NEWCASTLE

“England at this time presented the phenomenon of a prime minister who could not command the respect of his own servants. A more preposterous figure than the Duke of Newcastle never stood at the head of a great nation. He had a feverish craving for place and power, joined to a total unfitness for both. He was an adept in personal politics, and was so busied with the arts of winning and keeping office that he had no leisure, even if he had had ability, for the higher work of government. He was restless, quick in movement, rapid and confused in speech, lavish of worthless promises, always in a hurry, and at once headlong, timid, and rash. “A borrowed importance and real insignificance,” says Walpole, who knew him well, “gave him the perpetual air of a solicitor....He had no pride, though infinite self-love. He loved business immoderately; yet was only always doing it, never did it. When left to himself, he always plunged into difficulties, and then shuddered for the consequences.”

Walpole gives an anecdote showing the state of his ideas on colonial matters. General Ligonier suggested to him that Annapolis ought to be defended. “To which he replied with his lisping, evasive hurry: ‘Annapolis, Annapolis! Oh, yes, Annapolis must be defended,—where is Annapolis?’” Another contemporary, Smollett, ridicules him in his novel of Humphrey Clinker, and tells a similar story, which, founded in fact or not, shows in what estimation the minister was held: “Captain C. treated the Duke’s character without any ceremony. ‘This wiseacre,’ said he, ‘is still abed; and I think the best thing he can do is to sleep on till Christmas; for when he gets up he does nothing but expose his own folly. In the beginning of the war he told me in a great fright that thirty thousand French had marched from Acadia to Cape Breton. Where did they find transports? said I.—Transports! cried he, I tell you they marched by land.—By land to the island of Cape Breton!—What, is Cape Breton an island?—Certainly.—Ha! are you sure of that?—When I pointed it out on the map, he examined it earnestly with his spectacles; then, taking me in his arms,—‘My dear C., cried he, you always bring us good news. Egad! I'll go directly and tell the King that Cape Breton is an island.’”

His wealth, county influence, flagitious use of patronage, and long-practised skill in keeping majorities in the House of Commons by means that would not bear the light, made his support necessary to Pitt himself, and placed a fantastic political jobber at the helm of England in a time when she needed a patriot and a statesman. Newcastle was the growth of the decrepitude and decay of a great party, which had fulfilled its mission and done its work. But if the Whig soil had become poor for a wholesome crop, it was never so rich for toadstools.

Francis Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe [1884}
books.apple.com/us/book/montcalm-and-wolfe/id378240426

THE ABYSS

         The prestige of the monarchy was declining with the ideas that had given it life and strength. A growing disrespect for king, ministry, and clergy was beginning to prepare the catastrophe that was still some forty years in the future. While the valleys and low places of the kingdom were dark with misery and squalor, its heights were bright with a gay society—elegant, fastidious, witty—craving the pleasures of the mind as well as of the senses, criticising everything, analyzing everything, believing nothing. 

        Voltaire was in the midst of it, hating, with all his vehement soul, the abuses that swarmed about him, and assailing them with the inexhaustible shafts of his restless and piercing intellect. Montesquieu was showing to a despot-ridden age the principles of political freedom. Diderot and D'Alembert were beginning their revolutionary Encyclopaedia. 

        Rousseau was sounding the first notes of his mad eloquence—the wild revolt of a passionate and diseased genius against a world of falsities and wrongs. The salons of Paris, cloyed with other pleasures, alive to all that was racy and new, welcomed the pungent doctrines, and played with them as children play with fire, thinking no danger; as time went on, even embraced them in a genuine spirit of hope and goodwill for humanity. 

         The Revolution began at the top—in the world of fashion, birth, and intellect—and propagated itself downwards. "We walked on a carpet of flowers," Count Ségur afterwards said, "unconscious that it covered an abyss;" till the gulf yawned at last, and swallowed them.

Francis Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe. [1884] Library of Alexandria. Kindle Edition.

RICHARD PHELPS

 Academic Questions 

Fall 2022, 83 

Richard Phelps (excerpt)

For decades, the indefatigable Will Fitzhugh has refused to stop reminding us of the stark and stubborn paradox of American culture, both apparent and hidden at virtually every U.S. public school. We fastidiously measure observable variations in athletic skill and ability and celebrate those who excel. 

Meanwhile, we shush and shame those who attempt the same in the cognitive domain. The outfall of this profound bias can be seen in the tables of contents of Fitzhugh’s The Concord Review, where high school students publish excellent long scholarly history journal articles. Scan the names of the authors and the locations of their schools over the past few decades and one cannot help but notice the trend—away from American-born authors and toward students raised elsewhere, some now attending U.S. private schools as international students, but many still residing at home overseas. And this not in a STEM field, but in the humanities….

UNDERSERVED

 UNDERSERVED

Will Fitzhugh
The Concord Review
11 November 2022

If American students were allowed no access to physical exercise in school, regardless of  age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, IQ, or national origin, there would be general agreement that they were being underserved. If there was no access to first aid in their schools as well, again they would be seen as underserved.

But though the majority of American students are never asked to read one complete history book in school, or work on one serious term paper, almost no one seems to understand that in this way, they are all underserved as well. The fact that the great majority of American students who go to college, arrive there never having read a nonfiction book or written an essay that was not about them, means that most are quite unprepared for college books and college term papers.

Naturally, given the very many billions spent on the education of American students, most taxpayers do not want to see them underserved and deprived of essential learning experiences.

The problem, as Robert Pondiscio points out, is that American educators too often want to provide students with a mirror instead of a window, fostering narcissism and ignorance in the process.

Surely if our schools are mostly producing ignorant and solipsistic students, those students are clearly all being underserved, and denied the serious work they must do to attain the literacy they need to be useful and successful in our society.

Perhaps it is time to give this irresponsible neglect more attention….

AMIT MAJITHIA, MD

November 6, 2022

Dear Will,

I write to you as a past author in The Concord Review to voice my support of TCR’s work in sparking a love of history and a reflective spirit. You published my paper on Napoleon Bonaparte that I wrote for world history class in 1997. 

When I matriculated at Harvard College I still fondly remember you kindly taking me out to lunch, a freshman finding his way. Since then, my path took me towards science and medicine; I obtained my MD from NYU in 2007 and completed clinical training and specialization into endocrinology at the Massachusetts General Hospital. I was recruited to UC San Diego to build a research program devoted to understanding the genetic basis of diabetes and related disorders and am currently tenured at the school of medicine. In addition to leading a lab composed of graduate students and post-doctoral fellows, I see patients with diabetes and teach medical students. 

Since that article on Bonaparte published in TCR over two decades ago I have published dozens of peer reviewed scientific articles, editorials, and book chapters. The Bonaparte paper was fundamental to what success I’ve had in scientific writing, by teaching me that there is an audience for works of love and depth and passion. I remember that feeling of total immersion and absorption in researching the paper, reading original French sources, getting help from my French teacher to understand certain passages. 

In today’s cultural climate, where it is acceptable to respond with “TLDR” (too long didn’t read) and reading material is selected primarily based on its brevity, I think the TCR is even more crucial by appreciating and inspiring appreciation for long form depth. 

Thank you for what you did for me and best wishes, 

 
Sincerely,

Amit R. Majithia, M.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Medicine
School of Medicine, University of California San Diego

CONTENT FREE

What teachers seem to be embracing instead is a notion of civics education that is largely content-free.

What’s the Point of Civics Education?

Not even one-fourth of teachers rank knowledge of political and civic institutions as a top-three concern…

By Rick Hess—October 31, 2022

Education Week

As a guy who taught high school civics back in the last century, I have some admittedly old-fashioned notions about civics instruction. For instance, it may sound archaic to some, but I still think civics should entail teaching students about our political, social, and economic systems; the rights and responsibilities of citizens; and how to engage in the political process.

Apparently, all of this puts me wildly out of step with the times. At least, that’s the obvious takeaway from a new RAND Corp. survey of K-12 teachers, examining how they think about civic and citizenship education. The national study, released earlier this month, utilized questions drawn from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study.

The researchers found that few teachers seemed to believe that civic education requires teaching students about the core institutions or knowledge upon which civil society rests. Asked for the top three aims of civic education, just 23 percent of teachers said one of them is “promoting knowledge of social, political, and civic institutions.” Just 2 in 5 said a top-three aim was “promoting knowledge of citizens’ rights and responsibilities,” and just 11 percent thought a top-three priority was developing students’ capacity to defend their point of view.

I was gobsmacked by the results. I mean, I’ve always thought it fairly uncontroversial to assume that students need to know how judges get appointed or how Congress works if we expect them to be informed, engaged citizens. And I thought the whole “rights-and-responsibilities of citizens” thing was one place where we could all pretty much agree, at least in principle.

Yet, not even one-fourth of teachers rank knowledge of political and civic institutions as a top-three concern?! Not even half think promoting knowledge of citizens’ rights and responsibilities makes the top three?! Barely 1 in 10 think it’s important that students be able to articulate their beliefs?!

 
I honestly don’t know what to make of that. I’m tempted to blame the question wording or the survey instrument, except that the questions are pretty straightforward, and the survey has been used around the globe.

Some readers, I suspect, will say, “See, I knew it! This is a consequence of politicizing civics education.” As regular readers know, I have plenty of concerns along that line. Except, the evidence doesn’t really suggest that that’s a major factor. For instance, just 27 percent cited promoting environmental activism as a top-three aim, just 20 percent named “anti-racism,” and just 5 percent mentioned preparing students for future political engagement.

What teachers seem to be embracing instead is a notion of civics education that is largely content-free. The most frequently cited aim, offered by about two-thirds of teachers, is “promoting students’ critical and independent thinking.” The only other aim named by even half of teachers was “developing students’ skills and competencies in conflict resolution.”

I’m all for critical thinking. But critical thinking about what? Clearly, it’s not about social, political, or civic institutions; the rights-and-responsibilities of citizens; how to defend one’s beliefs; or how to engage in the political process. This is critical thinking as a pleasant-sounding placeholder. Thinking critically about pressing conflicts (much less resolving them) inevitably requires historical understanding and substantive knowledge. That seems to have gotten lost.

 
In an era when researchers have reported that just 26 percent of Americans can name the three branches of government or that only about 1 in 3 Americans can pass the nation’s citizenship test, the consequences of ignorance are glaring. We see the effects daily playing out on social media, in our tribal politics, and in performative civic leadership.

We desperately need civics and citizenship instruction that prepares students to do better. That means helping students cultivate the requisite knowledge, skills, and habits. But the first step, it would appear, is convincing teachers that this is worth doing.