Tsar Peter III of Russia: Tragic, Foolish, and Psychotic

 

 

By late 1761, Russian forces had seriously weakened Prussia in the Seven Years’ War. Frederick the Great’s setback at Zorndorf and Kunersdorf augured for a ruinous end to the war for Prussia. All of this changed when Empress Elizabeth died on Christmas Day 1761, her nephew ascending the throne as Tsar Peter III. On open admirer of Prussia and Frederick, Peter immediately ended the war, giving up Russian gains, and treating the Prussian king as the victor. This began a process of alienation that resulted in his death six months later.

 

Peter of Holstein

 

Having grown up in Holstein, south of Denmark, Peter III retained his German influences once arriving in Russia as heir to Elizabeth. Unlike his wife Catherine, a German princess from Anhalt-Zerbst, Peter refused to convert to Orthodoxy, favoring Lutheranism. Given to parties and wild carousing, the future Tsar refused to learn Russian or understand the culture and people.

 

Upon ascending the throne in December 1761, he exacerbated the growing distrust against him. Concluding a peace with Prussia on less than favorable terms alienated members of the military. Catherine, recalling the events in a letter sent to a friend, stated that “Peter III lost what little intelligence he ever had.”

 

He promoted Protestantism, ordered the confiscation of church property, eliminated some icons, and forced the elite Guards regiments into Prussian uniforms. Perhaps his only positive act was the Charter to the Nobility of February 18, 1762 which freed the nobility from compulsory state service, in place since the reign of Peter I.

 

Bloodless Revolution

 

On June 28^th, Peter arrived at Peterhof, intending to meet his wife, Catherine. Soon the news of the coup d’etat reached him out of St. Petersburg. Catherine had been proclaimed Empress at the Kazan Cathedral and was supported by the three elite Guards units that had been so instrumental in the revolution. In desperation, Peter sailed to Kronstadt, the Russian naval base on the Gulf of Finland, in hopes of rallying troops.

 

Kronstadt was already loyal to Catherine, however. By now the Empress was riding back to Peterhof at the head of her Guards when two letters from Peter arrived. The first offered Catherine joint-rulership of Russia; the second requested that he be allowed to return to Holstein with his mistress. Neither letter was considered.

 

Peter III was imprisoned at an estate in Ropsha. From there, he would be taken to the Schleusselburg Fortress. Within a week, however, Peter III was dead, most probably murdered by Alexis Orlov, one of Catherine’s lovers. Catherine, writing of the event, states that she had Peter “opened” and it was found that he had died of “inflammation of the bowels and apoplexy.” Colic was the official cause of death.  Historians are in agreement that no evidence exists that Catherine planned or knew of his impending murder.

 

Summary

 

Peter III’s death ended an extended period of palace revolutions sometimes referred to a “second Time of Troubles.” Inept and mentally unbalanced, Peter III virtually drove Russia’s disaffected nobility, churchmen, and military leaders into the hands of Catherine, whose wise coalition building for several years ensured not only her bloodless accession to the throne but a long and successful reign. 

Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. This article first appeared in Suite101 on-line in 2008.

 

 Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great Compared

Both Tsars Shared Similarities in State Goals and Personal Foibles

© Michael Streich

 Jun 19, 2009

Ivan IV and Peter I fought successful wars to enlarge Russia, established relationships with the West, reformed the military, and centralized control.

The similarities between Ivan IV (the “terrible”) and Peter the Great are many. Both suffered from traumatic childhood upbringings and both ascended to the Russian throne as children. Each tsar demonstrated like temperaments and both became known for external wars that increased the size and stature of Russia. Both Ivan and Peter reformed the military and attempted to secularize the Orthodox Church under state control. Each one died after killing their male heirs, initiating a “Time of Troubles” and palace revolutions.

 

Foreign Wars and Western Trade

Ivan’s first major war was the defeat of Kazan, asserting Russian hegemony to the Volga River and beyond. Similarly, Peter’s first conflict was geared against the Turks as he looked southward. Not as successful in the south, Peter ultimately defeated Sweden in the north, ensuring Russian access to the Baltic Sea.

Ivan IV was less successful in the north. The Livonian War (1558-1582) produced no significant gains for Russia. Ivan’s goals included Baltic ports to facilitate trade, notably with England. Although Ivan never looked to the West in the same manner Peter did, his actions represented a first step in relationships with the emerging European nation-states.

 

Under Peter the Great, the Great Northern War provided those ports and enabled him to build St. Petersburg, his “window to the west.” The 1709 battle at Poltava, considered decisive, marked the decline of Sweden’s Charles XII. Just as Ivan IV had attempted to do unsuccessfully, Peter recruited specialists from Europe to modernize Russia (Ivan's recruits were arrested by the Hanseatic League).

 

Internal Reforms under Ivan and Peter

Under Ivan IV, a reformed military resulted in an organized, standardized service, the backbone of which was Cossack cavalry and the Streltsy, a type of Musketeer force. Ironically, Peter destroyed the Streltsy during his reign after the group spearheaded a revolt against him. No doubt Peter also recalled that these same soldiers had attempted to kill him as a child when they operated under his half-sister Sophia, an ambitious and dangerous woman who wanted the throne for herself.

Peter’s military reforms resulted in a first-class European-style army, trained by European experts and using the latest weaponry available. Additional, Peter, considered the “father of the Russian navy,” inaugurated a fleet that would enable control of the Baltic and the protection of Russian trade.

 

Both tsars reformed the Orthodox Church, seeking to bring parts of it under secular control. In all matters of reform, both Ivan and Peter worked to develop greater centralized control of the monarchy over the various elements within the country. Neither tsar trusted the nobility, having been exposed to palace intrigues. Both men frequently responded violently. Ivan IV killed his heir, Ivan Ivanovich, in a fit of rage; Peter was responsible for the death of his son Alexis, for complicity in the revolt against him.

 

The Time of Troubles

Upon the death of Ivan, the monarchy was plagued with years of misrule, pretenders to the throne, wars in which neighboring powers championed favorites for their own benefit, and general instability. It has rightly been called a “Time of Troubles,” ended only after the Romanov dynasty, under Tsar Michael, was proclaimed.

 

A similar period occurred in Russia after the death of Peter. Between 1725 and 1741, four rulers of dubious quality reigned. In 1741, Elizabeth I came to power, also through a palace revolution, but ruled only slightly better than her predecessors. Not until 1762 did good leadership return under Catherine II (the “Great”).

Assessment of Ivan and Peter

Despite the cruelties (historians point out that Ivan IV was no more “terrible” than contemporary European kings and princes), both tsars left Russia larger and stronger when they died. Both men achieved reform goals designed to enhance the Russian state and Russian culture. It is certainly true that the reforms of Peter the Great were more far reaching, yet this does not diminish the vision both men had.

 

Sources:

 

• James Cracraft, The Revolution of Peter the Great (Harvard University Press, 2003)
• Ronald Hingley, The Tsars 1533-1917 (New York: the Macmillan Company, 1968)
• David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond 4th Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993)

The copyright of the article Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great Compared in Russian/Ukrainian/Belarus History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great Compared in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Tomb of Peter the Great

 In Praise of Presidential Term Limits

Eight Years: No More

 

Teddy Roosevelt might have added to his credentials as an effective president and strong leader in 1912 had William Howard Taft stepped aside. As it was, the Republicans split and a morose former New Jersey governor became chief executive at one of the world’s most crucially important periods. Good history is not, however, twilight zone speculation. In 2011, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1951, begins with the statement, “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice…” In part, the amendment was a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms.

 

The Washington Tradition of Serving Two Presidential Terms

 

Before 1951, serving two terms as President was a tradition based on the example of George Washington. The Founding Fathers rightly concluded that enough checks and balances existed within the system to avert any abuse of power by potential oligarchs suffering from the megalomania of another King George III. Term limits were not entered into the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt was the first man to challenge this tradition, although it can be conceded that his first term was not his own, begun when President William McKinley was assassinated in 1901.

 

Franklin Roosevelt, however, was elected by a large margin in 1932 and when World War II broke out after Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, FDR became a war president, much like Abraham Lincoln before him in the 19^th Century. American voters have never replaced a President during times of war, unless those men, like President Lyndon Johnson, decided against reelection.

 

Congress Passes Presidential Term Limits

 

But the 80^th Congress in 1947 was controlled by Republicans, elected in 1946 during the second year of President Truman’s tenure as chief executive. Their victory represented dissatisfaction with on-going war time rationing and price controls.They passed the Twenty-Second Amendment that was subsequently adopted by the requisite number of states. For some Republicans, it was also a reaction to the frequent criticism that FDR had turned the war time presidency into a dictatorship and that the New Deal, which Truman wanted to expand, was nothing more than socialism.

 

Current Moves to Amend the U.S. Constitution

 

The 112^th Congress was seated in January 2011 and includes a number of members that want to repeal certain Constitutional amendments. Conservative Republicans, for example, want to repeal all or parts of the Fourteenth Amendment defining American citizenship. This may become even more vital for some Tea Party Republicans fearful that provisions in the amendment might be interpreted by Presidents to unilaterally increase the nation’s debt ceiling at some future point.

 

Democrats, however, should consider a repeal of the Twenty-Second Amendment. A rapid repeal would enable men like former President Bill Clinton another opportunity to exercise leadership and solve the nation’s domestic problems. Many observers note that President Obama, despite the rhetoric of “hope,” has been a dismal leader, perhaps even a failure. At the same time, Republican candidates for the presidency, notably front runner Mitt Romney, have hibernated during the July 2011 debt ceiling crisis.

 

Ordinary Americans Want an End to Capitol Hill Gridlock

 

The silence of the wolves has left many Americans seeking integrity and leadership in Washington, D.C. (see Pugh Research poll, August 1, 2011) Non-committed potential candidates have fared no better. Texas Governor Rick Perry is content to pray for divine guidance, perhaps in violation of the First Amendment. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie entered the hospital following an asthma attack. This, however, may be the most understood reaction to the on-going debacle in the nation’s capital, perhaps more so than Michele Bachmann’s migraine headaches.

 

While the Congress is thinking about amendments, it might also consider a change to the Constitution allowing naturalized citizens to serve as President. Although former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger might have been a strong possibility before his infidelities became public, the United States in 2011 is a nation full of successful men and women not born in the nation.

 

In the 1960’s, George Romney, the father of Mitt, was questioned regarding his eligibility for the presidency, having been born in Mexico to American parents living in a Mormon community. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state; John McCain was born in Panama. Both men ran for the presidency and lost.

 

Has the Debt Ceiling Crisis Turned Obama into a Lame Duck?

 

Throughout the debt ceiling negotiations, President Obama has been reactive rather than proactive. His own party views him with distrust and he may emerge as the greatest casualty of the process, a president without a caucus. At least in that sense Sarah Palin was right, calling him a “lame duck” President. Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, Obama may face a challenge in the primaries from within his own party. For Democrats, that would truly be “change we can believe in.”

 

In the summer of 2011, neither political party generated confidence among the nation’s everyday working men and women. Within the Republican Party, Tea Party extremists can claim responsibility for creating fear, not just among the poor and the elderly, but among U.S. combat troops told by the Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen (August 30, 2011) that they might not get paid. Tea Party zealots have become the post-modern barnburners, a term identified with the election of 1848. These “patriots” are willing to burn down the barn with the Boehner rats inside.

 

Repealing the Twenty-Second Amendment would enable Bill Clinton to seek the nomination, the last president able to work with Congress as an independently minded chief executive, decrease the deficit, and still preserve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He also faced a government shut-down, but emerged successfully. The Founding Fathers, however, made the amendment process cumbersome. Thus, without a “dark horse” white knight candidate, the nation may face more years of a “do nothing” government.

 

And that is exactly what has happened. In our current climate, the117th Congress is at a stalemate, unable to put into practice President Joe Biden’s agenda. Additionally, the nation is besotted with conspiracy stories of the worst magnitude intent on reinstating the former president, Donald Trump.

Trump is the greatest antithesis of Democratic government and would ruin America in every which way possible.

 

NO LEADERS

 

Into this vacuum sits a Congress in which Republicans still pay homage to the emperor-like Trump while Democrats are beginning to frazzle as well.

And this bring us back to term limits for presidents. Term limits exceeding two – 8 years, would vastly increase the power of one man at the expense of the Legislative body of Congress. And in this Congress, there are no leaders, thus making it easier to see the bleary and the weary on repealing the 22^nd Amendment so that Trump will be in league with the Chinese leader as well as the Russian leaders. Let us not forget, Trump’s favorite leaders are dictators. He ranks the Egyptian leader as his favorite.  

 

Unless the House and Senate develop good leadership qualities, per haps by looking in the history of their institutions, The Legislative branch will become the lackey of the president. During the early stages of the Roman Empire, Tiberius referred to Senators as “men fit for slaves.”

 

(Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. No reprints or reproduction of any kind without written permission)

 

West Virginia Produces Dynamic, Strong Senators. Joe Manchin is no Different. He is the Leading Power in Brokering Important Deals that May Result in significant Change in America. 

 This article is Dedicated to Elizabeth - "Liz", in Stonewood

Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1952. In 1958 Byrd was elected to the U.S. Senate where he served until his death. His current term would have expired in 2012. He began adulthood as a Southern segregationist and even joined the Ku Klux Klan, but gave up his membership after election to Congress. As Senate pro tempore, Byrd was third in line for the presidency. He will be remembered as a powerful force in the Senate, a champion of education and particularly civics, and as Washington, DC’s “King of Pork.”

 

Service in the U.S. Senate

 

Robert Byrd cherished the ideals of the Senate. He was known for carrying a copy of the Constitution. After becoming the Majority Leader for the Democrats in 1976, he worked to end the post-cloture filibuster, a Senate rule allowing members to add amendments before cloture. Under Senate rules, each amendment could be debated for 100 hours. Byrd, with the help of then Vice President Walter Mondale, ended the practice by having the amendments ruled out of order.

 

Byrd supported prayer and Bible reading in public schools. After the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in School District of Abington Township v Schempp, Byrd declared that, “somebody is tampering with America’s soul.” This was at the same time Byrd finished studies at American University in Washington, D.C. where he earned a J.D., graduating cum laude. In 1964, he voted against the Civil Rights Act.

 

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Senator Byrd, speaking on the Senate floor March 19, 2003 asked, “What is happening to this country?...When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might?” Of himself, Byrd once said, “I do claim to be a Christian. I believe that way, and I believe we ought to observe the Ten Commandments.” (October 9, 2004)

 

The King of Pork

 

Senator Byrd’s position on the Senate Appropriations Committee enabled him to funnel massive amounts of revenue to West Virginia. Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog organization, writes that, “Since 1991, West Virginia has received $2.95 billion in pork.” “Pork barrel politics” refers to the practice of Congressional members earmarking revenue for their states or congressional districts.

 

Byrd had raised $5 million during the current cycle, 2005 – 2010 but spent most of it. As of March 21, 2010, his campaign only had $8,109 cash on hand, perhaps an indication that Byrd might not have stood for reelection in 2012.

 

The Legacy of Senator Robert Byrd

 

Robert Byrd authored numerous books during his long career and the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship, a national merit-based college scholarship begun in 1985, was named for him. As a public servant for most of his adult life, Byrd exhibited the integrity learned from early childhood. Born in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina in 1917 and orphaned at the age of one, he worked during World War II on Liberty Ships. He pumped gas and sold produce. Robert Byrd never forgot his humble beginnings.

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any reproductions require written permission.

This article was written upon the death of Senator Byrd June 27,2010

 

America's Last Year of Innocence

 

1916 was an election year, producing a 62 percent turnout, one of the highest in history. The election saw Woodrow Wilson reelected, defeating Charles Evans Hughes, although in several state returns Wilson’s margin of victory was less than four percent. The election demonstrated that World War I, which had been raging since August 1914, was on many minds. It would be the last year of innocence before the war drums beat once again and the new century forced a redefinition of the U.S. presence in the world. Despite this, daily life continued unaltered, in some cases paving the way toward a different society.

 

A Changing United States

 

Both Jack London and Henry James died in 1916 but a new breed of writers was making their way into the American psyche. Eugene O’Neill, acclaimed as one of the nation’s greatest dramatists, wrote “Bound East for Cardiff” while Theodore Dreiser, author of the ground-breaking novel Sister Carrie, contended with censors over newly written material. Despite the popularization of Jazz, Victorian morality still reigned, yet this did not stop Margaret Sanger from opening the first birth control clinic. It was the year bandleader Harry James and Dinah Shore were born.

 

The automobile was changing the travel habits of Americans and in 1916 the Thomas B. Jeffery Company in Kenosha, Wisconsin offered consumers an enclosed sedan good for “year-round motoring” at a cost of $1165.00 It was also the year Norman Rockwell sold his first two Post magazine covers, at the age of only twenty-two. Neither cover featured a war image. In Hollywood, D. W. Griffith finished Intolerance, an epic silent film with strong religious and ethical overtones.

 

The Battle Between Labor and Business Continued

 

American workers were still battling for shorter hours and higher wages, even as the Adamson 8-Hour Act addressed the concerns of railroad workers. Despite the changes in social perceptions as seen in the popular literature and in the arts, domestic problems included “Pancho” Villa’s incursion into southern U.S. territory and the blowing up of a New Jersey munitions plant by German agents, an action that damaged the Statue of Liberty.

 

The progressive spirit, however, was still pervasive, proven, in part, by President Wilson’s nomination of Louis Brandeis to the U.S. Supreme Court. Brandeis, famously known for his unorthodox evidence in Muller v Oregon (1908), was the first Jew appointed to the high court, serving well into the FDR administration.

 

America’s Domestic Problems in 1916

 

But the calamities of Europe overshadowed any notion of carefree existence and change. While Paris was bombed by the first German Zeppelin raid, a strike by steel workers in Pittsburgh highlighted on-going labor disputes. Robert Minor’s drawing Pittsburgh, published in The Masses (1916), depicted a worker bent backward from the thrust of a bayonet. It was powerful and ironic that the worker was killed by a tool his own work probably manufactured.

 

Another pro-labor picture in the 1916 publication, Girls Wanted, coincided with the release of a public report detailing the findings in the investigation of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire. Henry Glintenkamp’s seemingly innocent picture featured three young women huddled in conversation before the ruins of a building. The picture commented on the tragedy of the fire, child labor, and the exploitation of women in the workforce. 1916, however, witnessed the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress: Jeanette Rankin, Republican from Montana.

 

In the South, segregation was still the rule, but discrimination still existed in the North as well. An October 7, 1916 item in the Cleveland Advocate refers to two “ill-kept Colored men” denied entrance to the Stillman Theater. “We do not call this discrimination,” the writer comments, “but rather an effort to exclude from the theater patrons whose deportment…made them undesirables.” The writer used the New Testament analogy of the parable about the man who wasn’t wearing a wedding garment when invited to the feast.

 

The Promise and Hope of Peace on Earth and Goodwill toward Men

 

As 1916 drew to a close, the chimes of New York’s Old Trinity Church began at ten minutes to midnight. Thousands gathered in the hope that the New Year would bring peace in Europe. Elsewhere, Secretary of War Baker expressed “profound gratitude” that the United States had, “preserved both its peacefulness and its honor.” (New York Times, December 31, 1916) Peace would also affect the U.S. economy: the 1916 credit balance with belligerent countries was $3,097,000,000.

 

In retrospect, 1916 was indeed a year of final innocence, despite those groups struggling to achieve their part of American democracy. The war came in 1917, sending American boys to the bloody trenches of Europe. While isolationism prevailed after the war, the U.S. would forever be entangled in alliances and focused on global actions impacting American security and prosperity. 1916 was the last year Americans could look within, without the fear of global threats.

 

Sources:

 

Meirion & Susie Harries, The Last Days of Innocence: America At War, 1917-1918 (Random House, 1997)

Jeff Nilsson, “Enemy Agents Strike New York – In 1916,” The Saturday Evening Post, July 7, 2010

Library of Congress archives

Page Smith, America Enters the War: A People’s History of the Progressive Era And World War I (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)

Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich; reprints of any kind require written permission