Supreme Court Protects Big Business in the Gilded Age

Dec 22, 2010 Michael Streich

Gilded Age Court Protected Big Business - kconner photo image

The post-Reconstruction Supreme Court supported corporations by linking the 14th Amendment's due process clause to the doctrine of vested rights.

With the start of the Hayes administration and the ending of Reconstruction in 1877, profound changes were transforming America from a predominantly rural society to one that was urban. By 1900, fifty percent of all Americans lived in cities, a significant rise from the sixteen percent recorded in 1860. Much of this was due to Industrialization, a process enhanced by the Civil War years, creating a strong relationship between corporations and politics. The final piece of the puzzle confirming the laissez faire policies of American business came, however, with the transformation of the federal courts and their interpretation of the Fourteen Amendment’s due process clause.

State Legislatures Pass Statutes Regulating Private Businesses

One result of the growth of American manufacturing and business enterprises was the attempt by various state legislatures, notably in the mid-west where farmers suffered economically, to pass statutes regulating business practices. In Munn v Illinois (1877), for example, the Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s right to regulate under the notion of state policing powers.

In the earlier 1873 Slaughterhouse cases, arising out of Louisiana, the same court revived the idea of dual citizenship, enunciated by earlier courts as in Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In both the Munn and the Slaughterhouse cases, the appellants sought relief under the due process clause as found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The high court, however, seeking to determine the intent of the writers of the amendment, concluded that the due process clause as well as the equal protection clause was written to benefit Southern blacks in their struggle to realize political equality. Within a few years, however, the Supreme Court reversed itself, linking the due process clause to the doctrine of vested rights.

Response to State Regulation of Private Industry

Business leaders in the Gilded Age reacted swiftly to the regulations passed by state legislatures, often because special interest groups like the farmer’s Grange movement had elected their own to state assemblies. With the exception of Grover Cleveland, post-Reconstruction presidents were Republicans. The Republican Party was deeply tied to the interests of big business.

Republican presidents began to appoint pro-business judges, many with backgrounds as corporate attorneys. But even Cleveland was not immune from the practice of appointing men with pro-business leanings. These new judges realigned the Court's position on state regulation of businesses.

Under Cleveland, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created in order to control railroad rates, partially in response to the Grange movement. But the commission board members were tied to the railroad industry while the ICC itself had no enforcement power.

Business also increased lobbying efforts on the state level, in some cases resorting to bribery as in Pennsylvania. Pro-business newspapers like the New York Times portrayed movements like the Grange and later Populism as socialism with the intent of wealth redistribution. Such propaganda confirmed what many Americans already feared: a paternalistic government intent on interfering in the lives of its citizens.

The Supreme Court Reverses Itself on State Regulation of Business

By the 1880s, a new Supreme Court with different faces that were decidedly pro-business and defenders of laissez faire, reversed former court opinions, asserting that state legislatures were limited in regulating business practices. States that deprived enterprises through regulations violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court applied the due process clause to vested rights. This transition to “substantive due process” ultimately freed business from onerous statutes that could, to some degree, interfere with the most basic rights of an industry to reap profits. In effect, corporations were treated as people, a significant deviation from the intent of the writers crafting the amendment.

Response of the American People to the Court’s Support of Big Business

Most Americans supported the politics of the Gilded Age as well as the implementation of pro-business policies. Thus, many Americans supported the Supreme Court’s decisions. There were several reasons for this. Middle class Americans accepted the propaganda that populists were a danger to the democracy and the prosperity of the nation.

By 1900, the United States was producing more iron and steel annually than Great Britain and Germany combined. The Industrial Revolution, while creating a class of “new money” millionaires, also benefited the rising middle class. This included greater varieties of fresh meats and produce, clothing, household labor-saving devices, and leisure time recreation. The problems of the western farmers or the Southern sharecroppers were simply not substantial or effective enough to warrant changes.

Substantive Due Process and the Gilded Age Supreme Court

Substantive due process prevented unreasonable state interference with private property. This included corporations, namely railroads and other utility businesses. On one level, the judiciary was responding to the lightening changes in American society, interpreting the Constitution through the prism of an industrialized society.

On another level, the courts gave the “green light” to business, freeing industry from unreasonable oversight and regulatory measures. It would not be until the Progressive Era that government attempted to seek a balance.

Sources:

• Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, Fifth Edition (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1990)
• Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (Harper Perennial, 2010)

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

 Felix Yusupov and the Death of Rasputin 1916

The Assassination of a Court Favorite Sees Prophecy Fulfilled

© Michael Streich

Nov 23, 2008

Rasputin warned that his death by members of the imperial family would lead to the end of Romanov rule, yet the plot went forward with intriguing results.

The Yusupov Palace sits serenely on the Moika River in St. Petersburg and is today a museum and concert venue. Yet almost one hundred years ago, the palace achieved its greatest notoriety when in the early hours of December 17, 1916 conspirators with ties to Russia’s imperial family assassinated Grigorii Rasputin. The story of Rasputin’s murder still intrigues, in part due to the nature of his death.

Rasputin and the Empress

Tsar Nicholas II’s only son was born in 1905 with the dreaded “royal disease” hemophilia, so named because it was most probably traced to England’s Queen Victoria whose children spread the then incurable disease to other dynastic houses in Europe. Soon after his birth, the Empress Alexandria, a “religious fanatic” according to Virginia Cowles, was introduced to an itinerant holy man named Rasputin who seemed to possess the power to control the boy’s bleeding. This forged an unhealthy relationship, resulting in the Empress’ “neurotic dependence” [1] on Rasputin. When war broke out in 1914 and Tsar Nicholas eventually assumed full command of his troops, leaving his wife to conduct affairs in Petrograd (St. Petersburg), the influence of Rasputin on Alexandra became acute. W. Bruce Lincoln writes that, “By late 1916, it would have been difficult to find anyone of consequence in Petrograd who did not think that Rasputin should be done away with or that, because they had such total confidence in him, Nicholas and Alexandria were unfit to rule.” [2]

The Plot and the Assassination

An uneasy Rasputin had prophetically stated in a letter to Nicholas that if members of the imperial family succeeded in killing him, “then no one of your family…will remain alive for more than two years.” [3] The plot to kill Rasputin was hatched by Vladimir Purishkevich, an ardent nationalist, and Prince Felix Yusupov, heir of one of Russia’s most important and wealthy families. The Tsar’s nephew, Grand Duke Dmitrii Pavlovich, became the the third member of the triumvirate.

On the night of December 16th, Felix lured Rasputin to his palace with the promise of introducing him to his beautiful wife Princess Irina. In the basement of the palace, Dr. Lazovert had laced pastries and wine with potassium cyanide, enough to kill several men instantly. Rasputin ate several of the cakes, washing them down with Madeira and Marsala wine, also containing cyanide. The poison, however, had no affect on the man who then asked the prince to entertain him with guitar and song. Eventually, Felix left, returning with a revolver. As Rasputin turned to look at a crucifix, the prince shot him. Although pronounced dead by the doctor, Rasputin shortly revived and lunged after Felix.

Exiting the palace, Rasputin ran toward the gate. Vladimir Purishkevich, however, fired several shots at the fleeing man, eventually bringing him down as Felix proceeded to beat Rasputin with a rubber club. The conspirators covered the body with a blanket and dropped it into an opening of the ice covered Neva River. The body was recovered three days later and an autopsy report declared that Rasputin had died from drowning.

The Prophecy

Nicholas II and his immediate family were shot on July 17, 1918 in Ekaterinburg on direct orders of Lenin. Nicholas had abdicated on the Ides of March, three months after Rasputin’s death. Their bodies are today entombed in St. Petersburg's Cathedral of SS Peter and Paul, alongside other Romanov rulers.

Notes:

[1] W. Bruce Lincoln, The Romanovs: Autocrats of All the Russias (New York: The Dial Press, 1981) p. 702.

[2] IBID. p. 703.

[3] quoted in Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandria (New York: Dell, 1967) p. 372.

A very readable source on this period is Virginia Cowles, The Russian Dagger: Cold War in the Days of the Czars (Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969)

The copyright of the article Felix Yusupov and the Death of Rasputin 1916 in Russian/Ukrainian/Belarus History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Felix Yusupov and the Death of Rasputin 1916 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Recreation of Rasputin's Murder, Yusupov Palace

 Family and Community in Colonial America

Protestant Theology Provided a Basis for Social Organization

© Michael Streich

Jan 6, 2009

New England "godly communities" were rooted in theological and Old Testament beliefs that clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of community members.

Early colonial life is described as “family” and “community oriented.” Although usually applied to Puritanism and other colonial groups that adhered to strict religious values, some scholars see the elements of family and community in colonies established for commercial reasons as well, such as in Virginia. [1] While most scholars identify a significant overall and long term social influence with the notions of family and community, they usually don't connect those strong colonial bonds with religious theology. Strong colonial families and the emphasis on community must be seen in the light of early Protestant Reformed theological views.

The Strength of the Community Rests with the Strength of the Family

Discussing early Protestant family structures, Steven Ozment writes that, “Both spiritually and socially, Lutheran theology held the community formed by a husband and wife to be society’s most fundamental.” [2] John Calvin’s views, subscribed to by many colonial groups including the Puritans, were very similar. Historian John D’Emilio states that “Most migrants to early New England sought to create godly communities built upon the centrality of the family, a well-ordered and stable ‘little commonwealth.’” [3]

How did the Puritans come upon the notion of a godly community that subordinated the individual to the overall good of the community? One answer lies in Puritan theology that saw Puritans as the “New Israel.” Social order was the visible sign of God’s kingdom. Early American Christians tended to be Old Testament oriented and took examples from the patriarchal nature of God’s chosen people, incorporating them into their own beliefs and social structures.

The community was responsible for the behavior of its members lest God punish the entire community. This fit into the covenant idea: God blesses if the community follows his commandments. This idea of community “spying,” as some have called it, was a “holy watchfulness” that, in the 19th century, figured so prominently in Nathanial Hawthorne’s novels and short stories.

Protecting the Community

Helena Wall writes that, “The ideal product of the well ordered family was a literate, thrifty, sober, self-supporting, God-fearing adult, one who recognized authority and submitted to it, who knew his duty and performed it.” [4] If all members of the community followed these precepts, God would bless everyone therein. Part of this assessment mandated the proper education of children, both male and female, toward community goals as expected of adults.

Marriage was held sacrosanct and although Calvinism permitted divorce, adultery and fornication were severely punished. Husbands were required to maintain the welfare of families to avoid women and children becoming dependent on community assistance through the local church. This was true in the Chesapeake colony as well. In fact, many laws governing individual behavior deemed inappropriate were duplicated in all of the colonies.

Scholars have pointed out that strict community and family models in colonies like Massachusetts were in the process of being transformed in England as population groups shifted from the rural areas to the cities. Hence, scholars point out that the Puritans, for example, sensing encroachment upon their godly communities toward the end of the 17th century, resorted, in part, to a renewed, vocal warning of evil, perhaps resulting in the infamous witch trials. But this fit with the larger notions of community dictated by theological assumptions.

This view, however, fails to take into account the innate nature of Calvinist beliefs within the established social structures. One can say the same of later groups like the Mormons that also relied upon Old Testament models to help formulate their community, set apart from non-believers. Shakers referred to non-believers as “the world’s people.” The fundamental nature of all early American community-based societies cannot be fully understood without incorporating the theological elements.

Sources:

[1] Helena M. Wall, Fierce Communion: Family and Community in Early America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)

[2] Steven Ozment, Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution New York: Doubleday, 1992) p.164.

[3] John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988) p. 3

[4] Wall, p. 9

See also:

Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth-Century New England (New York: Harper & Row, 1966)

The copyright of the article Family and Community in Colonial America in Colonial America is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Family and Community in Colonial America in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Godly Communities

 Lincoln and Douglas after the 1860 Election

Working to Avoid a Crisis that would end in Civil War

Michael Streich, April 14, 2010

The contest in the North during the Election of 1860 was between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, both from Illinois. Douglas had spent his adult life in politics, serving in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Known as the “Little Giant,” Douglas was formidable and ambitious. Douglas never wavered from his solution to the expansion of slavery, clinging to “popular sovereignty” even as Southern states were leaving the Union. Lincoln had only served one term in the Congress and came back into national politics after passage of the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Election of 1860 and Disunion brought both men together in a common cause: preserving the Union.

 

The Northern Candidates in 1860

 

“Honest Abe” was nominated by the Republicans, meeting in Chicago, on the third ballot, defeating the clear front-runner, New York’s William Henry Seward. The other potential nominees included Edward Bates of Missouri, Simeon Cameron of Pennsylvania, and Salmon Chase of Ohio. Each of these men would serve in the Cabinet. Lincoln won every Northern state except Missouri and New Jersey, gathering 180 electoral votes.

 

The “Little Giant” represented the hopes of Northern Democrats after the party split during the Charleston convention. Southern factions supported either John C. Breckinridge or John Bell, who’s Constitutional Union Party was pro-Union and rejected outright secession. Douglas received 12 electoral votes, the lowest number of any candidate. Although disappointed and bitter, Douglas, while in New Orleans shortly after the election, declared that “the mere election of any man to the Presidency does not of itself furnish just cause for dissolving the Union.”

 

The Coming Disunion of the Republic

 

Historian Page Smith comments on a “remarkable exchange of letters…” a month after the election between Lincoln and Douglas. Lincoln urged Senator Douglas to allay Southern fears, pointing out that neither he nor the Republican Party desired to end slavery in the South. Part of Douglas’ reply suggested that Lincoln make some gesture to the South addressing the contention that Southern slavery was morally wrong.

 

Lincoln made no public statements, however, deferring to the sitting President, James Buchanan. But Buchanan was no Andrew Jackson – the fiery hero of New Orleans who, as President, threatened to send federal troops to enforce the tariff during the nullification crisis. Buchanan was linked to the South and had done his best to sabotage the party nomination of Stephen Douglas. When South Carolina left the Union in December 1860, Buchanan remained aloof.

 

Douglas Supports Lincoln after Secession

 

Douglas recorded that on the evening of April 14, 1861, he called on President Lincoln: “…while Mr. D was unalterably opposed to the administration on all its political issues, he was prepared to sustain the President in the exercise of all his constitutional functions to preserve the Union…” Fifteen days later, Douglas wrote to Lincoln from Illinois that “unanimity in the support of the government and the Union” characterized the Illinois citizenry. There had been some concern that Southern Illinois might side against Lincoln.

 

Lincoln and Douglas at the Inauguration

 

One of the most interesting and perhaps endearing moments between the two adversaries occurred at Lincoln’s Inauguration on March 4, 1861. Preparing to take the oath of office, Lincoln removed his hat, holding it out to the assembled dignitaries so that he could place his hand on the Bible. Stephen Douglas jumped up and offered to hold his hat. The spontaneous gesture reflected, according to historians, the respect Douglas had for Lincoln as a person – not just the high office.

 

The anecdote was questioned for decades although mentioned in memoirs written long after the fact, such as Carl Schurz’s recollections. But in 1959, Historian Allan Nevins, then at Columbia University, verified the story from an original source found in a March 11, 1861 item in the Cincinnati Commercial newspaper. His findings appeared in the February 1959 American Heritage Magazine.

 

Opposing Viewpoints and a Common Cause

 

They debated across the state of Illinois for the U.S. Senate seat in what became known as the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. In 1860 they opposed each other for the Presidency, Douglas chastened by a man who was self-taught and had spent less than six months in formal schooling. But both men fought together to preserve the Union, putting principle above personal feeling.

 

References:

 

Robert W. Johannsen, Editor, The Letters of Stephen A Douglas (University of Illinois Press, 1961)

Allen Nevins, “He Did Hold Lincoln’s Hat,” American Heritage (February 1959, Volume 10, Issue 2)

Stephen B. Oates, The Approaching Fury (Harper/Collins, 1997)

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

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Republishing of any kind including but not limited to digital requires written permission from the author, Michael Streich.

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