Canem Malum,

Did he get a BA from the college. It's not worth two bits if he didn't get a BA.

Canem Malum,

I did enjoy it very much. One of my majors was English
Lit. Brought back so many lovely memories.
Put a lump in my throat.

Not sure Mr Opinion but I suspect you're correct in 1825. Your strength in this area is surely greater than mine. Arvin seems to be a well sourced reference in regards to Longfellow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wadsworth_Longfellow#Early_life_and_education
http://archive.org/details/longfellowhislif00arvi

Though a somewhat conservative he appears a slightly too progressive as a person for me- his poetry is interesting- a participant in the American Salon Culture it seems. Perhaps a case of the man not fully living up to his works- greatness glimpsed but not attained. But he deserves the benefit of doubt.

But those that came after him were perhaps much more progressive.

The Battle of Lovell's Pond

Mr. Longfellow's first verses, so far as known, printed in the Portland Gazette, November 17, 1820.
Portland Gazette 1820

Cold, cold is the north wind and rude is the blast
That sweeps like a hurricane loudly and fast,
As it moans through the tall waving pines lone and drear,
Sighs a requiem sad o'er the warrior's bier.

The war-whoop is still, and the savage's yell
Has sunk into silence along the wild dell;
The din of the battle, the tumult, is o'er,
And the war-clarion's voice is now heard no more.

The warriors that fought for their country, and bled,
Have sunk to their rest; the damp earth is their bed;
No stone tells the place where their ashes repose,
Nor points out the spot from the graves of their foes.

They died in their glory, surrounded by fame,
And Victory's loud trump their death did proclaim;
They are dead; but they live in each Patriot's breast,
And their names are engraven on honor's bright crest.

So much for the Environment (and for Learning).
It would appear that perhaps only those on the 'Autism Spectrum' can actually 'get it'.

Aus moving away from burning coal - but exporting it to all and sundry like there's no tomorrow.
Aus relative Zero contribution to global emissions, but determined to make up for open-slather expansionism and exponential emissions-growth in the rest of the globe?
Sane? Sensible? Realistic?

Greens in glass castles, residing comfortably in urban domains can only see Renewables as the saviour of our souls, when the solution to all our woes lies in developing our superabundant semi-arid land masses for Agriculture, for new massive Forests, and NEW Hope for water capture and storage to waterproof Aus against droughts AND floods and food security - as well as coincidentally preserving and protecting remaining biodiversity and human sanity.

Wood for Trees?
No more of Aus' old-growth forests should be logged - and absolutely NO Clear-Felling, and current cleared agricultural land used carefully, responsibly and sustainably.
Agro-forestry should be our supply of sustainable timber, exclusively.

Gordon-on-Franklin was a great save, but guaranteeing our future is not so simple, and saying no to coal is saying no to grasping the only nettle we've got and to going full-on gang busters on what we really need to do build our nation's future for all generations to come.

Environment and bio-preservation must never be sacrificed.
We have opportunity.
We have the means and the natural resources.
We need only the vision, the guts, the determination.

The Nationals (and the Greens) will need to lift their game and re-write their copy books to embrace the realities of the progress we really need to make and the means we must of necessity embrace to get there.

We may not save the world, but we can and must save our own integrity.