Christmas Giving and a Brief History of Benevolence

Nov 30, 2010 Michael Streich

Christmas Gift Giving Began at Bethlehem - Mike Streich photo image

Christmas giving is rooted in Matthew's account of the Magi's visit to Bethlehem, but has become a theology of charity to lessen the suffering of the poor.

In the English Christmas carol “The Twelve Days of Christmas,” the singer’s true love begins by giving a “Partridge in a Pear Tree” and ends with twelve “Drummers Drumming.” Giving at Christmas has been part of the Christmas tradition since the identification of the feast day with Saint Nicholas in the 12th Century.

It is the Matthew account in the New Testament, however, that provides the model for giving (Chapter 2.11). During the period of Industrialization, especially in England, giving at Christmas became part of social charity, an extension of goodwill designed to bridge the gap between rich and poor.

The Gifts of the Magi at the First Christmas in Bethlehem

The first Gospel writer, Matthew, describes wise men or Magi that arrived in Jerusalem seeking a newly born child that they believed to be a king. They found this babe in Bethlehem, traditionally in a stable, although some translations refer to a house (New American Standard Bible; Luther’s German translation; Revised English Bible).

The Magi opened “their treasures” and presented the newly born king with, “gifts of gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.” Virtually all New Testament translations agree on these three gifts. The giving of three different gifts has also led to the conclusion that there were three wise men, although no account specifies an exact number.

Frankincense was incense of the highest quality. Luther translates it as “Weihrauch,” used by the Church during Mass and other important liturgical functions. Myrrh was a resin used in perfume. Myrrh was also identified with the “balm of Gilead,” mentioned in Genesis 37.25.

This “balm” was also used for medicinal purposes. In Jeremiah 8.22, for example, the prophet, lamenting over the evils of God’s people and the coming destruction of Jerusalem, asks, “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?” All three gifts mentioned by Matthew were costly and each was symbolic. Gold was symbolic of kingship.

Christmas Giving Turns to Social Charity in Modern History

The example of the Magi as well as legends that sparked gift-giving in the life of St. Nicholas legitimized the exchange of gifts at Christmas. Although some Catholic religious communities like the Franciscans had a long tradition of selfless giving to the poor, the universalization of giving in response to income disparity and social poverty began with the period of Industrialization.

In Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge is confronted on Christmas Eve by two men in his money-lending business, soliciting funds for the poor: “At this festive season of the year…it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.” In her extensive study of Christmas in the United States, Art History professor Karal Ann Marling equates the Dickens story, in part, with the “cruelties of the new industrial order.”

The overriding aspect of redemption for Scrooge, as with other similar Christmas story protagonists, points to the greater good within society. Scrooge represents the greed of an industrial period that is confronted by its own banality and class distinctions replaced by a type of brotherhood of man that equates Christmas with benevolence and social goodwill.

The Act of Giving at Christmas in the Contemporary World

The legacy of what has been called the greatest “charity sermon” of the 19th Century has led to contemporary giving at another period in history of growing wealth disparity and spiraling poverty, even in the developed nations.

Perhaps because of the stark contrasts of Christmas lights and joyful singing and millions living below the established poverty base, holiday charity has become the norm and grows every year.

Mailboxes are full of urgent appeals, Salvation Army bell ringers brave the cold at public places, and local television stations report on community activities designed to restock food banks or provide shelter for the homeless. In every case, the motivation springs from a special time of the year that conveys the message of sharing.

The Greatest Gift at Christmas According to Christian Views

For many Christians, the greatest gift at Christmas is the birth of Christ and the free gift of salvation that the “king of kings” brings. A German hymn states that “Every year, the Christ-child comes again.” The image of the baby Jesus is symbolic of the act of giving. Christmas is all about giving: God the Father, “gave his only begotten son” (John 3.16). The wise men gave their treasures. Jesus gave his life so men might live.

The act of giving at Christmas is more about motivation than substance. In Mark’s Gospel (12.41ff) Christ observed a “poor widow” who brought two small copper coins (the “widow’s mite”) to the treasury, but the coins represented all that she had. This is the ultimate form of sacrificial giving, an action highlighted in all of the world’s major religions.

Even Jesus acknowledged that there will always be poor people. The act of giving will never do away with poverty. This fact alone points to the reason giving, particularly at Christmas, is important. Giving instills an attitude or perspective that humbles the giver and makes him a better person. Charles Dickens ends A Christmas Carol by writing that it was always said of Scrooge that, “he knew how to keep Christmas well.”

Sources:

• Karal Ann Marling, Merry Christmas! Celebrating America’s Greatest Holiday (Harvard University Press, 2000)
• New American Standard Bible (Moody Press, 1973)
• Michael Paterson, Voices from Dickens’ London (David & Charles, 2007)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any republishing of this article requires written permission from/by Michael Streich

 

Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Aztec Influence

Dec 2, 2010 Michael Streich

The historical evidence for Juan Diego does not exist, but there are links between ancient Aztec beliefs and the Catholic apparition at Guadalupe in Mexico.

Tepeyac is a hill near Mexico City, identified with the Catholic shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patron saint of the Americas. It was here, in the early hours of December 9, 1531, that a simple Mexican peasant Juan Diego first encountered an apparition that was later confirmed by the Catholic Church to be the Virgin Mary. But Tepeyac was also dedicated to the Mesoamerican mother goddess Tonantzin, and these pre-Christian Aztec associations parallel the Catholic version.

The Catholic Church in New Spain and the Desire to Convert Indians

Historians often use the phrase “God, gold, and glory” to characterize the motives of early Spanish conquistadors in the Americas. Surviving documents of officially sanctioned excursions into the hinterlands include precise listings of the numbers of priests and friars that were to accompany such adventures in order to convert native peoples.

In the process, particularly in Central and South America, the Church built upon already existing beliefs, much like Catholic missionaries during the Middle Ages in their efforts to convert Europeans following Pagan cultures.

In Europe, communities accepted the new faith but clung to their ancient superstitions, many of which made their way into such Christian holidays as Christmas, Halloween, and Easter.

In the Americas, the association with the ancient beliefs, including gods and goddesses, was deeper and frequently practiced underground. This was one cause of the 1680 Pueblo Revolt, led by an Indian shaman named Popé.

Juan Diego and the Marian Apparition of 1531

It's believed that Juan Diego, a simple peasant in his fifties, was drawn to the Tepeyac hill on the morning of December 9, 1531 by the sounds of a chant or singing. Secular sources indicate a chant while Church sources speak of singing. Diego was met by a teenage girl dressed as an Indian, claiming to be the Virgin Mary.

Diego was unable to convince the local Catholic bishop, Don Fray Zumarraga.

The apparition appeared to Diego on several other occasions and even appeared to his dying uncle Juan Bernardino, healing him. During the last encounter, the apparition tied a cloak around Diego’s neck which contained roses (not in season) as well as her image on the cloth. This finally convinced the bishop.

There is no written account from Bishop Zumarraga about these events. The earliest written records of the 1531 events date to 1648. No historical evidence exists attesting to the existence of Juan Diego.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Linked to Estremadura in Spain

Hernan Cortes, the conquistador who conquered the Aztecs in Mexico, was born near the Spanish shrine known as Our Lady of Guadalupe in Estremadura, Spain. Several other New World conquistadors came from the same region. The shrine, one of the most popular in Spain, is associated with a Marian apparition very similar to the one at Tepeyac in Mexico.

According to a study by Jacques LaFaye (Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe: The Formation of National Consciousness, Chicago University Press, 1976), several distinct parallels exist between the two apparitions.

Both took place on a hill and both involved a poor peasant who had a close relative or family member cured. In both cases, the apparition referred to herself as the Virgin Mary, requesting that a shrine be built at the hill.

The shrine at Tepeyac was built over the ruins of a temple or pyramid dedicated to Cihuacoatl, personified by Tonantzin, the Aztec mother goddess. Originally, according to written accounts, it housed a statue of Mary encrusted with gold and silver. This was later replaced with the cloth bearing the image Juan Diego had shown his bishop.

Secular Versus Devotional Interpretations of Our Lady of Guadalupe

The devotional interpretation speaks for itself and draws nearly fifteen million visitors to the shrine every year. The shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe has been called the “Lourdes” of the Americas.

From a secular and an historical perspective, however, Guadalupe represents an attempt to fuse ancient pre-Christian religious structures with Catholicism. Although the evidence is somewhat speculative, it is compelling, even to strict believers.

Shrines to Our Lady of Guadalupe, popularized by the Estremadura shrine in Spain, were constructed throughout New Spain. In Mexico, it was well known that Aztec artists were gifted at painting images on cloth. The tying of the cloak around Diego’s neck was a part of traditional Aztec marriage ceremonies.

Historian Jonathan Norton Leonard argues that, “Providing a quasi-religion for the Indians was easier than devising an efficient government for them.” This fits the historical pattern utilized by the Catholic Church in Europe as well as later Catholic missions in Asia.

The Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12

In 1476, the Catholic Church universalized the important feast day of the Immaculate Conception. In the New World, according to Sociology Professor Michael P. Carroll, the Immaculate Conception was celebrated from December 8th through the 17th.

The December 8th day, one day before Diego’s first encounter, was proclaimed as the official feast day of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX, although church tradition had celebrated this day for centuries.

Juan Diego’s experiences at Tepeyac provided a further basis for fusion of ancient beliefs with Catholic practices. Out of that endeavor, a Marian cult emerged around the hill outside of Mexico City.

Sources:

• Michael P. Carroll, The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (Princeton University Press, 1986).
• Jonathan Norton Leonard, Ancient America (Time Inc., 1967).

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

 

The Equal Protection Clause

Section One of the 14th Amendment Guarantees Civil Liberties

May 13, 2009 Michael Streich

In the wake of Southern resistance to Federal Reconstruction laws, Congress crafted the 14th Amendment to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws.

The “Equal Protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section One, was designed to federally protect the rights of all citizens, including the former slaves of the South. Adopted by Congress in 1868, the Amendment was a response to growing efforts in the South to deprive blacks of civil rights. Providing for “equal protection of the laws” targeted Southern efforts keeping blacks from voting, as well as halting the process that ultimately led to the policy of “separate but equal.”

Combating Efforts That Denied Equal Protection

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is followed by the Equal Protection clause. Rejecting Reconstruction efforts and goals as they related to African Americans, Southern states attempted to keep the former slaves in a servile position.

This began with the Black Codes. Although overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, practices begun by the codes were continued. Further, those equal access laws passed by state Reconstruction governments led by African American representatives were not enforced.

Local “vagrancy” laws were tied to unemployment, forcing blacks to work for whites at highly disadvantageous wage agreements or face arrest. Some states defined what jobs African Americans were allowed to pursue. South Carolina, for example, allowed blacks to work only as farmers or servants. Pursuing other occupations was tied to steep taxes.

Other laws addressed trespassing, preaching without a license, the purchase of alcohol, and owning weapons. Once African American males received the right to vote, local jurisdictions found ways to disenfranchise voters through literacy tests, poll taxes, and property qualifications. Yet few cases based on the Equal Protection clause made their way through the federal courts.

Southern Response to Equal Protection

Although the presence of Federal troops in many states, particularly those where volatile white elites used armed force to harass African Americans, kept violence to a minimum and enforced Congressional Reconstruction mandates, intimidation was rampant. After 1868, extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan initiated a wave of terror.

The Klan not only intimidated blacks, but assassinated whites that supported equal protection. Targeting Republican state governments, the Klan engaged in a bloodbath of terror, seeking to expel these governments and “redeem” the states with a return to power of white elites. By 1877, this was a completed task as the results of the 1876 election returned the South to “home rule.”

Despite the Fourteenth Amendment and the guarantee of equal protection, Southern society became more segregated as “separate but equal” deepened. By 1896, in the case Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld separate but equal, dooming Southern blacks to decades of discrimination and segregation.

Equal Protection and the Civil Rights Movement

Attorneys arguing before the Supreme Court in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education underscored section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, convincing the high court that the Equal Protection clause did apply to segregation. The court agreed, seeing the intent of the writers of the Amendment as subjecting the states to Federal law. Separate but equal was “inherently” unequal.

Since then, the Equal Protection clause has been applied in many areas of discrimination including women’s rights and age discrimination issues. It is perhaps one of the most important Constitutional guarantees available to all citizens.

Sources:

• Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution
• Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, The Right to Privacy (Alfred A. Knopf, 1995)
• Eric Foner, Reconstruction (History Book Club – Harper/Collins, 2005)

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

 

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.