Lincoln's Final Public Speech Addressed Reconstruction

Dec 6, 2010 Michael Streich

1861 Inauguration of Lincoln - Library of Congress Photo Image

Abraham Lincoln called for a speedy and lasting peace three days before his assassination, yet his vision would be obscured by the Radical Republicans.

President Abraham Lincoln’s final public address took place on April 11, 1865. Since his inauguration as president in March 1861, Lincoln had been a “war president,” never wavering from his commitment to preserve the Union. In his last address, he spoke of a “re-inauguration of the national authority…” and his goal of guiding the seceded states into their “proper practical relation with the Union.” Although the battle over Southern Reconstruction began in earnest with Lincoln’s December 1863 Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomattox two days before this final address signaled the differences between Presidential Reconstruction and Congressional Reconstruction.

A Reconstructed Louisiana Served as the Example for Other Southern States

New Orleans was captured by Union forces at the end of April 1862. The lengthy presence of Union occupation enabled Louisiana to serve as a model for Lincoln’s Reconstruction Proclamation. Most of his final address defends that plan in the light of substantial progress coming out of the Deep South state.

Enough citizens of Louisiana, in conformity to Lincoln’s so-called “ten percent” plan, had taken the proscribed oath and submitted a new state constitution. The newly elected legislature ratified the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Louisiana was committed to non-segregated public schools and granting freedmen voting privileges.

Lincoln’s Final Address was Both Political and Moral

Louisiana represented the first step in bringing the seceding states back into a proper relationship with the Union. In his Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1865, Lincoln called upon the nation to “strive on to finish the work we are in…” The work included “binding up the nation’s wounds.” The goals of Reconstruction were simple: “…to…achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Lincoln dismissed the question of whether or not the Southern states had actually left the Union. As early as 1861, Lincoln reread the opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall regarding federal supremacy. To reestablish a proper relationship, according to Lincoln, “We simply must begin with, and mold from, disorganized and discordant elements.”

Radical Congressional Republicans Disagreed with Lincoln

Republican leaders like Senator Charles Sumner and Pennsylvania Rep. Thaddeus Stevens believed that Lincoln was too lenient. Many in the Congress were motivated by revenge and called for the execution of Jefferson Davis and high ranking political and military leaders. Senators like Benjamin Wade, author of the harsh Wade-Davis Bill, wanted to deprive any Southern whites that had been associated in any way with the rebellion of future political participation.

Lincoln knew this conflicted with his message of “malice toward none” and “charity for all.” In his final address, he acknowledged the differences of opinion regarding reconstruction. He also admitted that what was accomplished in Louisiana was not the only plan – nor did he intend it to be so. As President and Commander in Chief, however, his December 1863 Proclamation, approved by the entire Cabinet, was justified.

Lincoln’s Assassination Provides an Edge for Congressional Radicals

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated three days after this final, public address. According to his biographers, he had had premonitions about his death. This final address, a last will and testament of his plan of Reconstruction, represented a logical and clear argument for a “righteous and speedy peace.”

Lincoln even addressed black suffrage, stating that the very intelligent as well as those “who serve our cause as soldiers” should receive the franchise. His successor, Vice President Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, would not be so magnanimous. Johnson’s reconstruction views, as well as his strict-constructionist application of the Constitution, would pit him against the Congressional radicals and result in his impeachment trial.

Lincoln’s Final Address Conformed to his Philosophy and Morality

The last public speech of Abraham Lincoln reflected the same ideals he held throughout the war. In the Gettysburg Address he called for a “new birth of freedom…” In the Second Inaugural, Lincoln hoped and prayed that, “…this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.” The final paragraph speaks of a “firmness in the right…”

Every wartime action, even the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, was part of the long-term final goal, a “righteous and speedy peace” that restored the “proper practical relationship” of seceding states with the Union. On the day Lincoln died, the Stars and Stripes were against hoisted over Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, by General Anderson, the same man who defended the federal outpost when Southern General P. T. Beauregard ordered the bombardment of Ft. Sumter. The Union was again one. But the applications of that wholeness would take over 100 years.

Sources:

• The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Joseph R. Fornieri (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003)
• Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction, Volume Five (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)
• Jay Wink, April 1865: The Month That Saved America (Harper, 2001)

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

 

World Hunger Traced to Colonialism and Biofuels

Jan 7, 2011 Michael Streich

South Pacific Islanders Share Limited Food - Mike Streich Photo Image Taken in Figi

The roots of global hunger can be traced to European colonialism, but are still evident in the global exploitation of biofuels.

Hunger in the under-developed nations is rapidly becoming the chief global crisis, posing questions such as who will live and who will die. Academics and humanitarian organizations trace the problem of hunger to 19th Century colonialism. But a new paradigm that involves the energy needs of industrialized nations is perpetuating the hunger crisis as the last vestiges of sustainable food production give way to the pressures of biofuels.

Colonialism and the Destruction of Traditional Agricultural Patterns

A January 7, 2011 Spiegel article on world hunger asks the decisive question: who decides whether one group receives food while another group must starve? Donations from wealthy countries have fallen as the global economic crisis forced governments to look at domestic needs. Christine Vestal writes, for example, that in the United States, “38 million people are receiving food stamps…” (Global Research, July 14, 2010).

The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) states that the number of hungry people in the world was over one billion in 2009. Frances M. Lappe and Joseph Collins identify colonialism as the root cause of global hunger. According to Lappe and Collins, colonialism destroyed crop diversification to accommodate cash crops like cocoa and cotton. This destructive policy involved the creation of the plantation system as well as efforts to undercut food exports.

Challenging the Colonial Notion of Primitive Cultures

Colonial powers viewed indigenous, native cultures as primitive and backward. Tied to this was the missionary zeal determined to “rescue the perishing” and make them Christian, which, in the 19th Century, was equated with the path toward civilized society. But indigenous cultures were agriculturally advanced and, in many cases, created a diversity of sustainable crops.

Anthropologist Jack Weatherford, writing about the Andean farmers in Northwestern South America at the time of the Spanish conquest, concludes that these farmers, “…were producing about three thousand different types of potatoes in the Andes.” It is also well known that the Aztecs and other groups living in Mesoamerica were noted for the diversity of their crop production, resulting in the Colombian Exchange.

In colonial South Carolina, plantation owners cultivating rice sought African slaves that came from rice producing regions in Africa. During the American Civil War, Britain, deprived of U.S. cotton, turned to Egypt and India, having introduced cotton production in those regions much earlier in anticipation of a U.S. cotton disruption.

Such examples demonstrate two things: colonial powers were well aware of native agricultural expertise and diversity, and were not reluctant to force indigenous peoples to switch agricultural pursuits to commodities that benefited the mother country.

Neo-Colonialism Enhances World Hunger

Somalia went from a net exporter of food to a nation faced with famine during the administration of U.S. President George H.W. Bush. Somalia played a key role during the Cold War. Once that war was over, financial assistance to Somalia ended. This resulted in the rise of war lords. Massive instability ended farming and despite U.S. intervention, Somalia is today a nation of poverty, courted by extremist organizations and involved in high profile piracy.

In a New York Times article (March 3, 2003), Tina Rosenberg noted that Mexican corn farmers are going hungry because of cheap corn imports from U.S. megafarms. Due to the lack of Mexican governmental subsidies and bank credits, small farmers cannot switch to more lucrative commodities. In many cases, their farms are lost to land investors, usually bankrolled by foreign enterprises operating in the wealthy, developed nations.

The 21st Century Need for Biofuels Exacerbates Exploitation and Hunger

Energy consumption drives the industrial developed world. Biofuel production has taken the place of coffee and cocoa plantations. A report by Deutsche Welle (September 8, 2010), concludes that, “With increasing demand for biofuel production reducing areas of arable land around the world, experts fear that the ultimate impact on food security will be global rather than local.”

A January 22, 2009 article in Spiegel details ethanol production in Brazil. During colonial times, Brazil was the first region to be used by Portugal for sugar cultivation. Sugar cultivation resulted in European plantation economies in the New World that depended on African slaves. Today’s slaves are the Brazilians that still harvest sugar cane, but for the energy needs of the developed world. Spiegel reports that, “In 2008 Brazil produced just under 26 billions liters of ethanol, a number projected to rise to 53 billion by 2017.”

A major concern for those working toward a clean environment is the on-going destruction of Brazil's rainforest. Yet while the EU protested strongly and even offered payment to Brazil, the United States, which under President Trump is emasculating every environmental law now in force, turns a deaf ear. "America first" refuses to assess the world's environmental woes even as current leadership turns clean energy on it's head.

Advocates for the Brazilian workers, however, paint a picture of exploitation and abuse. Spiegel quotes Father Tiago stating that, “Anyone who buys ethanol is pumping blood into his tank. Ethanol is produced by slaves.” Deutsche Welle reports that, “Local communities are facing increased hunger and food insecurity just so Europe can fuel its cars.”

Colonialism and the New Imperialism Affects Global Hunger

Colonialism may have ended historically in the mid-20th Century, but economic imperialism continues. Despite nationalization efforts, such as taken by Zambia over the copper mines, global enterprises continue to manipulate local governments and, in the process, ignore the needs of people. In terms of agriculture and global hunger concerns, the destruction of crop diversification that began centuries ago continues.

Spiegel, in its January 7, 2011 article on hunger, concludes, “This is the ugly, inhumane side of international aid.” According to Spiegel, “…billions are being spent to rescue banks and countries…” but the effects of global hunger remain.

Sources:

• Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Conrad, “Why Can’t People Feed Themselves?” Social Problems of the Modern World, Frances V. Moulder, editor (Wadsworth, 2000)
• Tina Rosenberg, “Why Mexico’s Small Corn Farmers Go Hungry,” New York Times, March 3, 2003
• Jack Weatherford, Indian Givers: How The Indians of the Americas Transformed the World (Fawcett Books, 1988)

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

 

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.