Monday, November 19, 2018

Winter of Darwin, Voyaging with Beagle I


Winter of Darwin, Voyaging with Beagle I

1831-1834
After geological ages of reading about evolution pro and con and about Charles Darwin pro and con, I decided to read his “Voyage of the Beagle” and “Origin of the Species.”  My goal is to finish “Voyage” in time to start “Origin” as my son at Thomas Aquinas College begins his spring semester with it. Hopefully we can read it together and compare notes.  But first, “Voyage of the Beagle.”

It was during this voyage, after all, that Darwin got the inspiration for natural selection – supposedly at the Galapagos Islands.  The Galapagos have become a symbol, kind of a Mt. Sinai for devoted evolutionists.  Does the account in “Voyage of the Beagle” warrant this esteem?  What does the book, as a whole, say about Darwin and world he explored and what he made of it?

As background, Darwin was not the first or the last naturalist to take advantage of European navies and colonies to explore the natural world of newly discovered lands: Joseph Banks, Alexander Humboldt, and Thomas Henry Huxley are among the men made famous by such endeavors.  In the excellent “Master and Commander” novels by Patrick O’Brian, the surgeon, Stephen Maturin, is a fictional embodiment of this model.  (O’Brian also made Maturin a master spy and, eventually, very wealthy but he remained an absent-minded naturalist to the end.  And lest anyone think Maturin, as naturalist, is a straight copy of Charles Darwin, let it be pointed out that O’Brian also published a lengthy biography of Sir Joseph Banks.)  The image of Dr. Maturin, however dressed up for dramatic fiction, helped this reader with the context in which Darwin worked.

From December, 1831, to October, 1836, the Beagle sailed around the world, spending the bulk of its time surveying the coast of South America.  Darwin spent most of this South American time ashore, traveling far inland over the pampas and by river, cataloging plants and animals and geology – and observing the people and communities that he encountered.  (Small communities, that is.  He has very little to report regarding any large cities – except how far he had to travel to get to anything of interest to a naturalist.)

Given the controversies that followed publication of “Origin of Species” and all later discoveries and elaborations of the theory of evolution, it is impossible to read the “Voyage” without looking for hints of the later theory.  Actually, the accepted timetable makes this both murkier and more necessary: Darwin is supposed to have thought of the theory of natural selection in 1838; he published the first edition of “Voyage” in 1839; then in 1845 he updated “Voyage” with more developed views and hints at his theory; he did not actually publish “Origin of the Species” until 1859.

But whether placed strategically as foundations for his theory’s later publication or included as natural observations, the questions that the natural world provoked in Darwin’s mind would eventually have been synthesized by someone into something like his origin of the species by natural selection.  (In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace was drawing to similar conclusions concurrent with Darwin.)

My reading of the “Voyage” has reached the middle of the book, the end of 1834 and completion of the Beagle’s South American coastal surveys.  While he has not reached the Galapagos Islands at this point, there are several topics that already hint at natural selection:

  • ·         Page 144: in describing a particular “niata” breed of oxen, Darwin notes that during droughts these animals need special attention or they would perish; the structure of their lips do not enable them to browse on twigs and reeds.  He does not use the term here, but this observation suggests fitness for survival in changing conditions.
  • ·         On page 164, Darwin notes the relationships, the similarities between extinct species and living species.  Throughout his South American tour, he looks for fossils and speculates on the changes in environment since the animals (often giant sloths) passed away. 
  • ·         Considering the fecundity of nature, Darwin speculates that “some check is constantly preventing the too rapid increase of every organized being left in a state of nature.”  (Page 166) He does not here use the term “natural selection” but a basic supporting observation has been made.


Whether these were innocent observations or whether Darwin was deliberately hinting at his synthesis, the modern reader can hardly help but to spot seeds of evolutionary theory.  These observations should also remind us that the facts which Darwin interpreted were there to be seen by anyone who looked.  While he is to be credited with the vision and intellectual courage to grasp and build his theory the facts – those stubborn things – were there.

Interestingly and not surprisingly, Darwin was an Englishman of his times.  One practice that jars modern sensibilities is the casualness with which he kills animals for specimens.  At one point he describes how he snuck up on a fox which was engrossed in watching his companions and dispatched it with a hammer blow to the head.  Of course, one has to gather specimens somehow, but the frank act of killing them brings one up short.  (Those who have seen the “Master and Commander” movie and recall the specimen hunting on the Galapagos Islands will remember that they were all alive in cages – and that Stephen had them all released when the group had to dash back to camp.  I hadn’t previously thought of that episode as possibly anachronistic.  And to digress further in a “the book was better” direction, among Stephen Maturin’s unnatural accomplishments was that he was a dead shot.)

Moreover, as an Englishman Darwin definitely sees things from that perspective:
“The perfect equality among the individuals composing the Fuegian tribes must for a long time retard their civilization…  In Tierra del Fuego, until some chief shall arise with power sufficient to secure any acquired advantage, such as the domesticated animals, it seems scarcely possible that the political state of the country can be improved.  At present, even a piece of cloth given to one is torn into shreds and distributed; and no one individual becomes richer than another.  On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how a chief can arise till there is property of some sort by which he might manifest his superiority and increase his power.”  Page 209
Which states the case for property and hierarchy as the basis of ordered civilization. 

And yet, Darwin can note the downside of civilization:
“The Gausos of Chile, who correspond to the Gauchos of the Pampas, are, however, a very different set of beings.  Chile is the more civilized of the two countries, and the inhabitants, in consequence, have lost much individual character.  Gradation in rank are much more strongly marked: the Gauso does not by any means consider every man his equal; and I was quite surprised to find that my companions did not like to eat at the same time with myself.  This feeling of inequality is a necessary consequence of the existence of an aristocracy of wealth.” Page 232

These sociological observations have little bearing on the origin of species, however latent, except perhaps indirectly: noting the inevitable human adaptations to certain circumstances.  Rather, what make me mark them is the ambivalence these passages reveal in Darwin’s view of civilization.  Who among us hasn’t thought much the same two things: We need order!  We need individuality!

His honest appraisal of humanity – which we can all validate – lends credence to his appraisal of nature – which is more remote to our very evolved, civilized selves.

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Shay’s Rebellion, Now and Then


Shay’s Rebellion, Now and Then
From Wikipedia, Shay’s Rebellion Seen Now:
Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in Massachusetts, mostly in and around Springfield during 1786 and 1787. American Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays led four thousand rebels (called Shaysites) in a protest against perceived economic and civil rights injustices. Shays was a farmhand from Massachusetts at the beginning of the Revolutionary War; he joined the Continental Army, saw action at the Battles of Lexington and ConcordBattle of Bunker Hill, and Battles of Saratoga, and was eventually wounded in action.
In 1787, Shays' rebels marched on the United States' Armory at Springfield in an unsuccessful attempt to seize its weaponry and overthrow the government. The federal government found itself unable to finance troops to put down the rebellion, and it was consequently put down by the Massachusetts State militia and a privately funded local militia. The widely held view was that the Articles of Confederation needed to be reformed as the country's governing document, and the events of the rebellion served as a catalyst for the Constitutional Convention and the creation of the new government.
The shock of Shays' Rebellion drew retired General George Washington back into public life, leading to his two terms as the United States' first President. There is still debate among scholars concerning the rebellion's influence on the Constitution and its ratification.

There are two points I’d like to make.  One is that it is difficult to assess the real significance of some events at the time they are happening.  This is a commonplace, but it bears frequent repeating in a world of 24x7 hyperventilating news cycles.

The second point is that even where the historical ramifications of an event are unknown, contemporary reactions can reveal characters and tendencies that themselves will take a generation to unfold.

Shay’s Rebellion, Seen Then:

In my gradual reading of “The Adams-Jefferson Letters” and of the first volume of the “John Quincy Adams Diaries,” we can see an interesting example of how a latterly historically important event was viewed by some contemporaries:

John Quincy Adams, then a student at Harvard, made a single entry in his diary specifically about the rebellion, September 7, 1786: the Commonwealth is “in a state of considerable fermentation.”  He recounts how about 400 men had twice prevented the Court of Common Pleas from sitting and how the Governor was working to raise a militia and was calling on the people to support the Constitution.  (That would be the state constitution.)  John Quincy fears blood will be shed.  While he acknowledges some of the rebels’ grievances, he blames the rebels for their idleness and dissipation.  He also suggests that such disturbances might be “highly medicinal” to a Republican Government if properly managed.

John Adams, then the US ambassador to England included in a November 30, 1786, letter to Thomas Jefferson in France, this seemingly sanguine paragraph:
Don’t be alarmed at the late Turbulence in New England.  The Massachusetts Assembly had, in its Zeal to get the better of their Debt, laid on a Tax rather heavier than the People could bear; but all will be well, and this Commotion will terminate in additional Strength to Government.”[1]

(However mild he may have conveyed the story in his letter, the rebellion seemed to spur Adams in finishing a work he had already begun, his “Defence of the Constitutions of the United States.”  This book is thought to have helped prepare the ground for the work of the convention in Philadelphia in June, 1787.[2]

Abigail Adams, in January, 1787, wrote to Jefferson is stronger tones, describing “Ignorant, restless desperadoes, without conscience or principals,” with disparate and contradictory slogans leading mobs to stop the courts in several counties.  She also, like her husband and son, foresees that this trouble will prove “salutary to the state at large.”[3]

Interestingly, although the three Adamses differ in the intensity of their alarm, all three see in the rebellion an opportunity to improve or strengthen the government.  There are similarities in this optimistic view with the famous statement from Jefferson, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.”[4]

On the one hand, it is natural that all of the Revolutionary generation would share, to some degree, in this sentiment.  They had just fought a long war to free themselves from the tyranny they saw gripping them from England.

On the other hand, each of the Adams family saw the Rebellion as regrettable and they stood on the side of orderly government.  They felt that through dealing with the uprising, orderly government and support for it would be strengthened.

Jefferson saw it from another angle.  A fuller version of his quote:
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

Here, even if they are mistaken, they should throw off lethargy and resist.  The purpose of their resistance is to warn the rulers that they “preserve the spirit of resistance.”  Afterall, “what signify a few lives lost”?

In an earlier post I wrote about how the historical, detailed Adams and Jefferson of their letters did not look like the thumbnail sketches we hold in our minds.  But here, in their respective, contemporary reactions to Shay’s Rebellion, we can begin to some daylight between them, some significant differences begin to emerge.


[1] “The Adams-Jefferson Letters,” edited by Lester J. Cappon, Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1959, p. 156.
[2]  Ibid, p.167.
[3] Ibid, p. 168
[4] Jefferson in a letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787, as quoted on http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100