How not to Start a new Country: George Washington vs Cavour of Italy

History has produced leaders whose early decisions helped define the fate of their nations—for better or worse. In the case of modern Italy, Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, leader of the Kingdom of Sardegna-Piemonte, (Italy before unification) made a deeply consequential decision in 1858 that remains one of the most controversial acts of Italian unification. In a secret agreement with Napoleon III of France, Cavour agreed to cede the city of Nice and the surrounding county of Savoy to France in exchange for French military support against Austrian forces in northern Italy. For a newly forming nation, the surrender of culturally and historically significant territory was not a minor concession; it set a precedent with consequences that would echo in perpetuity far beyond the immediate military objective.  

In 1850 French forces intervened in Rome at the request of Pope Pius IX against Italian patriots from the Papal States, who sought Italian unity. 30,000 French troops landed in Italy and attacked Rome, inflicting heavy damage, and killed more than 2,000 Romans. They defeated a much smaller rebel force led by General Giuseppe Garibaldi in a struggle that resembled David against Goliath. Yet Pope Pius IX did not reward France with territory from the Papal States nor payment. France acted largely out of religious and political loyalty to the papacy, while Cavour surrendered Nice for military assistance. This contrast raises a central question: when founding a nation, should leaders sacrifice national territory for short-term strategic gain?

The new leaders of united Italy were deeply jealous and wary of Giuseppe Garibaldi, the charismatic and enormously popular revolutionary General of two continents, Europe and South America who was widely regarded as one of the finest military commanders of his time. Garibaldi was born in Nizza—known today as Nice—and belonged to La Giovane Italia, the movement founded by Giuseppe Mazzini around 1830 to unite the Italian states. For Garibaldi and many Italian nationalists, Nice was not merely a border city; it was tied to the ideals and identity of the Risorgimento. Cavour’s decision to surrender Nice to France therefore carried a personal and political sting. In my view, Cavour’s hostility toward Garibaldi may have influenced the decision to give away Garibaldi’s home city, and Italy ultimately paid the price for that shortsighted and disastrous bargain. 

Garibaldi, upon hearing of the treachery, did what he could to reverse it, but to no avail.  

Why do I believe France would have helped Italy against Austria even without receiving Nice? France had strong strategic reasons to weaken Austrian power and expand its own influence on the Italian peninsula. Austria was France’s principal rival in northern Italy, and a successful Italian campaign against Austrian control would have advanced French interests as well as Italian ones. In other words, French support was not simply a favor to Cavour; it was also a way for Napoleon III to increase France’s prestige and political leverage in Europe.  This was the second time Italians gave away valuable Italian territory to the French.  In 1769 the island of Corsica, at the time ruled by Genoa, was sold to the French; the same year that Napoleon Bonaparte was born.  Another territorial blunder with eternal ramifications.  So, as of today, the score is France 2, Italy 0.  

The transfer of Nice to France can be argued by some that it was a good idea at the time; not me.  It was done mainly by one man, Cavour, and without the vote of Sardegna-Piemonte, although the transfer was approved by the Treaty of Turin in 1858.  The Kingdom of Sardegna-Piemonte citizens had no vote. Citzens of Nice did vote overwhelmingly to join France, but then, they were discarded by Cavour as expendable.  I see it as a betrayal of Italian citizens to have done it.  I see no conditions in which it could be a good idea to voluntarily cede valuable land to your neighbor.  It looks to me that Cavour may have been a French mole. The current Italian state, to my knowledge has never condemned Cavour, as a matter of fact it named an aircraft carrier after him that is in current service.  At the same period there was another aircraft carrier named Giuseppe Garibaldi.  I think that General Garibaldi would be insulted to be in the same company as Cavour.  He hated him.   I stand with Garibaldi, the true and ultimate Italian patriot.  

George Washington, by contrast, made decisions that strengthened the foundations of his new country. He led an inexperienced and poorly supplied army against Great Britain, then the world’s most powerful military force, and prevailed through perseverance, judgment, and example. More importantly, after victory he helped establish principles that have endured for generations: constitutional government, civilian leadership, and the peaceful transfer of power. He could have remained in office for life, or even allowed himself to be made king, but he refused both paths. Washington put country above personal ambition. Cavour, in surrendering Nice to France, did the opposite: he diminished the nation he was helping to create.

 

Russian Kaliningrad: The Bizarre Global Decisions After WW I and II Have Sown the Seeds of Conflict

The Austria-Hungary Empire of pre-World War I was one of the most successful empires of the day.  Unlike similar empires which were assembled through conquest, Austria-Hungary was assembled through voluntary association, mainly in fear of aggression by the Muslim Ottoman Turks who were hell bent on conquest for their entire existence.  Countries such as Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Montenegro became part of the Austria-Hungary Empire for this reason.  One exception was the takeover of Bosnia Herzegovina in 1878 when it was awarded control by the Congress of Berlin.  In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed it, to the chagrin and objection of the Bosnians.

Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, was the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne in 1914 when he decided to visit and tour Bosnia-Herzegovina in an open car.  He was shot to death June 28, 1914, at the hands of a Serbian national, Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina. These two men are credited with starting World War I.  The Archduke had to know that this was a very bad idea, but perhaps he did not; it was.  For some bizarre reason, he wanted an open car parade.  There was a first failed attempt against him, which he survived, he brushed it off and continued.  His driver took a wrong turn and he, and his wife, Sophie, were killed; both shot to death.  One stupid move by one man and the world pays the price. Four empires were destroyed after World War I:  The Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire and the Austria-Hungary Empire.

At the end of World War I and World War II, twenty years later, international politicians made some of the most bizarre and destructive decisions of all time, again: the not ready for prime-time players.  The Treaty of Versailles produced some of the most poorly decided dumb decisions.  One example is President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, on his own authority, and overriding other European leaders, decided to ignore the Treaty of London of 1915 which promised territory concessions to Italy if it agreed to enter the war (WW I).  Second, the Treaty of Versailles after WW I created the conditions that caused the second World War.  

Among the many controversial decisions made after the world wars was the redrawing of borders that helped shape the new Yugoslavia. In the process, Italy lost territories with long-standing Italian communities, including the Istrian Peninsula, the city of Fiume, and parts of the Dalmatian Coast. To critics, these decisions appeared to represent another act of appeasement—rewarding Josip Broz Tito’s communist regime while disregarding the historical and ethnic complexities of the region. The consequences were severe: ethnic tensions intensified, and Italian civilians suffered atrocities at the hands of Tito’s communist forces, known as the Foibe Massacres between 1943 and 1950.

 Reward a tyrant, such as Tito, and he will like you better, was the thought.  All this at the price of thousands of people losing their lives and stoking ethnic hate for the long term.  History has shown that all these decisions were disastrous.  After the death of the dictator Tito, Yugoslavia broke up and a war of independence of the member states caused more atrocities.  From 1991to 1995 over 100,000 people were killed.  Some of these decisions reverberate with us today such as the enclave of Kaliningrad, the German city known before 1946 as Konigsberg, the largest German easternmost city, gifted to the Soviets at the Potsdam Agreement in 1945.  Who thought that this was a good idea but the Soviets?  Look at the map of where it is compared to the Russian border.  Appeasement roars its ugly head again and the world pays the price.  Just yesterday (8/24/26) the Wall Street Journal had a story about how the Russians are drawing plans for mobilization of the Kaliningrad residents.  This suggests they have aggressive military plans. Déjà vu all over again.  Will we ever lean?

Triple Entente Allies Stab Italy in the Back After World War I

 Under the secret Treaty of London, signed on April 26, 1915, Britain, France, and Russia promised Italy substantial territorial gains, financial loans, and strategic colonial concessions. In return, Italy agreed to abandon its neutrality and declare war on the Central Powers within one month. The specific territories promised are as follows: 

•    Trentino and South Tyrol
•   Trieste and the Austrian Littoral which includes Gorizia and the entire Istrian peninsula
•    Dalmatia and a substantial chunk of the Balkan coastline which includes the city of Zara, now called Zadar in what is now Croatia
•   Sovereignty over Albania
•    The Dodecanese Islands and full sovereignty over the Aegean islands and 
• Expansion of Italian African colonies.

Italy ultimately received Trentino, South Tyrol, and Trieste (only after World War II) but much of what had been promised—including the Italian-speaking peninsula of Istria and the Dalmatian coast—was denied to Italy. After the Second World War, many of these territories came under Yugoslav control under the communist dictator, Josip Broz Tito. Yugoslav partisans, under Tito, committed numerous summary executions of thousands of Italians, including common burials in pits and sink holes, known as the Foibe Massacres.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson refused to honor the Treaty of London in full and opposed Italy’s claims to the territories it had been promised. What was the cost to Italy in joining the allies in World War I:

• 2.1 million military casualties, including
• 600,000 killed in action
• 947,000 wounded
• 600,000 captured or missing

In 1915 the population of Italy was 36 million, the United States population the same year was 100 million.The United States World War I casualties were 320,500 total, with 116,700 killed in action. 

So, it all came down to one man, Woodrow Wilson, who overruled Britain, France and Russia and the treaty of London.   So next time you promise your neighbor to go to war with you, will you believe any promises made? Wilson was a well known racist and a Darwinian eugenicist.  Click here for a description of him.

For those who understand Italian, attached is a video I recorded in 1985 in Sicily of one of my uncles, Cavaliere Giuseppe Neglia reciting a poem he wrote about his experience as an 18 year-old Italian soldier during World War I.  When he recited this poem in public half of the audience was in tiers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzmYO0bND0

 

Napoleon Bonaparte: A Man of War

From Napoleon’s rise to power after the French Revolution in 1799, France was constantly at war. Napoleon held a grandiose view of himself, imagining himself as the new Caesar or the new Alexander the Great. The result was widespread death and destruction, sweeping across Europe with hurricane force. The result was not a grandiose France but a devastated one.  All conquered territories were lost after Napoleon was ousted in 1815. The cost in human lives was staggering.

 

From 1779 to 1815 seven significant wars took place; not counting the French invasion of Egypt and Syria in 1798:

 

1.   The War of the Third Coalition (1805) with the Battle of Austerlitz and the sea Battle of Trafalgar,

2.      War of the Fourth Coalition where France crushed the Prussian Army at the battles of Jena and Auerstedt,

3.     The Peninsular War (1807-14) where French forces attempted to occupy Spain and Portugal,

4.     War of the Fifth Coalition (1809) with Austrian forces,

5.     War of the Sixth Coalition (1813-14) where Napoleon was dealt a crushing defeat by Britain Russia, Prussia and Sweden at the Battle of Leipzig.

6.     The invasion of Russia in 1812.

7.     The Hundred Days and War of the Seventh Coalition (1815) with the final Battle of Waterloo.

 

Wars during this period were meat grinders with staggering losses of life and mutilation.  The French invasion of Russia in 1812 was one such example.  About 600,000 French troops took part, over 400,000 perished by combat, disease, starvation or the wicked Russian winters when temperatures can hit minus 40 degrees Celsius; 200,000 taken prisoners. By December of 1812 Napoleon admitted defeat and escaped to Paris; leaving his army behind to die.  Within three years of this disaster, he put another army to the meat grinder at Waterloo.

 

Infantry during this period was mainly done by squares.  Soldiers would line in multiple rows deep on each side of the square, shoulder to shoulder and fire together at the advancing enemy.  It was a killing field.  At the Battle of Waterloo, for example, about 50,000 men on both sides were killed in one day of fighting just under nine hours. For a description of the infantry square of this period see this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl7ElFROgts&t=83s

 

The brutality was cataclysmic.  Similarly, in ancient history, at the Battle of Cannae of August 2, 216 BC, during the Second Punic War, between Rome and Carthage, Roman forces lost about 50,000 men killed in one day at the hands of the brilliant Carthaginian General, Hannibal.

 

Despite this litany of killing and maiming perfectly good soldiers, tyrants like Napoleon are admired and feted. He may have been a brilliant military commander but at the expense of an estimated 3.5 million men killed in a 15 year period to please his ego?  One must ask for what?  What did all this hell bring to France?  The British poet Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote a brilliant poem called "The Charge of the Light Brigade" about the Crimean War of 1854-56.  The poem makes the poignant point of men condemned to die in a war they probably do not understand nor the purpose of their bravery:  "Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do and die." Wars produce death and destruction and the depravity of man. 

For a good YouTube video explaining the Battle of Waterloo click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jr7NaLs77A

Déjà Vu All Over Again

 The Crimean War of 1853–56 was fought, in part, to contain Russian territorial expansion. The main combatants were the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France, and Sardinia-Piedmont, all aligned in support of the Ottoman Empire against Russia. Fast-forward from 2014 to the present, and Europe is again confronting a war driven by Russian aggression—this time against Ukraine. At its core, the conflict reflects Russia’s desire to reassert imperial influence and revive elements of the former Soviet sphere, along with the ambitions of Vladimir Putin.

 

Human history has often followed a brutal pattern: dominate your neighbor and take what he has. Russia is already the largest country in the world, spanning eleven time zones, yet its leadership has repeatedly shown that size alone does not satisfy imperial ambition.

 

European history is filled with territorial ambition, recurring wars, and moments when nations failed to aid neighbors threatened by aggression. The former Austro-Hungarian Empire emerged partly as a collection of peoples seeking security in a turbulent region. Several Central and Balkan European lands looked to larger powers for protection from the Ottoman Empire, which for centuries sought to expand its reach into Europe. The lesson is familiar: when expansionist powers are not checked, instability spreads far beyond the original battlefield.

 

History has repeatedly shown that European nations can be reluctant to intervene in distant or emerging conflicts until the danger is unmistakable. A striking example is the Byzantine Empire, which was gradually consumed by Ottoman expansion, culminating in the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Appeals for help from the Byzantines to their fellow Christians in Europe largely went unanswered. European leaders failed to recognize the broader threat: the Ottoman ambition to push deeper into Europe and extend its power across the continent.

 

A similar condition exists today. Although Europe has supported Ukraine with funding, weapons, and political backing, many European governments remain reluctant to become more deeply involved. Yet the danger is clear: if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, the threat will not end there. It would leave other European nations exposed as potential targets of Russian aggression.  The Spanish philosopher, George Santayana stated the famous saying:  Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  We are here again.  Déjà vu.

 

The Human Cost of Bad Government

 Donald Trump, the current president, has been widely criticized and strongly disliked by many. Some of these reactions may stem from his behavior and rhetoric, which many view as insulting or inappropriate, while others may reflect broader differences in political worldview. Past Democratic presidents, such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have also faced intense criticism, though much of that opposition has often been rooted in differing political perspectives.

Whatever one’s political position, the gravest danger arises when power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler, ruling party, or unaccountable regime. Absolute monarchies, one-party states, dictatorships, and tyrannical governments can strip away legal protections and leave citizens dependent on the will of those in power.

Unchecked Power and Its Risks

Unchecked power allows a ruler or ruling party to control law, punishment, property, and political life without meaningful restraint. When there are no independent courts, free institutions, or reliable checks and balances, political opponents, dissenters, advisers, and ordinary citizens can become vulnerable to imprisonment, exile, or death at the discretion of those in authority.

Historical Example: King Henry VIII

King Henry VIII of England is often cited as a historical example of out-of-control authoritarian power in practice. He ordered the deaths of political opponents, religious dissenters, trusted advisers such as Thomas More, and two of his wives. It is estimated that Henry had over 76,000 of his citizens put to death just at his whim. His reign shows how unchecked authority can transform personal, religious, or political conflict into matters of life and death.

Modern Examples of Authoritarian Rule

Modern authoritarian regimes continue to illustrate the dangers of concentrated power. Frequently cited examples include:

• North Korea: Kim Jong Un’s government has been accused of ordering executions, imprisonment, and severe punishment against officials and citizens who fall out of favor. Just recently Kim had a North Korean official executed just for falling asleep in a meeting.  Hyon Yong-chol: South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) reported that North Korea's Defense Minister was executed in April 2015 for falling asleep at a military event attended by Kim Jong-un and for failing to follow instructions.  

•  Russia: Vladimir Putin’s government has been widely criticized for the persecution and deaths of political opponents, including Alexei Navalny who was killed while in prison.  Yevgeny Prigozhin, the former leader of the mercinary Wagner Group was killed in an airplane crash believed to have been intentionally sabotaged so it would crash. Very frequently we hear of certain people who have fallen out of favor with Putin fall out of apartment windows and killed.

• China: Critics argue that those who fall out of favor with the ruling party may face imprisonment, political prosecution, or severe punishment. Examples often mentioned include Hong Kong businessman Jimmy Lai.  Lai was imprisoned just for not bending to the will of the tyrant and defending truth. Military leaders Wei Fenghe and Li Shangfu, who have have been accused of corruption. This cannot be verified; they may have just fallen out of favor. In such systems, punishment can appear to depend less on independent legal judgment than on decisions made by those in power.
• Iran: As you may have heard, the tyrannical Iranian regime murdered over an estimated 40,000 peaceful protesters at the beginning of 2026. 

Together, these examples highlight a central concern: when political power is concentrated in one leader or ruling party, individual rights and personal safety depend less on impartial law and more on the preferences of those who control the state.

In the former Byzantine Empire, for example, an emperor could order the punishment or execution of anyone perceived as an opponent, whether the threat was real or imagined. Blinding was one especially notorious form of punishment. Again, the decision rested not with an independent judge or jury, but with the ruler’s will.  Byzantine emperors frequently blinded political rivals, rebels, and suspected usurpers. This brutal practice was used to neutralize threats to the throne while technically sparing their lives, as Byzantine religious and political laws strictly prohibited anyone with a physical defect or mutilation from ruling the empire.

In 11^th century Sicily, the conquering Normans introduced a feudal system in which the king claimed ultimate ownership of the land. Under this arrangement, ordinary people had limited property rights and depended on the ruler’s authority to determine who could use or lease land. This was basically a form of slavery, the lands were divided into large fiefs ruled by the upper-class barons, who ruled their fiefs with an iron hand. If a peasant hired by the baron wanted to improve the property he had to have permission from the baron.  If he needed a loan, the barons would force him to only borrow from them at exorbitant rates.  private bank loans were prohibited. 

In our current day, we have one-party states such as in California, Vermont, Oregon, Washington and other states where one party has a majority in both houses and passes laws at will.  The minority has, basically, no voice. The main difference is that we have a judiciary that makes the ultimate rule, however, even the courts are skewed to the left such as the notorious 9^th Circuit Court which usually rubber stamps leftist laws. For decades, the court was known as a reliably liberal stronghold. The Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit in approximately 79% to 80% of the cases it agrees to review, which historically amounts to roughly 10 to 14 reversals per term. This is one of the highest raw reversal rates and totals in the country. 

A Pilgrim's Story Version 2.0

 In the biblical story, God commands the prophet Jonah to preach repentance to the wicked city of Nineveh. Unwilling to go, Jonah boards a ship bound for Tarshish, fleeing in the opposite direction. Jonah despised the assignment; he hated the Ninevites and longed not for their redemption, but for their judgment.

 

My own story bears a faint resemblance to Jonah’s. When I first heard my parents speak of leaving my Sicily homeland for the United States, I was filled with dread. I wanted no part of such a journey.  I loved the life I knew—grazing sheep with my father in the Madonie Mountains of north-central Sicily, surrounded by the rugged beauty and familiar rhythms of home. But at twelve years old, I possessed no power to resist what had already been decided for me. When the day of departure finally came, my heart was broken. As we boarded the Italian Cruise ship, the Saturnia, at the Port of Palermo, I turned to my mother and pleaded with her to leave me behind. She refused. Our family consisted of six children and my parents.  The youngest was a mere 8 months old.

 

We left Palermo in mid-March1956 heading out of the Mediterranean Sea through the Strait of Gibraltar and the Atlantic Ocean.  The entire trip to New York Harbor took two weeks; the Atlantic was in a very bad mood; rough seas seem to have lasted the entire crossing.  Having never been on a ship before we were all seasick and hardly ever left our cabin.  I don’t remember ever eating in the ship’s cafeteria.

 

Upon arrival at the New York Harbor, we debarked and headed straight to the train station for our trip across the entire United States to Los Angeles with a stop in Chicago to change trains.  Not ever having had any American food such as mayonnaise or mustard we ate sparingly. As we arrived at Union Station Los Angeles, I noticed weather I had never seen, overcast skies.  Where we’re from it was either sunny or foggy, never overcast. My dad’s sponsor, his sister, met us at Union Station and took us to our rented one-bedroom duplex in the Leimert Park section of Los Angeles. 

 

Los Angeles was a beautiful city in the mid 1950s, clean well-kept streets with Palm trees that reached for the sky.  We lived in a mixed neighborhood, black and white families living in total harmony.  This was the first time I had ever seen a black person.  I did not discover until later of the racial discrimination that was going on in other parts of the country.  Where we lived, however, I never saw discrimination.  My very first friend was Norman Aubry, a black kid down the block.  I adjusted quickly.  Our house was next to an empty lot.  With my two younger brothers we built a pigeon cage and raised fancy pigeons:  Tumblers, rollers and fantails.  We managed to recreate something of what we left behind in Sicily. Los Angeles was a very safe city.  We could ride the bus to anywhere without trouble.  I later managed to buy a used bike and rode around freely.  On one occasion, I rode my bike to Griffith Park which was about 14 miles from our house.  On my return trip heading south on Western Avenue, I was hit by a car and knocked down.  Luckily, I was unhurt.  A passing off-duty policeman who witnessed the accident, took me home with my broken bike.

 

My parents enrolled me into Angeles Mesa Elementary school which was two blocks from our house.  I was the only foreign student.  Not speaking a word of English, my teacher, Mr. Fox, just put me in the last row against the wall and left me alone.  This proved to be the best solution.  Within a few months I could speak English with my fellow students semi-fluently. Total immersion was a big success. 

 

I had my first Coca Cola at the vending machine of Van Ness Park. Ten cents would get you a cold bottle.  I also learned to play the carroms board game.  There we also met the park custodian who took us under his wing and looked after us. Within a year I got a job throwing the afternoon Los Angeles Mirror News newspaper. 

 

The traumatic events I experienced by the move have lasted to a small degree.  I still resent the fact that I was moved to an unknown place against my wishes.  I hold no animosity against my parents; however, they did what they believed was to be the best for us.  Sometimes God has a job for us that we do not like, like Jonah, but it is the right job for us.  Just do it.