St. Francis' Attributes Reflect Christmas Truths

Humility, Compassion & the Spirit of Poverty at the Christmas Creche

© Michael Streich

 Dec 6, 2008

The life of St. Francis is the true imitation of Christ, yet it is at the manager of that first Christmas in Bethlehem were Francis points to the attributes of Jesus.

On Christmas Eve 1223, in a small Umbrian church, Francis of Assisi celebrated midnight Mass and established the practice of exhibiting a crèche or presepio, reminding all who would come to the manger that Jesus had a humble birth. The attributes of Francis, chronicled by his biographer Bonaventure, parallel those of the Christ child: humility, compassion, and a spirit of poverty. Referred to as the “second Christ” by Pope Pius XI, Francis’ life was a true imitation of the life of Christ.

From Material Comfort to Poverty

Born Giovanni di Bernardone in 1181, Francis experienced a comfortable life as the son of a wealthy Assisi merchant. His hopes and dreams were much like others born into similar wealth and prestige. He left Assisi to fight in a war but returned with profound inner yearnings that led him through a spiritual journey at the end of which he rejected the norms associated with his social class.

Francis soon came to know the Jesus of that first Christmas in Bethlehem. Through visions and prayers, Francis stove to follow God’s call to rebuild His church. It was a time of conflict and crisis, of crusades and heretics. There was great wealth and great poverty and the institutions of the time offered little hope of security and direction.

Little wonder Francis attracted others seeking a deeper understanding of the Christian experience, from a mere handful to many thousands over the course of the first years of his ministry. Above all, Francis stressed poverty. Preaching that first midnight Mass in 1223, Francis referred to the “birth of the poor King.”

Poverty, Humility, and Compassion

The Rule of Francis was nothing less than the Gospels: “If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up the cross, and follow me.” (Matthew 16.24) The imitation of Christ rested on the human attributes of Jesus. Many times the Gospels record that Jesus had compassion for the crowds that followed him and sought answers for their own inadequacies.

All of these attributes were evident at the birth of Jesus and this was highlighted by Francis. Jesus was born in a humble setting among stable animals. His first visitors were humble shepherds. The Magi or kings that followed the Bethlehem star demonstrated the superiority of poverty and humility over wealth and power.

The Marks of Jesus

Nine months after preaching the midnight Mass, Francis received a glorious vision of Christ while on a solitary retreat. It was here that he received the marks of Christ, the first person to be granted the stigmata. Even with this singular gift, Francis was humble. His life reflected those attributes Christians associate most with during the Christmas season: poverty, humility, and compassion for those with needs.

The great medieval pope, Innocent III, formally approved the order of St. Francis after a dream in which Francis was holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran. Francis would rebuild the church but not with bricks and mortar.

The Saint for Christmas and Beyond

Christians celebrate Christmas with gifts to each other as well as to the poor. Compassion invokes charity, given in the spirit of humility. Even Francis’ call to poverty reminds Christians that excess is gluttony. Francis’ example is a tacit reminder that just as Jesus was fully God, he was also fully man and herein lays the challenge to follow the life of the Son of God who identifies with creation and has compassion for it.

Francis would remind us that the Christmas crèche is not seasonal, but is a constant call to those attributes that gather together the lost and abandoned and secure them in happiness and joy. The prayer of St. Francis reflects his own humble simplicity: “Make me an instrument of your peace…”

The copyright of the article St. Francis' Attributes Reflect Christmas Truths in Catholic Mass & Holy Days is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish St. Francis' Attributes Reflect Christmas Truths in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Franciscan at Assisi Shares the Story of Francis

 The Bells of Bethlehem Ring Christmas Peace

The Suspension of War Once a Year on the Eve of Silent Night

Michael Streich

December 25, 2008 First published in Suite101

Updated December 25, 2020

 Every year at Christmas, the bells of Bethlehem ring, reminding the world of the birth of the “prince of peace.” Millions of greeting cards are emblazoned with the message “peace on earth,” perhaps as a once-a-year reminder that peace continues to be elusive in our communities and in the world. The reconciliation between war and peace may be the most difficult for mankind to achieve. Mark Twain wrote that man, in the “intervals between campaigns…washes the blood off his hands and works for the ‘universal brotherhood of man’ --- with his mouth.” [1]

 

In Time of the Breaking of Nations

 

Thomas Hardy’s 1915 poem came as World War One entered its second, bloody year. It is both an affirmation that humankind will continue, though dynasties may fall, as well as an observation that war will always be a part of that existence. In was during this war that soldiers left their trenches during the 1914 “Christmas Truce” and sang hymns like “Silent Night.” John McCutcheon’s captured the mood in a 2006 CD titled “Christmas in the Trenches.”

 

Similarly, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, German and American soldiers sought shelter in a home occupied by a mother and her young daughter. After convincing the soldiers to leave their weapons outside, and pleading with them that this was the holiest of all nights, she fixed them a meal. Together they sang “Silent Night,” and in the morning, they left the house to return to their battle lines.

 

Despite the best efforts of peacemakers, the wars of the twenty-first century appear to replicate those of all prior centuries. India and Pakistan, both nations with nuclear arsenals, are poised again to go to war in the aftermath of the Mumbai attack thirty days ago. In Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned of a “heavy price” in the wake of intensified attacks on Israeli citizens and soldiers. The bells of Bethlehem are not heard, however, in Jerusalem, in Islamabad, in Beirut, or in Washington, DC.

 

Peace on Earth is a Worthy Goal

 

The 1963 John Wayne movie Donovan’s Reef contains one of the best Christmas scenes of any movie ever made. On Christmas Eve, on an island in French Polynesia, the island’s governor reads aloud the story of Christ’s birth in a small Catholic Church filled with islanders, sailors from Australia, and American veterans that chose to remain there after the war.

 

As the governor comes to the visitation of the three kings, he introduces them as the King of Polynesia, the Emperor of China, and the King of the United States of America while the choir sings “Silent Night.” The symbolism is not lost. A common endeavor, perhaps the achievement of real world peace that is focused on a power greater than all of mankind, is a worthy goal.

 

It has been said that it takes a war to appreciate peace. Peace “binds that nation’s wounds,” as Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address. Yet how much better would the world be if the prayers of Christmas and the gold etched messages on greeting cards were reality? What might happen if the bells of Bethlehem were heard by all, everywhere?

 

[1] from Mark Twain’s What Is Man?

In 2020 there are Christians who look toward Christmas as a door to hasten the coming of Jesus Christ despite the fact that of the time and hour knows no man but the Father Himself. Yet, the chaotic and often unbelievable political and social events witnessed almost daily seem to point to prophecy fulfillment, even from very obscure passage as in, for example the book of Kings following David. Jesus knew that his church would be side-tracked and preoccupied with prophecy. It happened almost immediately after his death and resurrection. Nero was the perfect antichrist candidate. Later emperors equally fulfilled the need for antichrist candidates. And did not Hadrian, whom we champion as a great emperor, help with the final destruction of Palestine and Jerusalem?

God has privileged me to travel to many world-wide religious sites. Some as simple as the House of Mary in Turkey on a hill outside of Ephesus where I drank from the holy well water, some as devoutly elaborate as St. Peter's Basilica or the pilgrimage sites of Assisi. Through all of this I was reminded, the kingdom of God is part of us. Prophecy and the often obscene conclusions of seemingly intelligent Christians detract and we miss the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, "Occupy till I come." Let us do our work, as his children, building the Kingdom of God he so well demonstrated in the Gospels.

 

Three Important Inaugurations in US History

Presidents at the Crossroad of Peril and Calamity Provide Hope

Dec 31, 2008 Michael Streich

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy all entered the American Presidency at moments of great fear, yet each man led the nation to greater triumph.

Coming into the presidency at a moment of crisis and “maximum danger,” John F. Kennedy spoke of the trumpet summoning the American people again. Kennedy referred to past periods of significant danger to the Constitution and the American way of life. The inauguration of John F. Kennedy ranks as one of the three most important, beginning with Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. All three men faced tremendous obstacles that threatened the very nature of the democratic system, and all three men prevailed.

Abraham Lincoln in 1861

At the time Abraham Lincoln gave his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861, seven Southern states had already left the Union to form a new nation, the Confederate States of America. With its own Constitution and government under the leadership of Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy provided President Lincoln with a threat no other president had ever had to face. The nation was split and Lincoln was keenly aware that other states might still bolt the Union.

The 1850s had been a decade of non-ending sectional strife over the issue of the expansion of slavery into the new territories. From the Compromise of 1850 to John Brown’s 1859 raid, the nation was both riveted and torn by violence. As Lincoln himself noted, “I enter upon the task…[of the Presidency]…under great and peculiar difficulty.”

Lincoln sought to calm the nation and reassure the South particularly that the new administration would not “endanger” the “peace and security” of that section. Further, he affirmed the right of slavery in the South. But the seeds of civil war were sown and President Lincoln would spend the rest of his presidency ending that Civil War.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933

Perhaps the greatest national crisis since the Civil War, the Great Depression signaled universal hopelessness. FDR, however, began his presidency saying on March 4, 1933, that the American people had nothing to fear but fear itself. “Our Constitution is so simple and practical,” FDR continued, “that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and government without loss of essential form.”

Harnessing all the powers available to him, Roosevelt immediately implemented the “New Deal” with bank reform, followed by other measures to put Americans back to work and stabilize the economy. Like Lincoln, he expanded presidential powers in order to preserve the Union. It was a time of uncertainty and some doubted democracy could survive. It did, under Franklin Roosevelt.

John F. Kennedy in 1961

Kennedy’s brief Inaugural Address highlighted fears of global catastrophe. Referring to the US and the USSR, John F. Kennedy told the world that both sides must begin anew “the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.”

It was a time of bomb shelters; a time of military escalation. It was the time of the “missile crisis” and dire warnings of a nuclear winter. The prospect of war went beyond battlefields and reverberated into the civil defense shelters advertised everywhere with yellow placards. During his brief tenure in office, John F. Kennedy steered the ship of state through rough waters never before tested.

Three Important Inaugurations

1861, 1933, and 1961 all represent significant watershed years, periods when, as Lincoln once said, the nation would experience a new birth of freedom, and that American government “shall not perish from the earth.” These presidents came from varying backgrounds, yet each one may have saved America from certain calamity.

2009 may again be a watershed year. FDR’s Inaugural Address begins with a description of the nation not unlike the United States today. Americans would do well to read his words as well as his antidote and promises of hope. They may be the same call to arms needed today.

Source:

The Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents, John Gabriel Hunt, editor (new York: Gramercy Books, 1997)

 

Child Birth and Abortion in Gilded Age Cities

Social Purity in White Middle Class Families Limits Family Size

Jan 24, 2009 Michael Streich

While white middle class women represented a steady decline in birth rates, the new immigrants in urban centers exhibited dramatically higher birth rates.

Declining birth rates for white middle class women during the last two decades of the 1800s highlighted changing social patterns affected by growing industrialization and urbanization. At the same time, Victorian “social purity” contributed to a general lack of knowledge among middle class women regarding sexuality while birth rates among the “new” immigrant groups were high. Social engineers reacted with solutions that affected the American way of life well into the next century.

Industrialization and Urbanization

As migrants moved from rural communities to urban centers, the need for larger families became less apparent. Sexuality was still geared toward procreation as a primary motivation. Farm communities necessitated larger families. Moving into cities, however, this absolute need was no longer evident. White “nativist” Americans that began to form the growing middle class, resulting from industrialization, limited their families.

Sexual expectations within these families were also very limited. As a result, growing red light districts within urban enclaves functioned to service males of all classes. As D’Emillio and Freedman note, sex was a commodity. Brothels represented a business that satisfied needs frequently unavailable in the home. [1]

The growth of cities was due in large measure to the rapid influx of millions of new immigrants, many from Italy. These unskilled workers were, for the most part Catholic. Rejecting any notions of indirect family planning within families, their religion, culture, and experience bound them to accept as many children as possible. Additionally, just as in white rural communities, children represented an addition to the individual family workforce.

Response of Professionals and Government to Low Birth Rates

As Janet Brodie demonstrated in her book Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-Century America, physicians and a variety of social purity crusaders managed to criminalize abortion and severely limit birth control information. The motives appear to reflect growing fears that white-born American women were having fewer children while child rates among immigrants were rising.

The debate was neither religious nor moral. In fact, by the turn of the century, the debate focused on eugenics in which movement leaders like Margaret Sanger strove to undue the ban on abortion and contraceptives precisely for reasons of limiting child births among immigrant groups.

At the same time, physicians drew a correlation between growing numbers of men afflicted with venereal disease and brothel patronage. This became an important issue for the early twentieth-century Progressives who were successful in driving prostitution underground through the passage of local “Red Light Abatement Laws” that allowed communities to effectively shut down the houses.

American views of sexuality would change over the twentieth century, reflecting the national economy and periods of relative openness frequently followed by periods of sexual conservatism.

Sources:

Janet Farrell Brodie, Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-Century America (Cornell University Press, 1997)

[1] John D’Emillio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America Harper & Row Publishers, 1988) see chapter 8.

 Voter Participation in America 1876-1920

Decreasing Percentages Highlight a Lack of Major Issues

© Michael Streich

Feb 5, 2009

With minor exception, American voters demonstrated growing apathy with the major political parties during presidential elections by staying at home on election day.

American voter participation in presidential elections between the end of Reconstruction in 1876 and the end of World War One in 1820 dropped significantly from 82% to 49% with two elections reflecting slight gains in 1896 and 1916. These statistics reflect what specific issues were important to Americans as well as voter apathy in the face of weak executive leadership during most of the post Civil War period. Additional factors include the personalities of the men chosen by their parties to lead the nation.

High Voter Participation in the Election of 1876

 

1876 represented a watershed year in late 19th-century politics. Although two reform governors were vying for the presidency, the issues included rampant government corruption and graft both on the federal level under Ulysses Grant and in local state and city governments. Additionally, northern voters had grown weary of Reconstruction, seeking to move on to new challenges associated with rising industrialization and urbanization.

The Election of 1876 was a dirty campaign. Propaganda and outright lies dominated the newspapers, mostly on behalf of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Although Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, he was denied the electoral vote through an extraordinary compromise between the parties. High voter participation reflected the pressures to put the Civil War and Reconstruction behind the national psyche.

The Decline in Voter Participation

Most historians of this period agree that the presidents between Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were lackluster with Grover Cleveland being a “cut above.” Additionally, Congressional power and leadership grew at the expense of a weak executive branch. Further, there were few burning issues that separated the parties. Both major parties were intricately tied to the eastern banking establishment and the “trusts.”

Between 1894 and 1896, voter participation rose briefly to 79%. These elections produced significant gains for the Republican Party. Middle class voters responded to labor unrest characterized by violence such as the 1892 strike at the Homestead steel plant in Pennsylvania. In May 1894, just months before the mid-term election, the Pullman strike in Chicago suggested the influence of socialists. The strike, led by Eugene Debs, cost several lives and resulted in property destruction of nearly a half million dollars. Americans in 1894 and 1896 went to the polls to affirm law and order and identified the Republican Party as the best assurance of that goal.

Minor Increases in the Early 20th Century

The election of Teddy Roosevelt in 1904 saw an increase in voter participation to 65%. Roosevelt was highly popular and defeated Alton Parker by over two and a half million votes. His “Square Deal” resonated with the public and his leadership style broke with the previous centuries examples.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson won reelection as 62% of voters went to the polls. Although the results were close and Republican Charles Evans Hughes initially thought he had won, Wilson’s slogan “he kept us out of war” as well as the progressive reforms coming out of his legislative nationalism enabled him to win. The Great War in Europe was a key issue for Americans and Hughes appeared to advocate a tougher stand on Germany.

By 1920, voter participation had fallen to the lowest level – 49%. Although neither candidate was popular or charismatic in any way, Warren Harding’s so-called “return to normalcy” trumped James Cox’s endorsement of the League of Nations. Americans were tired of war and tired of entangling alliances. There was no compelling issue to bring out the voters in great masses. Harding won a landslide victory.

Sources:

Statistics taken from America Past and Present by Robert Divine, T. H. Breen, and others, (Pearson/Longman, 2007) p. 676.

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004).

William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents From George Washington to George W. Bush (New York: Gramercy Books, 2001).

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

Page Smith, America Enters the World: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I Vol. 7 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985).

The copyright of the article Voter Participation in America 1876-1920 in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Voter Participation in America 1876-1920 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

A Civic Duty

 The Crimean War 1853 - 1856

Causes and Effects of a Pointless and Preventable Conflict

© Michael Streich

 Feb 7, 2009

The Crimean War shattered the European order crafted by Prince Metternich in 1815 and resulted in new alliances that altered the European balance of power.

In 1853 the Metternich system, designed to control and mediate conflicts between the great powers of Europe, fell apart with the outbreak of the Crimean War. For the first time since the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the major powers were at war with each other, Britain and France supporting the Ottoman Empire against Russia. Although the war was preventable and foolish, the results paved the way for a new order after 1856.

Napoleon III of France and Tsar Nicholas I of Russia

The conflict began when Napoleon III approached the Ottoman Empire with an offer to act as protector of Christians within the Ottoman lands. Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church sought to act as custodians of the sacred sites in the Holy Land. Nicholas I was outraged, seeing himself as the protector of Orthodox Christians and demanded that the Holy Land sites continue to be served by Orthodox priests. This “quarrel of monks” led to a break in relations between Russia and the Ottoman Empire.

Historians offer additional, perhaps more salient motives for Russian and French actions. MacKenzie [1] cites the overconfidence of Nicholas I following Russian success in assisting with the suppression of European popular revolts in 1848. Henry Kissinger [2] refers to the long standing Russian aim of controlling Constantinople and the Dardanelles. Others highlight Napoleon III’s desire to break out of European isolation and possibly destroy the Holy Alliance.

Outbreak of the Crimean War

In October 1853, Turkey declared war on Russia following Russian troop movements into Moldavia and Wallachia (Danubian Principalities). Shortly thereafter, Russian Admiral Nakhimov discovered the Turkish fleet at Sinope and destroyed it. The “Sinope Massacre” was enough to compel the British to send their fleet into the Black Sea.

Russia, relying upon Austrian support, was severely disappointed when the Austrians remained neutral in the conflict and occupied the Principalities upon Russian withdrawal early in the war. This “monstrous ingratitude,” as Nicholas I termed it, exacerbated the tenuous Russian military situation because the Russian commander, Field Marshall Paskevich, had dispersed Russian troops throughout the empire to control possible insurrections.

Austria’s actions may have been motivated by the fear that in supporting Russia, France would seize the opportunity to acquire Italian provinces dominated by Austria. By effectively rejecting the Russian alliance that dated to 1815, Austria may have hastened the rise of Prussia, also neutral in the conflict.

Course of the War

With the Russian withdrawal from the Principalities, the focus of the war shifted to the Crimea and the 60,000 troops poised to take Sevastapol. Although predominantly British and French, the allied force included thousands of Turkish troops under the command of Omer Pasha as well as 16,000 troops from Piedmont-Sardinia. Count Cavour of Piedmont-Sardina cunningly deduced that an allied victory would include his nation at the peace table, furthering his goal of Italian unification.

The Russians were initially defeated at the Alma River and withdrew to Sevastapol, strengthening their defenses. The ensuing battles included the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava as well as the “Thin Red Line” that held back an onslaught of Russian cavalry. In the end, Sevastapol fell and Russia, now under Tsar Alexander II, agreed to a peace conference.

Results of the Crimean War

The war highlighted the need for Russian military and economic reform. No railroad track was available below Moscow, imposing a tremendous burden on troop movements and supplies. Both sides fought using strategies that dated back to the venerable Duke of Wellington in 1815.

Old alliances were broken as Russia began to look with greater interest at the Balkans, promoting Pan-Slavism and eventually conflicting with Austrian goals in that region. Prussia’s Otto von Bismarck used the events to plot the expansion of Prussia by developing new diplomatic ties and alliances. The Crimean War would create a new European balance of power.

Sources:

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000 (New York: Random House, 1987).

[2] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).

[1] David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond 4th Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993).

Alan Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992).

The copyright of the article The Crimean War 1853 - 1856 in Russian/Ukrainian/Belarus History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Crimean War 1853 - 1856 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Tsar Nicholas I

 Lend Lease and Franklin Roosevelt

Congressional Delegation and Executive Orders Prepared for War

© Michael Streich

Mar 12, 2009

Sensing the need to provide assistance to European democracies under attack, FDR and the Congress committed US support as early as November 1939.

World War II began in September 1939 when German forces invaded and overwhelmed eastern Poland. The attack on Poland resulted in war declarations by Britain and France. In the United States, the Roosevelt administration watched events in both Europe and Asia with caution. The nation was still in the midst of a depression and in terms of foreign affairs, FDR had to balance the growing need for preparedness with the strong isolationist views of many Americans and the Congress. Despite these obstacles, Roosevelt was able to help the British as well as thwart the Japanese through legislative loopholes.

Lend Lease and Executive Orders

Within weeks of the fall of Poland, Roosevelt and the Congress passed the Neutrality Act of November 1939 that repealed the U.S. embargo of armaments to Europe. Britain and France could now purchase arms but on a “cash and carry basis,” meaning that the goods had to be transported in their own vessels. But by the spring of 1940 the European situation had changed dramatically. Hitler’s blitzkrieg strategy resulted in the defeat and occupation of large sections of Europe, including much of France. The Battle for Britain was about to begin.

One of Roosevelt’s first actions was to “trade” fifty American destroyers to Britain for the rights to build bases on British possessions in the Americas. The “bases for destroyers” deal augmented a stretched British fleet protecting conveys across the Atlantic, defending the British Isles and Mediterranean sites, and maintaining a naval presence in the Pacific as Japanese aggression became more overt.

By 1941 Congress authorized President Roosevelt to implement the lend-lease policies. Given wide authority to transfer defensive articles to foreign governments, Roosevelt’s Congressional loophole rested in the statement, “whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.” In many ways a “blank check” to sell, lease, exchange, or lend, this delegation of legislative authority was upheld by the federal courts.

In regard to Japan, two 1940 Presidential “executive orders” embargoed oil (July) and banned the sale of scrap iron and steel (October). In July 1941, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japan’s financial assets in the United States. Although much has been written about these executive orders in terms of their impact on the Japanese decisions to attack the United States, and while they certainly played a role in setting Imperial time tables, the plans to eliminate the U.S. from a position of dominance in the Pacific region predate the 1940s.

Committing American Naval Support

In July 1941 President Roosevelt ordered the armed forces to occupy Iceland. Iceland was highly strategic in terms of the naval war in the Atlantic. United States’ troops replaced British troops that could be used elsewhere in the British effort. Additionally, United States’ naval vessels could now escort convoys to Iceland before handing them over to British escorts.

The expanded U.S. presence in the Atlantic might have prompted the attack on the USS Greer in September 1941 by a German submarine. An angry Roosevelt denounced the action, referring to U-boats as the “rattlesnakes of the Atlantic.” As both Germany and Japan would soon learn, America was the “great arsenal of democracy.” The delegation of authority by Congress was in line with presidential prerogatives regarding foreign affairs. It was all the more constitutional in times of international crisis.

Sources:

David Bercuson and Holger H. Herwig, One Christmas in Washington (Overlook, 2005).

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution Its Origins & Development 5th Ed (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976).

The copyright of the article Lend Lease and Franklin Roosevelt in Modern US History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Lend Lease and Franklin Roosevelt in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Protecting a convoy

 The Black Death in 14th Century Europe

Danse Macabe and the Results of Bubonic Plague

© Michael Streich

Mar 16, 2009

In the mid 14th century, an epidemic plague ravaged Europe, killing as many as 25 million people while affecting short term social and religious practices.

The Black Death or bubonic plague arrived in Italy in 1347, spread by merchant ships coming from eastern commercial port cities like Constantinople. The plague rapidly spread through Europe, following the trade routes along which expanding and densely populated urban centers were located. Within a hundred year period, the disease reduced Europe’s population of approximately 75 million by a third. As the plague frequently returned, some cities lost over fifty per cent of the inhabitants. Commenting on the early responses, Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter state that, “It is not surprising that some of the first reactions to the Black Death were marked by a sort of pathological irrationality.”

Danse Macabe throughout Fourteenth Century Europe

Visitors to Europe can travel from Paris to Lubeck and on to Tallinn and view the murals dedicated to the plague years, the danse macabe or dance of death. The frescoes and woodcuts are a reminder that the plague was no respecter of persons. Dancing skeletons hold the hands of popes and bishops, kings and queens, merchants and peasants. When the plague swept through Avignon in southern France, half of the College of Cardinals succumbed. Because the church was deeply involved with the dying and with dispensing medical relief, albeit very primitive by modern standards, members of the Catholic clergy were reduced by such numbers that subsequent standards for ordination to replace the dead were lowered.

No one knew what caused the plague, which had begun in China and made its way west over the Silk Road and through the Crimea. Scholars at the University of Paris blamed unusual planetary conjunctions that ultimately emitted poisonous vapors. Poison seemed a logical answer and many Europeans, notably in Germany, blamed the Jews, asserting that they had poisoned the wells. Massacres of Jews followed, despite earnest attempts by the Catholic Church to suppress the persecutions.

In most cases, death was swift. Although there were several varieties or strains of the disease, pneumonic plague, which affected the lungs, is considered to be the deadliest. Plague symptoms included high fever and a swelling of the lymph nodes. The disease was spread by fleas, living on black rats. In London, the plague was blamed on cats – long associated in Europe with evil. Huge bonfires consumed the cats, causing the rat population to grow. Poor sanitation, hygiene, and malnutrition helped the disease to spread in cities like London.

Results of the Plague Years in Europe

In some areas, such as in England, the plague left small hamlets deserted. The shortage of farm laborers forced some landowners to raise sheep, beginning, perhaps, a process that would culminate in the rise of English textiles centuries later. Additionally, worker shortages had the impact of increased overall wages. Fewer workers forced employers to pay more for daily labor. As the population corrected itself, these wages would be cut, prompting peasant revolts in several sections of Europe.

The plague also renewed interest in religion and death. Groups of people known as flagellants marched through cities flogging themselves in an orgy of blood and pain, hoping to appease an obviously angry God who was calling people to repentance. With religion came superstition and local remedies as old as pre-Christian Europe. Rhymes like Ring around the rosy date back to the plague in London, ending with the line, “Ashes, ashes, we all fall down,” referring to the certain death that came in a city that some scholars say suffered a 60% population loss.

Charms and amulets were worn to protect against the plague, a favorite charm inscribed with the magical word “abracadabra.” A reverse pyramid decreased the word to a simple “a,” symbolic of the shrinking of plague symptoms. The Black Plague represented one of three population-reducing events of the 14th century. Ultimately, the plague ran its course, returning to some regions briefly. Europe’s population would return to normal growth patterns by 1450.

Sources:

Giulia Calvi, Histories of a Plague Year: the Social and the Imaginary in Baroque Florence (University of California Press, 1989).

William H. McNeill, Plagues and People (Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1976).

Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475 (McGraw-Hill, 1992) p 482.

Philip Ziegler, The Black Death (Harper & Row, 1969).

See also “Totentanz.” Although in German, the site provides good images of the various Dance of Death murals.

The copyright of the article The Black Death in 14th Century Europe in Late Middle Ages is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Black Death in 14th Century Europe in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Dance of Death