Michael Faraday, least known but greatest scientist

Most people have never heard of Michael Faraday but among scientists he is considered premier. Born in Newington Butts, a small village across the river from London, in 1791, N.B. is now in the middle of the metro.  His family was Glassite, a spin-off religious sect from the American First Great Awakening (1740-42).  The group was pietistic and somewhat like a Calvinist church that began believing Luther’s views.  For example, they believed in Entire Grace, that Jesus saves entirely by His death on the cross and our faith is just a response—there is no work-righteousness in believing. But they were also austere and believed in not accumulating wealth.  And Faraday deeply believed that faith, discovery and science were intertwined. This attitude is probably why our secular historians don’t find his story appealing. 

            Michael Faraday was poor and had only the barest of educations—2 years.  His dad was a blacksmith.  Michael educated himself. He apprenticed to a bookseller and became the kid who couldn’t stop reading. Isaac Newton and Isaac Watts—he read everybody—but his favorite book was Jane Marcet’s Conversations on Chemistry.  He made friends with William Dance head of the Royal Philharmonic Society and Dance who got him tickets to attend lectures of the Royal Society--Europe’s most prestigious scientists. Sir Humphry Davy, a chemist hired him as assistant after an explosive accident with nitrogen tricloride left him half-blind. He and Michael had another explosion, but not before they discovered clathrate hydrate of chorine and benzene.  A strong sense of God’s unity with nature’s laws drove Faraday on quest. 

            In class-based Georgian England, he was still a peasant class kid.  Sir Davy went on a two year tour of Europe and Faraday soaked it up, visiting scientists as a valet and aide to the blinded Davy.  Back in London he did landmark experiments in electrolysis and studying electricity, discovering nanoparticles—the beginning of “nanoscience”. His anode-cathode batteries were far better than anything prior for storage of electricity, and then he listened to Davy and Wollaston discuss their inability to make an “electric motor”.  Faraday succeeded with a simple homopolar motor.  When Davy died in 1831 and left the lab to Faraday, he began a series of experiments that led to the discovery of electromagnetic induction (two coils of wire wrapped around an iron.  When electric current is passed through one coil, it induces current in the second coil.) Faraday further found that merely moving a magnet next to a coil induces current, a principle he used to build the first dynamo, forerunner of our modern generators.  His Law of Induction became one of the 4 Laws of Electrodynamics. He proposed that a “field” surrounded currents and magnets and unified virtually all studies of electric theory into an easy understanding we possess today. Diamagnetism, polarization, magnetic shielding were all his discoveries.  He succeeded where others did not because he was so rigorous in measurement and so clear in problem posing and analysis. And while all this was going on, he investigated coal mine explosions uncovering coal dust as a hazard, solved chemical explosions, and designed better lenses for lighthouses and corrosion resistant paints for the Royal Navy,  He served as one of the world’s first expert witnesses in a court case. Did I mention that his studies of pollution of the River Thames marked the beginning of environmental science?

            So why do so few moderns know of Faraday? He was a devout Christian who shunned titles and several offers of knighthood.  The Royal Society named him Superintendent of the Royal Institute and the queen gave him a house of his own.  But Faraday loved God and often broke appointments with big shots to comfort a dying person in his church.  He refused the Queen’s offer to bury him at Westminister Abbey and he is buried in the Dissenters (non-Anglican section) of a small cemetery in London.  He wanted to be plain “Mr. Faraday” to the end.  Such religious devotion and humility may seem “kooky” to some historians, his attitudes, odd to the British.  But to many Christians, his focus on a relationship with God and the fact that all our earthly accomplishments count for nothing to the Maker of All, do indeed resonate. You can still visit his lab and workshop in London.  The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion is an interdisciplinary school at Cambridge that studies the ties between science and faith. And many streets in towns of England and Scotland are named after him.  Ask what he did, however, and most people are clueless.  Just say he invented the transformer.

Emily West, Yellow Rose of Texas

This story celebrates April 21, anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto and a very good spy.  The Bible has several stories of women of ill-repute.  For reasons we can only guess, Rahab, likely an important member of the cult prostitutes of Jericho, decided to throw in with the Israelites. She became the great grandmother of King David.  Ruth, the Moabite, seduced (Well, is there a better word for it when you crawl under the blanket with a drunk man?) Boaz and became the grandmother of King David. Then, 9 generations earlier, there’s that strange story of Tamar in Genesis 38.  In a society that took pains for marital fidelity, these are almost embarrassing stories to be included in scripture.  Their lesson: It doesn’t matter what sordid life you’ve led or what commandment you break, God wants sinners who turn to Him.

            Emily D. West, a free woman of color from New York, signed an indentured servant contract with James Morgan to be his housekeeper in Galveston Bay, Texas in 1835. While West and other of Morgan's servants were in transit to in 1836, the Mexican cavalry arrived in New Washington, looting the town and and seizing many of its inhabitants, along with the traveling servants. General Antonio López de Santa Anna then set fire to the town, killed many of its people, and West was forced to accompany the Mexican cavalry as they left New Washington. 

            Santa Anna was a brilliant military man.  With 4000 soldiers he had come to put down a Texian rebellion with brutal force to scare the immigrants into submission or force them to leave.  Texas had 30,000 Texians, mostly American immigrants and 7000 Tejanos, Mexican nationals. The Texians had agreed to become Catholic and be Mexican citizens, but when Santa Anna, the dictator, took away federalism thus abolishing the state of Tejas, as well as most human rights, they rebelled.  Santa Anna’s brother, Cos, was military commander and was run out of the state.  So Santa Anna also had vengeance on his mind when he massacred all those who surrendered at Alamo and Goliad.  Sam Houston, with only 900 untrained militiamen could not engage the crack general so he retreated again and again.  This drew heavy criticism from his men.  Santa Anna had such huge advantage that he split his forces into two armies.  General Urrea took charge of the utter destruction of small communities as Santa Anna pursued Houston.

             Now comes myth and speculation. Did Houston plan the battle at San Jacinto or did his men force his hand? We don’t exactly know the extent of Emily West’s contribution to the demise of Santa Anna. (History Channel’s Texas Rising is inaccurate in depicting her as his mistress—he already had another mistress.)  What we do know is that another slave contacted Houston at San Jacinto River telling him that the time was ripe for counter attack because Urrea’s troops had been marching for two days without sleep and were arriving. Likely Emily used another slave for her messenger. Santa Anna camped at a place that was grassy, but flanked by forest and swamp. An Englishman, William Bollaert, staying with Santa Anna’s contingent wrote that “a Mulatta Girl [Emily] belonging to Col. Morgan was closeted in the tent with G’l Santana.” Whatever the extent of her dalliance, the Texans under Houston attacked over a grassy knoll hidden in tall grass and trees. In 18 minutes they overwhelmed the drunk and sleepy camp (April 21, 1836).  In two hours occurred one of the most one-sided victories in history, 300 Mexicans were killed, 1650 captured, while 11 Texans died.  Houston was wounded.  Santa Anna tried desperately to direct soldiers having 3 horses shot out from under him. Hastily he put on a corporal’s uniform but was caught in the swamp.  And in the end, Emily West held his custom firearm, having shot at him and missed. Bargaining for his life amid the vengeful Texans, Santa Anna wrote a letter telling all Mexican authorities to leave Texas. Then he was taken into custody to Washington, DC, where he had to guarantee Texas independence. US ambassador Joel Poinsett (who we remember as the importer of a flower of Mexico we use at Christmas) said to Santa Anna, “you have gotten what you deserve.” Santa Anna returned to Mexico to find out that he was no longer recognized as Presidente and Mexico didn’t accept his capitulation to Tejas. Santa Anna went on to take control of the Mexican government 4 more times as a dictatorial President, but the people grew tired of him and exiled him 3 times. Interestingly he was the first to introduce chicle to the USA, the base for chewing gum.      

            Emily went under the surname of Morgan as most slaves did even though she was free.  Morgan got her a passport and passage back to NY via his private yacht. A lot of legend began to surround her and a folk song arose to honor her around 1850, “The Yellow Rose of Texas”. The song is written from the perspective of an African-American singer who refers to himself as a "darky," longing to return to “a yellow girl” (that is, light-skinned, or bi-racial women were nicknamed “high yeller”.)  Whatever the truth, Emily West lived until 1891, was an instumental member of her church in the East and known as a particularly kind and charitable woman.

America's first coup--liberty vs. government

A vital question about Liberty came up in early colonial America completely unlike any discussion in Europe. It reminds me of the protests against governors over freeing the economy in the midst of the coronavirus.  Luther had first written The Liberty of a Christian in which he noted that God indwells righteousness within a Christian causing him to do rightly, contrary to the natural thing of sin.  Without liberty of conscience, godliness is impossible. When 200 Pilgrims and 3000 Puritans (both Calvinist, similar beliefs) came to Massachusetts 1620-1633, they too associated liberty with godliness. One gets guidance directly from following God’s holy writ.  But how to define liberty? [loosely, liberty is “doing what one wants”] To the Puritans liberty and religion were inseparable and Catholicism was anti-liberty. But when did the exercise of liberty become lawless?  Every leader of New England tackled this point at some time or another.  Who rules?  Each man in liberty or a magistrate?

            John Winthrop, an Anglican, was sent as Governor to the Massachusetts colony (to keep an eye on the Puritans) in 1630.  He pondered the question as well.  In his view, liberty is to be subject to all authority as said by Paul in Romans. Well, fine in theory.  In practice Winthrop could be stern and brutal and people felt he exceeded his legitimate bounds.  Colonists had a strong English sense of living under the law, not under a powerful individual.  They swarmed his office, charged him with flouting their charter, and in a meeting deposed him in 1634.  They set up what was a representative government and replaced him with Thomas Dudley-- the first political coup in the history of North America.

            That didn’t mean that government got better.  The colony was shaken by controversy with Roger Williams. Williams was of the each-man-liberty persuasion.  The only thing that mattered was the inner Light of Faith, a gift of God’s Grace.  But the more orthodox held that good behavior was also needed.  Williams whipped up the religious issue until it came to a gathering of the colony, May 17, 1637.  It was a religious topic but behind it was the question of good, orderly government.  If Williams had his way, it was contested, religion and government would cease to be based on reasoned argument, evidence, and learning, but rather everyone would claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and anarchy would arise. But Orthodoxy won the day, Winthrop was re-elected governor to resume his way of punishment, exclusion, and banishment. This was, fascinatingly enough, America’s first contested election.

             However, no sooner elected, Winthrop went bankrupt.  Puritans did not assume that poverty was a sign of wickedness, but they did say that persistent failure was a lack of God’s favor.  So he was in and out of office until 1649.

            Williams also believed that God did not covenant with a congregation or entire society but with an individual alone.  The upshot is that each man is entitled to his own interpretation of the truth about religion (‘soul liberty’, held by Baptists today).  But, he argued, in order to make a civil society function at all this meant there had to be an absolute separation of church and state.   To the governing council, this was heresy and they planned to exile Williams back to England.  Winthrop secretly disagreed and warned Williams what was up.  Williams fled to the south where he befriended Naragansetts and eventually got the English Parliament to grant him and his followers a new charter as Rhode Island.

            So the concerns about where freedom ends and authority begins, began in the very beginning of colonial America.  50 years later at Oxford, John Locke would codify Luther’s Liberty of a Christian, in Two Treatises on Government. It is no wonder then that Revolutionary Americans rushed to Locke as the answer when the Mother Country just yawned. We’d been arguing about it for over a century among ourselves.

China & Europe --Why Zheng didn't dominate the world

In 1413, a Chinese fleet comprising 63 ships and 28,000 sailors went exploring and reached the Swahili coast of Africa. A good 70 years before Portuguese exploration, Admiral Zheng He embarked on 7 epic voyages from 1405 to 1424. They went to India, SE Asia, Arabia and the Horn of Africa. Some even speculate that an unaccounted voyage went to California.  He had 300 ocean-going vessels.  One treasure ship was 400 feet long, eight times the length and 1000 times the draw of the Santa Maria. The Ming Dynasty, established in 1368 had established stable rule, flourishing industry, agricultural advances, and doubled the population in 200 years. So why did Europe, not China, take the lead in exploration? 

            The Mings sent the fleet merely to impress all they encountered with Ming China. Exploration was a play thing of the Emperor.  They had less desire to trade.  Indeed by the close of the century, in a desire to isolate themselves from foreign influence, they forbade any kind of sea voyage.  Europeans “took over the business.”  Secular historians say it is a mystery why.  Maybe it was due to boating technology which devised seaworthy vessels.  Or was it desire to trade directly with China and India for silk, spices, and fine pottery, rather than pay large mark-ups to Italian and Arab middlemen? Others say it is a natural human desire to explore (begs the question!) or Christians just wanted to convert everybody. 

            Christianity makes men aspire. The key lies in the Christian mindset of men.  Indeed men have always explored, whether they be Magellan or Huck Finn. And in exploring, men search for themselves.  Who am I? What am I made of? What am I destined for?  Fear of failure keeps men home where things are neat and orderly.  But Moses didn’t find the Living God at a mall. It’s very much a guy thing.  Little girls do not invent games where large numbers of people die, or explore to find badgers and rattlesnakes.  Life needs a man to be fierce and devoted to protecting others as well as testing his mettle. Adam failed when he didn’t step between the snake and Eve and deny the tempter. But herein is the singular difference in Christianity.  God still believed in Adam and sought him out, even when he hid as a sinner—like the defeated men who retreat to their office to re-arrange their paper clips or act like Sgt. Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes. God seeks out men, gives them faith to believe in Salvation He provides, forms a relationship with them and brings like-minded men together.  A culture of courage and risk-taking is bound to arise. Paul captured this well in Romans where he talks about how only Grace can save (Law enslaves), then we struggle with our inadequacy and sin (Romans 7). In life, we live on the Omaha Beach of the soul.  Yet Romans 8 proclaims, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” Only a man affirmed as measuring up, his inability taken care of, will become assured and free to risk.  This is really what Europe had. Every other religion of the world demands that you work your way up to the gods. But any discerning man knows he can’t measure up to this. Such a system begats pretenders, Pharisees.  Such a faith hems them in with mental taboos they don’t fully understand. Such was Islam. But Christianity isn’t like this.

            Christianity offers God-assured healing from sin, values your soul, and asks you to seek God for adventure. Work for your Lord, achieve, be a gift to your princess and the next generation. No, not every explorer had great faith, but there evolved a Christian culture to explore.  Add then there were other drivers of exploration (mentioned before). Before there was science and great ships, Europe had commerce and hungered for rare things in the East.  And indeed there is a Great Commission. All were ingredients in a fuel that propelled Europe to “discover the world,”  Consequently, Colombus went forth in an old, 58-foot wooden bucket named Santa Maria.

            Even today, China's government suppresses it's people's higher instincts to excel.  Doctors who warned of coronavirus disappeared and foreign advisors weren't allowed to help.  Students are sent to USA by the thousands, yet the Chinese state thinks that espionage is the main way to progress.  I have to ask, as China becomes more Christianized, will things finally change?

SOYA

I’ve been out on a roof shingling.  It seems like I’m not bothering anybody. But the guys on TV are screaming, STAY AT HOME!!  Well, it isn’t my house, it is a rental.  Fortunately, what I am doing is considered “essential” but that is just some bureaucrat’s classification.  I could just yell at my renters, PUT OUT SOME BUCKETS!  If I carry coronavirus, there exists about 12 miles of atmosphere above my head in which it can diffuse, and nobody is within 60 feet of me let alone 6.  But here’s my question.  Since we now have lowered estimates to 60,000 people dying from COVID-19 this year, isn’t that about like flu?  And should we be asking what the trade-off is compared to depression, drug use, alcohol use, etc. from having people cooped up?  Maybe you are one of those people who say drug use never cost anybody their life.  Or you think the sum of all these things is only a fraction of a percent compared flu or pneumonia?  My instinctive thought is that this comparison is important.  80% (my estimate) of men are hard-wired to want to follow their dreams in life.  There’s another 20% that want to SOYA, “sit on your aimlessness.”  The rest of us are driven to be tops in a skill, produce and protect someone, to go where none have ever gone, or to leave the world a better place.  I have one renter who is on disability and dialysis.  He constantly frets to me about needing something, Anything he can do of value.  I suggest a lot of things-- seasonal tax preparation, helping his church, mowing lawns.  Liberals don’t spend time worrying about forcing some entrepreneur into bankruptcy by demanding he shut down too long. Well,I guess dreams don’t make noise when they die. Worse still, the media people seem to be locked into an urban world.  Yet we aren’t all concrete jungle bunnies.  Being outside doesn’t solve all coronavirus transmission problems but it enormously lowers probabilities of it. But no one on the tube ever mentions by how much.  And they run stories about how distraught a zoo was when a tiger got coronavirus, they think from the zookeeper.  Ho! Animals catch it! Hey, I actually long for the news that pit bulls spread the virus. I’ll prepare a memo to my renters. And I need to write Major League Baseball that if they want to play w/o fans, why not play at that place that was once a corn field in Iowa? Meanwhile, I’m up on a roof, enjoying clouds move in, gleeful that I fixed my nailgun with lithium grease. Not SOYA.

Socialism in Oklahoma

Socialism was first tried in Oklahoma,1907-1920.  It came about because of the grinding poverty in the aftermath of the land runs.  Relatively few Oklahomans had been there for more than a few years at the time of statehood. Many had arrived as adults gambling everything on Oklahoma. But those who had been around decades before often locked up ownership of Indian lands as the reservations were dissolved in the Indian Territory (East of a line from approximately Lawton to Ponca City). Grafting (getting your name on title to an Indian’s allotment) was one of the sharkish legal techniques and gives us the modern connotation for the word “graft”. The result was that most farmers in the east were tenant farmers who sharecropped.  In the west, homestead land ownership was more common but enormous debt was normal as people tried to establish themselves in raw land. 70% of the total farmers in OK were tenants.

            And so the Socialist Party grew, garnering 30% of votes in gubernatorial elections from 1912 to 1920. 1914 was the year that scores of Socialists won local and state representative elections. Two dozen socialist newspapers came into being, including the Kay County Populist, from Newkirk, OK.  There were more Socialists in OK than in NY. In 1917, a few rebels in the Canadian River valley refused to register for the draft for WW I.  Called the Green Corn Rebellion, it did not amount to much.  This Socialist rebellion was soon put down by state officials.

            But then after 1920, socialism rapidly died.  Why? An agricultural recession hit farm prices right after the war. Wouldn’t that have spurred socialism?  But the true demise of socialism was from the churches. Socialism is counter to faith in a personal Savior who puts one on a personal mission in life.  It is evil to confiscate property which is another man’s stewardship from God.  Pulpits clashed with newspapers and the Bible Belt won.  Elsewhere, the Red Scare overtook USA as atrocities in the Soviet Union became known and union radicals fell into distrust. Socialism went down fast.  But a few never gave in, such as Woody Guthrie, the atheist singer who went on to write for Communist Party USA’s newspaper.  Again, socialism demands a sort of godlessness that most people choked on. A softer version of help-thy-neighbor overtook hard politics and as a result, when the dust bowl struck in the thirties, Oklahomans became resoundingly FDR Democrats at the expense of the socialist movement. Though hurting at times, Okies were at heart very independent yet charitable. Ayn Rand, an agnostic, nonetheless said it well, “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal collective good.”  Jesus said, “Where a man’s treasure is, there his heart will be.”  

The Roosevelts

I’m watching Ken Burns’ The Roosevelts.  Burns is a lib.  He does a good job at documentaries, panning old still photos to suggest action, and photo selection to tell his story.  He does a great job with older history and did well with Country Music, but touch anything polically modern and his politics interferes. Both Roosevelts “thought outside of the box.” Progressive TR is viewed with disdain by most libs while progressive FDR is an unvarnished hero. Why?  Because TR championed Rugged Individualism which supports the conservative notion of limited government and Liberty.  FDR’s trial-and-error solutions of the Great Depression advanced Big Government and blaming selected groups. But the liberal big hate reason is that TR strongly favored American involvement in Spanish American War—warmonger! None of this was spoken to in Burns' first episode. Indeed political issues are rather glossed over.  No mention that Americans doing business in Cuba were detained and never heard from again.  No mention that Spain was oppressing the Cubans.  Those things angered Americans greatly and the explosion of the Battleship Maine was politically a last straw for people in USA. But hippie Burns tells a lot of psychoanalysis as always.   TR was judged to be fighting ‘inner demons’, that if he didn’t stop working hard and changing things, he would surely have died of depression as an alcoholic like his brother. Why his wife and mother died on the same day! And cruelly he ships his only daughter off to live with his sister.  No mention that Victorians separated men and women’s responsibilities and living with relatives was common.  But the dude TR he found himself in cattle ranching in the west.  Left unsaid is why his N. Dakota neighbors, who laughed at him at first, found great respect for him and his views.  Oh, wait, Burns advanced the explanation that TR slugged a guy who called him ‘4 eyes’ and somehow that gained everyone’s respect.  (Hmm.  My cowboying days seem to tell me that a guy like that could just as well be ostracized.) The audience might be left to wonder how the westerners admired a man who went spectacularly broke.  Unsaid is that that the disastrous winter of 1886-7 left 90% of the cattle dead in northern USA. Sadly everyone went broke.  So TR went home to NY, remarried, then got a job in Washington DC, eventually becoming Asst. Sec. of the Navy.  Sensing war was about to break out, TR directed Admiral Dewey to close in on Philippines. The result was a brilliant victory.  Then TR resigned to become commissioned as Lt. Colonel and recruited the ‘Rough Riders’ cavalry regiment. Burns indulges himself in proclaiming him a witless commander at Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill, who flung his men carelessly and cynically into enemy fire in order to conquer another inner demon that TR thought himself a coward.  But historians I have read say that US command didn’t anticipate a new murderous weapon the Spanish had, the machine gun with a cooled barrel.  The only thing that saved the Rough Riders was their audacious commander who ordered a fast strike that overwhelmed the Spanish positions.  So TR returned a hero, but Burns selects cartoons of political opponents lampooning him as a crazy man.  TR thereupon ran for governor of NY and won handily.  Left untold is how he appealed to the working men who remembered his demands for good working conditions and reasonable pay when he was a state legislator.  His tireless work for McKinley’s election is seen as another inner demon.  Then his unbelievable effort to get McKinley re-elected with himself a VP is almost portrayed as demented. 

May I suggest theat TR’s inner demons were simple.  All young men struggle to prove themselves. If you have a dad who is close and gives you a thumbs up, it usually ends somewhere in the early twenties.  Without one, like TR, you seek affirmation of other accomplished men like the military, bosses, or coaches. TR struggled as a spindly kid with genius who had to also prove himself to himself.  It took longer.  His dogged personality seems not sick and demented, unless you are a hippie, who also suffered from absentee father, who chose to retreat from all male competition. 

            On the other hand, FDR, who grew up quite a Richie Rich in Hyde Park, a coddled child who had no friends in school, was locked in a valiant effort to save his elderly ailing father.  (James R. in his 50s had married Miss Delano, 20, who realized she could only have one child when old James had a stroke and became a helicopter parent of her son.) It is pointed out that FDR was utterly adored by both parents, never admonished for doing wrong.  But it isn’t noted that this is normally the perfect prescription for narcissism, unchecked ego. Ironically fortunate, polio humbled FDR.  

So the next episode will be all about TRs presidency and FDR’s polio no doubt.  Look for FDR to be aggrandized as a man who overcame all odds while TR went down in infamy in a quixotic attempt to have one more term in his presidency in 1912. FDR had a power-of-positive-thinking personality, perfect to inspire people in a Depression.  But many economists today blame  the Great Depression, which grew out of a financial crisis recession, as coming from government takeover and regulation of practically everything. Policies of TR and FDR then provide a great lesson on progressism doing well and doing badly by which course it takes.

            If Burns shines in his depiction, it is probably in telling the tale of Eleanor Roosevelt.  She was daughter of Elliot, TR’s brother, hence TR’s niece.  Elliot went mentally ill and then alcoholic and died young.  Eleanor, raised by her grandparents, struggled with this all her life.