Biography: Sir John A. Macdonald

Tags

Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, Dominion of Canada, Isabella Clark, John A. Macdonald, John Alexander Macdonald, John MacDonald, Kingston, Louis Riel, National Policy, North-West Rebellion, Old Tomorrow, Pacific Scandal, prime minister, Province of Canada, Susan Agnes Bernard, Upper Canada

Sir John Alexander Macdonald was Canada’s first prime minister, holding office for more than 18 years from 1 July 1867 to 5 November 1873 and from 17 October 1878 to 6 June 1891. He won six majority governments, still a Canadian record, and could rightly be called the father of Canada.

Born in Glasgow, Scotland on 11 January 1815, Macdonald was the third of five children to Hugh and Helen Macdonald. He was five years of age when the family moved to Kingston, Upper Canada after his merchant father’s business failures at home. His family struggled to afford to send him to the Midland Grammar School in Kingston where he was noted as a voracious reader who would immerse himself in a book for hours and not be distracted. After briefly attending another school, he left at age 15.

At the beckoning of his parents, Macdonald pursued a career in law. He passed the Law Society of Upper Canada examination and was apprenticed to a young lawyer called George Mackenzie. In 1835, at just 19, he was running his own practice. He moved into criminal law in 1837 and his name started to spread beyond the small Kingston business community. During the Rebellions of 1837, he defended and gained acquittals for eight political prisoners who had been charged with treason. There were bigger risks to come. Macdonald defended a group of American raiders who were part of an unsuccessful attempt to free Canada from British colonial oppression. But he could only give advice, as civilian lawyers couldn’t address the judge or question witnesses.

Macdonald became Alderman of Kingston in 1843 and was elected as a Conservative to the parliament of the Province of Canada the following year to represent Kingston. He became Receiver General in 1847 but the government lost the next election and he resigned from his party. He then helped form the Liberal-Conservative Party who won office in 1854. Macdonald became Attorney-General and was regarded as the most powerful minister in cabinet. After the next election in 1856, he became joint premier of the Province of Canada. Despite the government’s defeat in the 1858 election, the governor-general asked previous joint premier George-Etienne Cartier to be the senior premier only a week later and Macdonald returned to the cabinet with him. This was allowed so long as it was done within a month of resigning from previous cabinet positions. The government was defeated in 1862 and Macdonald became opposition leader before his party won again in 1864.

Leading the Conservatives in a tripartite arrangement known as the Great Coalition, his main aim from 1864 to 1867 was to organize legislation to confederate the Province of Canada and the various other colonies into the country of Canada. He presented his views at the Charlottetown Conference in September 1864 and again at the Quebec Conference in the following month. The final confederation conference was held in London where agreement of the colonies was reached. The Dominion of Canada was created under the British North America Act of 1867, effective from 1 July. Queen Victoria knighted Macdonald for his role in confederation on the same day.

His Conservative Party won the August 1867 election and he became prime minister. His vision was to make Canada even larger and to unify it. His government bought Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory, two large areas to the west of the country for 300,000 pounds from the Hudson’s Bay Company. British Columbia was added to Canada in 1871 after Macdonald promised to connect it to the transcontinental railway. But he was accused of bribery relating to rail construction contracts, which became known as the Pacific Scandal, and he was forced to resign on 5 November 1873.

He regained power and the prime ministership in 1878 with his National Policy of promoting local industry and protecting it from the industry of other countries. He met his promise of finishing the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1885, but sent Canada deep into debt in the process. He and the project regained favor during the North-West Rebellion led by Louis Riel who had returned from exile. Troops were quickly sent to the Saskatchewan District by train and quelled the independence bid. Macdonald again won the 1891 election but by this time he was 76 and feeling the effects of overwork, drinking, and illness. He suffered a stroke on 29 May 1891 and never recovered, dying eight days later aged 76.

In contrast to his public life, his personal life was less successful, and was marred by sickness, drunkenness, debt and unhappiness. He suffered an undiagnosed illness in 1840 to 1842, leaving him weak and listless. In 1842, he sailed to Britain with a large sum of money he had won playing cards and met his cousin Isabella Clark. Six years older than Macdonald, she returned with him to Canada and they married on 1 September 1843. She fell sick in 1845 with headaches and numbness, and took opium and sherry to relieve the severe pain. They traveled to Savannah, Georgia for a while, in the hope that the warmer climate would aid her health but she remained ill. Their son, John Alexander, was born in 1847 but he died in his cot at 13 months. A second son, Hugh John, was born in 1850. Isabella never recovered from her sickness and died in 1857, and the son went to live with Macdonald’s sister Margaret.

The time away from work caring for his sick wife, together with the cost, pushed him into debt. Politicians at the time received only token pay. These pressures drove him to drink and he was often seen at various bars and lounges binge drinking. He once vomited on the speaker’s podium and jokingly told the crowd that hearing his opponents speak caused him to be sick. He was also known for his temper, tearing across the House of Commons floor to attack opponent Donald Smith before being restrained. One of his nicknames was Old Tomorrow as he tended to put things off until circumstances were politically favorable to him. Macdonald married again in 1867 to Susan Agnes Bernard. Their daughter, Margaret Mary Macdonald, had hydrocephalus at birth and suffered physical and mental disabilities but lived to 64 years.

John A. Macdonald is Canada’s second longest serving prime minister. He appears on the 10 dollar bill. Macdonald-Cartier is the name of an international airport, a highway, and a bridge. In Kingston, there is Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard and Macdonald Park, as well as a statue on the corner of West and King streets. Various buildings carry his name too. In 2004, he was voted among the top 10 “Greatest Canadians” by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation viewers.

How Ottawa became the capital of Canada

Tags

Barrack Hill, British North America Act, Bytown, Canada, Colonel John By, Dominion of Canada, Kingston, Lower Canada, Montreal, Odawa people, Ottawa, Province of Canada, Quebec City, Queen Victoria, Rebellion Losses Bill, Toronto, Upper Canada

The Ottawa area was originally the home of the Odawa people, a name that supposedly means “traders”. The first Europeans to settle in the area were a group of families who started farming the banks of the Ottawa River near Chaudiere Falls in 1800. After the Rideau Canal was completed in 1832 by Colonel John By, the population grew steadily. A town that formed was called Bytown. It became a city in 1855 and was renamed Ottawa after the original inhabitants.

At the time, Ottawa was a city in the Province of Canada, covering Labrador, the western part of Quebec, and the southern part of Ontario along the Great Lakes. The province was a British colony from 1841 to 1867 and had been formed through amalgamation of mainly French speaking Lower Canada (Labrador and Quebec) and mainly English speaking Upper Canada (Ontario).

During that period, the province had six changes in capital city. Kingston in present day eastern Ontario was chosen as the new province’s capital in 1841. However, it was considered too small, and vulnerable to American attack so close to the border, and the capital was shifted to Montreal in Quebec in 1844. Five years later, Tories burned the parliament building to the ground in protest against the Rebellion Losses Bill which was to compensate Lower Canadians for property losses in the Rebellions of 1837.

This prompted a shift in the capital to Toronto in 1849 but it only remained the capital until 1852 when Quebec City became capital. It had been a capital city for well over 200 years, having been the capital of New France, a huge area covering roughly the eastern half of today’s Canada and the US. Later it was capital of Quebec province and Lower Canada. By 1856, the capital moved back to Toronto, before it once again shifted to Quebec City in 1859.

Concerned about the constant need to shift the capital city of the Province of Canada due to riots and buildings being burnt in several of the capitals, the advisers to Queen Victoria recommended to her in 1857 to name Ottawa as the capital city. Their reasons were several:

– It was the only sizeable settlement along the old Upper and Lower Canada border, thus being seen as a compromise between the English and French populations.

– The Crown owned Ottawa’s Barrack Hill, the site of an old military base. It was a prominent location and suitable as a site for parliament buildings.

– Ottawa is halfway between Quebec City and Toronto, each being about 300 miles away.

– It would be less likely to be attacked, being in the middle of a dense forest and further from the border than the larger cities, which showed their vulnerability to American attacks in the War of 1812.

– If need be, troops could be easily moved along the Ottawa River and the Rideau Canal in case of impending attack.

– Finally, the city’s small size meant it was less likely to be attacked by mobs with political motivations.

Queen Victoria officially chose Ottawa as the province’s permanent capital in 1857 and work on the new parliament buildings began in 1859 on Barrack Hill. It was North America’s largest construction project to that date. There were delays and cost overruns leading to a commission of inquiry. Construction was still in progress when Queen Victoria’s birthday was celebrated at the site in 1865. This further cemented Ottawa’s position as the future capital and the renamed Parliament Hill as the political centre of the province.

Meanwhile, the move for a confederated Canada was gaining momentum. Following the Charlottetown Conference in September 1864 and the Quebec Conference in the following month, 16 delegates from Canada province and the colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia attended the London Conference of 1866-1867. They drafted the British North America Act and named the new country the Dominion of Canada. The Act was passed on 29 March 1867, effective from 1 July of that year. The Province of Canada was redivided into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, while New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the other two provinces. More provinces were added over the years.

Ottawa, with its grand parliament buildings still unfinished and with a population of 18,000, automatically became the permanent capital city of the new country on 1 July 1867. The parliament buildings were finally finished in 1876. Ottawa now has a population of about 900,000 people and continues as the country’s capital.

Who were the Beothuk people?

Tags

Algonquian languages, Beothuk, Beothuk language, Beothuk people, Canada, Demasduit, Frank Speck, Inuit people, John Cabot, mamateeks, Mikmaq people, Newfoundland, Nonosabasut, Santu Toney, Shanawdithit

The Beothuk people lived on the Canadian island of Newfoundland when the Europeans arrived in the late 15^th and 16^th centuries. They were regarded as a separate ethnic group who had lived on the island for at least 1,500 years.

Their origins are uncertain. Surviving examples of the Beothuk language appear to link it to the Algonquian languages, and recent DNA evidence seems to back this up. In 2007, tests were conducted on parts of the teeth of Nonosabasut and his wife Demasduit who were two of the last surviving Beothuk in the 1820s. These tests linked them to the Mikmaq people who lived on the Nova Scotia peninsula.

Algonquian languages were spoken across a large area of Canada, including the peninsula as well as in the Quebec and Labrador areas, opposite Newfoundland. This indicates that the Beothuk may have migrated from the mainland across the narrow northern entrance to the Gulf of St Lawrence, a distance of about nine miles. They would have seen the island from the mainland and perhaps escaped from an enemy by boat to the island. Or perhaps they were forced to migrate due to famine.

Their first migration is thought to have occurred about 2,000 years ago. The Beothuk went through four cultural phases, each lasting up to about 500 years, suggesting further migration waves.

The DNA testing also showed the Beothuk had only Native American ancestry, quashing an earlier theory that they also had European blood. They may have had early European contact though, when Norse seafarers around 1000 CE encountered people in Newfoundland they called “skraelings”, meaning barbarians.

The Beothuk lived throughout the island, especially around the bays of Notre Dame and Bonavista along the northern coast. Recent estimates of their number at the time of European contact in the late 15^th century are 500-700. They were hunter-gatherers who lived in small tribal groups of 30-60 people.

Their conical shaped houses, or “mamateeks,” were made of a number of sticks leaning inwards and tied at the top before the structure was covered  with birch bark. Extra padding was laid over it in winter. A fireplace for cooking and warmth was dug in the middle. They painted their bodies with red ochre, giving rise to the early European description as “Red Indians.” Their houses, most possessions and even their babies were smeared with this ochre.

Food sources included caribou, seals, salmon and other animals, as well as an assortment of plants. They trapped deer by erecting a line of fencing up to 30-40 miles long. A pudding was made from great auk eggs. They would build up a store of food in their houses for winter. Animal skins were used as clothing. They made canoes of bark.

Regular European contact began in 1497 when John Cabot, an Italian explorer sponsored by the English, set foot on Newfoundland soil. Unlike many indigenous peoples, the Beothuk avoided European contact, moving inland as the new settlements expanded. There was fierce competition between the Beothuk and the newcomers for food and other natural resources and many violent encounters ended in bloodshed. The migrants could be quite cruel towards the Beothuk, leading to many retaliatory attacks by the local people although they seemed reluctant to use firearms.

During the colonial period, other native groups moved to Newfoundland, resulting in loss of territory, causing cultural frictions and placing extra pressure on resources. Mikmaq came from Nova Scotia while Inuit migrated from Labrador as tensions between these groups and Europeans escalated on the mainland. The Beothuk fought these new arrivals as well as the Europeans.

Their numbers declined for these reasons plus disease. They had no immunity to infectious diseases of the Europeans such as smallpox, and also suffered from tuberculosis. Officially, the last surviving Beothuk, Shanawdithit, died of tuberculosis in 1829 aged just 28. Her grave at St. Mary the Virgin Church in St. John’s had to make way for railway construction in 1903. A monument marks the site of the church and her grave. She is well known in Newfoundland.

With Shanawdithit’s passing, the Beothuk race was declared extinct. However, there may have been a few survivors in the Exploits River and Twillingate areas of Newfoundland and also in Labrador. They may have married into European-Canadian, Mikmaq and Inuit families. In 1910, a 75 year old woman, Santu Toney, claimed she had a Beothuk father and Mikmaq mother and recorded a song in Beothuk for Frank Speck, an American anthropologist.

Some scholars believe the Beothuk ultimately became extinct due to European genocide rather than solely through fighting, loss of food sources and disease. They argue that the Tasmanian Aborigines in Australia met a similar fate.

How Alberta became a province

Tags

Alberta, Alexander Rutherford, Assiniboia, Athabasca, Buffalo, Calgary, Canada, Edmonton, Frederick Haultain, John Campbell, Louise Alberta, North-West Territories, Queen Victoria, Regina, Saskatchewan, Wilfrid Laurier

Alberta has been a province of Canada since 1905. The smaller district of Alberta, along with the districts of Athabasca, Assiniboia, and Saskatchewan, had been established in 1882 as part of the vast North-West Territories for administrative purposes, as the area was becoming more populated with various traders and settlers. The districts were officially known as provisional districts.

All four districts contained part of the area that would become the province of Alberta. The district of Alberta covered the southwestern part of today’s province. Athabasca was in the northern half. Assiniboai was mainly in Saskatchewan but it stretched west into current Alberta province. Part of Saskatchewan district also extended west into today’s province of Alberta. The more remote areas of the North-West Territories were divided into further districts in 1895.

Local leaders, especially territories premier Sir Frederick Haultain, lobbied for provincial status for Canada’s western areas for some years. Born in England in 1857 and migrating to Ontario with his family in 1860, he studied law in Toronto before being elected to the territories Legislative Assembly in 1887. He soon led a group of members who wanted responsible government. The Canadian government finally agreed to their wishes and Haultain became the territories first premier in 1897. He was opposed to party politics and although he led the territories Liberal-Conservative Party, there were also a number of liberals and conservatives in his cabinet.

He led provincial status negotiations with the Canadian government, arguing in 1904 that the North-West Territories should become one large province called Buffalo to be run by a non-partisan government. He wanted the town of Regina to be its capital city rather than the larger centers of Calgary or Edmonton to the west. However, residents of each of those cities pushed for their own city to become the capital of any new province. Other proposals included three provinces, and two provinces with a west-east border.

Another problem for Haultain was his poor relationship with Canadian prime minister and federal liberal leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He had led his party since 1887 and built a strong enough following to become prime minister in 1896 after a string of conservative and liberal-conservative prime ministers. Laurier was the country’s first francophone prime minister and built a power base in Quebec, a previous conservative stronghold. He believed in the separation of church and state, which was strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church. The last thing he wanted was a large province in the west run by a liberal-conservative party with a liberal-conservative premier.

Haultain was becoming increasingly identified as a conservative and campaigned for the Conservative Party in the federal election in 1904, arguably in a bid to have Laurier ousted as prime minister and boost the chances of his dream of the territories becoming the province of Buffalo. But Laurier was returned with an increased majority. The liberal vote was highest in the territories, perhaps as a backlash against Haultain by Edmonton and Calgary residents.

Basking in his re-election success, Laurier decided he didn’t want one large province of any political persuasion which might eventually rival Quebec or Ontario. Nor did he support three provinces in the less populated western areas. He chose a two province plan and introduced bills in the House of Commons on 21 February 1905 to create Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces. The Alberta Act and the Saskatchewan Act were passed into law on 20 July 1905. Edmonton and Regina would be the respective capital cities of the new provinces.

Alberta was promoted to province status at noon on 1 September 1905 in an official inauguration ceremony attended by Laurier at Rossdale Flats, Edmonton. (Saskatchewan’s turn came three days later at Regina.) About 12,000 Edmonton residents attended the ceremony. As part of the celebrations, a concert featuring a 15 piece orchestra and 41 member choir was held at the Thistle Rink the previous evening. A parade was held on Jasper Avenue on the morning of Inauguration Day. Alberta was named after the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria, Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, who was married to John Campbell, Canada’s governor-general from 1878 to 1883.

Alexander Cameron Rutherford was appointed as Alberta’s premier on 2 September, the day after the inauguration. Elections were held on 9 November 1905 with Rutherford’s Alberta Liberal Party winning 23 of 25 seats. It was a bitter election with the liberals accused of vote tampering and harassing conservative voters. The conservatives had little clout as Haultain had moved to Saskatchewan where its first election, on 13 December 1905, was also won by the liberals, and Haultain became that province’s Opposition leader.

Thus the four districts of Alberta, Athabasca, Assiniboia, and Saskatchewan were reorganized into the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Both provinces were considerably smaller than Ontario or Quebec. The Acts allowed the Canadian government to retain control of all natural resources and public lands of both provinces until the Natural Resources Transfer Acts were passed in 1930.

Who was Coriolanus in ancient Rome?

Tags

Albinus, ancient Rome, aristocrats, Aufidius, Brutus, Collatinus, Coriolanus, plebeians, Publicola, Romans, Rome, Tarquin the Proud, Volscians

Gaius Marcius Coriolanus may have been a Roman aristocrat and army general in the fifth century BCE. He allegedly led an army against the Volscians, a tribe who invaded Roman territory in central Italy. He acquired his title “Coriolanus” due to his valor during a siege of Volscian city Corioli. The two major factors dominating his career were the war with the Volscians and the conflict of orders within the new Roman Republic. He later changed sides.

In the lead up to the Volscian war, Roman king Tarquin the Proud had been expelled by two princes, Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, who themselves fell out. When Collatunis was banished and Brutus died in battle, Publius Valerius Publicola became ruler. He decided to share this power, forming a republic to be run by two consuls: himself and a colleague. This arrangement only lasted one or two years, but it weakened Rome.

Nearby Latium cities wanted independence. Although they were defeated by Roman leader Aulus Postumius Albinus, Rome’s perceived weakness encouraged mountain tribes such as the Volscians to seek better pastures on the plains. They conquered the towns and the battles continued on an annual basis.

The conflict of orders resulting from the replacement of the king by several aristocrats was the other main issue. Few Romans had benefited from the new republic. The economy contracted, product quality declined, imports fell, and a debt crisis emerged. Social tensions developed between rich and poor, something a king might have been able to resolve more satisfactorily than the ruling aristocrats who favored the rich. The plebeians, who were the poorest Romans, had earlier set up a “tribunus plebes” to help defend their rights and this had been recognised by the aristocrats.

Coriolanus defeated the Volscians and gained the support of the aristocrats in the senate. But he had little time for the plebeians, wanting to use the current food crisis to punish them. The government had to import grain and Coriolanus proposed that the tribunate be abolished before they could receive any food. Riots ensued and he was asked to front a people’s assembly arranged by the tribunes. Perhaps fearing for his life, he refused and went into exile. Another version has him convicted of misappropriation of public funds and banished from Rome for life.

As payback for not getting his way, Coriolanus joined the Volscians, his old enemy, and would fight against the Romans. He went to the home of Volscian aristocrat Tullus Aufidius and convinced him to help persuade his people to break their truce with the Romans and build an army to invade Rome. He became a general in the Volscian army and led a successful attack against the port of Cercii in the south before capturing the towns of Tolerium, Bola, Pedum, Labici, Corbio, and Bovillae.

When his army threatened Rome itself, Coriolanus’ wife and mother were among the women sent to try and convince him not to attack. He relented before returning to Antrium. In a second campaign, he took Longula, Satricum, Ecetra, Setia, Pollusca, Mugilla, and Corioli. He ordered his troops to destroy plebeian farms but not those of aristocrats. In the end, he was put on trial by the Volscians but was assassinated before its conclusion.

Historians in later ancient times, such as Livy and Plutarch, believed that Coriolanus was a real person. However, most modern historians regard the story as a legend written to show traits like disloyalty and ingratitude and how Rome had indeed lost battles to the Volscians.

How were women treated in ancient Rome?

Tags

adultery, ancient Rome, Cato the Elder, Emperor Augustus, marriage, Roman law, Roman Republic, Romans, Rome, Sabines, treatment of women, women, women's rights

Women in ancient Rome had fewer rights than their male counterparts, although they probably weren’t treated as poorly as in some societies at the time and things did appear to improve over the Roman period.

In the years after the founding of Rome, women were abducted from the Sabines, a tribe who already lived in the area. This practice stopped after the Romans and the Sabines formed a single nation. Women soon became more respected due to the need to boost the birth rate and the overall population so that Rome could defend itself and expand its territory.

Despite some improvements, women did not have citizenship, nor could they vote or hold public office, and could not own property. Their main role, apart from bearing children, was to wait on their husbands, look after their family, and do the housework, including making clothes and other items. In households with slaves, women would usually supervise their work.

A woman was regarded as a minor in Roman law and her husband was her guardian, or if she had no husband her nearest male relative filled this role. If her husband died intestate, his property automatically passed to the nearest male relative. Perhaps surprisingly, divorce was fairly easy and would be granted if the woman left her husband’s house.

In the early and middle years of the Roman Republic, or around the third to the fifth centuries BCE, women were not usually allowed to leave the house without their veil, or to speak in private to a man outside the family, or to drink wine. Breaking these rules could result in punishment or even divorce. Women did not eat with their husbands, but ate with other female family members and children.

In the late republican period, these rules were often eased, such as women being allowed to eat with their husbands in the dining room. They could also walk the streets freely or go to bath houses. In 195 BCE, women publicly complained about laws preventing them from wearing expensive clothing and jewelry or riding in chariots. Roman statesman Cato the Elder chided them but the laws were rescinded. The education of women also began around this time.

By the first century BCE, the standing of women was considerably higher than in early republican times, although they still couldn’t hold office. The increasing wealth of Rome meant that women had more time and money to pursue interests outside the home.

In marriage, they were able to stay under the authority of their family rather than their husband; other relatives tended to be less strict than their spouse. When they married, they could retain their own money, which meant easier divorce if they needed one, and greater freedom. Adultery was becoming less of a sin. Women could provide advice to their husband and it became socially acceptable for a man to admit he took this advice. This is in contrast to earlier times where women were not permitted to even make suggestions.

Emperor Augustus tried to make a series of changes relating to women and families soon after the start of the Roman Empire in 27 BCE. He felt that women did not value marriage and had too much freedom. Various reforms were put in place. A woman would be banished or lose half her dowry is she committed adultery. If the offence took place in her husband’s house, he was entitled to kill her. Similarly, he could kill his daughter for adultery. Women under the age of 50 had to be married or lose their inheritance. Further, they could not attend public events by themselves.

But the reforms were unpopular with just about everyone and were regarded as a backward step in a society where the standing of women had increased steadily over the years. The “reforms” were doomed to failure.

Women in ancient Rome continued to have a lifestyle that was better than in most other ancient societies, although they never gained anything close to equality. While their lives were centered around the home, they did have considerable freedoms.

Architecture in ancient Rome

Tags

ancient Rome, Aqueduct of Segovia, architecture, Colosseum, concrete, Etruscans, Greeks, marble, Merida Bridge, Ostia, Pantheon, Roman architecture, Roman housing, Romans, Rome

Ancient Roman architecture borrowed heavily from Greek architecture, such as the huge columns used in temples, but it soon developed its own distinctive style of domes, arches and vaults. These features hadn’t been used before and can be attributed to the innovative use of concrete by the Romans. They also learnt from the Etruscans to the north with their knowledge of hydraulics and arch construction.

The Romans’ use of arches allowed them to build aqueducts across the empire. Examples include 11 aqueducts in Rome and the almost intact Aqueduct of Segovia on the Iberian Peninsula. Many bridges were constructed using the same principle, such as the Merida Bridge over two forks of the Guadiana River in Spain with its 60 arches. Similarly, the invention of the dome produced innovations in public building. Vaulted ceilings allowed taller, wider public buildings, including basilicas and bath houses. Huge temples were constructed, such as the Pantheon in Rome with its large concrete dome and its open spaces. Over 220 amphitheatres, including the Colosseum, were used for public meetings, displays, and gladiatorial contests. The Romans built many lighthouses too. Many of their buildings and structures still stand.

Private housing and associated structures were also made to last. Most obvious are private baths and latrines as well as water pipes, hypocausts for under floor heating, and double glazing. The Romans built multi-story apartment blocks or “insula.” The residences within these blocks were semi-detached and each one had its own terrace and entrance. Apartments had a similar floor plan, making these buildings cheap and easy to construct. Rooms were basic yet functional. Interior walls were often plastered and painted in colorful patterns such as alternating stripes of red and rainbow. Despite being regarded as unhealthy fire hazards, some of these building still stand, such as in the Roman city of Ostia.

In the early period of Roman civilization, the predominant building material was marble. This was used to construct buildings with thick columns supporting flat architraves, very much in the Greek style. When concrete became the main material, covered with tiles, larger and more imposing buildings were erected, with pillars supporting arches and domes. Concrete allowed colonnade screens of decorative columns to be erected in front of load bearing walls. It also allowed large open spaces within buildings rather than smaller rectangular cells.

Concrete wasn’t invented by the Romans. This honor probably goes to the Mesopotamians, who used it as a minor or supplementary material. But the Romans were the first to use it on a large scale. Their concrete included stones, sand, water and lime mortar, making it stronger than earlier concrete. These ingredients were put into wooden frames and allowed to harden and bond with bricks or stones to make a strong wall. The surface was smoothed and a layer of stucco or tiles of marble or other stone was added. Mosaic patterns made of colored stone became popular in the first and second centuries for both public and private buildings, complementing the murals that already decorated many floors and walls.

The greater use of concrete and the resulting grandeur of Roman public architecture greatly assisted the expansion of the empire. The buildings were not only constructed to perform their intended use but also to impress. They were very durable, many of them withstanding wars and the environment for 2000 years.

Romulus and Remus: The beginnings of Roman civilization

Tags

Alba Longa, Amulius, ancient Rome, Etruscans, Numa Pompilius, Numitor, Palatine Hill, Remus, Romans, Rome, Romulus, Sabines, Seven Hills of Rome, Titus Tatius

Romulus and Remus were part of the royal family of the city of Alba Longa, southeast of Rome, a family whose ancestors had fled from Troy in present day Turkey. Brothers Numitor and Amulius had assumed the throne after their father’s death. Numitor had a daughter Rhea Silvia, but he feared she might have children who would eventually overthrow him. He forced her to become a vestal virgin priestess which meant she had to swear to abstinence.

But Mars, the god of war, seduced her and she had twin boys Romulus and Remus. Modern day historians believe that Amulius may have been the father. The story has several variations, but it seems that a servant was ordered to kill the illegitimate twins. Unable to bring himself to commit such an act, he cast them adrift in the Tiber where they were looked after by river god Tiberius before they were nursed in a cave by a she-wolf. The twins were found by Amulius’ shepherd Faustulus who, with his wife, raised the boys.

When they reached adulthood, Romulus and Remus killed their great uncle Amulius, who had overthrown their grandfather Numitor. This meant Numitor was restored to the throne. After this, the twins decided to found their own town and chose the spot, Palatine Hill, where the wolf had nursed them. This is the center of the Seven Hills of Rome. Each brother supposedly stood on a hill, and when a flock of birds flew past Romulus, this signified that he should become king of the new city. He started building the walls but Remus complained they were too low and demonstrated this by jumping over them. In a fit of rage, Romulus killed him. In another version, Remus was killed after the twins argued about who had the support of the local gods and thus have the city named after him.

Romulus kept building the new city and named it Roma (Rome) after himself. The first citizens, who were fugitives and outlaws, settled on Capitoline Hill. A shortage of wives for these men prompted Romulus to abduct some women from the Sabine tribe to the north. The Sabine king Titus Tatius and his men were furious and went to war against Romulus and his settlers. But the Sabine women were happy with their new husbands and urged a ceasefire between the warring parties. They joined forces and Romulus and Titus Tatius were joint rulers of their combined groups for five years until Tatius was assassinated by outsiders.

As sole king, Romulus legislated against murder and adultery. There were three tribes under his rule: the Latins from the area around Rome itself, the Sabines, and the Etruscans further north. Together they became the Romans. Romulus divided each tribe into 10 curiae or subdivisions for administrative purposes. A tribune or elected official represented each tribe in civil, military, and religious matters. Romulus fought many wars and expanded the Roman territory for more than 20 years, gaining control over much of today’s central and northern Italy. When Numitor died, Romulus took over as ruler of Alba Longa too, appointing a governor to manage the city’s affairs.

Legend has it that Romulus disappeared supernaturally in a storm after leading the Romans for 37 years. A senator announced to the people that their leader had gone to live with the gods. A temple was built to him on Quirinal Hill. Numa Pompilius, Tatius’ son in law, became Rome’s second king. Modern day analysis suggests that little if any of the story is true. It may have been taken from a Greek tale a few centuries after the founding of Rome in order to explain the origin of the name and some of its early customs.

England’s Navigation Act of 1651

Tags

American Revolution, British Empire, Charles II, Eighty Years' War, England, Europe, First Anglo-Dutch War, Greenland Company, Levant Company, Molasses Act, Navigation Act, Netherlands, Royal Navy, Second Anglo-Dutch War, shipping, Spain, trade, transport, Treaty of Westminster

The Navigation Act of 1651 was passed by the English Parliament in an attempt to prevent non-English ships from transporting goods to England from places outside of Europe, while both English ships and those from the originating country could carry goods within Europe. It was one of several navigation Acts passed by parliament.

England has legislated in the areas of shipping and trade since as early as 1381. The navigation acts were brought about due to the deterioration in English trade following the end of the Eighty Years’ War between the Dutch and the Spanish in 1648. The Dutch emerged with an overwhelming competitive advantage in coastal trade throughout most of Europe. Also, the level of trade in English commodities fell due to a substantial increase in goods from Mediterranean countries, as well as the Levant, the Iberian Peninsula and the West Indies.

The English wanted to stop or reduce the market for these imports. A precedent had already been set in 1645 when the Greenland Company persuaded parliament to pass an Act stopping whale imports other than by this company. Similarly, in 1648 the Levant Company petitioned to prevent Turkish imports. By 1650, parliament was preparing a policy to restrict imports via the Netherlands. A bill was passed in 1651 stating that English trade was to be carried in English ships. The bill was largely a reaction to the failure of the Netherlands to agree to an English proposal to join forces and take over Spanish and Portuguese colonial possessions. England’s idea was for it to take over America and the Dutch could have Africa and Asia. But the Dutch had just finished a protracted war against Spain and had already gained several Portuguese colonies in Asia and weren’t interested. Instead, they suggested a free trade agreement. This would be to the Netherlands disadvantage as they had been the leading sea trader for many years, with their superior ships, lower tariffs and a near monopoly in the Baltic area. England rejected the idea and took the proposal as an affront.

The new Act prevented foreign ships carrying goods from outside the European area to England or English colonies, and also denied other countries from transporting goods from European countries to England except for a ship belonging to a country where the goods originated. Thus the Act specifically targeted the Dutch and the advantage it had in sea trade, something the Dutch economy had become quite dependent on. The failure of negotiations and the Act itself are often blamed for the First Anglo-Dutch War of 1652-54. English naval supremacy resulted in several battle wins in the North Sea, but the Dutch were able to close down English trade in the Mediterranean and the Baltic. Finally, the Treaty of Westminster ended the war in 1654, although English trade continued to suffer at the hands of the Dutch.

All Acts, including the Navigation Act of 1651, were declared void when Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 following a period of military and parliamentary rule that operated after the English Civil War. A new Act, the Navigation Act of 1660, was similar to the preceding Act. Another Act, the Navigation Act of 1663, stated that European goods heading for the colonies, including America, had to go via England, where they had to be unloaded, inspected and reloaded, but not before the duties were paid. Costs and delivery times increased. Neither Act lasted long. Following the Second Anglo-Dutch War of 1665-67, the Dutch gained various trade concessions.

The end of the Navigation Acts came in 1849 due to growing support for free trade. The aim of the Acts had been to gain wealth through restricting trade. But in the end, they pushed costs up. By the mid 19^th century, England wanted to reduce food prices for the starving masses in the industrial towns and saw that it could do this through cheap imports.

The effects of the Navigation Acts were mixed. In the short and medium term, there were a number of benefits, at least for England. The Acts limited Dutch trade, and may have contributed greatly to London becoming a commercial center for American goods. An increase in English trade led to a larger and more powerful Royal Navy, enabling the British Empire to flourish. Even so, the Dutch trading system was so efficient that they were able to maintain their trade supremacy. The Navigation Acts caused colonial resentment and were partly responsible for the American Revolution. They also led to higher prices and inefficiency, which eventually prompted Britain to repeal them.

A further navigation Act, the Molasses Act of 1733, resulted in heavy duties on French West Indies sugar headed to America, who then had to buy the more expensive British West Indies sugar.

Should Australia increase its GST rate?

Tags

abolish the states, Australia, budget, carbon pricing, Coalition, GFC, GST, Labor Party, land tax, tax concessions, tax on consumption, tax on income, tax reform

I posted the following comment to a Business Spectator article (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2015/8/21/tax/nsw-presses-case-15-gst) yesterday:

An increase in the GST [goods and services tax] rate is probably the way to go. When a country raises a large proportion of its taxes from income, as in Australia, it is more susceptible to the ups and downs in the economic cycle. This is because income (and therefore taxes on it) fluctuates more than consumption (and the taxes raised on it). Thus it would probably make sense to increase the proportion of tax on consumption, such as an increase in the GST to 15%. What’s in and what’s out can be discussed. At the same time, we would need to lower tax rates on income, especially at the lower levels, to compensate.

But the net change in tax wouldn’t amount to much. It might be a relatively small increase and we would still be running the large deficits we’ve had ever since the GFC pushed revenue through the floor, and it still hasn’t recovered. Practically every government (left, right and centre) in the world ran deficits at the time of the GFC to keep their economies out of recession or in many cases to ease the severity of an inevitable recession.

The Coalition is now pushing the federal government debt up by $5 billion a month because they have reduced taxes and increased expenditure. Expenditure by the Coalition will average 25.6% of GDP in 2014-15 to 2018-19 compared with Labor’s average of 24.9% in 2008-09 to 2012-13 and that period included the GFC and stimulus packages to keep us out of recession. But fundamentally, it remains a revenue problem rather than an expenditure one. The Coalition has pushed the federal government debt up from $265 billion to $380 billion in 23 months. At that rate, the debt will be around $900 billion by 2023-24.

The problem started in the early and mid 2000s with endless tax cuts and high expenditure with the government not putting much away for a rainy day. The previous Coalition government was wasteful according to a 2013 IMF report using data to 2011 that found the Australian government “profligate” in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (and 1942 and 1960). Also, public service numbers increased by 40,000 from 2000 to 2007 compared with 5000 between 2008 and 2013.

In order to fix the problems that the previous and current Coalition governments have given us, we will need to do much more than fiddle with GST. We would still need to look at the overly generous tax concessions on property investment and superannuation. Tax concessions amount to about $120 billion a year or 8% of GDP, far higher than comparable countries.

We would also need to look at some form of carbon pricing rather than the expensive and ineffective Direct Action which has pushed emissions back up after we saw a fall during the time of the carbon tax. Getting rid of carbon pricing will cost the budget $18 billion over four years according to the Parliamentary Budget Office or about $800 a person.

Land tax is another option that should be discussed.

We might also need to abolish the states and save $50 billion a year according to a 2007 estimate in a PhD study by Dr Mark Drummond. At the moment we have eight systems (six states and two territories) all basically doing the same thing, which the federal government (one system) could do, rather than all the current inefficiencies, overlapping and fighting.

But the problem at the moment is that we have a federal government that wants a “mature” debate on tax but has ruled out most areas of potential reform, or has placed various conditions such as with any changes to the GST making agreement unlikely. They will probably just keep on playing the blame game like kids. There will be plenty of talk but in the end nothing much will be done.