How Effective is Political Assassination?

 

Political assassination has always been a means to replace leaders seen as weak, to eliminate political competition, create social insecurity, and instill terror. Frequently, assassinations are tied to radical groups furthering political agendas. This was true of late 19^th Century Russian revolutionaries, the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914, and – in modern history, the attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman November 1, 1950. Some notable assassinations may have been carried out as acts of revenge, as the stabbing of Marat by Charlotte Corday July 13, 1793 or the murder of French King Henry IV in May 1610 by a crazed Catholic cleric.

 

Assassination Used to Incite Social Terror and National Insecurity

 

In 1878 in St. Petersburg, Russia, Vera Zasulich walked into the office of General D. F. Trepov and shot him. Zasulich was part of the Nihilists whose program of political reform condoned violence. Like the Anarchists and numerous other groups at the time, political assassination was part of that program. In The Catechism of the Revolutionary, authors Sergei Nechaev and Mikhail Bakunin provide a list of “categories” – those that must be eliminated. “…the first to be destroyed are people who are especially harmful to the revolutionary organization and those whose sudden and violent death will create the greatest fear in the government…” (Paragraph 16)

 

Although the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were directly related to the political goals of the Black Hand, a secret Serbian nationalist cell, it also was successful in exploiting terror and insecurity. Already viewed as a “powder keg” waiting to be ignited, the Balkans pitted the territorial goals of Austria-Hungary against Russia. In this case, what might be called the “assassination of the century,” launched World War One.

 

Assassination to Replace Potential Political Threats

 

The history of Rome is full of assassinations, often engineered to end the careers of leaders that had become liabilities, as in the case of Nero. In 44 BCE, however, members of the Roman Senate perpetrated the assassination of Julius Caesar, an event destined to become the subject of innumerable books, plays, and mock trials. It also ended the Roman Republic. William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar focuses on both the fears that Caesar was about to make himself a king (thus inspiring Brutus’ motive) as well as the jealousies and ambitions of key senators like Cassius (with the “lean and hungry look…”)

 

In December 1934, the popular Bolshevik Party boss of St. Petersburg, Serge Kirov was assassinated, ostensibly by members of a group opposed to Stalin but supportive of Leon Trotskii. Through the newly formed NKVD, formerly the secret police or GPU, Stalin was able to implicate fellow Bolsheviks like Zinoviev and Kamenev. Show trials and subsequent purges rid Stalin of any potential political threats. The murder of Kirov accomplished several goals, all of which enhanced the power and control of Stalin.

 

Military Assassinations

 

The Roman Praetorian Guard was not the last military group to make and unmake leaders. On July 20, 1944, Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg entered a conference room at OKW HQ in Rastenburg carrying a bomb. Operation “Valkyrie” was planned to kill Adolph Hitler and involved many top generals that felt Hitler had to be replaced in order to swiftly end the war. The plot, however, failed. It was also unsuccessful in creating an anti-Hitler vanguard within the army ranks. As one former officer wrote, “We all took an oath. These generals supported Hitler when Germany was winning and they were receiving medals. Now they wanted to save themselves.” [1]

 

Political Assassinations are never a Solution

 

The use of violence and murder in history in terms of political assassinations has never demonstrated a positive result. When the Roman Senate assassinated Tiberius Gracchus his place was taken by his brother Gaius, who was also murdered. Their assassinations only further exacerbated the conflict between Roman farmers and the Senate. Political assassination is a crime against all notions of law and order in society as demonstrated by the historical record.

 

See also The Assassination of Tsar Alexander II

 

[1] Unpublished memoirs of Gunter Streich

 

References:

 

Virginia Cowles, The Russian Dagger: Cold War in the Days of the Czars (NY: Harper & Row, 1969)

Basil Dmytryshyn, editor, Imperial Russia: A Source Book, 1700-1917  (NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967)

Constantine FitzGibbon, 20 July (Berkley Publishing Co., 1956)

David MacKenzie, Violent Solutions: Revolutions, Nationalism, and Secret Societies in Europe to 1918 (NY: University Press of America, Inc., 1996)

Jack Pearl, The Dangerous Assassins (Monarch Books, Inc., 1964)

Published May, 15, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. Copyright

President Polk and Santa Anna: Subterfuge and Possible Treason?

James K. Polk entered the White House in 1845 as an ardent expansionist, wedded to the ideal of Manifest Destiny as an American directive characterized by historian Frederick Merk as, “…immediate, realistic, aggressive.” In efforts to disassemble Mexico’s territories north of the Rio Grande, Polk engaged every option. This included Polk’s cunning scheme to assist the exiled Mexican leader Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna by returning him to power and paying him a stipend for championing American annexation goals.

 

Santa Anna Returns to Mexico

 

Polk was in contact with Santa Anna through secret envoys as early as February 1845. Exiled to Cuba, Santa Anna was remembered as the butcher of the Alamo defenders, a man hated in the new Texas republic which had been formally joined to the United States in the waning hours of John Tyler’s presidency. The disgraced general, eager to return to Mexico and reassume power, promised Polk recognition of the Rio Grande boundary and the sale of Mexico’s continental territories for thirty million dollars.

 

The Rio Grande border between Mexico and Texas was a relatively new development and had seldom been used before 1845 as an official boundary. Santa Anna recognized the river as the border at the end of Texas’ war for independence, but the treaty had been signed under duress and was repudiated by the Mexican government.

 

Santa Anna had no intention of fulfilling his agreements. Polk, unaware of the general’s plans, allowed him to slip back into Mexico through the U.S. naval blockade. In August 1846, before Santa Anna resumed power in Mexico, Polk attempted to obtain a $2 million appropriation, ostensibly as a down payment for the Mexican territories. A handful of Senators politically aligned to Polk knew that the appropriation included a stipend for Santa Anna.

 

The bill was defeated in the U.S. Senate shortly before Congress adjourned, chiefly due to an anti-slavery amendment known as the Wilmot Proviso. The debate over slavery’s expansion into the territories joined to the U.S. as a result of the war was about to grow heated and divisive.

 

Santa Anna Continues the War

 

Santa Anna resumed his leadership of Mexico and the war continued through 1847. At the February 1847 battle of Buena Vista, Santa Anna vastly outnumbered American forces under the command of Zachary Taylor. Taylor was acting against orders but managed a spectacular victory due in large part to his West Point-trained artillery units.

 

By October 1847, General Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City and Santa Anna relinquished control, joining the Mexican guerrilla campaign being waged against U.S. troops. Polk, despite his machinations with Congress from the first weeks of his presidency, fulfilled his campaign promises. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ceded vast territories to the United States and ended Mexican claims against Texas. Aggressive expansionism prevailed.

 

References:

 

Robert W. Johannsen, To The Halls of the Montezumas (Oxford University Press, 1985)

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)

Federick Merk, Manifest Destiny in American History (Vintage/Random House, 1966)

Published March 14, 2012 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

Expansionism, Imperialism, and Manifest Destiny

 Expansionism and Imperialism are closely related. Expansionism is a more benign term and usually refers to expanding a nation’s sphere of influence. Throughout the 19^th Century, Americans expanded their influence across the continent through the Westward Movement. Although sovereign Native American nations were suppressed and even eliminated in the process, America was not acting as an imperial power. Imperialism, although defined in several different ways, is always premised on a powerful nation that uses such powers to conquer other peoples. This was the case in the late 1890s when the U.S. annexed the Philippines.

 

Was America Imperialist?

 

In March 1961, Economist Mark Blaug [1] debated whether “Economic imperialism” as a foreign policy conformed to V.I. Lenin’s conclusions that imperialism reflected the “highest stage of capitalism.” [2] By the 1890s, the U.S. was producing more than it could consume. Political leaders like Senators Al Beveridge and Henry Cabot Lodge were urging that American interests globally should parallel those of France and Britain. Most of the world had, by then, been carved up by the great powers of Europe.

 

The Spanish-American War afforded an opportunity to plant the American flag. The “March of the Flag” greatly expanded American commercial interests but forced the virtuous Republic to don the image of an imperial power. American imperialism was already evident in the Caribbean, Central, and South America. James Blaine, Secretary of State under Presidents Garfield, Arthur, and Harrison, for example, earned the nickname “Jingo Jim” for his diplomatic efforts.

 

Although reasons given for the American annexation of the Philippines included the promises of positive benefit to the Filipino people, the act of annexation, strongly tied to economic factors, cannot be called anything but imperialist. Similarly, Secretary of State John Hay’s China policy (Open Door Notes) had the purpose of ensuring American participation in the lucrative China trade.

 

Opposition to Imperialism and the Antithesis of Global Interest

 

Several prominent Americans, like Mark Twain, felt so strongly about America’s departure from the ideals of a virtuous Republic that they formed the Anti-Imperialist League. Professor Albert Weinberg, in his analysis of Manifest Destiny, refers to the concept of “paramount interest” while detailing U.S. actions in Panama under Theodore Roosevelt. [3] “Two principal grounds supported the claim,” Weinberg writes: “supremacy of commercial interest and superiority of strategic interest.”

 

Weinberg, in his final chapter, points out an important factor that set the U.S. apart from the European powers. In terms of classic imperialism, the forging of and the maintaining of empires, World War I changed American policy. This may be the result of Wilson’s moralisms, retrenchment into isolationism, and what Weiberg calls “a willingness for contraction…”

 

Is There a Difference between Imperialism and Expansionism?

 

In the Ancient world, Greeks expanded their influence throughout the Mediterranean region through colonies and trade, but they never became an imperial power, unlike Rome after the transformation of the Republic. Historians of the ancient world, such as Peter Brown, have pointed out that even Hellenization, inspired by Alexander’s conquests, was limited.

 

The difference between the terms is important – important enough to prompt the recent amendment change to delete the term “imperialism” from history texts by the Texas Board of Education. Expansionism, as a concept, implies an inherent, inevitable occupation, something 19^th Century thinkers and politicians attributed to a providential mission. Imperialism, however, implies conquest and supremacy, regardless of motive. American history was both.

 

History professor Emily S. Rosenberg (“Bursting America’s Imperial Bubble,” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 3, 2006, Volume 53, Issue 11) states that, “Throughout the past, Americans have both embraced and rejected the word ‘empire,’” But empires are defined many ways and Rosenberg’s article reviews several scholarly books dealing with the thorny nomenclature.

 

Today’s Americans may prefer to see themselves as a “unipolar civilization” rather than an imperial power. Despite efforts in Texas to revise history based on terminology, the rest of the world still views the U.S. with great suspicion despite American egalitarianism, and this is one of the reasons why they hate the U.S.

 

Notes and References:

 

[1] Mark Blaug, “Lenin and Economic Imperialism Reconsidered,” Yale Review, L (March 1961), reprinted in British Imperialism: Gold, God, Glory, edited by Robin W. Winks, (Hinsdale, ILL: Dryden Press, 1963)

[2] V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (NY: International Publishers Co., 1934)

[3] Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935)

 

Also:

 

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (NY: Random House, 1987)

First published May 22, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

The Oregon Territory Risks War with Britain: "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" - Election Issue in 1844

 American possession of the Oregon Territory was a primary issue in the presidential election of 1844. Ultra-expansionist James K. Polk led the “All Oregon” movement with the campaign slogan, “fifty-four forty or fight!” Along with Texas annexation, Oregon represented American commercial interests and Polk wished to end earlier agreements with Great Britain that provided for joint administration of the territory. By 1846, however, the two nations agreed to the boundary at the 49^th parallel.

 

Early Exploration and Territorial Claims

 

By the time Captain George Vancouver claimed much of the Oregon Territory for Britain in 1792, coinciding American claims through the voyages of Captain Robert Gray destined to create long-term rivalries. Earlier Spanish and Russian claims had been relinquished by those nations. Exploration was followed by the lucrative fur trade. The Hudson Bay Company operated as a British monopoly, competing with John Jacob Astor’s Pacific Fur Company.

 

Early settlement of the territory focused on the Columbia River. British settlers, originally dependant families of Hudson Bay Company employees, inhabited the region north of the river while American settlement was limited to the southern bank. Following the fur trade, missionaries arrived and would soon be joined by American farmers eager for new opportunities. American migrations increased during years of financial distress, such as the Panic of 1837.

 

Joint Occupation and Jurisdiction of the Oregon Territory

 

Negotiations with the British government during the Monroe and John Quincy Adams administrations resulted in a treaty stipulating joint control of the territory but the treaty did not address specifics. The 1814 Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812, provided for a return to all original pre-war boundaries. Although the treaty did not specify boundary questions regarding Oregon, Americans not only asserted prior land claims but insisted that the boundary be construed as the 49^th parallel.

 

Increased American Settlement and Commercial Opportunities

 

The Oregon Territory had long been important for New England merchants engaged in the China trade. Otter and beaver furs brought high profits in China, along with Hawaiian sandalwood and New England ginseng. Before the 1848 Mexican Cession, the Oregon Territory was the only link between American shipping and the Pacific trade. By the time new negotiations with the British began under the John Tyler administration in 1842, large numbers of Americans were traveling to the territory, notably the much heralded Willamette Valley. Although the high number of American settlers is often cited as a reason the British eventually agreed to American demands in 1846, other theories played a part in avoiding an Anglo-American war.

 

James Polk and the “All Oregon” Democrats

 

James Polk asserted in 1845 that his victory over the Whig Henry Clay gave him a mandate to expand the nation to the Pacific. This included Mexican-held lands, resolved by the Mexican-American War, as well as settlement of the Oregon question, inherited from the prior Tyler administration.

 

Polk soon realized, however, that a stubborn position on Oregon would not have necessary Congressional support. Any potential war with Britain over Oregon was opposed, even by members of his own party. New England Congressional leaders feared that a war with Britain might hurt commerce. In the South, political leaders opposed any hint of war for fear of losing their largest cotton export market.

 

Diplomacy Averts War with Britain

 

The British-Canada boundary was set at the 49^th parallel, in keeping with earlier British offers to settle the dispute. The speed of the resolution and U.S. Senate ratification was based on several factors that influenced the end of the dispute. For the United States, the Mexican-American War was the chief focus in late 1846. In Britain, a Cabinet crisis had resulted in a coalition government that was forced to deal with a “famine scare,” part of which involved the failure of the Irish potato crop.

 

Although final settlement of the Oregon question took almost half a century, the results stand today. The Canadian-American boundary has not changed. Significantly, it was diplomacy and not war that resulted in an agreement acceptable to all parties.

 

Sources:

 

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978) see chapter 35

Frederick Merk, The Oregon Question: Essays in Anglo-American Diplomacy and Politics (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume 4 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Published April 7, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

Potosi Silver from South America and How it Changed European Wealth and Currency Flow

 

The Spaniards arrived in Potosi in 1545, ready to exploit silver deposits at Cerro Rico, referred to as “the richest mountain ever discovered anywhere on earth” by anthropologist Jack Weatherford. Establishing the largest city in the Americas at that time with a population of over 160,000 by the mid seventeenth century, the Spaniards extracted silver until the end of the eighteenth century. The silver from Potosi would change European economies and, according to Fernand Braudel, fuel “a strong and sustained inflation.”

 

Silver and Gold in Early European Exploration

 

At the point of early European exploration, beginning with the Portuguese efforts along the western coast of Africa, precious metals in Europe were scare. Some gold entered Europe through the North African trade routes, flowing through Timbuktu. In Germany, silver mines operated but made no significant contribution to the overall demand for precious metal. According to John Hale, “Europe was genuinely desperate for metal to make into coin…without ample supplies of coin, there could be no real expansion of commercial and financial transactions.”

 

Once Europeans, notably explorers sailing for Spain like Columbus, reached the Americas, the influx of gold and silver would expand dramatically. Columbus established a gold quota for the Caribbean Arawaks; Cortes told Montezuma that he had a sickness of the heart that could only be cured by gold. By the mid sixteenth century, Spain discovered Cerro Rico which would produce 85 percent of all silver mined in the central Andes mountains.

 

Mark Abbott, who co-authored a study of pre Inca Potosi that was published in the September 26, 2003 Science journal, demonstrated that geological evidence suggests extensive silver mining in the region even before Incan times. The intriguing aspect of the study is that there is no firm accounting for all of the silver removed between A.D. 1000 to 1200.

 

Exploiting the silver at Potosi required a large labor force. Spain used both Africans, brought across the Atlantic as slaves, as well as indigenous Indian populations. Each miner was assessed a daily quota of one and a quarter tons of ore. The silver was separated from the ore and shipped in bars and coins to the coast with a final destination of Seville.

 

American Silver Bankrupts Spain

 

The silver glut dramatically altered the financial and commercial institutions in Europe. Spain used the windfall to pay for incessant wars as well as to fill orders for goods. Braudel writes that within the first fifty years of Spain’s looting the New World, Europe saw the introduction of 3.3 billion worth of silver, much of it passing through Spanish hands to other countries, such as the purchase of cannons from England. At the time the Armada sailed to England in 1588, English ships were still delivering cannon to Spain.

 

Although silver from Potosi and the Mexican silver mines led to a “true money economy” and “accumulation of wealth,” according to Weatherford, Spain and Portugal would become the ultimate losers. As economic historian David Landes writes, “Gold and silver mines are wasted assets.” Landes argues that Potosi, and other gold and silver mines, represented a seemingly limitless supply of precious metal, leaving no incentives for Spain to develop those industries that would produce long term prosperity such as in England.

 

The historical and economic lessons highlight the irony that despite redirecting gold and silver to Europe, representing billions of dollars, Europe’s biggest “winner” wasn’t Spain but rather England, which found no precious metals but developed multifaceted manufacturing and agricultural colonies.

 

Sources:

 

Fernand Braudel, The Structues of Everyday Life: Civilization & Capitalism 15^th-18^th Century, Volume I, (New York: Harper & Row, 1981).

John R. Hale, Age of Exploration (TIME Incorporated, 1966).

David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich And Some So Poor (W. W. Norton & Co., 1998).

Hillary Mayell, “Bolivia Silver Mines May Predate Inca, Experts Say,” National Geographic News, September 25, 2003.

Jack Weatherford, Indian Givers: How the Indians of America Transformed the World (Fawcett Books, 1988).

First published March 2, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich. Copyright

Comparing English and Spanish Colonies: Motives Similar and Dissimilar 

 

Comparisons between Spanish and English colonial patterns demonstrate that significant differences existed. There were, however, notable similarities. Both nations used New World colonies to further their mercantilist goals. In the process of exploitation, both nations ravaged native populations, charting a long course of cultural disruption and destruction. By the late 18^th and early 19^th Centuries, both nations would lose their primary New Work colonies as independent communities emerged.

 

The Goals Associated with New Spain

 

Spanish conquest of the Americas began with the first voyage of Columbus in 1492. History books often equate immediate Spanish goals with “God, Gold, and Glory.” The exploitation of these new lands involved the establishment of sugar plantations, begun by the Portuguese in Brazil, turning sugar into the most lucrative commodity to flow into Europe. Plantation economies existed because of the endless supply of African slaves; 92% of all African slaves ended up in Spanish or Portuguese colonial possessions.

 

Gold and silver arrived in Spain aboard large treasure fleets, creating inflation and changing forever the monetary policies of European trade and credit policies. Silver mines, like the vast enterprise in Potosi, produced silver coins that enabled Spanish kings like Philip II to pay for expansive military ventures.

 

Spanish colonial efforts were the endeavors of men, unlike the English who came to the North American eastern coast with families. Early Conquistadores like Cortes and Pizzaro, were soldiers of fortune, seeking gold and eventually enslaving indigenous populations to work on plantations and agricultural estates. Many of these men took local wives, creating a distinctly new social class.

 

God also figured prominently with the Spanish. Spanish kings that saw themselves as staunch defenders of Catholicism dispatched missionary priests with instructions to convert native populations. The efforts of the Franciscans establishing missions throughout Central America, Texas, New Mexico, and California are well known. Until 20^th Century Protestant missionary efforts, all of Central and South America was Roman Catholic.

 

Goals of English Colonization

 

The first permanent English colony at Jamestown was founded with a profit motive. Not funded through royal patronage, the Virginia Colony was initially controlled by a joint stock company. Similar to Spain, however, most early Virginia settlers were male, young indentured servants seeking a better future in a land of apparent limitless opportunity. This was not true in other English colonies, such as in New England, that featured families as the norm in local communities.

 

Other colonies were founded by religious groups fleeing harassment in England or the continental wars of religion. Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, and Huguenots established communities, often after making treaties with local Native American peoples. Unlike the Spanish, there was never a concerted effort to convert the native peoples (notable exceptions might be the missionary activities of the Moravians among the Shawnee and Cherokee).

 

English colonists found no gold or silver. Rather, they established profitable enterprises in the cultivation of tobacco and rice, ship building and lumber, and New England fishing. It can be argued that, unlike the Spanish, these diversified structures reaped greater long-term and sustainable profits for England, at least until 1783.

 

European Wars and Mercantile Considerations

 

Following the English Glorious Revolution, a series of wars, fought between England and France, often included the involvement of Spain. Each war ended with the redrawing of colonial possessions. By 1763, at the end of the Seven Years’ War, Britain was in full control of North America including Florida (returned to Spain in 1783). Britain also owned numerous “sugar islands” in the Caribbean, mostly at the expense of Spain.

 

Although having had over 100 years “head start” in New World colonizing, Spain’s weaker controls and concentration on ultimately finite commodities like Gold and Silver (Potosi gave out into the latter 17^th century) affected the long term profit possibilities. In this, English colonizing was far more judicious and successful.

 

Sources:

 

Philip D. Curtin, The Rise and Fall of the Plantation Complex 2^nd Ed (Cambridge University Press, 1998)

Michael V. Gannon, The Cross in the Sand: The Early Catholic Church in Florida 1513-1870 (University of Florida Press, 1967)

Hammong Innes, The Conquistadores (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969)

Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Viking Press, 2001)

Published June 26, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

Texas Annexation

 Texas annexation by the United States became an issue immediately following Texas independence and was overwhelmingly affirmed by a Texas referendum representing the desires of Texans to unite with their homeland. But annexation would take not take place for another nine years. By 1844, Northern notions of Manifest Destiny and Southern fears of future abolition drove the issue to the forefront, enabling President Tyler, an ardent expansionist, to sign a joint resolution for annexation before his administration ended in early 1845.

 

Initial Setbacks to Texas Annexation

 

Annexation efforts were first rejected by President Andrew Jackson. Jackson knew that annexation would be contentious, particularly in the North where the prospect of one or more new slave states entering the Union was anathema. Additionally, Jackson did not want to hurt the presidential chances of Martin Van Buren who, in 1836, was Jackson’s choice as a successor.

 

There were constitutional issues as well. National leaders like Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams questioned the constitutionality of annexing an independent republic. Texas was not a U.S. territory; it was the Lone Star Republic with its own Congress. Opponents of this view argued that Texas had, indirectly, been part of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase and was thus already annexed. Other views noted that the Constitution was mute on the issue.

 

The Propaganda Effect of John C. Calhoun

 

In 1841 John Tyler became the first “accidental” president following the untimely death of William Henry Harrison; Van Buren had not achieved reelection. Unable to affect domestic change following the mass resignation of his Cabinet, Tyler turned to foreign affairs, determined to resurrect the Texas annexation issue.

 

Tyler’s second Secretary of State, Abel Upshur, began working on an annexation treaty. Upon Upshur’s death, John C. Calhoun continued the process. The propaganda issues involved alleged British influence in Texas, postulating that Britain determined to end slavery in the republic in return for commercial preferences. This outraged the South. For the North, according to Calhoun’s propaganda, Texas annexation would open rich new markets for their manufactures.

 

The Election of 1844 Decides the Issue

 

Although Texas annexation exerted much of Congressional and Presidential energy throughout 1844, the national election – at least for James K Polk and the Democratic Party, sealed the deal as a popular mandate by the electorate. The popular vote, however, demonstrated polarization on the issue: Polk’s margin of victory was only 1%.

 

Henry Clay, the Whig candidate, switched positions on Texas annexation during the campaign. This cost him crucial votes in New York and Michigan where the Liberty Party candidate, James G. Birney, siphoned off enough popular votes to award those states’ electoral votes to Polk. The Liberty Party strongly opposed annexation, running on an abolitionist platform.

 

On December 3, 1844, President Tyler declared that, “A controlling majority of the people…have declared in favor of immediate annexation.” Having been unable to employ his treaty-making powers successfully in the wake of a Senate rejection, pro-annexation forces used a joint resolution of Congress to bring the Lone Star Republic into the Union.

 

Aftermath of Annexation

 

Despite Mexican threats of war, no conflict arose. The Mexican-American War, however, coming later in the Polk administration, was a direct byproduct of annexation, focusing on border discrepancies. It was this discrepancy that prompted Polk to order Brigadier General Zachary Taylor into “disputed” territory north of the Rio Grande that, historically and according to maps of the time period, clearly belonged to Mexico.

 

But the fever of Manifest Destiny was sweeping the nation and Polk had promised to annex all land up to the Pacific. Texas annexation was merely the first phase of a long-term policy to expand into California and to solidify U.S. claims in Oregon.

 

References:

 

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf,

                           1978)

                           Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History

                           (Random House, 1963)

                           Slavery and the Annexation of Texas (Alfred A. Knopf,

                           1972)

Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the

                          Empire of Right (Hill & Wang, 1995)

Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansion in

                          American History (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958)

Published March 29, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

Manifest Destiny: Following a "Higher Law"

 

The debate over the Oregon Territory between the United States and Great Britain during the Polk Administration first applied the notions of Manifest Destiny to American ownership of continental North America. Although alluded to in earlier writings, an editorial in the December 27, 1845 New York Morning News, attributed to John L. Sullivan, referred to American claims to the entire Oregon territory: “…that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given to us…”

 

The Justification for Manifest Destiny

 

In the House of Representatives, Stephen Douglas, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, refuted British claims based on legal principles by asserting that American claims were based on a “higher law.” Like Douglas, other ultra-expansionists applied the principles of geographic predestination to give manifest destiny a moral grounding. Americans had demonstrated this in Texas, turning a barren land into what historian Frederick Merk called “a smiling society of homes…Here was a plan, favored by God, for North America.” [1]

 

Historians note that John O’Sullivan never advocated governmental action to bring to fruition an inevitable conclusion for America. In his essay The Great Nation of Futurity [2] he refers to “a Union of many Republics.” What distinguished these many republics from the rest of the world was, according to O’Sullivan, a radically new system devoid of the shackles of the old European civilizations. O’Sullivan declares that, “our natural birth was the beginning of a new history…” The same ideas can be traced in earlier writings such as the Monroe Doctrine in which President Monroe delineates differences between the American system and the system of monarchical, conservative Europe.

 

New Lands for America’s “Multiplying Millions”

 

In 1851 an editorial in the Terre Haute Express, attributed to John B. L. Soule, provided one of the most famous frontier quotes: “Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.” American expansion allowed for a continual westward movement, a migration to populate the fertile lands of the continent. Swelling hordes of Irish and German immigrants further added to the tide of pioneerism.

 

In 1845, John O’Sullivan’s “Annexation” declared that, “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” [3] Bringing with them the ideals of democracy, these millions would, ultimately, help to shape America as “the great nation of futurity.” [4] In his essay on “Futurity,” O’Sullivan quoted Benjamin Franklin: “where liberty dwells, there is my country.”

 

Manifest Destiny as an Extension of Mission and a Providential Plan

 

The late professor Albert Weinberg of Johns Hopkins University identified Manifest Destiny as an expansionist phase that can be traced to John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill.” [5] The role of God in anointing America as the bearer of a unique vision was there from the foundation of the nation during the colonial period. O’Sullivan would opine that “We are the nation of human progress…Providence is with us…” [6] Further, this “nation of many nations” was “destined to manifest to mankind the excellent of divine principles.”

 

Writing on the social transformations resulting from the American Revolution, Gordon Wood of Brown University, stated that the Revolution “made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people – their pursuit of happiness – the goal of society and government.” [7] This was John O’Sullivan’s concept of the national soul: “the heart of American people.” [8] This was the “high destiny” of America and would become the future history of its people.

 

Notes:

 

[1] Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (New York: Vintage Books/Random House, 1966) pp. 46-47

[2] John O’Sullivan, “The Great Nation of Futurity,” The United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23, pp. 426-430, accessed April 1, 2010, The Making of America Series at Cornell University

[3] John O’Sullivan, “Annexation,” The United States Democratic Review, Volume 17, No. 1, July-August 1845

[4] Ibid

[5] Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1958, first published by the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935)

[6] O’Sullivan, “The Great Nation of Futurity”

[7] Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992) Introduction

[8] O’Sullivan, “The Great Nation of Futurity”

Published in Suite101 by M.Streich April 1, 2010 by M.Streich. Copyright

The Nat Turner Slave Revolt

 Church bells began ringing all over Southampton County on the morning of Sunday, August 22, 1831 as news rapidly spread that a major insurrection was taking place. Although there had been other slave rebellions in the past, like the Gabriel Prosser revolt in 1800 and Vesey rebellion in 1822, Nat Turner’s revolt would dramatically change white perceptions of slavery. Sixty whites had perished by orders of Turner, a highly intelligent and charismatic leader. But as with other slave rebellions, it was swiftly put down, in part because many slaves refused to join Turner’s army and even betrayed the revolt to white masters out of fear of reprisal.

 

Southampton County, Virginia

 

The first slaves to arrive in America in 1619 landed in Virginia and it was the expanding Tidewater plantation economy that grew the slave population in the 18^th and early 19^th centuries. Nat’s mother had been brought from Africa and eventually sold in Southampton County. She had named him Nathaniel, meaning “the gift of God.”

 

In the agricultural South, white social status was determined by the number of slaves a planter owned. Most of the wealthier planters – the old Virginia aristocracy, maintained large estates along the Atlantic coast. Although a handful of planters in rural Southampton County owned more than fifty slaves, most owned only a few and were not wealthy enough to employ overseers.

 

Nat Turner at the Travis Plantation

 

Despite widespread knowledge among blacks and whites of his intelligence, Turner was forced to work in the fields. Unlike most slaves, Turner had learned to read and had been encouraged by a former master to study the Bible. This inspiration led him to believe that God was calling him to a special task that involved freeing the slaves from bondage, even as Moses had led the Children of Israel out of Egypt.

 

Contrary to the conclusions of Southern chroniclers, Turner was not a lunatic or a deceiver. According to Religion Professor Stephen Haynes, Turner was “portrayed as a trickster and manipulator, an ignorant, superstitious, and cunning man” by Southern historians. Turner’s visions – signs and omens, were no different from those claimed by white prophets of the same time period like Joseph Smith.

 

The Insurrection Begins

 

The revolt began after midnight as Turner and his small group of trusted lieutenants entered the home of his master, Joseph Travis. The entire family was killed, hacked to death and decapitated. From there, Turner’s group attacked other farms, killing any whites they encountered. Although some slaves joined his cause as he moved from one farm to another, many refused, fearing eventual retribution. Turner spared poor whites who, he reasoned, were no better off than the slaves.

 

Some whites escaped, alerting other farms in the county. Word came to Jerusalem, the county seat, and the militia was mustered out. Riders brought news of a major revolt to Richmond, Petersburg, and even Murfreesboro, North Carolina, prompting outrageous rumors and the prospect of slave uprisings in that state. In Richmond, Governor John Floyd dispatched troops to Southampton.

 

End of the Rebellion and the Aftermath

 

The revolt was quickly brought under control. Nat Turner, who had hidden in the swamps and forest, was captured and brought to Jerusalem for trial. After a public recounting of the events and a formal trial, he was hung on November 11^th. Twenty of his group were also convicted and hung. Although 60 whites had been killed, the retribution cost 200 black lives in the aftermath.

 

The Turner revolt changed the perceptions of whites regarding slaves. Slave codes were strengthened and vigilance increased. Historian Stephen Oates comments that, “In one desperate blow, Nat Turner had smashed the prevailing stereotype of master-slave relationships in the Old South…” Slavery had gone from “necessary evil” and “economic necessity” to a volcanic institution that could erupt any place, any time, particularly in areas where blacks outnumbered whites.

 

References:

 

Eric Foner, editor Nat Turner: Great Lives Observed (Prentice-Hall, 1971)

Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002)

Peter Kolchin, American Slavery 1619-1877 (Hill and Wang, 1993)

Stephen B. Oates, The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner’s Fierce Rebellion (Harper & Row, 1975)

Published in Suite101 March 25, 2010 by M.Streich. copyright

How America Seized California

 

Daniel Webster once remarked that the port of San Francisco was worth more to the United States than all of Texas. California was important in the functioning of the China trade and in the late 1830s, following the particularly severe Panic of 1837, many American pioneers made their way west, seeking new lives in the fertile regions along the Pacific coast. There were only 800 Americans in California in 1846. Following the establishment of the Bear Flag Republic and the discovery of gold at John Sutter’s mill, the American population soared to well over half a million. California was a crucial acquisition goal for the Polk administration.

 

Early European Claims to California

 

California was part of New Spain in the 16^th Century, securing that claim through the establishment of numerous missions staffed by Franciscan priests and brothers. Small military garrisons were also housed on the mission compounds while a weak administrative staff represented Mexican interests in Monterey.

 

Upper California was also claimed by Imperial Russia as well as by Great Britain. The proliferation of Franciscan missions built after 1769 was designed to aggravate further Russian expansion southward. British interests focused on the Oregon Territory, although claims to San Francisco were linked to Sir Francis Drake, whose circumnavigation in 1577-1580 involved an extended stay in the protected harbor.

 

Mexican Independence Changes the Role of Spanish Missions

 

In 1821 Mexico achieved independence from Spain and in 1833, under the leadership of Santa Anna, pursued a policy of secularization. The Franciscans had already been viewed unfavorably in Mexico City because of their opposition to the independence movement. Untrue stories of Native American abuse by the priests and brothers further damaged the missions.

 

The Mexican government ordered the missions to support the garrisons, promising financial compensation, but those reimbursements were never made. By the outbreak of the Mexican American War, all mission lands had been confiscated and Native Americans were resettled on land allotments. As would happen to tribes in America decades later, the system broke down and most of the land was acquired by white speculators.

 

American Pioneers Migrate to the Pacific Coast

 

California offered numerous fertile valleys that attracted settlers from the East, such as Sacramento in northern California. The Panic of 1837 increased migration in the westward movement, spurred on by newspaper stories and advertisements. This suited the U.S. government, especially the hyper-expansionists like John Tyler and James K. Polk.

 

Polk promised that, if elected, California, along with the other territories that came to be called the “Mexican Cession” in 1848, would be acquired by the U.S. By late 1845, explorer and adventurer John C. Freemont arrived on the Pacific coast.

 

After receiving a confidential letter from his father-in-law Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, he led his small contingent of men south into California to help chart an independence movement. The result would be the proclaiming of the Bear Flag Republic.

 

California Becomes a Territory and State

 

Following the arrival of U.S. General Stephen Kearney in California and the defeat of Mexico, California became a U.S. territory. By 1849, the territory had written a free-soil state constitution and submitted it to President Zachary Taylor. This action reignited the fierce Congressional debate regarding the presence of slavery in the territories.

 

Polk had fulfilled his campaign pledge. President Taylor, who opposed the extension of slavery in the newly acquired territories despite being a planter himself, recommended California’s admission to the Union, accomplished in 1850 by yet another president, Millard Fillmore. The goals of Manifest Destiny had been met.

 

Sources:

 

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)

Frederick Merk, Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History (Vintage Books, 1966)

Page Smith, A Nation Comes of Age: A people’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

John Edward Weems, To Conquer A Peace: The War Between the United States and Mexico (Doubleday, 1974)

Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study Of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935)

Published January 6, 2011 in Decoded Past by M.Streich. Copyright

Veto Power of the President: Veto History

 The presidential power to veto legislation is an integral part of the system of “checks and balances.” The term “veto” comes from the Latin, meaning “I forbid,” and can be used two different ways by Presidents to stop legislation from being enacted. The history of the presidential veto is a reflection of the relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch as well as their understanding of constitutionality.

 

Types of Presidential Vetoes

 

The Constitution gives the President the right to veto bills sent from the House and Senate once approved by a simple majority in both chambers. During Congressional sessions, the president may veto bills, give written reasons for the veto, and send the legislation back to Congress where members can still enact the bill with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

 

Bills arriving for presidential signature after their session has adjourned can be rejected using the pocket veto in which the President sets aside the legislation without signing it. Since Congress is no longer in session, the bill will fail. One of the most famous pocket vetoes was Andrew Jackson’s rejection of the rechartering of the National Bank in 1832. If the President holds the legislation while Congress is in session for ten days without signing it, the bill becomes law.

 

Presidential Vetoes before the American Civil War

 

During his brief term in office following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, President Andrew Johnson used the veto 29 times. The total number of presidential vetoes of all of the preceding presidents was 59. Andrew Jackson had 12 total vetoes followed by John Tyler with 10. Much can be drawn from these numbers.

 

Andrew Johnson rapidly incurred the displeasure of a Congress led by Radical Republicans in 1865 over Reconstruction. Additionally, Johnson was a Southern Democrat and an “accidental” president. In vetoing key elements of the Republican Reconstruction legislative agenda, he became a pariah and ultimately was forced to undergo impeachment. Johnson was also a “strict constructionist” of the Constitution and based many of his vetoes on his view of constitutionality.

 

Unlike Jackson and Tyler, however, Johnson’s vetoes were overridden 12 times (once for Tyler, none for Jackson). Tyler and Jackson both followed the strict constructionist model and vetoed measures they deemed to be unconstitutional. In Tyler’s case, he faced a hostile Congress. In some ways a man without a party, Tyler has limited support from either the Democrats or the Whigs who had repudiated him in 1841.

 

It should also be noted that, according to scholars, [1] these early Congresses took great care to write legislation that was constitutional. Hence, there were fewer presidential vetoes.

 

Post Civil War Presidential Vetoes

 

Presidential vetoes rise in number after the Civil War, declining again after the Eisenhower administration. Franklin Roosevelt vetoed 635 measures during his many years in office yet only 9 of those vetoes were overridden! Grover Cleveland vetoed 414 measures during his two non-consecutive terms, yet as historians point out, many of these vetoes related to private bills that addressed individuals or organizations rather than public bills affected everyone.

 

Since the practice of private bills decreased after Eisenhower’s two terms, there was a significant drop in presidential vetoes. President Bill Clinton, for example, had 22 vetoes (2 overridden), only one more than John F. Kennedy’s 21 (none overridden). President Gerald Ford had the highest number of vetoes since the Eisenhower years with 66 of which 12 were overridden. This was in the aftermath of Watergate and the Vietnam War and Ford was facing an uncooperative Congress.

 

Reforming the Presidential Veto

 

Much has been said in recent years regarding amending the Constitution to give the President a “line item veto.” Already in use by most state governors, this process would allow for the rejection of certain parts of a bill rather than vetoing a potential good bill with undesirable riders or amendments attached or so-called “earmarks.”

 

Sources:

 

[1] John J. Patrick and Richard C. Remy, Lessons on the Constitution (Social Science Education Consortium, 1987) see pages 138 ff.

 

John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Ritchie, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (Oxford University Press, 2001)

Published January 9, 2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich, copyright