A cursory glimpse at the Oxford English Dictionary enlightens the reader to the fact that there are no less than nineteen definitions of the word character – of which, six focus on a person's moral fiber and overall nature. A person's character, it seems, is a compilation of the moral qualities – or lack thereof – that he has developed over the course of his lifetime and, more important, are strongly or strikingly displayed in his actions. Thus, a person of "favorable character" would exhibit, in his conduct, a fundamental nature that has, at its core, a high moral makeup. On the other hand, a person of "low character" would display the activities and behavioral manners that one would only expect to find amongst the 'lower echelon' of society. In essence, when used to describe the qualities of an individual, the term character is wholly dependent upon the adjective that precedes it. As a student of history therefore, I believe that character plays a dominant role in any evaluation of historical events.
             There have been and continue to be scholars who view history and conclude that there are forces in nature that transcend man. There are certain economic, political and social forces that move like a tidalwave, ferrying man from one age to the next. At best, those who are lucky enough to be born at the right time and in the right place – and are possessed of the proper skills – can ride this wave of history to its highest peak. They are, however, unable to change the course of history.
             This analysis has always seemed hollow to me. A student of this viewpoint would have to conclude, for instance, that the society forged by the founding fathers of the United States was a direct result of the culture and politics of the age of enlightenment in Europe, and would have occurred sooner or later. While it is undeniably true that all the aspects of the above said age pla...