HenryWallaceVP AMA

[Wikipedia delenda est]

If there's something you'd like to try, ask me! I won't say no — how could I?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you had to pick a C17/C18 Tory notable, who's your favorite?

[Big Abraham]

Opinion of Sir Robert Peel?

What are your thoughts on the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and subsequent Perth Agreement?

On the whole, would you say you prefer the music of Morrissey / The Cure, or the music of Baroque composers?

[All Along The Watchtower]

When did you figure out that the Republicans and Democrats flipped?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Favorite ecumenical document?

[PSOL]

Anything good to read lately?

[TDAS04]

First Democratic presidential nominee you would have voted for?

Most recent Republican presidential nominee you would have voted for?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

If you had to pick a C17/C18 Tory notable, who's your favorite?

James Oglethorpe. Most people familiar with him know him only as the colonial governor of Georgia who banned slavery and alcohol, but he also served as a Tory MP for several decades in the first half of the 18th century. During that time he introduced the Moravian Bill of 1749, which exempted members of the Moravian Brethren from the Oath of Allegiance and allowed them to be naturalized. In this he was opposed by the Whig ministry, who suspected the Moravians of Jacobitism, but the bill ended up passing. 4 years later Oglethorpe supported the Jew Bill of 1753, which was opposed by the vast majority of his fellow Tories and which resulted in his losing his parliamentary seat. As governor of Georgia he also showed his tolerant spirit, inviting Jews and Moravians to settle in the colony despite much local opposition. After leaving Parliament, he joined the Prussian Army at the age of 60 and fought alongside Frederick the Great in the major battles of the Seven Years' War. He spent his last years as a member of Dr. Johnson's literary circle in London, where he died in 1785. Besides being an early opponent of slavery and consistent supporter of religious tolerance, I find Oglethorpe's military career truly remarkable and worthy of a Barry Lyndon esque adaptation. How many people can say they've been at war both in Florida and in Serbia? James Oglethorpe can.

Opinion of Sir Robert Peel?

I really don't know much at all about British politics after the Great Reform Act for the next hundred years, but being the founder of the Conservative Party I would he think he's probably an HP. Or, for all I know, he could be an interesting and complex figure who did lots of good, but for now I'll say HP until proven otherwise.

What are your thoughts on the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and subsequent Perth Agreement?

As Lord Shaftesbury said, popery and slavery are like twin-sisters, and if one should be let in the other should soon follow.

But if I'm being serious, nobody should be excluded from anything on the basis of their religion, which sadly makes me an abhorrer and a Tory in the context of the Exclusion Crisis.  

On the whole, would you say you prefer the music of Morrissey / The Cure, or the music of Baroque composers?

This is a hard one. I'd like to say I prefer early music, as I've been a fan of it for much longer and have spent countless more hours listening to it than anything by any modern artist, but the truth is I find it impossible to imagine living without Morrissey or The Smiths, while I could do without any one composer. So I would say that while Morrissey and The Smiths are my single favorite individual/group in the history of music, I prefer Baroque music as a whole over Rock.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

When did you figure out that the Republicans and Democrats flipped?

2017.

Favorite ecumenical document?

I don't think I've ready any, sorry. Could you give some examples?

Anything good to read lately?

I recently read The Pilgrim's Progress and Oroonoko for school, both of which I mostly enjoyed. Considering my interests, I think I got rather lucky with them. What I found most interesting were the political elements that shined through — as a Puritan and a Royalist respectively, Bunyan and Behn came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and this is evident in their books. The Pilgrim's Progress was published at the height of the Popish Plot, and Bunyan's Whiggish sympathies are evident in his caricature of the Pope as a giant who threatens to burn the pilgrims. Oroonoko meanwhile was published just before the Glorious Revolution, and Behn's support for James II comes across in the book's reverence for divine and royal authority.

First Democratic presidential nominee you would have voted for?

Most recent Republican presidential nominee you would have voted for?

Martin Van Buren and Dwight D. Eisenhower, respectively.

[Big Abraham]

How do you like Iowa? Have you been to / lived in any other states, and how do they compare to Iowa? In what part of the state are you resident?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Opinion of Henry Purcell? I tend to listen to or watch the Frost Scene from King Arthur a lot this time of year.

[darklordoftech]

Who would you have voted for in the 1892 Presidential election?

[Conservatopia]

Opinion of the Glorious Revolution? Please make your post as detailed as you like - I am willing to read any amount of text that relates to King Billy (pbuh).

[MarkD]

Now it's your turn.
Here is a question I've asked several other Atlas users under their respective "AMA" threads.

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction. Would you support or oppose this?

Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft. My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes: "The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."

Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states. The purpose of the Ninth was and is parallel to the Tenth Amendment.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those six kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to prevent gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

(Thanks to an intriguing conversation I recently had with user Big Abraham, I thought of another way to accomplish the same goal with a different kind of structure. I could say, in Section 3, that only the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th is repealed; I could leave the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause as they are. I would insert the DP Clause of the 14th into Section 1 where I discussed giving the first DP Clause a meaning that is more limited than the way the Court actually interprets the two clauses. I could say, in Section 3(a), that the Privileges or Immunities Clause has always been interpreted by the Court correctly thus far, but that the meaning of P/I should never be expanded. The net result of those changes would still give me the exact same goal as I was aiming for in my first draft. Going with either draft for this proposal is, for me, six of one, half dozen of another.)

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal. I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. Both sides will be giving up something important that they don't want to give up, but will get something else important in return.

Specific elements appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.

– Keep the McDonald v. City of Chicago precedent
– Overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
– Overturn Plyler v. Doe
– Prevent the federal courts from expanding the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause in any way other than what is enumerated in this proposal

Specific elements appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.

– Disallow government to discriminate on the basis on sex, in other words, the same principle as the ERA (this does not mean, however, revival of the right to abortion)
– Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and with this rule, preserve Obergefell v. Hodges
– Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of gender identity (applying the Intermediate Scrutiny standard, which will also be applied for sex and sexual orientation, above)
– Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.

– Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
– Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
– Continue prohibiting government discrimination based on race and national origin
– Start prohibiting government discrimination based on disability status
– Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested in supporting this?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Sorry everyone, life got in the way, but I'm back now and ready to answer your questions!

How do you like Iowa? Have you been to / lived in any other states, and how do they compare to Iowa? In what part of the state are you resident?

I like Iowa quite a bit. I've certainly been to many other states, my favorite of which is probably Massachusetts or New York, but I do tend to prefer Iowa over most others because it's where I've always called home. I was born in Iowa City and lived there for most of my entire life, and I think it's a great city.

Opinion of Henry Purcell? I tend to listen to or watch the Frost Scene from King Arthur a lot this time of year.

I absolutely love Purcell - he's my favorite composer of all time! My favorite song of his is My Heart is Inditing (composed for the coronation of James II), and I'd also recommend Fly, Bold Rebellion for its political content. I sadly haven't listened to or watched King Arthur yet, but I do have Dido and Aeneas on vinyl record!

Who would you have voted for in the 1892 Presidential election?

Iowa's very own, James Baird Weaver. I would have voted for Harrison in 1888, but the party by that point had really abandoned its Lincolnism and sold out to big business. More than that, though, I would have been appalled by the illegal invasion of Hawaii and Harrison's awarding of the medal of honor to the soldiers who committed the Wounded Knee Massacre. James B. Weaver was a Republican when it was still the party of Lincoln who stuck to the party's original economic populist principles and stood for the farmers and workers of this country. The choice is obvious. You didn't ask, but you might also like to hear my thoughts on the 1992 election. I find it has some striking similarities to the contest of a century earlier - a moderate Republican running for reelection, a conservative sexual predator Democrat, and a major "populist" third-party candidate. While I usually find older elections more difficult in choosing who to support, this one has some of my least favorite options despite being so recent. In Bush we have a foreign policy goon who lied about Iran-Contra, surrounded himself with Reaganite thugs, and bent the knee to the religious right. Clinton campaigned as a conservative Democrat, governed as even more of one, and executed a lobotomized Black man to boost his poll numbers (the 30th anniversary of Ricky Ray Rector's death is in 3 days, by the way). And Perot was a Texas billionaire who wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare and run the government like a corporation. What a despicable, worthless bunch of candidates. Given the atmosphere of the times and Clinton's seductive power I'd probably vote for him despite everything, but I'd rather write in Michael Stipe. Thank God for Ralph Nader (who admirably supported Clinton's impeachment) in 96 and 2000.

Opinion of the Glorious Revolution? Please make your post as detailed as you like - I am willing to read any amount of text that relates to King Billy (pbuh).

I love that you asked me this, because I will take any excuse I can to write about the Glorious Revolution. First, though, before I can state my own opinion on that great occasion, I need to get a couple of myths out of the way.

Myth No. 1: The Glorious Revolution was primarily motivated by anti-Catholicism.
-Admittedly, I used to believe this. It seemed to me that the so-called "Glorious" Revolution was really just a bunch of intolerant Anglicans mad at their King for being a Catholic. But if that were the case, then why didn't they overthrow him in 1685 instead of 1688? Oh wait - they did try to overthrow him, almost immediately. The Monmouth Rebellion and Argyll's Rising both broke out soon after James's accession, but both were easily crushed. Why did they fail? Largely because they were, in fact, purely religious uprisings by Protestants mad at their King for being a Catholic. For most Englishmen, besides some West Country peasants and Scottish Presbyterians, the Protestant cause was not one worth dying for - in fact, its defeat was worth celebrating. Many people don't realize just how popular James II was in 1685. His victory, which seemed to ensure peace and stability, earned him an immense amount of support and goodwill from most of his subjects. So where was that goodwill 3 years later when he most needed it? Naturally, like any good Stuart, he squandered it trying to be an absolute monarch. During his reign James embarked on a program of massive state expansion which eclipsed anything his father or grandfather had attempted. James wished to turn England into a symbol of Catholic modernity - that is, like the France of Louis XIV. First and most important was the creation of a world-class standing army, which he accomplished without the input of Parliament. Then the grievances kept piling on. He interfered with the internal affairs of Oxford University, drastically changed the makeup of England's corporations, and enforced liberty of conscience by diktat. All of this combined to make the English people totally sick of James, and in 1688 they sent the Stuarts over the water, never to return again (though certainly not for want of trying). The Glorious Revolution succeeded where the risings of 1685 did not because it was based upon widespread political grievances rather than confessionalism, which gave it the overwhelming popular support it needed. Which brings me to the second myth.

Myth No. 2: The Glorious Revolution wasn't revolutionary, but a bloodless aristocratic coup (or: the lies of Edmund Burke).
-Sadly, I used to think this was true too. No, not really the bloodless part, I always knew about the Glencoe Massacre and the Williamite War in Ireland, but for those who don't, go look them up. They are all the proof that's needed to disprove the "bloodless" canard. The other claim, that the Revolution was aristocratic and not truly revolutionary, is equally pernicious. That the revolution was officially sanctioned by the Immortal Seven's Invitation to William is only a tiny part of the story. All over England in 1688, there was a spontaneous eruption of skirmishes, riots, and property destruction aimed at the government of James II. James's army was attacked by citizens, his revenue collectors were assaulted, and Catholic chapels were looted across the country. To contextualize just how violent and popular the Revolution really was, consider this: more people were killed in the December 1688 skirmish at Reading, an event almost nobody has heard of, than in the 1791 Champ de Mars massacre, one of the bloodiest events of the French Revolution. In the century after 1688, English Radicals celebrated what made the Glorious Revolution revolutionary. In his great address given in support of the French Revolution in 1789, Richard Price lauded his own country's revolution as a heroic act of popular resistance that delivered England from "the infamy and misery of popery and slavery". Price's interpretation of the Revolution was fair and true, but unfortunately it was his opponent Edmund Burke's view that became the establishment Whig narrative which we are still living with today. This narrative was furthered by later Radicals like Thomas Paine, who essentially accepted the Burkean view and took to criticizing the Revolution as insufficiently radical - which, in fairness, it was, when compared to the Cromwellian Interregnum of a few decades earlier (largely because the Overton window shifted so far to the right after the Restoration). But if you're still not convinced, have a listen to some of the Popery Collections - these songs are about as close as you can get to experiencing firsthand the popular enthusiasm behind the Revolution:

Sources: Most of what I've written here is based on arguments made by Steven Pincus in his fantastic 1688: The First Modern Revolution, which you should absolutely read if this is a subject that interests you or you'd like to learn more about. And then check out Protestantism and Patriotism, which explores the true ideological causes behind the first two Anglo-Dutch Wars.

With that out of the way, I suppose it's time for me to state my own opinion on the Glorious Revolution. In short - it's complicated. I think I should start by saying that I very strongly dislike King Billy. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say Willem Hendrik, because most of what I hate about this man comes from what he did before he ever set foot in England, Scotland, or Ireland. From the moment he was born, William was the leader of the monarchical party in the Netherlands, the Orangists. They were opposed by the States Party, the party of republicans and true freedom. The Orangists had supported the Royalists during the English Civil War, and in the early 1650s Orangist agitation led the Netherlands to war with the Commonwealth of England. In the negotiations which ended that war, Oliver Cromwell demanded that the young William never be allowed to become Stadtholder, and so a provision mandating just that called the Act of Seclusion was inserted into the peace treaty. In the years that followed, the Netherlands was ruled mostly by the de Witt brothers, who led the States Party. Under their rule the Netherlands was liberal and tolerant, and in 1665 they went to war with the Restored English monarchy. There was a natural kinship between the Dutch republicans and the English commonwealthmen, just as there were familial ties between the Houses of Orange and Stuart. Fast forward to 1672: the Netherlands is invaded in a joint surprise attack by England and France, and is quickly overrun by French forces. In the chaos that follows, the de Witt brothers are blamed for the fiasco and William of Orange - ever the opportunist - sees his chance. Under his watch, an Orangist mob lynched and ate Johan and Cornelius de Witt. More than anything else it is this act of barbarism, like Bill Clinton's execution of Ricky Ray Rector, which makes me despise William so. Also like Clinton, William's destruction and co-option of the radical elements within his own country/party ensured that he was the only alternative to Stuart/Reaganite rule. A little off-topic, but I've actually considered writing a version of The Vicar of Bray with Reagan as Charles II, Bush Sr. as James II, Clinton as William III, Bush Jr. as Anne, and Obama as George I. Anyway, William was able to present himself as the great liberating Protestant hero in 1688 only because he had literally mutilated the Dutch republicans, who were the true friends of Cromwell. Imagine if, instead of what really happened in 1688, the Glorious Revolution had been led by Johan de Witt and resulted in the abolition of the English monarchy. That would have been a truly Glorious Revolution, but instead we got the Prince of Orange.

Now let me talk about liberty of conscience for a moment. There are few things I find more contemptible than religious persecution, which is why I am generally much more sympathetic to Protestants than Catholics. In most cases in most parts of Europe, Catholics were much less religiously tolerant than Protestants, not only of those they considered heretical Christians but also Jews (Martin Luther excepted) and Muslims. Throughout the early modern period there often existed an informal alliance between Protestants, Jews, and Muslims against Catholic persecutors, and it is these instances of cooperation between oppressed people punching up against tyrannical authorities which fill me with so much glee. While anti-Catholicism in general certainly isn't justified, as someone on the left I find the revolutionary and leveling tendencies of English early modern anti-Catholicism quite appealing. This should be obvious to anyone who has read my post history. In the England of 1688, however, it was the Catholic King James who stood in favor of religious liberty. The previous year he had issued the Declaration of Indulgence, which granted full religious toleration to both Catholics and Protestant Dissenters. But in so doing he had simultaneously limited political liberty, as he issued his declaration by royal decree without the consent of Parliament. As I said earlier, though, religious persecution is one of my least favorite things, so I'm willing to excuse James. The main reason I prefer Oliver Cromwell's rule over that of the Stuarts is not because I believe in republicanism, although that is certainly one reason, but because I believe in religious toleration. Lifting the ban on Jews, abolishing the Church of England, and permitting Protestant Nonconformity to flourish are my favorite things about Cromwell. Killing the King, abolishing the House of Lords, and reforming the House of Commons only come second. My point is, religious liberty is more important to me than political liberty, so I like James's Declaration of Indulgence. On the other hand, it is quite possible that James was not sincere in his desire for religious liberty but was merely using the Declaration to advance Catholicism (his letters to Louis XIV supporting the persecution of the Huguenots and the influence of re-Catholicizing Jesuit types at court like Father Petre would suggest this), but that is another question entirely, and a good deed done for bad reasons is still a good deed. The fact that it was supported by William Penn, a personal hero of mine, is especially compelling. I find it pretty perverse that the Whigs, the party of religious toleration (for Protestants), opposed repeal of the Test Acts and defended the Seven Bishops, epitomes of High Church Anglican intolerance. On the other hand, I can understand why they did what they did, as prioritizing civic over religious liberty is a perfectly defensible decision (just not one I would have made). But post-1688 a lot of what the Williamite regime did was antithetical to old Whiggish conceptions of liberty. True, William didn't try to rule as an absolute monarch, but he did establish a hugely expensive standing army (one of the main complaints against James) and made the country's foreign policy largely subservient to the Netherlands. Speaking of which, William's anti-French foreign policy is another thing I dislike about him, because despite Louis XIV being an awful persecutor of Protestants and a warmonger, I still prefer the Sun King over his enemies (explanation here). I also find the Jacobites of the 18th century quite sympathetic, as they had legitimate grievances as Scots and Irish who were badly treated by the Whig oligarchy.

So finally, would I call myself a supporter or opponent of the Revolution? I'll put it this way: though I sympathize more with the Jacobites and detest William of Orange, biases aside the Revolution was ultimately a positive event in world history. Even if I personally deplore religious persecution more than political absolutism, it is an unequivocal historical good that absolute monarchy, represented by James II, was defeated by Williamite parliamentarism. And besides, the Glorious Revolution did end the persecution of Dissenters - it's only Catholics who had to wait another 140 years. That being said (I feel like this is my millionth caveat), with my current views and without hindsight I would have been a Whiggish Jacobite like William Penn. Before I get accused of apostasy, the Pope at the time actually supported William of Orange, so I would literally be taking the anti-popish position. Anyway, as you can no doubt tell by the length and back-and-forth nature of my answer, I find it much harder to pick a side in the Glorious Revolution than in the English Civil War. So call me either Williamite or Jacobite if you wish, but I reject both labels: I am a Cromwellian, or better yet, a Leveller. Long live the Good Old Cause!

snip

I apologize, but I don't feel informed enough to answer your question.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What's your favourite thing to have for breakfast?

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

What's your favourite thing to have for breakfast?

Hopefully something more freedom-loving than your dirty commie "u" in "favorite."

[TML]

How would you explain Iowa’s D to R shift during the 2010s? Do you think this state will be a lock for Republicans in the foreseeable future?

[free my dawg]

What's your favorite lost song besides Fond?

[Conservatopia]

That was excellent! I'm was surprised when I read you don't like King Billy but after reading your explanation I'm not sure I'm such a fan anymore either.

Some more questions if you don't mind:

As a fellow Cromwell fan what do you consider the worst things about him? He was a very flawed person.

What got you interested in the English (more accurately, British) Civil Wars and the events of the 1600s?

Do you have any other historical eras you are particularly fond of? I've always been deeply interested in Republican Rome and the Gladstone/Disraeli era.

I presume in general you prefer Whigs to Tories? I certainly do.

Have you ever visited this sceptred isle? Where in Britain would you like to visit?

There's a huge monument to Tyndale near here. What are your thoughts on him?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

What's your favourite thing to have for breakfast?

Cereal, usually.

How would you explain Iowa’s D to R shift during the 2010s? Do you think this state will be a lock for Republicans in the foreseeable future?

I think it reflects a broader trend of the polarization of rural against urban areas which occurred in the 2010s. Since Iowa is overwhelmingly rural, in our current alignment it became much more Republican than it had been previously. Sadly, I do think the state is mostly safe for Republicans in future presidential elections, except in the case of a landslide. I think congressional and local races are still very contested though (Rita Hart got robbed), but the longer Republican rule lasts in Des Moines the more I worry for my state.

What's your favorite lost song besides Fond?

This question put a smile on my face . Obviously, as a fan of post-punk and new wave I love the one and only Most Mysterious Song on the Internet, but another one I really like is Forgive and Forget, a super underrated new wave ska tune from c. 1980:

I also really, really like this Unknown White Label EP, which sadly seems almost impossible to identify:

That was excellent! I'm was surprised when I read you don't like King Billy but after reading your explanation I'm not sure I'm such a fan anymore either.

Some more questions if you don't mind:

As a fellow Cromwell fan what do you consider the worst things about him? He was a very flawed person.

What got you interested in the English (more accurately, British) Civil Wars and the events of the 1600s?

Do you have any other historical eras you are particularly fond of? I've always been deeply interested in Republican Rome and the Gladstone/Disraeli era.

I presume in general you prefer Whigs to Tories? I certainly do.

Have you ever visited this sceptred isle? Where in Britain would you like to visit?

There's a huge monument to Tyndale near here. What are your thoughts on him?

Cromwell's greatest flaw, in my opinion, was that he was not radical enough. I strongly disapprove of the way he dealt with the Levellers, who he made quite bitter foes out of to the point that many of them were involved in conspiracy against the Commonwealth. Also, I'm not really a fan of how he dissolved Parliament, but I think his personal rule may have been necessary for the state's survival and it was certainly preferable to any Stuart.

Well, I just love early modern history, I guess. But the thing about England is that there is a really active public sphere there like no place else in Europe. The politics of England in the 17th century are a lot less static than the absolutist states; in England there's always lots of opposition and dissent to everything, and it is there that party politics first emerge. I also think the common language and the English heritage of my home country has made it a lot more accessible than, say, the internal politics of the Netherlands (basically the only other place with electoral politics and also firmly Protestant, go figure), though as you might have been able to tell from my post about the Glorious Revolution I'm interested in those too!

Basically the entire early modern period throughout the entire European continent, and also some late medieval stuff. European history from the 19th century and first half of the 20th century doesn't really interest me, but my interest picks up again in the Cold War period. There's also a sort of parallel to music there too; I generally have no use for the Romantic era and the "modern" music of the 20th century, but once Rock 'n' Roll came onto the scene at midcentury my interest picks up again (before falling at the turn of the 21st century). Unlike the early modern and Renaissance people who I study, I am almost entirely ignorant of classical and ancient times and haven't ever felt much interest in that direction. I am also super interested in American history and politics, of course, from the beginning until the present day.

Well, this is an interesting question, and perhaps one that may shatter the identity I have worked to create for myself here, but as a matter of fact I think I would have been a Tory until the middle of the 18th century (except for maybe the very beginning around the time of the Exclusion Crisis). As I stated in my response about the Glorious Revolution, I harbor some Jacobite and pro-French sympathies, and I strongly dislike the Whig Junto and the corrupt rule of Walpole. I find the Country Party amalgamation created by Lord Bolingbroke much more appealing, to be frank, and so did our Founding Fathers. As did most English voters, in fact. The narrative about the Tories withering away into an unpopular and irrelevant club of old aristocrats is totally false. According to Linda Colley, in terms of votes cast the Tories actually won the 1722 election, just as they won the 1734 and 1741 elections. They ended up with massive parliamentary minorities time and again because the Whigs literally had the system rigged so that they couldn't lose. Here is a passage from Colley's In Defiance of Oligarchy that I think perfectly describes the sort of Tory I would have been:

As had been the case since the 1690s, this Jacobite propensity to resistance made for collaboration between some pro-Stuart and republican activists. The Independent Electors of Westminster, initiated in 1741, was a constituency society which went on to attract predominantly tory, but also dissident whig, republican, and Jacobite sympathisers. It was possibly this mongrel body that Henry Fielding had in mind when he described, in a pamphlet of 1747, a London Alderman who was at one and the same time voting tory, hankering for a Stuart restoration, and gloating over the achievments of 1649 and Oliver Cromwell.

'Since then we must have a King, I am pretty indifferent as to the Person, and would in my choice consult the Good of Old England only. Whenever therefore we want a Redress of Grievances under any King, what can be so desirable as an Exchange? For by such Exchange we shall more probably be Gainers than Losers... I am a Jacobite upon republican Principles.'

Even during the Rage of Party period in Queen Anne's time, when the Tories were especially ferocious in their attacks on Dissenters and the Whigs had not yet coalesced into a corrupt oligarchy, I still think I would have been swayed to vote Tory due to my desire for peace with France. My last election voting Tory would have been 1747, in light of the recent Jacobite rebellion and the Whigs' heaping of praise upon "Sweet William", the Duke of Cumberland, who was far more accurately referred to by Tories as "Butcher Cumberland". I think I would have felt vindicated in 1749 when the Tories supported the Moravian Bill, as I noted in my post about Oglethorpe, but then so appalled four years later by the vicious anti-Semitic Tory response to the Jew Bill that I would never again vote Tory starting in 1754. In the reign of George III I would be a firm Rockinghamite (if not a Wilkite) and then a Foxite in the time of Pitt the Younger, who I detest. Yes, give me Lord Bolingbroke and the old Tories any day over that weaselly disgrace who did nothing to stop the Priestley Riots, muffled dissent, and fought against the glorious French Republic.

Something else I find interesting is the relation of the Whig and Tory parties to Roman Catholics. Most people know that the Whigs started out viciously anti-Catholic but ended up emancipating them, whereas the Tories started out as sympathetic to Catholics only to be their greatest opponents in the emancipation debates, but I think what is not appreciated is just how long it took for the parties to "switch" on this issue. It really was not until the 1780s or 90s that the Whigs became the more pro-Catholic party. In his letter The Patriot addressed to the voters of Great Britain in 1774, the stout Tory Samuel Johnson inveighs against the hysteria raised by "patriots" over the Quebec Act, which granted toleration to Catholics in Quebec:

It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. But he sounds no alarm, when there is no enemy; he never terrifies his countrymen till he is terrified himself. The patriotism, therefore, may be justly doubted of him, who professes to be disturbed by incredibilities; who tells, that the last peace was obtained by bribing the princess of Wales; that the king is grasping at arbitrary power; and, that because the French, in the new conquests, enjoy their own laws, there is a design at court of abolishing, in England, the trial by juries.

   Still less does the true patriot circulate opinions which he knows to be false. No man, who loves his country, fills the nation with clamorous complaints, that the protestant religion is in danger, because "popery is established in the extensive province of Quebec," a falsehood so open and shameless, that it can need no confutation among those who know that of which it is almost impossible for the most unenlightened zealot to be ignorant:

That Quebec is on the other side of the Atlantick, at too great a distance to do much good or harm to the European world:

   That the inhabitants, being French, were always papists, who are certainly more dangerous as enemies than as subjects:

   That though the province be wide, the people are few, probably not so many as may be found in one of the larger English counties:

   That persecution is not more virtuous in a protestant than a papist; and that, while we blame Lewis the fourteenth, for his dragoons and his galleys, we ought, when power comes into our hands, to use it with greater equity:

   That when Canada, with its inhabitants, was yielded, the free enjoyment of their religion was stipulated; a condition, of which king William, who was no propagator of popery, gave an example nearer home, at the surrender of Limerick:

   That in an age, where every mouth is open for liberty of conscience, it is equitable to show some regard to the conscience of a papist, who may be supposed, like other men, to think himself safest in his own religion; and that those, at least, who enjoy a toleration, ought not to deny it to our new subjects.

   If liberty of conscience be a natural right, we have no power to withhold it; if it be an indulgence, it may be allowed to papists, while it is not denied to other sects.

By contrast, the opinion of the esteemed Foxite Whig Horace Walpole on Catholic civil rights a full decade later was that "You know I have ever been averse to toleration of an intolerant religion". In the interim, the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots had shocked and horrified England in 1780, but principally the Northite Tory government at which it was aimed. The rioters actually had a great deal of radical support, including from the philosopher Richard Price and the London Alderman Frederick Bull, and in the aftermath of the riots radicals were mostly concerned with what they saw as the government's heavy-handed use of the army to put down the people and the many imprisonments that followed.

Next question!

No, I have never been to Britain sadly, nor anywhere in Europe, but I would absolutely love to. I honestly don't have any preference as to where in Britain I'd like to travel first; just being there would be awesome no matter the place.

Tyndale was a great man and incredibly courageous to do as he did, and I have nothing but respect and deep admiration for the many Protestant martyrs who gave their life for the faith. In Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall series, which by the way is absolutely fantastic, Tyndale is mentioned several times by Thomas Cromwell and the other characters, who either revere him like Cromwell or think he should be burned as a heretic.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Who is your least favorite British political figure from the 18th century, and why?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Who is your least favorite British political figure from the 18th century, and why?

I'm going to go with Henry Luttrell, 2nd Earl of Carhampton. His entire political career was based on a stolen Parliamentary seat he obtained in Middlesex in 1769 after losing the election to John Wilkes, but because Wilkes was an outspoken radical the government seated Luttrell instead. In Parliament he made a name for himself by denouncing Whig supporters of the American Revolution (such as Lord George Gordon) as traitors, supporting the slave trade, and opposing Catholic Emancipation. He also found the time, in 1788, to rape a 12 year old girl and get away with it unscathed, and 10 years later he was one of the main British commanders responsible for the savage suppression of the United Irish rebellion. Worried that he hadn't done enough terrible things, Luttrell made his long-awaited return to Parliament two decades later in order to voice his support for the Peterloo Massacre. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

[Nyssus]

Why are you from Iowa, I might ask?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Why are you from Iowa, I might ask?

Because my parents moved there a couple years before I was born.