A Time of Despair and Calamity: Plague, War, and Famine Devastates Society

The End of One Era and the Beginning of Another: the Fourteenth Century

Michael Streich, first published in December 12, 2008. Copyright held by Michael Streich

 Three Fourteenth Century principal events legitimize the appellation of a “Calamitous Age.” The Famine of 1315, the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ Way in 1337, and the rapid spread of Bubonic Plague in the mid century contributed to mass destruction and death. When the century finally ended, early modern nation states would emerge out of the calamity and the Catholic Church, long a strong force in the medieval period, would experience a waning of power.

 

The Coming of the Little Ice Age

 

The famine of 1315 is attributed to significant climate changes that dramatically affected European agricultural production. One writer of the period describing conditions in England relates that, “hunger grew in the land…Meat and eggs began to run out…” and the overall price of food staples such as beans or peas were four times the cost in 1313. Grain failed to ripen and “bread did not have its usual nourishing power…” [1]

 

The famine was widespread and in areas where poor harvests occurred with greater frequency such as Southern France, conditions were particularly egregious. The English chronicler states that food was so hard to find, that “according to many reports, men and women in many places secretly ate their own children…” Scholars studying the origins of fairy tales conclude that stories of peasant cannibalism may find roots in this period. [2]

 

The Black Death in 14^th Century Europe

 

Writing on the plague in Florence, Giovanni Boccaccio comments that “Many died daily or nightly in the public streets…and what with their corpses and the corpses of others who died on every hand the whole place was a sepulcher.”  [3] The plague arrived in Europe from the Middle East, carried onboard merchant ships bound for Italian ports. By 1400, the plague had reduced European populations by a third to a half.

 

The “Dance of Death,” depicted today in many European churches and town halls, was the most vivid reminder that plague was no respecter of social status. There was no cure and the causes were unknown.

 

The Hundred Years’ War

 

Tied to Edward III’s claim to the French throne and continued confrontation between England and France, the Hundred Years’ War would ravage Europe from 1337 to 1453. A military “revolution” that took medieval Europe from chivalry and mounted knights to gunpowder and the first artillery, the war caused widespread destruction and interrupted agricultural production, creating wider famine.

 

An Emerging New Order

 

The new order coming out of 14^th century calamities would point toward the defining of early modern nation states and the consolidation of central state power. England no longer controlled continental provinces, the French kings would begin a long process of power consolidation, and Spain embarked on its Reconquista, ending in 1492 with the defeat of the last Muslim stronghold in Spain.

 

The once powerful medieval Church was particularly devastated by the plague years, losing many spiritual caregivers. Conflict with the growing power of kings weakened papal authority over secular issues. By 1400, the church would face multiple popes, several heretic movements, and a drive to supplant papal power with the authority of Church councils.

 

The calamitous 14^th century transitioned a medieval Europe to a century that would usher in exploration, early industrial endeavors, and a profound change in secular and religious relationships.

 

Sources:

 

[1] From Johannes de Trokelowe, Annales, H.T. Riley, ed., Rolls Series, No. 28,Vol.3 (London, 1866), pp. 92-95. Translated by Brian Tierney in The Middle Ages, Volume I:Sources of Medieval History, 5^th Ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1992), pp.351-352.

[2] See Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History (London: Allen Lane, 1984) chapter 1; Sheldon Cashdan, The Witch Must Die: How Fairy Tales Shape Our Lives (New York: Basic Books, 1999) chapter 4.

[3] Boccaccio, The Decameron, J.M. Rigg, trans. (London: David Campbell, 1921) Vol. I, pp. 5-11.

*Any republishing of this article in any form required written permission by Michael Streich

Betrayal of the Progressive Party in Early 20th Century America

Michael Streich, February 21, 2012

 

In the summer of 1912, California Governor Hiram Johnson led the call for a third party after the Republicans refused to nominate Theodore Roosevelt. Johnson, a Progressive leader whose swift rise to power was tied to combating political corruption and corporate power, would be chosen as Roosevelt’s Vice Presidential running mate. The new National Progressive Party, revolving around the charismatic “bull moose” Roosevelt, however, would not only split the Republican Party, but divide the loyalties of both Progressive Republicans and Democrats.

 

What was Progressivism?

 

Progressivism represented a multi-faceted movement in the early years of the 20^th Century. Scholars of the movement question its name: was it a popular social revolt? To what extent was the movement more political than social? And what is to be made out of the contradictions? Roosevelt, the “trust buster,” owed his campaign coffers to the purse strings of the “Steel Trust” and financiers like George Perkins. In 1912, Perkins helped to define the Progressive platform, setting aside language designed to strengthen the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

 

Prohibition and Progressive Goals

 

Regulating or eliminating alcohol consumption is rooted in Colonial thinking, notably among religious groups like the New England Congregationalists. The Progressive Movement, however, provided a favorable social and political climate resulting in Prohibition. Historians are quick to point out strong anti-German feelings during World War I significantly contributed to Prohibition: Germans were equated with drinking. What better way to demonstrate American loyalty than to avoid such “German” reminders?

 

Ironically, some U.S. Senators publically supporting Prohibition continued to stock their own liquor cabinets. According to one writer, at least a half dozen Senators were “habitually drunk.” (Gould) Similar contradictions impacted the women’s suffrage movement – part of the overall Progressive electoral reform movement.

 

Women’s Suffrage and Wilson’s Support

 

Due to social considerations as well as the fear that women voting might lead to federal interference with state impediments designed to eliminated black suffrage, Southern lawmakers opposed women’s suffrage. President Woodrow Wilson, considered a progressive with roots in the South, only supported women’s suffrage because it was politically expedient to do so.

 

Role of the Federal Government

 

Progressivism focused on ordinary people, especially the weakest members of society such as children. The 1912 party platform, however, highlighted the role of the federal government rather than state or locally originating reforms. By contemporary standards, this vast reform-minded platform could be deemed socialist, yet it was conservative Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt, William Borah, and imperialist Al Beveridge who championed Progressive ideals.

 

History also demonstrates that direct election of U.S. Senators as well as primary elections did not result in better candidates. In many cases, the image of a “smoke filled back room” of party bosses dictating candidates and issues remained. This was how party leaders ultimately supported Warren Harding in 1920.

 

The Progressivism of Woodrow Wilson

 

Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidential election; only 58.8 percent of eligible voters had cast a ballot in the second lowest percentage of voter turnout between 1876 and 1920. Despite his Progressive ideals, Wilson supported Southern segregation. Historian Page Smith sums up the movement writing, “It was, of course, limited in its vision of social justice and the uses of the state to achieve it. It left blacks and immigrants, workingmen and labor unions, and, to a lesser extent, women outside its charmed circle.”

 

Other historians chart the stream of Jeffersonian democracy and late 19^th Century Populism as roots culminating in Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Alfred Kelly writes that, “This tradition of reform accepted all the values of the ‘American dream’ and sought to bring that dream closer to reality for the mass of Americans.”

 

Progressive Reform Set Aside

 

Teddy Roosevelt went on another international romp after the 1912 election, this time to Brazil. He, along with other Progressive leaders, made peace with the Republican Party even as the Great War was ending and America was easing into Harding’s normalcy, another period represented by great wealth and great poverty. Taft became the nation’s Chief Justice, ready to overturn the courts past liberal decisions. He would preside over one of the most conservative courts in American judicial history.

 

The zealous Progressive spirit was redirected after Wilson left the United States to participate in the Versailles Peace conference, leaving keep Republicans at home despite their ascendancy in Congress after the 1918 midterm election. Republicans, led by Henry Cabot Lodge and William Borah, exerted every ounce of energy to defeat Wilson. At issue was United States participation in the League of Nations. The prolonged and at times vicious battle froze Progressivism in a political time warp.

 

A National Stream of Consciousness

 

Progressivism was more than a grand experiment in direct democracy or a federal program of social justice. It represented an ideal by which American political, social, and economic goals should be measured. In this sense, it harkened back to Jefferson’s vision of the pursuit of happiness. This was no socialist revolution. Sadly, too few Americans shared the goals and those that did, like Senator La Follette of Wisconsin, were marginalized and, after 1917, labeled cowards for opposing the war. In the end, the powerful interests won and Progressivism receded into the past, waiting for a dynamic leader to resurrect social justice as a government priority.

 

References:

Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, fifth edition (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Frank K. Kelly, The Fight For the White House: The Story of 1912 (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1961)

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

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

Who is a Traitor in America Today?

History Repeats itself in the Life of this Republic

 Michael Streich

 

 

The last time decent American citizens were called traitors was during the McCarthy hearings of the early 1950’s and the inquisitional workings of the House Un-American Activities Committee of the same period. During the Great Depression, Father Charles Coughlin called President Franklin Roosevelt the “…great liar and betrayer…” And most American school children, perhaps until the 1970’s, remembered that Philip Nolan was the “Man Without A Country” in Edward E. Hale’s 1863 short story.

 

Talk of Treason and Traitors in the 2012 Presidential Campaign

 

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s characterization of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake as a traitor and his questioning of President Obama’s patriotism is a bizarre continuation of the most sordid type of political non-debate that has historically attempted to substitute cheap demagoguery with substantive discussion. He is being criticized by other Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney. President Obama preferred to “cut him some slack,” but should common sense Americans ignore Perry’s outlandish comments?

 

The term “traitor” has always connoted one who betrays – like a “Judas Iscariot.” In 1854, a group of ladies in New England sent Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas thirty pieces of silver following passage of his Kansas-Nebraska Act. Much was made of his middle name, Arnold – a reference to Benedict Arnold who betrayed his country by attempting to convey West Point to the British during the American war for independence.

 

Federal Reserve Policy Deemed Treacherous

 

On August 15, 2011former Texas Governor Perry observed that the printing of money, an obvious reference to the Federal Reserve monetary policy, was “treacherous or treasonous…” and that in Texas, Bernanke would be treated “pretty ugly.” Perry is right about Texas treating folks “ugly.” Under Perry, 232 people were executed in Texas, 80 more than under George W. Bush when he was governor. But treasonous behavior, like criminal death-penalty cases, was also dealt with severely.

 

During World War I, speaking out against the war was considered treasonous and equated with Socialists. In World War II, Vidkun Quisling of Norway left his last name as a synonym for high treason, in the old English meaning of the term. In the U.S. Constitution, treason is a reason to initiate Impeachment proceedings (Article II, Section 4). Article III, Section 3 defines treason as “levying war” against the United States, “or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Does Governor Perry view the printing of money, albeit figuratively in terms of the debt ceiling and budget debates, as an act of treason?

 

Treason in American History and Politics

 

Would Perry agree that Texas acted in a treasonous manner during the Civil War? In Hale’s story of Philip Nolan, he refers to “…every Bragg and Beauregard who broke a soldier’s oath…” Confederate officers – many trained at West Point, knew from their own agonizing accounts that they would be viewed as traitors.

 

Perry has alluded to a new secession, perhaps jokingly. (Fox News, April 15, 2009) Given the fascination among some GOP presidential hopefuls with Civil War revisionist history – like Michele Bachmann, Perry’s comments may be no more treasonous than the “Fed” printing more money. Texans, as Perry reminds us, are a very independent lot.

 

As an evangelical, Perry knows the meaning of “traitor” well. The traitor is a betrayer, a Judas Iscariot. Judas, in Holy Scripture, was overcome by satanic forces; Jesus observed, “One of you is a devil.” But the devil is also the “…father of all lies.” Using the term “traitor” indiscriminately, especially for an evangelical, opens the door to many troubling recriminations. If Ben Bernake is a traitor, what does that make Perry himself after his job-building claims for Texas are put under a microscope of truth?

 

For many decades after the American Civil War the Democratic Party was tarnished with the “traitor” appellation. All it took was to “wave the bloody shirt.” Many decent and honorable men saw their hopes fade as political failures like U.S. Grant were elected. Using terms like traitor and treason to win elections comes with a price, however. Governor Perry might not be aware of this since American History in Texas is taught by a state-mandated agenda, one crafted by evangelical former members of the state school board.

 

Seeing Beyond Political Rhetoric

 

Edward Hale tells his readers that, “It seems to me worthwhile to tell a little of his story [Philip Nolan], by way of showing young Americans of today what it is to be A MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY.” Nolan’s solitary and haunted life reflected great punishment but produced great repentance. To be a traitor to one’s country is akin to defiling the sacred nature of anything deemed holy and pure. Any flippant use of the term traitor cheapens its serious quality. American politics should be above such frenzy, and recognizable to every citizen looking beyond election year fabrications.

 

 

 Martin Luther's Advent Sermon

Michael Streich, July 7, 2011

Martin Luther’s sermon for the First Sunday in Advent was part of his Church Postil and completed in 1521. Referring to the term apostil, the writings reflect back on the Scriptures, notably the New Testament; the First Advent sermon is taken from Matthew 21: 1-9. While “advent” refers to a “coming” or an “important arrival,” specifically Christmas and the celebration of Jesus’ birth, Luther elects to focus on the already-born Christ who comes as a king: “He sits not upon a proud steed, an animal of war, nor does he come in great pomp and power.”

 

Luther Begins with Matters of Faith

 

Luther’s ability to translate and interpret the New Testament humanly was a singular gift and most well associated with his vernacular Bible. His sermons reflect the same abilities. According to Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, “…he applied himself …to reconstructing the history of the Jesus of the Gospels and making him live for his hearers.” Pelikan identifies Luther’s Christ as “Jesus as Mirror of the Beautiful.”

 

Luther personalizes faith in Christ as the Savior. In doing so, he distinguishes between the faith of knowledge and the faith of personal appropriation. The king on the donkey entering Jerusalem is the perfect example of being meek and lowly. Luther argues that to be “lowly,” according to the meaning of Scripture, is to be godly and righteous.

 

According to Luther, the “…Gospel is a sermon from Christ…calling for faith in him.” Further, “This Gospel encourages and demands faith…” A key element of Reformation belief was that man is saved through God’s grace through faith in Christ.

 

Luther begins by reminding his listeners that true faith comes through the Gospel and is not something inherent in man. The man of faith sits with Jesus at the table in the full imitation of Christ, even as the New Testament states: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30).

 

Luther’s Definition of a Christian

 

Followers of Christ must recognize his love and “magnify his grace.” Christians are only holy through Christ, which refers back to faith. All good works done in Christ’s name are meaningless unless they begin with Christ and flow out of his grace as manifested in the lives of his followers.

 

Luther also refers back to the erroneous notion that faith can be understood by knowledge: “everything that concerns faith is against reason and nature…” It is important to recall that Luther departed from the traditional, scholastically approved allegorical interpretations that are associated with medieval Catholicism and found in some of his own early Bible commentaries written prior to 1517.

 

Who was the King that “Cometh?”

 

Luther references Old Testament prophecies to demonstrate that Christ came not as an earthly king, but as God’s son, brining certainty to life. To Christ’s followers, no power on earth or in the heavens could separate them from his love.

 

According to Luther, the king sought out his own. He was not picked by the crowd; there was no democratic election. Rather, “You do not find him, he finds you.” Even as faith was a singular gift from God, so also was the love that separated man from evil. In many ways, Luther used this to give his listeners an everyday lesson in the applicability of the Gospel: “Where there is sin there is no clear conscience.”

 

The king, Luther argues, was sent by God “out of pure grace.” It is the king who personifies the faith that brings man to God: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith…” (Hebrews 12:2). It should be recalled that one of the Reformation pillars of belief was sola fide, only by faith are those separated from God’s love made just.

 

Luther interprets “justice” as the mercy of God or godliness. In this, he differentiates between the severe view of a punitive judge sitting on a heavenly throne, a depiction Luther had lived with before he discovered the Pauline message in Romans, a message that, according to Luther, opened for him the gates of paradise.

 

Blessed in He who Comes in the Name of the Lord

 

The text Luther used ends with the people acclaiming Jesus as “Our Savior, the Son of David…” This was Luther’s “spiritual interpretation” in the First Advent sermon. Luther writes, “Christ should be preached and made known in all the world, as the victorious and invincible King against sin, death, and the power of the devil…” In contemporary homiletical usage, this is the lesson, the challenge, the moral to be gleaned from the Gospel. According to Luther, this was the message of redemption.

 

The king is blessed because he fulfills God’s promise of redemption. Everything Luther wrote subsequent to his final paragraphs builds the case for the reality of redemption, tied to a faith that originates also with God. Luther’s final challenge is to join in song (Matthew 21:9), “…that God may put away all human doctrine and let Christ alone be our king, who governs by his Gospel…”

 

The Advent of the Reformation focused not on a Bethlehem manger, but on a heavenly king whose example of meekness and love would confound man’s reason and fallen nature. It can be argued that for Luther, this “important arrival” prefigured the Adventist interpretation associated with millennial hopes. Luther’s sermon, however, is a simple message of faith and grace through Christ.

 

Sources:

 

Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through The Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (Yale University Press, 1985)

Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 1, edited by John Nicholas Lenker (Baker Book House, 1988)

The New Testament In The Language Of Today, William Beck (Concordia Publishing House, 1963)

The copyright of this article is owned bt Michael Streich. Any reprints required written permission by Michael Streich.

 The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794

Pennsylvania Farmers Protest Federal Excise Taxes on Rye Liquor

© Michael Streich

 Oct 9, 2009

The Whiskey Rebellion represented the first serious challenge to the authority of the newly formed central government and thus demanded a decisive response.

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 represented a serious threat to the authority of the newly formed government and the administration of George Washington. Like Shays’ Rebellion of 1786, the Whiskey Rebellion involved farmers reacting to the perceived indifference of a government many miles from their fields. At its height, the Whiskey Rebellion involved thousands of Pennsylvania farmers being taxed on rye liquor, their chief export. An army of militia from surrounding states was sent into Pennsylvania to suppress the uprising. Several of the rebellion’s leaders were taken east for trial and two were found guilty of treason. The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of federal power and authority.

Causes of the Whiskey Rebellion

Anger over federal taxation began when Congress passed an act in 1791 to establish an excise on tobacco and sugar products as well as whiskey. The purpose of the tax was to help fund Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s landmark financial proposals, designed to eliminate the national and state debts still outstanding from the years of the Revolution.

The Revolution had been fought partly on the basis of “no taxation without representation.” It was the same rallying cry Daniel Shays had used in 1786 only in New England the circumstances involved the foreclosure of family farms. For President Washington and the emerging Federalists, however, this was a different issue. It was one thing to revolt against a tyrannical government led by a despot like King George III (although he probably wasn’t). It was another matter entirely to revolt against a republic established by the consent of the people.

The Rebellion Expands in Pennsylvania

Following a Congressional act enforcing the excise tax, Pennsylvania farmers openly resisted federal marshals and revenue inspectors. Initial minor altercations turned violent and soon the region around Pittsburgh was filling with local militia men willing to forcibly resist any federal action and vowing not to compromise. Some 6,000 men stood ready to defend their right not to be taxed.

Alexander Hamilton urged President Washington to take action. In an August 2, 1794 letter to Washington, Hamilton refers to the actions in Pennsylvania as “insurrection” and that “competent…militia…be called forth…in effectuating Obedience to the laws and punishment of Offenders.” Washington raised 12,000 militia from surrounding states, many of whom were veterans of the Revolution. Only in Maryland was resistance encountered where some farmers also produced rye liquor. As the fall approached, the Federal army, commanded by Alexander Hamilton, entered western Pennsylvania.

Capitulation of the Rebels

The rebellion ended without bloodshed after negotiations with farmer delegations that agreed to lay down their arms and henceforth follow the laws of the land. Several leaders of the uprising, however, were taken to Philadelphia. Two of these men were tried and convicted in what became the nation’s first treason trials. Although sentenced to death, President Washington later commuted the sentences.

This would not be the last time in American history that issues of taxation or variations thereof entailed strong federal response or the threat of military action to enforce the laws. The Nullification Crisis resulted in President Andrew Jackson’s threat to send troops to South Carolina to enforce compliance of tariff collections. Even today, the popularity of the growing tea party movement protesting government deficits, though not violent, demonstrates that Americans still view taxation with deep suspicion.

Sources:

• William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, Fifth Edition, Volume One: to 1877 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002)
• Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Volume Three (New York” McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)
• Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (on-line edition)

The copyright of the article The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Farmers Resisted a Tax on Whiskey

 

Revolutionary North Carolina

Impact of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse on British Strategy

Oct 10, 2009 Michael Streich

The British southern campaign was built upon erroneous assumptions based on supposed loyalist strength which was clearly demonstrated at Guilford Courthouse.

As the southern campaign progressed during the last phase of the American Revolution, British commanders labored under several false assumptions that would hinder their efforts in the Carolinas and ultimately cost them the war. The untenable position faced by Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown caused by lack of reinforcements and supplies began at the battle of Guilford Courthouse, a pyrrhic victory that cost him a quarter of his army. It became evident to military commanders as well as members of Parliament that although Guilford Courthouse represented “a complete victory over the rebels,” the cost of victory could not be sustained.

The British March through North Carolina

North Carolina witnessed some of the bloodiest and most savage fighting of the entire War for Independence. This possibility was not foreseen by British military planners who assumed that the state contained more loyalists than rebels. The assumption proved to be false. Those loyalists that might have joined Cornwallis swiftly reconsidered after the massacre of loyalists by Colonel Tarleton’s cavalry, mistaking them for rebels.

Additionally, North Carolina geography was not well suited for Cornwallis’ march north. The province was full of rivers like the Catawba, Dan, and Yadkin, restricting opportunities at greater maneuverability, especially as patriot forces began to oppose British units sent to garrison key North Carolina cities.

British troops had been told to expect supportive loyalist farmers that would provide food and drink as the army advanced. This proved to be another false assumption. Additionally, the Carolinas had offered stiff resistance and weakened the British forces. South of the North Carolina border, the battles of King’s Mountain and Hannah’s Cowpens devastated British and loyalist forces. Cornwallis, referring to Cowpens, stated that it was the “most serious calamity since Saratoga.”

Battle of Guilford Courthouse

At Guilford Courthouse, not far from the Virginia border, General Nathaniel Greene’s 4,500 men met the much smaller British army of 2,000. Arranged in three lines, the patriots had the advantage of terrain. Greene’s first and second line, representing local militia as well as Virginia militia, rapidly broke.

The third line, however, was made up of Continentals, regular, veteran troops. They held the high ground and almost succeeded in turning the British advance. Military historians speculate that if General Greene had ordered a charge, the weary British grenadiers and Guards units would have crumbled and the entire war would have been over.

Lord Cornwallis ordered the firing of grapeshot into the melee, killing as many of his own men as those of the enemy. The action succeeded and Greene ordered a withdrawal, leaving the British in control of the battlefield. Without food and enduring heavy rains, morale decreased. Further, Cornwallis had lost a quarter of his command and would limp into Virginia with only 1,435 men fit for combat duty.

Effects of Guilford Courthouse

British planners could not see the impending disaster. Although Benedict Arnold, who had recently changed allegiance to the British cause, was successfully harassing Virginia patriots and disparate military units, neither Virginia nor the Carolinas were solidly under British control. In fact, Cornwallis remarked in a letter to Lord Germain in London that rebel activity in the Carolinas was far more active and widespread than had been assumed.

Arriving in Yorktown, the British army was in no condition to fight. Disease was taking more lives and promised reinforcements failed to materialize. Cornwallis’ commander, the incompetent Sir Henry Clinton in New York, realized too late that British defeat at Yorktown would translate into the end of the war, the Americans having won their independence.

Revolutionary North Carolina had shown that the British southern campaign had been built on erroneous information. This cost them the war, particularly after the devastating defeat at Guilford Courthouse.

Sources:

• David Eggenberger, An Encyclopedia of Battles (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1985)
• Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes (New York: Avon Books, 1991)
• Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution, Volume Two (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)
• Primary Source Reference Book For the 1781 Guilford Courthouse Campaign, Captain Thomas Goss, Editor (Department of History, United States Military Academy West Point: May 4, 1998) [on-line PDF]

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprinting requires the written permission of Michael Streich.

 

Toleration and Enlightenment Thinking

Voltaire and his Peers Address the Fanaticism of Religion

Oct 15, 2009 Michael Streich

Toleration may be the one element of Enlightenment thinking that has yet to be realized in societies that perpetuate prejudices and religious fanaticism.

Toleration is as important a concept today as it was during the Enlightenment Age, a period when radically new thinking challenged the old order, particularly the established state religions. Despite this promising beginning, toleration as a positive force has yet to become an active part of everyday life, even in the most advanced societies of the post modern world. Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire viewed toleration as a natural element of rational thinking. This great French philosopher once wrote, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Toleration was the measure of Enlightenment truth.

The Need for Toleration in the 18th Century

The European wars of religion, notably the Thirty Years’ War that ended in 1648, had left much of central Europe in ruins. Population losses due to this devastating period are equated with 14th century losses due to Bubonic Plague. Although the 1555 Peace of Augsburg was reaffirmed, religious intolerantness existed everywhere, and not just among Christian bodies. Jews and Muslims were still persecuted and marginalized by Christian societies.

In 1762 a French Calvinist was executed by the Catholic authorities of Toulouse in France. Jean Calas was accused of killing his son who desired to convert to Catholicism. After torture and execution, Calas was executed. Three years later, after the intervention of Voltaire, a new inquiry found that Calas had been innocent. This case demonstrated the need for toleration as well as a curb on religious fanaticism, addressed by Voltaire in his Treatise on Tolerance.

Catholics were not alone in their relentless purges of non-Catholic religious groups. In England, Puritans in the Parliament passed laws restricting the full participation by Catholics in military and government affairs. Even in the new American colonies, religious toleration seldom existed as differing groups quibbled over Biblical interpretation.

After the Age of Enlightenment

Enlightenment challenges were illusive and toleration did not survive into the 19th Century. This was a century of revolution and wars across Europe. It was a period of Manifest Destiny, Imperialism, and the glorification of Anglo-Saxonism. There was no room for toleration. Dominant societies exploited and oppressed weaker ones, often in the name of religion, progress, or Social Darwinist applications. The Doctrine of Propinquity became the normative standard for acquiring territories. Toleration devolved into paternalism.

By the 20th Century, toleration was equated with unwelcome liberalism. The century began with ethnic cleansing in Turkey, the first significant genocide involving the Armenian ethnic minority. The high point on intolerance was the German Holocaust. Yet even into the 21st Century, toleration is fleeting. Despite the best efforts of schools to teach tolerance, an on-going project of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, tolerance continues to be undermined by generational prejudices.

Toleration Linked to other Enlightenment Goals

Although toleration has not been attained, other Enlightenment goals have. Most developed nations support freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Many nations no longer practice capital punishment. Democratically inclined nations recognize the inherent rights and liberties of all peoples, including the protections of habeas corpus and due process.

The 18th Century target of toleration was religious fanaticism. Although religious bodies in most developed nations no longer actively persecute other faith traditions, fanaticism still attempts to influence society and politics, most notably in America. In Germany, the Jehovah’s Witness sect is still fighting for the right to exist – the same group persecuted by the Nazis over sixty years ago.

In the United States, some Catholic bishops, like the bishops of Charleston and Charlotte, have refused to allow pro-choice political candidates from receiving the Eucharist. Thomas Paine, an American Patriot and Deist, wrote that all the religions known to him in the 18th Century claimed exclusive truth, damning each other to hell. He accepted none of them. Toleration goes a long way to ensure social harmony and respect for opposing views. This was a goal of Enlightenment thinkers.

Sources:

General Histories like The Western Heritage, by Donald Kagan and others; World Civilizations by Craig and others (both Prentice Hall)

Author’s lecture notes

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprint in any form must be granted in Writing by Michael Streich.

 

The Filibuster in Parliamentary Procedure

How One US Senator Can Delay the Business of the Senate

Oct 19, 2009 Michael Streich

Popularized in the mid-19th Century, the filibuster gives Senators, individually or in groups, the power to stop all Senate floor business.

The filibuster has been an active part of the United States Senate’s rules of procedure since the mid-19th Century, yet few Americans understand it. Derived from earlier terms meaning “pirate” or “freebooter,” the filibuster represents a parliamentary maneuver by the minority party to delay Senate votes on pending legislation through lengthy, often meaningless speeches. On the surface, this seems contrary to majority government, yet as a necessary evil the filibuster often forces bipartisan solutions and further committee action on important legislation.

Historical Uses of the Filibuster

The US Senate, since its inception, permitted lengthy speeches by its members. Some of these orations, such as the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830, were reprinted in newspapers and salient sections were memorized by school children. The notion of unlimited speaking time, however, began in the mid century. Senators could end a filibuster by calling for cloture, a measure requiring a two-thirds vote. Because early filibusters tended to occur at the end of the Congressional session, with many senators already traveling to their home states, cloture was seldom successful.

Filibusters were used – or threatened – to wind down the Congressional clock. The most serious 19th Century filibuster threat was in 1877 when both house of Congress met to certify the electoral votes in the Election of 1876. Historian Lloyd Robinson writes that after the special Electoral Commission gave all the disputed votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, leaders of the House, controlled by Democrats, threatened a last minute filibuster that would have resulted in a Constitutional crisis.

During the early New Deal years, Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long frequently employed the filibuster to prevent voting on measures that he felt favored the wealthy. Long read from the Bible and Shakespeare. His longest filibuster lasted 15 hours. This, however, did not compare to South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, whose anti-Civil Rights filibuster lasted for 24 hours and 18 minutes, the longest filibuster in the history of the Senate.

Other Uses of the Filibuster

In 1919 Republican senators, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, used the filibuster to delay votes in the lame duck session that would end in May. The motive was very clear: Republicans had gained control of the Senate in the mid-term elections and men like Lodge and William Borah of Idaho were opposed to the idealism of President Woodrow Wilson, notably the Versailles Peace Treaty which included Wilson’s “covenant of the League.” By stopping all Senate business, a new Republican-controlled Senate could pursue a vastly different agenda.

Filibusters are used to delay votes on judicial nominations as well as ambassadorial appointments. Frequently, senators have used the filibuster to oppose legislation not favorable to their region. During the 1950s, anti-segregation and anti-lynching laws were filibustered by Southern senators seeking to preserve the “separate but equal” principle that had been the norm in the South since the end of the Civil War.

Initial Civil Rights Acts were significantly watered down by party leaders in order to avoid contentious filibusters. Much of this changed as liberal democrats were elected to the Senate in the North. These new men could not be counted on to stave off attempts at cloture.

Contemporary Use of the Filibuster

Over the last two decades, the filibuster, although frequently threatened, was balanced by the necessary two-thirds majority needed for cloture. In the current Congress, the Democratic Party, having achieved impressive gains during recent elections, is very close to a “filibuster-proof” majority but still cannot count on the necessary votes to sustain a motion for cloture.

Additionally, bipartisan approaches to judicial appointments and controversial legislation have produced outcomes in which the filibuster may not be necessary. Both parties in recent years have threatened to change the rules on filibusters to favor their majority status. Thankfully, the filibuster remains as a parliamentary tool that gives fleeting power to one senator whose opposition or caution may be a necessary evil of US government.

Sources:

• Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
• John P. Patrick and others, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (Oxford University Press, 2001)
• Lloyd Robinson, The Stolen Election (Tom Doherty Books, 2001)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing in any form required the written permission of Michael Streich