craters. The Christmas surplus issued by governments to their enlisted men provided the perfect establishment for a barter-like Christmas celebration.
     Not all regions of the trenches saw the joviality of comradery, but for the segments still entangled by the bitterness and death of war, Christmas day passed relatively quietly as each side was left to celebrate more or less on its own. Overall, the truce seems to have been quite extensive although unofficial and against the orders of high command. The Christmas truce of 1914 was inconsistent with a widely varying involvements and fraternization, but for most combatants, Christmas was a peaceful day, for many the week to New Years was quiet, and for a lucky few the unofficial holiday celebrations continued well into January.
     Hundreds of stories, recorded in letters to home, tell of interactions between British and German, German and French, and to a lesser extent Russian and German, and Austrian and Russian forces. In 1915 attempts were again made by both sides to initiate an unofficial truce, but explicit, enforced orders by superior officers and localized artillery barrages redacted any widespread involvement.
     Post-WWI the West has become bitter, cynical, narcissistic, and disillusioned, but these men did not live in our world. They lived in a world that had seen national movements unite entire peoples in Germany and Italy. In a world that had seen the world transform by industrialization, where progress seemed inevitable, and where hope could reside in the most despondent of places. Christmas is a time of remembering and celebration. This year, let us remember. Lest We Forget.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

A United People Remain Estranged

     The modern country of Germany has long had a history of division with unification often seemingly beyond reach. As the Germanic Kingdom, titled the Holy Roman Empire, gradually weakened, the ties of the Germanic tribes dissolved to the point of hostility. The Protestant Reformation nearly obliterated these internal connections altogether with small kingdoms establishing themselves based on religious preference, alliance, and ruling family.
     Eventually, one of these kingdoms built itself into a formidable power. Prussia gained the military strength to assert itself on other Germanic states and defend itself from elite European powers while successfully developing a competitive economy that attracted weaker factions in the surrounding lands. Though the rise of Prussia did not proceed without hindrance or opposition, the nationalist movements in the mid-nineteenth century converted the issue of German unification into into greater Germanic social relations. Prussia began a series of consolidating wars to protect its borders, expand trade, and enhance its power with the intent of German unification. Led by Otto von Bismarck, Prussia used manipulation of international politics and German nationalism to unite itself.
     The first of Bismarck's three wars involved extracting Schleswig and Holstein, independent duchies, from the Danish crown. Both areas had large German populations that outnumbered the Danes. The results of a short war saw an Prussian-Austrian alliance gain control of the region
     The second war pitted a small, mobile Prussian military against the large, outdated Austrian army for control over the northern Germanic states. Winning the war in just seven weeks, Prussia formed the North German Confederation and excluded Austrian influence in this seedling empire. The defeat lost Austria land to Italy in the south, influence in German peoples to the north, and created internal divisions that later forced a more representative government in an Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Despite his victory, Bismarck campaigned for the North German Confederation to exclude Austria.

     Although Austria contained a significant German population, its borders included many non-Germanic peoples that today represent many of the Baltic and Eastern European nations. Otto von Bismarck, a master statesman who caused Europe to dance to his fiddle for nearly thirty years, had many motives for negating Austrian influence within a newly formed German alliance.

     1.) For centuries, Germans states had been splintered into small holdings that gave allegiance to a larger power for trade and military defense. Prussia had once been a minor player but had political ambitions that necessitated command over ever-growing geographic boundaries. As Prussia's power grew to match Austria's the two nations competed for smaller states' support. By disassociating Austrian influence in Germany, Prussia could proudly declare the new empire's strength to be from her establishments.
     2.) The Zollverein, the German Customs Union, gave Prussia a huge economic advantage over Austria. By minimizing or removing tariffs, trade between Prussia and the German states flourished exponentially as industrialization took hold. Austria's initial disinterest in the union undermined its ability to economically support its allied states while giving Prussia consolidated control over a large portion of the Germanic peoples. 
     3.) Despite defeating Austrian, many of the German duchies still favored Austrian's less militaristic governance. Prussia refused to risk losing a German confederation so recently secured. 
     4.) To avoid hypocrisy and to retain integrity abroad, Bismarck's Prussia defended its initial political reasons for the war. If Prussia had allowed its recent enemy occupancy within its new empire, negative public perception could have incited a second war with Austria.
     5.) After the Concert of Europe in 1815 and the agreement for the balance of power among Britain, France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, a full union of Austria and Prussia would have incited a full scale European war to protect the power balance. A decade before the Northern German Confederation, Britain and France warred with Russia over its expansionist policies in the Black Sea. Russia, Britain, and France feared that a united Austria-Prussia would be an unstoppable force on the continent. To send a clear signal that Prussia was content with its new station, Bismarck sent a clear signal to the other major powers that a united Germany would not include Austria.
     6.) Lastly, Bismarck, Wilhelm, and von Moltke, all saw Prussia and the larger German state as purely German. Austria was a large, encompassing empire with significant minorities that did not fit Prussian ideals. Nationalism and the great German dream of unification began with Napoleon's invasion in the early nineteenth century. The division of power between Austria and Prussia remained the most significant reason for continued division in the 1850-60s. With Prussia's clear dominance over Austria and unification in sight, many Germans enthusiastically supported Prussia as full consolidation of the German state occurred in 1871.

     Prussia successfully united Germany through politics, economics, and social ideology, and its exclusion of its greatest competing threat allowed antagonized areas to quickly accept a unified Germany. This new empire became the most powerful military in the world in a few short decades and gave the world a scapegoat for the two deadliest wars in history. After World War II, Russia, Britain, and the United States attempted to remove the Prussian military history from the German people's minds to avoid another world war. They achieved this by dividing Germany again. A new, modern, reunited Germany is now the largest economy in Europe. The effects of Germany's unification have been profound, and the projection of that nation is much easier to grasp when a portion of its past is revealed. No country must conform to its trajectory because Germany has become a respected global leader with a generous government, green economy, and retained the enthusiastic society that has made Germany what it has been in every age.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Reinterpreting Men who Died for Labor

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge, ... It is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitue, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prison-"
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many more would rather die."
         A Christmas Carol. 1843. Charles Dickens.

     For just over two centuries, human society has transitioned into the Industrial Age. Before that time, credited with beginning in England at the end of the eighteenth century, the points and purposes of work were to sustain oneself and one's family, provide for those that could not provide for themselves, and save for future times of need. Machinery simplifies repetitive tasks and speeds up the means of production; thus, mass production not only led to a consumerist culture since more goods were manufactured than needed but also led to a population boom that created a frontier-style mentality of humankind, that is, that humans were an expendable resource that could easily be replaced. While modern industrialized countries now have steady or declining birth rates and bulk at the wanton waste of human life in developing nations, throughout the nineteenth century, Europe had a mindset that human death or disfigurement for capital gain was acceptable, even virtuous.
     As the Age of Industrialization has progressed, work has been made easier and with less exploitation of common works for the gains of the rich. Labor unionization, largely in the twentieth century, enabled the workforce to unite for gain, recognition, and protection. This mentality aided in popularizing socialist ideals throughout Europe through the current day. Work was not always a mindlessly repetitive affair accomplished by machines because skilled artisans used to be responsible for the means of production.
     The Luddites were a loosely organized group of artisans that armed in resistance to wage decreases brought on unskilled workers running machines for lower wages than artisans who had no other support for their livelihood. Luddites did not fear technology, machinery, or the transition into an age of mass production. Their fear was a loss of labor to unskilled workers for reduced wages. For acting out on that fear, hundreds were killed or exiled.

     These industrious, intelligent, skillful men expressed their anger by destroying the cause of their destruction: the machines that replaced them. Often they posted letters attributing the destruction of machines by the order of King Ludd or General Ludd who was rumored to live in Sherwood Forest, home of the fabled Robin Hood. This mascot, a fictitious figure gave the Luddite Cause momentum, mystique, and an unconquerable hope. In 1812, 12,000 British troops were deployed to quell civil uprising and protect factories in north-central England. This force outnumbered the one that occupied the Iberian Peninsula to fight Napoleon. 

     Meeting the concerns of the people with force and legal punishments of execution or penal exilement to Australia led to an impassioned plea of a Romantic sympathizer in the House of Lords in 1812 before the passage of the Frame Breaking Act. On February 27, 1812, Lord Byron pleaded:

During the short time I recently passed in Nottingham, not twelve hours elapsed without some fresh act of violence, and on that day, I left the county I was informed that forty Frames had been broken the preceding evening, as usual, without resistance and without detection. Such was the state of our country, and such I have reason to believe it to be at this moment. But whilst these outrages must be admitted to exist to an alarming extent, I cannot be denied that they have arisen from circumstances of the most unparalleled distress.
The perseverance of these miserable men in their proceedings, tends to prove that nothing but absolute want could have driven a large and once honest and industrious, body of the people, into the commission of excesses so hazardous to themselves, their families, and their community. They were not ashamed to beg, but there was none to relieve them: their own means of subsistence were cut off, all other employment preoccupied; and their excesses, however to be deplored and condemned, can hardly be subject to surprise.
 As the sword is the worst agruement that can be used, so should it be the last. In this instance it has been the first, but providentially as yet only the scabbard. The present measure will, indeed, pluck it from the sheath; yet had proper meetings been held in the earlier stages of these riots, had the grievances of these men and their masters (for they also had their grievances) been fairly weighted and justly examined, I do think that means might have been devised to restore these workmen to their avocations, and tranquility to the country.

     The crimes of the Luddites were not often the destruction of factories or the murder of factory owners. With some exceptions, attacks were carried out at night against machine-based factories whose owners had opted to fire and displace a large worker base. The anger of the common man was not against machine but against the abuse of his fellow man.
     While the term "Luddite" has come to mean a backward-minded, fear-mongering, simpled-headed individual too scared or stupid to accept change, the true motivation of the men two centuries dead was a fear of becoming obsolete and taken for granted. This is true of many societies today whether industrializing from manpower to machine or as machines expand to encompass and control more industries.
     The protest at the beginning of the Industrial Age did not go unheard; it went misinterpreted. As always, those who do not know, understand, or forget history must suffer the repetition of its lessons Let us keep our sledgehammers in hand, ever prepared to resist the avarice of those who do not value community or quality, only the wealth gained through exploitation.

 __    

Agatha Tyche

Mugwumps

     The Twentieth Century, known as the American Century, elevated the United States' reach expand with unprecedented power economically, militarily, and influentially around the world. That century saw the United States involved in interventionists wars in every decade on nearly every continent. The path to American Imperialism did not rise unprotested from the world; indeed, a full decade of debate in American politics fought against the militaristic domination of the mighty the American economy.
     Anti-expansionist isolationists began cries of alarm in the 1860s with American's consideration of annexing several Pacific islands. As American foreign relations swelled, these isolationists, referred to as Mugwumps, joined forces with a large number of Republicans to create a considerable anti-imperialist political movement in the 1890s.
     The Spanish-American War allegedly fought over humanitarian issues on the Caribbean Island of Cuba was the first American interventionist war and foreshadowed the entire twenty-first century. Despite the humanitarian declaration that incited U.S. intervention, after the war the island of Cuba was ruled through an American military state some years. Since war proponents had encouraged removal of Spanish influence to protect American interests, anti-imperialists feared further annexation of territories abroad to defend American economic intersts. With this logic, William Sumner argued that “the U.S. would have to dominate the entire world to feel safe in any part of it.”¹ The Mugwumps’ protest intensified.

1 William Sumner. “The Predominant Issue,” War and Other Essays. Edited by Albert Keller. (New Haven,

Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1919), 351.

     The Mugwumps as a whole were older members of society that refused to accepted the industrial changes throughout America and sought to return to the agrarianism espoused by President Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. Several of their strongest reasons for opposing American imperialism rested on the statements of that president and of the views of many of the Founding Fathers.

     A republic is composed of free citizens; an empire has subjects. The Constitution does not prohibit control over non-citizens, but to control small islands around the world, the United States would have to force itself onto those people and rule through oppression as the European Empires did at the time. American isolationists argued that a republic cannot govern without consent of the govern. Pro-expansionists defended their stance that occupational force was a necessary evil and would allow the U.S. to defend native islanders against any future invaders.

   Bourke Cockran, a Tammany Hall leader, spoke out against Republican expansionist policies because, “it is cowardly to invade the rights of the weak while respecting those of the strong; because it would divorce the American flag from the American Constitution . . . because it is a policy of inconceivable folly from a material point of view, and a policy of unspeakable infamy from a moral point of view.” These reservations against invasions did not sway its opposition because they believed that the growing might of U.S. economy needed military and trade bases to aid in dispersal of American goods.

    The domestic social unrest of late nineteenth century America's adjustment to industrialization complicated the issue further by having to adjust to the assimilation of ten million freed slaves after the Civil War's end in 1865. Isolationists feared that the incorporation of Pacific Islanders into American society would further disintegrate American society and that the the cost of providing governing laws and a military presence abroad would outweigh any economic benefit.

     One of the last arguments by Mugwumps and isolationist-Republicans held on to the American colonial fear of a large standing army and a subsequent, substantial national debt limiting the freedoms of Americans and necessitating the federal government retracting upon its own anti-colonial history. George Hoar, a Republican senator for Massachusetts, equated expansionist principles with “forsak[ing] the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, the Monroe Doctrine, and the nation’s traditional distrust of a standing army.”² These reservations did not successfully counter the dogmatic, imperialist viewpoints of the pro-expansionist movement and American became a colonial power by the close of the nineteenth century.
 2Robert Beisner. Twelve Against the Empire: The Anti-Imperialists 1898-1900. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill 

Book Company, 1971),

     The fundamental purpose of the anti-expansionists was to defend the United States on Constitutional grounds. Anti-imperialism failed because of advanced age of many of its leaders, inability to connect with the new industrial population, and the negative approach to the isolationist arguments.

     Despite their political defeat by McKinley, Roosevelt, and other Republican expansionists by 1900, the anti-imperialists were fairly accurate in their predictions. The Philippine Islands’ rebellion cost thousands of American lives. American treatment of the Filipino population was the same or worse than the previous Spanish overseers. American military expenditures did increase causing greater taxes with the formation of the Federal Income Tax. Imperialism inextricably involved America in European political affairs.

     With the abandonment of its isolationist policies, America lost her innocence and transformed into an imperial country. Expansionist government changed the social, economic, and constitutional perceptions of Americans and colonies alike. “The traditional consensus persisted: America has a unique set of values, way of life, and form of government to offer the world . . . the consensus then divided, as it always had, between those who believed those goods were best spread benignly, by example, or assertively, by force.”³ With the collapse of the anti-imperialist movement at the close of the nineteenth century, America entered the new era with a new purpose: to destroy those who oppress and to liberate the weak.

3  Walter Nugent. Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion. (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), 315.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Round about to the New World

     Humans live in a wide variety of habitats around the world from the ice-covered Arctic Circle and high altitude valleys of the Himalayas to warm, tropic jungles and vast, intercontinental deserts. Aside from Antarctica, human history covers the world. The major continental division created by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans has effectively separated the two major land groupings between Old and New Worlds. While Christopher Columbus, a fifteenth-century Spanish-sponsored sailor, is recognized as the discoverer that brought knowledge of the New World into the collective conscious of the European world, he was not the first one to find this huge land mass in the Western Hemisphere.
     When Columbus's crew arrived, native peoples already lived throughout North and South America with well-developed agricultural systems, impressive architecture, and powerful empires. Obviously people lived in the Americas long before their "discovery" by Columbus, but was there any other historical knowledge of this land aside from its inhabitants?
     In 1961 archaeologists discovered evidence of a Norse settlement along the Canadian coast. This proved that medieval sailors had the sailing capacity to reach across the Atlantic with stops at the settlements of Iceland and Greenland. The Icelandic Annals report the birth of a child in the settlement before war with the native "Skraelings" drove the settlement back to Greenland.
     This Norse settlement is the only widely accepted, documented, and evidenced proof of interaction between Old and New Worlds within the last several thousand years. Propositions of Phonecian sailors, medieval European sailors, Mali-nese sailors, and the Chinese sailor Zheng He all base claims on circumstantial evidence or on evidence that could have been fabricated anachronistically.
     Despite these contested findings of settlements and trade routes in the Pre-Columbian world, people did colonize the Americas before their discovery by Europeans in 1492. The most famous of the theories of American settlement is the overland migration over the Berring Strait during lower ocean levels. Theories involving Polynesian island hopping and even island hopping from Japan along the Berring land bridge. Both of these claims are based on archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence although methods, dating, and migrant numbers are debated.

     Regardless of the accuracy of any of these theories, several things stand out. First, the Americas were indeed colonized long ago largely by Asiatic and Micronesian peoples. Second, Columbus initiated continuous contact of Europe and the Old World to a previously isolated land mass. Lastly, modern historian methodology closely mirrors scientific mentality in process, methodology, and peer-reviewed claims.
     The globalization of the modern era continues to benefit many people through agriculture, knowledge, and economics, but the founding process for intercontinental contact was long, difficult, controversial, and tentative. Despite the dangers of invasive species, trade imbalance, and pollution, let us enjoy the ever-widening distribution of health, food, and promise around the world in an era of peace.


  __    
Agatha Tyche

Failure

     Throughout history empires have expanded, consolidated, and collapsed while leaving lasting imprints on culture, geography, and a huge variety of human efforts. Few of those grand imperial machines lasted more than a few generations, but most contributed to molding the world either through their efforts or by creating spite in their enemies as motivation to achieve greatness. Through all this, it becomes evident that the size and momentary power of man's greatest orchestrations cannot last and must decay.
     Success is achievement. Variations of that definition occur in fields and cultural specific agendas, but the accomplishment of a desired aim is the root meaning of success. If success is achievement, what is failure?
     Failure is surrender of motivation to defeat.
     Great generals are known for their strategic maneuvers, charisma, and ambition. Good leaders are inspirational, innovative, and stalwart, and triumphant generals often possess those characteristics. As firepower has exponentially increased over the centuries, generals have retreated from the front lines and now command troops from relative safety. This alteration in the tactical separation of command and troop deployment leaves the last few decades seemingly bare of awe-inspiring figures. Now people look to the past to see the actions of great men played out in all their glory.
    As France convulsed in the turmoil of its revolution in the last decade of the eighteenth century, Napoleon Bonaparte ascended through the military ranks because of his courage, connections, and performance. Clever and manipulative, Napoleon gained effective dictatorial control over France by 1799 and was entitled emperor by Pope Pious VII in 1804.
     Napoleon ruled France as emperor for ten years and conquered much of Europe. While not a perfect leader, he maintained solid support at home and amazing love in the troops he traveled alongside. Despite repeated defeats from the Russian invasion in the winter of 1812 and the significant loss at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, Napoleon continued to lead through strength of character to inspire his hundreds of thousands of troops. In 1814 the marshalls of his army mutinied against him and surrendered France's emperor to its enemies.
     When the foreign powers gained control over France, they banished Napoleon to Elba, a small island in the Mediterranean where he acted as Emperor over the 12,000 inhabitants. While sparing his life and allowing retention of his title was generous of the victorious European leaders, Napoleon remained ambitiously unsatisfied and escaped to return to France within a year.
     For one hundred days Napoleon raised support, readied the army, and reconsolidated his power. With this new army, Napoleon marched north to attack the British. After repeated onslaughts did not dislodge the British army from its position, the Prussian army arrived to attack Napoleon's right flank and decimate his remaining troops. With huge losses at the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon retreated to Paris where the government's and people's support of him had soured. He abdicated to his son, fled Paris, and continued to flee from capture until seeking asylum with the British one month later

     Suffering incredible losses in the failed Russian campaign, losing more in the Battle of Lepzig, and being banished to a small, rural island did not diminish the dreams, ambition, or charisma of Napoleon. He returned, garnered more strength, and repeated efforts to subdue all of Europe. Napoleon did not truly lose until he surrendered his will, not on the battlefield, but his life on the island of Saint Helena in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. A determined, inspired man, Napoleon did not allow distance, odds, technology, or coalitions to alter his dreams. After Waterloo and the rejection of his beloved France, Napoleon was beaten down internally and morally and never recovered. Suffering deep depression and completely unable to escape to return to France a second time, Napoleon Bonaparte became a failure because he surrendered his ambition to depression.
     Regardless of the definition, defeat is nearly impossible to achieve for some men that are self-driven to greatness. Using skill to rise through the ranks of a tumultuously governed France, Napoleon became an emperor, an emperor who was never defeated by anyone but himself when he accepted failure.


  __    
Agatha Tyche