Ulysses Grant and the 1872 Election

Liberal Republicans Form a Party to Combat Grantism

Dec 15, 2009 Michael Streich

Liberal Republicans and Democrats reacted in 1872 to the Credit Mobilier scandal, abuse of the Spoils System, on-going Radical Reconstruction, and federal corruption.

When a group of disaffected Republicans calling themselves Liberal Republicans met in Cincinnati, Ohio in May 1872, they had the perfect opportunity to defeat Ulysses S. Grant in the November election. Led by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz, the Liberal Republicans reacted to the growing scandals and widespread corruption associated within the Grant administration. Unfortunately, however, the Liberal Republicans emerged from the convention nominating the one man who had the least chance of defeating Grant, Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune.

Ulysses Grant and the Stalwart Republicans

Ulysses Grant, associated with Union victory over the South in the last years of the Civil War, had been an ideal presidential choice in 1868 for the Republican Party. Former President Andrew Johnson had been deemed a Southern sympathizer and endured impeachment although the Senate trial did not result in conviction. Grant, who had presidential ambitions before 1868, was the ideal candidate.

Grant, however, was no politician and though personally honest, found himself under the control of the Republican “stalwarts” in Congress. An 1872 political cartoon created by Matt Morgan, for example, features an incompetent Congress with Senator Roscoe Conkling, leader of the Stalwarts, pouring liquor into the glass of President Grant who is obviously already inebriated. A caption on the pillared wall declares, “The times demand an uprising of honest citizens to sweep from power the men who prostitute the name of our sacred party to selfish interests.”

Corruption and Nepotism in the First Grant Administration

Corruption during the first Grant administration reached as high as the office of Vice President Schuyler Colfax. Along with other Congressmen, Colfax was implicated in the Credit Mobilier scandal involving the diverting of railroad funds designated for the Union Pacific Railroad to personal use.

President Grant used nepotism and patronage to fill government positions with family members and friends. This flagrant use of the “spoils system” led to demands in reforming the civil service, an issue so important that the Liberal Republicans included it in their party platform. Grant’s Cabinet featured men who were incompetent and prone to corruption and bribery.

The Liberal Republicans and Horace Greeley

The Liberal Republican program addressed government corruption – Grantism, but focused on other needed reforms as well. These included tariff schedules enacted during the Civil War and recently strengthened by the Radical Republican-led Congress. The liberals wanted to end Radical Reconstruction and bring honesty back to government. Their party platform paralleled the views of Democrats, who also nominated Greeley at their convention.

Other potential candidates included Charles Francis Adams, scion of the Adams family that had already produced two presidents, John and John Quincy Adams. Charles Francis Adams, who had served ably during the war as the U.S. Ambassador to England, was considered too associated with New England aristocracy. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase did not have national appeal and Carl Schurz was not born in the U.S.

Horace Greeley had been an outspoken critic of Grantism but over the years had made many enemies through his newspaper publishing. His perceived centrist position on the South cost him the votes of blacks and war veterans. Rather than allowing surrogates to campaign on his behalf, Greeley took to the people, frequently alienating voters by his speeches.

Outcome of the Election of 1872

Ulysses Grant decisively defeated Greeley and the Liberal Republicans, carrying all but six states. Utterly exhausted and grieving over the death of his wife, Greeley died shortly after the election in a sanitarium. Grantism would continue into the next election, the Tilden-Hayes campaign that represented the nadir of Stalwart Republican politics.

Sources:

• Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns from George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 (HarperCollins, 1988)
• Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill,1982)
• William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, 5th Edition, Volume One (Houghton Mifflin, 2002)
• 
  

*The copyright of this article belongs to Michael Streich. Reprinting of this article must be granted in writing by the author.

 Abramoff Scandal Typical of the District of Corruption

Americans Have Hard Time Trusting Government

Michael Streich (First published as book review December 2,2011)

One of the greatest enigmas of twenty-first century American politics and government is that most citizens, according to all polls, have a dismal view of Congress and “insider” political machinations, yet know so little about the political process or the Constitution. The result is usually corruption and abuse of power, a tale recounted by the most recent arch-villain Jack Abramoff in his book Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1-936488-44-5).

 

Jack Abramoff can easily be dismissed as a scoundrel, the don of the K Street crowd that make a living lobbying members of Congress on behalf of clients willing to pay enormous fees to influence legislation for better or worse. But the greater scoundrels are the men and women accepting the largesse, the elected members of Congress and their staffers. In his concluding chapter, Abramoff argues for term limits but forgets that while representatives and Senators come and go, staffers do not.

 

The Role of Congressional Staffers

 

Although Abramoff discusses his relationships with powerful Congressional leaders like Tom DeLay and Bob Ney, it was the staffers that often unwittingly abetted the illegal scheme. Abramoff writes that, “…the best hires from Capitol Hill were the staff, not the members.” Dangling lucrative employment in front of idealistic and generally young men and women, he concludes, “I would own him and, consequently, that entire office.” Abramoff’s magic formula was very simple: “quid pro quo.”

 

Jack Abramoff writes that he loved to help people. Charitable giving, for example, “became something of an addiction.” While in prison, he secured a Bible for another inmate. But the one sin that screams from the pages of Capitol Punishment involves what he took away: sincere idealism based on trust. Rationalizing this was easy. Abramoff states that, “Our idea of a successful day was obliterating our client’s enemies.”

 

The Sins of Omission

 

The book may be more significant for what it doesn’t reveal. Abramoff shares the names of Senators that hypocritically took tens of thousands of dollars and then joined the sanctimonious pack looking for a scapegoat to appease an angry and often exaggerating media. His recollections, however, are very general with the impression that many more members of Congress could have been named.

 

Abramoff gives a spirited defense of lobbyists, effectively demonstrating that they serve a legitimate bread and butter purpose that goes beyond monolithic corporate entities and impacts the mom and pop businesses strangled by often senseless and irrational regulations. He reminds astute readers that congressional bills are infrequently read by members of Congress that rely on staffers to craft and recommend legislation.

 

Heroes and Villains

 

His portrayal of Newt Gingrich is not favorable and Ralph Reed emerges as a double-dealing insider whose personal ambitions may have dwarfed an earlier evangelical zealousness. Abramoff cites Ronald Reagan as his “hero,” referring to “establishment” Republicans as “bullies.” His own humility and redemption began with a prison sentence but ended with a call to reform. It’s easy to toss aside his mea culpa until one realizes that Abramoff characterized an entire system that includes the political apathy of millions or ordinary Americans.

 

Society didn’t make Abramoff into a scoundrel, but a culture cast adrift by its own loss of national direction and integrity did. Before delving into Abramoff’s world of lobbyists and greedy politicians, readers should peruse his final chapter, “Path to Reform.” If Abramoff is sincere, it is easier to reconcile his chronicle of power with his new state of grace. Capitol Punishment is Jack Abramoff’s side of the story. It may be old news, but it underlines why Americans are fed up with insider politics.

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprints approved only with written permission from the author.

 

The Final Solution and German Homosexuals

• Nov 29, 2011
• Michael Streich

Homosexuality was considered abnormal and dangerous by the Nazi regime, resulting in the brutalization and death of thousands of gay men.

In October 1939 the British government released a White Paper on German concentration camps, detailing torture and brutality suffered by Jews and political prisoners. Hardly mentioned, however, was the regime’s attack on homosexuals. What began as an attack on those accused of crimes against nature and, as Heinrich Himmler said in 1937, an “abnormal existence,” ended with extermination. Historian Richard Plant concluded Himmler “would come to believe that the Final Solution was as inevitable for gays as for Jews…”

Homosexuality in Germany

Homosexuality was always criminalized in Germany. During the Weimar Republic following the end of the First World War, however, the homosexual community flourished and was identified with larger cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The 1939 White Paper, for example, suggested that “an explanation of this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, particularly homosexuality, is very prevalent in Germany.” There was little sympathy for homosexuals, even after the war ended. Homosexuality was not decriminalized in Germany until 1994.

The Nazi regime stressed social order and national strength embodied within the family structure. Germany’s estimated two million homosexuals threatened that view. Amendments to Paragraph 175, the law proscribing jail sentences for homosexual behavior, expanded punishments to ten years of prison time, although many homosexuals were ultimately sent to concentration camps. Historian Klaus Fischer estimates the number to have been 15,000. Homosexuals were identified with a pink triangle patch on their clothing.

Promoting Behavioral Changes through Prison Conditions

Stefan Micheler, of the University of Hamburg, concludes that “The National Socialist’s regime’s professed goal was to eradicate homosexuals behavior and not the ‘homosexual’ per se, although the end result was often the same.” This conclusion is shared by other historians and sociologists studying the Nazi persecution of homosexuals.

Carola von Bulow, in an unpublished dissertation, argues that, “…the severity of measures was intended to bring about a change in behavior.” Von Bulow, in her study, differentiates between homosexuals sent to prisons and those in concentration camps where punishments were brutal. Frank Hornig’s compelling account of Rudolf Brazda, for example, demonstrates the Nazi use of “punishment battalions” that resulted in “extermination through labor.” (Spiegel, July 6, 2011) Brazda survived Buchenwald. It should also be noted that Nazi punishments were harsher against German homosexuals.

Many homosexuals were denounced by friends and neighbors, particularly after the Roehm affair in 1934 and several celebrated criminal cases that ostensibly implicated homosexuals. Anyone suspected of “asocial” behavior, including lesbians, was subject to arrest. Although few lesbians suffered persecutions as did gay men, examples exist. Mary Punjer, for example, was gassed at Ravensbruck Concentration Camp in May 1942. Her arrest records include notations referring to lesbian behavior.

The Military as a Refuge

Some of Germany’s homosexuals found escape in the military. Plant suggests that, “Because Himmler’s Gestapo agents had no jurisdiction over the military, it offered a relatively safe refuge for most homosexuals of military age.” Europa Europa, for example, details the true life story of Solomon Perel who befriended a homosexual soldier in his unit on the Eastern front.

Homosexuals in the military, however, still found it a matter of survival to hide their sexual identities. A junior officer, for example, relates his experiences as a member of a post-war POW “roll commando:”

“One day we got the information that we had some homosexuals in camp and they were active. One lived in a little shed…the other lived in a tent. We all met one night [25 men in the roll commando group] near midnight at that tent. Very silently, we pulled out the stakes at the side, lifted up the tent and pulled the man outside. His sleeping bag was tied over his head and then he got a good beating. We used sticks and belts and kicked the man until there was no sound. He and his partner were put in protective custody by the British.”

Fear and Indifference

German homophobia was fueled by propaganda equating homosexuality with decadence and weakness. Political parties of both the left and the right joined together in denouncing homosexuality. The freedoms experienced by the German gay community in the 1920’s were short-lived. Once persecutions began, many homosexuals could not fathom the extent of Nazi barbarism and the indifference of friends, neighbors, and even family members. A climate of fear fed the culture of denunciations. Like many Jews, homosexuals believed the madness would pass.

The end of Hitlerism did not bring relief; homosexuality was still criminalized and carried a stigma. A monument dedicated to homosexual victims of the Third Reich was not completed until May 2008.

Sources

• Raymond Daniell, “Nazi Tortures Detailed by Britain; Concentration Camp Horrors Told,” New York Times, October 31, 1939
• Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (Continuum, 1995)
• Frank Hornig, “At 98, Gay Concentration Camp Survivor Shares Story,” Spiegel July 6, 2011
• Stefan Micheler, “Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex Desiring Men under National Socialism,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, Volume 11, Number 1 and 2, January/April 2002
• Richard Plant, The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals (Henry Holt and Company, 1986)
• Unpublished memoirs of “G.S.,” a junior officer in the German military, p. 48

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies

 Can the President Declare War on his Own?

Michael Streich

First published in Suite101

The power to declare war is expressly reserved to the United States Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet the last time Congress actually issued a formal declaration of war was on December 8, 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” speech before a joint session. That war declaration was nearly unanimous. Only Republican Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a pacifist, dissented. Although the United States has been involved in numerous global conflicts since the Second World War, there has never been an official war declaration by the Congress for any of those conflicts.

 

Declaring War Prior to World War II

 

Every American war fought by the United States before the Cold War came as a result of a formal Congressional vote in response to a presidential war message. The only exception might be the so-called Quasi-War fought as a naval conflict between France and the U.S. during the presidency of John Adams.

 

War resolutions were often hotly debated, such as the response to President Polk’s war message that began the Mexican-American War or Woodrow Wilson’s war message in 1917. When Congress voted on Wilson’s war request, Jeannette Rankin – the first woman in Congress, voted against war. She lost reelection, in part, because of this vote, but in 1940 returned to Congress.

 

American Wars and Conflicts after World War II

 

Congress never voted to go to war in 1950 when North Korea crossed the 38^th parallel, beginning the Korean War. The conflict in Korea was a United Nations operation, allowing President Truman to circumvent the Congress and set a Cold War precedent. Subsequent conflicts under other presidents would follow this example. Historians point out that the global nature of U.S. security interests forced a change in how presidents viewed their roles as commander-in-chief.

 

In August 1964, for example, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Lyndon B Johnson a “blank check” to escalate American military actions in Vietnam. Only Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening dissented. Vietnam was, however, the product of the Cold War, evolving into a major military conflict after many years of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

 

When President Ronald Reagan ordered marines to invade Grenada in 1983, Congress was not informed until after military actions had secured the Caribbean nation. Significantly, the operation was named “Urgent Fury,” suggesting immediate action. During the Cold War era and even into the contemporary Unipolar world in which the U.S. is the sole “superpower,” the often lengthy process of a war declaration can compromise global security interests.

 

The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not Declared Wars

 

The horrific events associated with 9/11 are often compared to Pearl Harbor. But President George W Bush’s efforts to punish the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and later the invasion of Iraq were initiated by the White House and not Congress. Congress supported the decisions through resolutions and funding measures, but there was no official declaration of war.

 

Returning to Constitutional Principles Might Prevent Unnecessary Conflicts

 

When the Founding Fathers gave Congress the sole and express power to declare war, they added to the checks and balances or separation of powers in the Constitution. Committing to war is costly, both in lives and money. The current war in Afghanistan may cost, according to analysts, three trillion dollars. Congressional debate slows emotional responses if normal rules of parliamentary procedure are employed.

 

The 21^st Century Congress should have the sole power of declaring war, especially in terms of conflicts that, like the Middle East wars, will result in huge expenditures and the deaths of many American soldiers. It is not enough to claim immunity on the basis of NATO commitments or United Nations mandates. This was an early 20^th Century argument against the proposal to join the League of Nations.

 

Returning the War Power to the Congress

 

The Founding Fathers attempted to create a government free from tyranny. The Constitution is empowered by the people of the Republic, through their elected Congressional delegates. Congressional reaction to conflicts instigated by the executive branch should not be after-the-fact, even though the 1973 War Powers Resolution allows the president to deploy U.S. troops without the prior approval of Congress.

 

References:

 

Robert David Johnson, Congress and the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Charles A. Stevenson, Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789 (Potomac Books, 2007)

U.S. Constitution

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprints in any form must be granted by the author in writing.

 

The Year Before America Entered the Great War

• Jul 7, 2011
• Michael Streich

The War Between Labor & Capital Continued - Library of Congress: Goldstein Col

1916 witnessed the proliferation of jazz, silent movies, and better automobiles, but the war between labor and business continued, as did segregation.

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. For many groups, however, full equality was a long journey into the future.

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 Despite Progressive Efforts

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. and helped to solidify public opinion against Imperial Germany.

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 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 Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

 

Rugged Individualism Versus Federal Paternalism in US History

Aug 24, 2010 Michael Streich

Advocates of rugged individualism portray their argument as an attempt to defend Americanism from federal paternalism and state socialism.

Rugged individualism, most commonly associated with President Herbert Hoover, has seen many faces in American history. It is the conservative side in the debate on how much governmental interference should exist in American society and in the regulation of American business. Speaking in New York in 1928, Hoover warned that the other side of individualism was “centralized despotism.” That argument has been raised politically many times since FDR’s New Deal. It helped fuel some of the 1930s opposition to the New Deal. Today, similar arguments are used politically to define the differences between the growing Tea Party movement and the policies of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Individualism in American Social and Political History

In 1928 Herbert Hoover spoke of the American nation following World War I: “…we were challenged…between the American system of rugged individualism,” he stated, “and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines – doctrines of paternalism and state socialism.” Hoover was himself a self-made man who valued the lessons originally advocated by 18th Century philosopher Adam Smith and his views on laissez faire.

Hoover maintained that it was rugged individualism that produced the tremendous wealth of the nation. During those decades in American History, Henry Ford seemed to characterize that ideal of individualism. A man with a vision and unbridled determination, he built one of the largest industries. According to Time (September 11, 1933), however, he ran afoul of President Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration (NRA). Under the NRA code, wages in his industry were capped at forty-three cents and hour; Ford was paying his workers fifty cents an hour.

The federal government, attempting for force compliance, threatened to license him out of business. According to Time, “It was the first clean-cut major encounter between the new ‘robust collectivism’ and a prime exponent of the old ‘rugged individualism.’” In 1957, novelist Ayn Rand published Atlas Shrugged in which a fictional individualist, Hank Rearden, is coerced by the government into giving up his secret formula for the revolutionary “Rearden steel,” at a time individualism was being replaced by socialist policies.

Individualism as a Part of the Great American Dream

Writing in Time (October 15, 1984), Roger Rosenblatt all but asserts that individualism was always a myth of sorts and that America was never a “collection of loners.” Rosenblatt was writing in the midst of the Reagan presidency at a time individualism was being debated intellectually and politically. Much like Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover, Ronald Reagan championed less government and an end to the welfare state. One of his 1980 campaign promises had been to eliminate the newly formed Department of Education.

Rugged individualism in American history never implied a collection of loners. Cornelius Vanderbilt borrowed $100 from his mother at age 16 and turned that money into one of the greatest shipping empires. The Vanderbilts, like Andrew Carnegie, gave back to society through philanthropic endeavors, much like Bill and Melinda Gates are doing today through their foundation.

Those who saw rugged individualism as an integral part of attaining the American Dream, like Teddy Roosevelt during the Progressive Era, recognized that there would always be “malefactors of great wealth” that needed to be reigned in through federal regulation. But this was very different from creating a system whereby the federal government provided long-term assistance to millions – or so the proponents of individualism argued.

The Renewed Date of Individualism and the Socialist State in 2010

In July 2010 members of an Iowa Tea Party received national attention after displaying a billboard that pictured Obama flanked by pictures of Hitler and Lenin. The phrase above Obama stated “Democrat Socialism.” Earlier in 2010, Obama’s health care initiatives, notably the “public option,” were labeled as being socialist. Those making these claims fervently believed that the “American way” was being threatened and that the Constitution was under attack.

In a more extreme case, Nevada Tea Party senatorial candidate Sharron Angle has, at various times, advocated America’s leaving the United Nations and eliminating Social Security and Medicare. She opposes separation of church and state, debunks global warning, and wants to do away with the Department of Education. (The Economist, August 21-27, 2010) Yet, according the Economist, she and her husband draw government pensions.

Angel’s extreme positions are not shared by all members of conservative groups like the Tea Party, but they all want to see less federal paternalism and are in favor of not letting the so-called tax cuts “on the rich” expire. It is the same debate that, in American History, pits less government involvement in the lives of Americans and in American business against expanding regulation and what some have called “Big Brotherism.”

The Blurred Debate of Federal Regulation and Rugged Individualism

President Theodore Roosevelt is one of America’s best examples of rugged individualism, although he was born into wealth. Roosevelt, however, challenged average Americans to pursue the American Dream in the same way Ralph Waldo Emerson a century earlier advocated a spirit of individualism compatible with America’s pioneering spirit. There was always a new frontier to conquer and tame.

Yet even Roosevelt saw that extreme laissez faire represented abuses. He attacked the ruthless business practices of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. He took a cue from the muckrakers of the time, like Ida Tarbell and Sinclair Lewis’ expose of the Chicago meat packing industry. Today’s debaters could learn from that.

Before the BP oil spill, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal called for less federal interference in the states, yet after the spill complained that the federal government wasn’t doing enough. Rugged individualism defines an American attitude. What comes out of that attitude must be addressed by balance.

Sources:

• William E. Leuchtenburg, The Perils of Prosperity 1914-32 (University of Chicago Press, 1958)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America (Penguin Books, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 Imperial Japan Viciously and without Warning Attacked the American Naval Base in the Pacific on December 7th.

Pearl Harbor Attack Converts Isolationists in 1941

• Nov 11, 2011
• Michael Streich

There were several isolationist viewpoints prior to U.S. entry into World War II but the Pearl Harbor attack unified all Americans against tyranny.

On Monday, December 8, 1941, every U.S. Senator and representative except one, voted to go to war with the empire of Japan. Only Montana Representative Jeanette Rankin, a life-long pacifist, demurred. The Pearl Harbor attack united Americans and instantly converted the isolationists in Congress. Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg recalled his own immediate change after receiving a telephone call about the attack Sunday at four o’clock in the afternoon: “That day ended isolationism for any realist.”

Isolationism before the Pearl Harbor Attack

Isolationism is still used to describe the ideology of those not willing to intervene in foreign matters unless the impact of such affairs directly threatens U.S. security interests. In the years before Pearl Harbor, isolationists believed that the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were natural barriers, protecting the United States from the anti-democratic regimes creating havoc in Europe and Asia.

Extreme isolationists believed that any U.S. assistance either directly or indirectly would result in foreign entanglements inconsistent with Constitutional prerogatives. They pointed to World War I and deplored the prospect of sending American boys to fight in foreign wars.

Isolationists Represented Liberal and Conservative Views

Pearl Harbor and World War II changed the meaning of isolationism. Pre-war isolationists that criticized Franklin Roosevelt’s handling of the war were, often ironically, dubbed reactionaries and anti-interventionists despite their life-long liberal pedigrees. This included Democrat Burton Wheeler and Jeanette Rankin. Wheeler, in his memoirs, comments that, “Never before had the question of whether one was a liberal or conservative turned on his view of foreign policy.”

Isolationists like Vandenberg hated Communism and fascism as much as those eager to commit to war. On September 15, 1939 Vandenberg wrote in his diary, “…I decline to embrace the opportunistic idea…that we can stop these things in Europe without entering the conflict.” Isolationists viewed every White House attempt to assist Britain and France as a potential door through which the United States would step into a long and bloody conflict much like World War I.

Senator Gerald P. Nye’s committee hearings on World War I, culminating in a controversial report in 1936, provided some ammunition for isolationists and Americans favoring neutrality. Historian Wayne Cole states that, “It is significant that the particular controversy that ended the investigation in 1936 involved President Woodrow Wilson’s role in World War I – not the activities of munitions makers.” Like Wilson, FDR appeared to be maneuvering the nation into war, a perception that led to later conspiracy theories linking Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack. Senator Tom Connally writes in his memoirs that, “…the most effective medium for channeling American public opinion into isolationism during this period was the Nye Committee investigation…”

Connally blamed Gerald Nye and “his cohort” Arthur Vandenberg for using the committee hearings to publish “half-truths” in order to further their isolationist agenda. According to Connally, this included a blistering indictment of Wall Street and U.S. bankers that “duped” the government “…into shedding American blood” in 1917. Connally also identified different “schools” of isolationism, equating, for example, Burton Wheeler with anti-British sentiments. Another isolationist viewpoint was attributed to William Borah who believed in the two-ocean defense idea and had been one of the chief opponents of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations.

Japanese Action Unites Americans

1941 was a crucial year for Britain as it struggled against what was perceived as an imminent invasion by Nazi Germany. In January 1941, as the issue of Lend-Lease was being debated in Congress, the New York Times stated that, given the scope of European affairs, the ideology separating isolationists from “interventionists” had become academic. According to the Times, “The Roosevelt Administration opposed ironclad isolation, insisting that a great nation must lift its voice against treaty violations and infringements of international law…”

Pearl Harbor ended the debate. A New York Times editorial, referring to the years of “Hamletlike irresolution,” concluded that the declarations of war “instantly united us” and brought a sense of relief to all Americans: “Their spirit was no longer troubled; their soul was no longer divided; they knew at last what they must do.”

The same sentiment had been expressed in Congress on December 8th where one representative referred to the “war mad Japanese devils…” American hero Charles A. Lindbergh, a leader in the isolationist movement, volunteered to serve with the Army Air Corps. His acceptance was hailed as “a symbol of…newfound unity.”

Burton Wheeler’s early 1941 predictions that the “New Deal Triple A foreign policy [would] plow under every fourth American boy…” were not unfounded, but other observers compared the United States to 1917 when a declaration of war was almost too late. The Pearl Harbor attack, defended by General Tojo at his trial in 1947, forever ended isolationism.

The subsequent Cold War imposed an on-going interventionist policy supported by former isolationists like Arthur Vandenberg. The defense of democracy became a global imperative not by design but from the lessons of history and the impossibility of avoiding foreign entanglements.

References:

• “America’s Role: A National Debate,” New York Times, January 19, 1941
• Wayne S. Cole, Senator Gerald P. Nye and American Foreign Relations (The University of Minnesota Press, 1962)
• Tom Connally, My Name Is Tom Connally (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1954)
• “The Lone War Dissenter,” NPR, December 7, 2001
• Arthur H. Vandenberg, Jr., The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952)
• Burton K. Wheeler, Yankee from the West (Doubleday & Company, 1962)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

The author has visited Pearl Harbor four times.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies

 Forty-Acres and a Mule 

Civil War Promises Made and Unkept

Michael Streich

First published in Suite101 April 2010

Special Field Orders, No. 15 was signed by General William T. Sherman January 16, 1865, creating forty-acre plots out of land south of Charleston, South Carolina for approximately 40,000 freedmen and their families. “Sherman’s Reservation” was most commonly identified with the phrase “forty acres and a mule,” although confiscated land was parceled out to freedmen throughout the South under the supervision of the Freedmen’s Bureau. Policy changes under President Andrew Johnson, however, returned most lands to former owners, evictions that were carried out by the army.

 

Origin of Forty Acres and a Mule

 

By late 1864 and into 1865, General Sherman’s army was shadowed by thousands of freed slaves, posing a logistical problem and forcing the issue of what was to become of the slaves after emancipation. After conferring with Secretary of War Stanton in Savannah, Sherman issued field orders establishing homesteads for the freedmen, instructing that they be loaned mules to assist in land tilling.

 

Sherman’s order, however, subjected the temporary arrangement to a time “until Congress shall regulate their title.” Further, Section V of the order details management of the settlement to an Inspector “who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing…” Possessory titles carry no registration of a land claim and subject the settler to a period of years before actual ownership of the land can be acquired.

 

In contrast, a fee-simple title is characterized by absolute ownership of land. General Sherman, in his memoirs, denies the granting of fee-simple titles to the freedmen. Under Realty law, such titles are unqualified. The Freedmen living on confiscated land had no such title and according to Sherman, no such title was ever intended.

 

Andrew Johnson’s Policy of Pardon

 

Andrew Johnson’s pardoning of former Confederates included the restoration of confiscated land. According to historian Eric Foner, “a new policy drafted in the White House and issued in September [1865] …ordered the restoration to pardoned owners of all land except the small amount that had already been sold under a court decree.” Such court decrees carried with them superior ownership titles.

 

According to historian Page Smith, “By the end of 1866 only 1,565 out of more than 40,000 freedmen still occupied the land allotted to them in South Carolina.” Men like Brigadier General Saxon, who had been charged by Sherman with carrying out Field Order 15, were replaced by Johnson. Saxon had been a tireless worker on behalf of freedmen and their newly acquired rights and had been an active pre-war abolitionist.

 

The Role of the Radical Republicans

 

The goals of Congressional radicals were no more pure than those of the president they despised enough to impeach. Congressional leaders differentiated between social and political equality for blacks, as did many Northerners. Historian John David Smith of North Carolina State University writes that, “Congressional Republicans used the prospect of distributing land to punish ex-Confederates, as well as to garner the political support of black people and to establish the freedpeople as a landholding class, thereby guaranteeing their economic freedom.”

 

This was never achieved as confiscated land was returned to pre-war owners and Congress did little to stop the process. Freedom without land drove many blacks into sharecropping. With the advent of “Jim Crow” laws and the notion of “separate but equal,” forty acres and a mule became a cruel mockery even though it may never have been intended as a permanent solution as evidenced by the language used in Sherman’s Field Orders.

 

References:

 

Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction (Harper & Row, 1988)

William T. Sherman, “Special Field Orders, No. 15,” text at history.umd.edu

John David Smith, “The Enduring Myth of ‘Forty Acres and a Mule,’” The Chronicle Review, Volume 49, Issue 24, February 21, 2003, p. B11

Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)

*Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting this article in any form must be granted in writing by the author