Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction and Restoration Program

Apr 20, 2010 Michael Streich

President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation appeared to many Northerners to undo four years of war, focusing on leniency in contrast to Republican policies.

Andrew Johnson became the 17th President of the United States upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. From his prior statements, it was widely believed that Johnson agreed with the Congressional Radical Republicans regarding Reconstruction policies, most notably toward ex-Confederates. But Johnson’s policy of “Restoration” was deemed far too lenient, resulting in a break with Congressional leaders and verbal charges of “treason” by men like Thaddeus Stevens. His final significant act as President was a general amnesty for all ex-Confederates not covered by prior published exceptions as found in his May 29, 1865 Amnesty Proclamation.

Andrew Johnson’s Restoration Policy

Johnson was a Southern, born in Raleigh, North Carolina and associated with Tennessee which he represented in the National Congress and later ruled as military governor. Johnson resented the wealthy Southern planter class and identified with the average yeoman farmer. These attitudes can be seen in his Amnesty Proclamation.

Under Johnson, amnesty would be extended to all Southerners that took an oath to “faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution…” Johnson, however, made exceptions, listing 14 specific classes of people. Several of these exceptions had also appeared in Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction.

Exceptions to Johnson’s Amnesty Proclamation

Exceptions included Confederate political leaders, officers that had resigned their commissions in 1861 to take up arms against the United States, Congressional representatives that had resigned their seats in 1860 (South Carolina) and 1861, and a host of others that had left the United States to support the rebellion. The 13th exception included any persons “…who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.”

A final clause in the document, however, provided “That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes…” Many pardon-seekers, as evidenced from letters sent to Johnson, represented exceptions to the 13th class. The petition of Mrs. A. C. Bower, of Ashe County, N.C., for example, declares her taxable property to be “more than twenty thousand dollars…” but that her only offense was linked to the purchase of Confederate war bonds, purchased indirectly through an agent and without her express approval.

Several of these letters stress that the writers had been strong supporters of the Union. In the case of R. L. Abernathy, the petitioner claims that he “used all his efforts in public and private to preserve the Union of the States…” Such letters may validate Abraham Lincoln’s initial conclusions in early 1861 that pro-Union sentiment was still strong in certain areas of the South, notably those districts that had supported John Bell in the 1860 election.

Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republican Congress

Confronted by Johnson’s Proclamation as well as his policy of returning confiscated Southern lands to pre-war owners (see the article on Forty Acres and a Mule), Congressional Radicals turned against him. Johnson’s refusal to grant freedmen equal rights resulted in passage of the 14th Amendment. Despite surviving Impeachment, Johnson managed to pardon 654 persons (United States Department of Justice). This included Jefferson Davis and Dr. Samuel Mudd, who treated John Wilkes Booth after Lincoln was assassinated.

Johnson’s Restoration Program Hindered Reconstruction

Both Johnson and the Republican backlash hindered efforts to “bind the nation’s wounds,” as Lincoln had stated in his Second Inaugural Speech. Radicals enacted their own policies which were focused on revenge. In response, white Southerners enacted “Black Laws” and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan terrorized black communities, assassinated whites viewed as Northern collaborators, and disrupted elections. Neither Johnson’s program nor the Republican policies fairly and objectively addressed the post-war South.

References:

• Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 (History Book Club: Francis Parkman Prize Edition, in association with HarperCollins, 2005)
• Andrew Johnson, Amnesty Proclamation (text document) and “Amnesty letters,” original source letters
• Library of Congress, letters and Documents
• Lloyd Robinson, The Stolen Election (NY: Tom Doherty Associates, Forge Books, 2001)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich

Reichstag Fire Leads to Dictatorship in Germany

History Should be a Teacher to all democratic societies

Michael Streich May 23, 2009

 

On February 27, 1933 fire erupted in the Reichstag building in Berlin. The burning of the parliament building, less than a month after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor, had far reaching results. The Reichstag fire represented the first act of provocation Hitler would use to consolidate power. Before the night was over, thousands of Communists were arrested, over-crowing police stations.

 

Communists and Social Democrats

 

The Communist Party in Germany (KPD) had been active for decades. Controlled by Moscow through the Comintern (Communist International), the party received guidance and funds with the goal of turning Germany into a Communist state. Working from Berlin and Hamburg – known as the “reddest city outside of Moscow,” the KPD developed vast international organizations, chiefly through its work in the maritime industry.

 

The KPD, however, opposed the Social Democrats (SPD) because their socialist program did not accept Soviet leadership or influence and was heavily involved in trade unionism. The SPD favored democratic means, anathema to both the KPD and the Nazis. As the National Socialists (NASPD – Nazis) began to strengthen, particularly in the immediate years preceding Hitler’s ascendancy as Chancellor, the KPD, under orders from Moscow, concentrated their efforts against the Social Democrats.

 

KPD leaders dismissed Hitler and the Nazis, completely underestimating the ruthless lust for power within the Nazi Party. During national elections in 1932, Communist activists joined with the Nazi Brownshirts in disrupting Social Democratic political meetings. KPD leaders that saw the proverbial “hand-writing on the wall” were given short shrift by Kremlin bosses.

 

The Communist “Night of the Long Knives”

 

A Dutch citizen, Marinus van der Lubbe, also a known arsonist, was found at the burning Reichstag and arrested. Historians differ as to whether he actually ever was a Communist. KPD leadership, however, denied any Communist involvement. Privately, they wondered who Lubbe really was; he was completely unknown to any of the Communist leaders or field organizers.

 

Along with Lubbe, several other known Communists were arrested and charged with the burning, including G. Dimitrov, a top leader in the KPD organization. Within weeks, jails and hastily constructed camps were set up to house the thousands of Communists arrested. In Hamburg, a hotbed of Communist activity where several Brownshirts had been shot while marching through Altona, an old camp in the Fuhlsbuettel section that had been slated for demolition was rapidly enlarged.

 

Known Communist leaders in Gestapo custody were brutally tortured into revealing the names of confederates. In some cases, entire families were arrested. These actions drove those still at large underground, forming an early resistance to Hitlerism. Although Social Democrats were not implicated, many rushed to join the Nazis, fearing that they would be next.

 

Destruction of the Weimar Constitution

 

The day after the Reichstag fire, February 28^th, Hitler suspended civil liberties in the constitution and declared that the “Bolsheviks” were to blame. It was a state of emergency. The Enabling Act or law of March 24^th further destroyed constitutional provisions, giving Hitler virtual powers as dictator. Despite not having won a Nazi majority in the parliament, the Reichstag would rubber-stamp Hitler’s policies.

 

Herman Goring had boasted that the March 1933 elections would be the last. As Hitler moved against the other parties, political opposition was eliminated. The Catholic Party was dissolved following a Concordat with the Vatican.

 

On September 21, the trial against the Communists responsible for the fire began in Leipzig and would last several months. G. Dimitrov, who railed against Goring during the trial, was acquitted and eventually returned to Moscow. Neutral observers, such as a group of lawyers in London that engaged in a “mock trial,” believed that Nazis themselves were guilty of the fire.

 

The Reichstag fire gave Hitler an excuse to move against the Communists, dismantling the party by arresting its leaders and destroying the Comintern in Germany.

 

Sources:

 

E. H. Carr, Twilight of the Comintern 1930-1935 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982)

Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: a New History (New York: Continuum, 1995)

Jan Valtin, Out of the Night (New York, Alliance Book Corp. 1941)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints in print or digital must have written permission from Michael Streich

The Long Belgian Legacy of Torture and Despair

The Worst of Colonialism Defined by the Belgian Congo

Michael Streich in 2011 

 

Belgium is a small country, derisively called one of the “chocolate producing” countries of Europe in the 21^st Century. In the 1890’s, however, the Belgian King Leopold II was master over an immense African private fief that he called the Congo Free State. But the Belgian Congo was anything but free; Leopold’s legacy of ruthless greed committed under the guise of benevolence resulted in the deaths of at least eight million indigenous people through slave labor. Upon his death in 1909, over sixteen million Africans were still enslaved. This was his legacy: a colony to continue enriching seven million Belgians.

 

How Leopold Exploited the Congo

 

Leopold’s secret monopoly in Africa focused first on ivory and in the later 1890’s rubber. It was the trade in rubber that made him a fortune well above his investments. It was also the pursuit of profits that resulted in growing slave labor that included frequent massacres of villagers and the mutilation of workers, including women and children. By the early 20^th Century, pictures of severed hands helped to tell the story of Leopold’s Congo Free State. By 1900, eleven millions pounds of rubber were being shipped from the Congo every year.

 

Leopold’s drive for African lands was many faceted. Psychohistorians may point to his upbringing and need for acceptance. Yet in the end, it was his voracious appetite for power and control beyond the confines of tiny Belgium. Professor David Landes writes that, “…colonies paid, whether by nourishing the growth of imperialist economies or by transferring wealth from poor to rich – empire as vampire.” The Congo Free State provided Leopold with unlimited funds.

 

The Role of State Functionaries in Africa

 

Belgian officials made up the bulk of the small white population in the colony. Administrators, military officers, merchants, and Catholic missionaries were often directly and indirectly party to the atrocities committed so that millions of francs flowed into Leopold’s coffers, dummy corporations secretly set up to deflect any criticism of the King-Sovereign. To the rest of the world, however, Leopold was a philanthropist, the don of charity whose only intentions were to eliminate the African “Arab” slave trade.

 

Leopold was one of the most cunning and duplicitous men of power when it came to imperialism and the exploitation of raw materials. Worse than the industrial robber barons, Leopold was also a first-rate “con” who used propaganda, preyed on the weaknesses of others with flattery and gifts, and used the power of the media to portray himself as a benevolent champion working for the betterment of African peoples.

 

Harvesting the Wealth of Central Africa

 

By 1900, the Congo was a source of raw materials needed to fuel the industrial conglomerates of Europe and America. This was the so-called “gospel of enterprise.” Copper, tin, gold, diamonds, and other minerals joined the rubber plantations in enriching the accounts of Belgium’s king. Much of the wealth came at a staggering humanitarian cost: the taking of hostages, floggings to the point of death, rape, and child labor. Only a few consular officials from foreign powers as well as American missionaries called for immediate and drastic reform.

 

Although the Congo became an official state colony upon the death of Leopold, much remained the same. Belgium never established a working local civil service or left an enduring infrastructure at the time independence was granted in 1960. After decades of misrule by J.D. Mobutu, the nation reverted to continual civil war. Today, slave labor continues to exist in the effort to harvest rare earth minerals, often referred to as “conflict” minerals. In early 2010, BBC reported that a special UN envoy, Margot Wallstrom, referred to the Democratic Republic of Congo as the “rape capital of the world.” (April 28, 2010)

 

Imperialism and Exploitation

 

Leopold was not alone in the ill-treatment of Africans. Adam Hochschild, in his book King Leopold’s Ghost, writes that, “What happened in the Congo was indeed mass murder on a vast scale, but the sad truth is that the men who carried it out for Leopold were no more murderous than many Europeans then at work or at war elsewhere in Africa.” Historian Thomas Pakenham argues that the abuses “were not haphazard, but systemic.”

 

As with the Germans during the 1930’s and 1940’s, the first response to Belgian atrocities in the Congo was denial and disbelief. Belgians were far too civilized to perpetrate such acts of inhumanity. Yet what happened in much of central Africa under the brutal policies of Leopold II represented the first modern example of mass extermination. Like future exterminations, many eye witnesses were too afraid to speak up. Most came to accept the atrocities as the normal part of colonial rule.

 

Hochschild comments that, “In any system of terror, the functionaries must first of all see the victims as less than human, and Victorian ideas about race provided such a foundation.” These were Rudyard Kipling’s “sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.” This was the ideology that allowed an American private fighting Filipinos to write his family that shooting people was like shooting rabbits back at home. The world, then as today, cared little for the most vulnerable members of humanity. That is always left to what Leopold II referred to as “do-gooders.”

 

Leopold was a life-long womanizer, with an incorrigible lust for young women. His final dalliance involved a sixteen-year old who produced two children before his death. Although history continues to treat Leopold with disdain, Belgium must share the responsibility. Belgium never paid reparations to the people of the Congo. Historian Eric Hobsbawm, who sees the scramble for the Congo as “primarily economic,” argues that, “The atrocities of Congo…so shocked the Age of Empire…just because [it] appeared as regression of civilized men into savagery.”

 

Sources:

 

Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost (Mariner Books, 1999)

David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (W. W. Norton & Company, 1998)

Thomas Packenham, The Scramble For Africa: The White Man’s Conquest

of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912 (Random House, 1991)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich;reprints require written permission 

 

 

Britain's Torture Camps in Post World War II

Aug 1, 2010 Michael Streich

Bad Nenndorf is an historical reminder that any nation can commit and condone torture, whether such techniques involve physical or psychological pain.

On August 1, 1945, a British military convoy arrived at Bad Nenndorf, located in the British occupation zone of Northwest Germany. 

The soldiers ordered the removal of all villagers and began to construct a prison camp. Although some prisoners held at Bad Nenndorf were former Nazi soldiers and officials, others were not. In several cases, the men held here, forced to undergo torture, were innocent of either association with the Nazis or the Communists. The British government sealed all records of this and similar camps for 60 years and still refuses to release damaging photographs.

Torture Used by the British at Bad Nenndorf

Prisoners at the camp were starved and beaten. According to The Guardian writer, Ian Cobain (“The interrogation camp that turned prisoners into living skeletons,” December 17, 2005), “Naked prisoners were handcuffed back-to-back and forced to stand before open windows in mid-winter.”

The web page for the British Security Service MI5, commenting on the scandal once it became public in 1947, states that, “Britain, it was claimed, had established ‘concentration camps’ similar to those of the Nazis.”

Bad Nenndorf Part of a System of Secret Camps

The secret interrogations centers were facilitated by the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Center (CSDIC). Until November 1945, the CSDIC conducted interrogations at camps within the UK. One of these camps, known as the London Cage – located near Kensington Palace Gardens, processed 3,573 men. One of the top interrogators, Robin Stephens, became the camp commander at Bad Nenndorf.

Many of the guards at Nenndorf were social misfits, men reassigned to the camp for crimes such as assault or desertion. Most were very young. According to The Guardian (April 3, 2006), “As one minster of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners ‘in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps.’”

What Constitutes “Torture?”

Ian Cobain writes that Colonel Stephens was eventually court martialled during a closed door trial and was acquitted. In another article (April 3, 2006), Cobain says that “The only officer at Bad Nenndorf to be convicted was the prison doctor.” How can all of the stories of torture, including those pictures that were released and published in the April 3, 2006 Guardian newspaper, be reconciled with Stephens’ acquittal?

Ben Macintyre wrote two Times articles, February 10, 2006 and May 1 2009, dealing with Robin Stephens. The first article appeared after the Bad Nenndorf documents were released. ("The truth that Tin Eye saw") The second article stresses that Colonel Stephens may have used psychological intimidation brilliantly, but never employed torture or condoned it.

Significantly, Macintyre begins his 2009 article with the statement that “torture is morally abhorrent…the most important argument against torture is that it doesn’t work.” He then refers to “the cells of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo…” But this is the very essence of the torture debate. Witness statements regarding conditions at Bad Nenndorf, published in the December 17, 2005 Guardian, record that prison inmates were, “severely starved, frostbitten, and caked in dirt. Some had been beaten or whipped.”

The Definition of Torture in Interrogations

Both Winston Churchill and Barack Obama have publicly stated, “We do not torture.” But the definition of torture can mean many things. During the George W. Bush administration, debate ensued whether or not water boarding was an appropriate interrogation technique or if it should be considered torture. Both Mr. Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney rejected the torture definition, claiming that the technique was crucial and legal. (CBS News, February 8, 2008)

Secret Interrogation Points to Illegalities and Human Rights Violations

The British interrogation centers in the UK, while producing desirable results, were completely secret, even to the Red Cross. The same was true of camps like Bad Nenndorf. Observers today refer to the “Gestapo-like” tactics employed on prisoners. At Bad Nenndorf, interrogators used tools taken from the Hamburg Gestapo headquarters that had been used by Nazis to interrogate enemies of the Reich.

There may indeed be a difference interrogating a dental technician in 1945 who was considered a security risk and a 2010 terrorist like Faisal Shahzad who confessed to attempting to detonate a bomb in New York City’s Times Square. Water boarding the mastermind behind the 9/11 atrocity may save many more lives if similar plots are revealed. Post modern society, however, will have to define the limits of interrogation and the definition of torture in the light of history.

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

 

The Second Afghan War 1878 - 1880

Aug 7, 2010 Michael Streich

Attempting to check Imperial Russian ambitions in Afghanistan, Britain sent military forces into the region but was unable to maintain control of the land.

The Second Afghan War, beginning in 1878, was caused by Russian diplomatic efforts designed to court the emir in Kabul, an action representing a direct threat to the imperial ambitions of Great Britain. Afghanistan was a buffer state bordering Britain’s “jewel in the crown,” India. Further, Afghan leaders had repeatedly refused to accept an official British mission in Kabul. After Emir Shere Ali signed a treaty with Russia in 1878, Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India, sent a military force into Afghanistan. The war ended in 1880 and British troops withdrew from a country they could not hold.

Roberts Leads the March into Kabul

Britain’s “forward policy” was advocated by British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli as well as Lord Lytton. Lytton described the policy, stating “Afghanistan is a state far too weak and barbarous to remain isolated and wholly uninfluenced between two great military empires such as England and Russia.” (New York Times, April 28, 1900) Three British armies were sent into Afghanistan. Major General Frederick Roberts’ command, the smallest with 6,300 British and native troops, achieved the greatest success, however.

Lt. General Samuel Browne commanded a force of 16,000 and Major General Donald Stewart, commanding the Kandahar Field Force, led 13,000. Roberts entered Afghanistan November 21, 1878 and proceeded down the Kurram Valley. It was here where Roberts distinguished himself and demonstrated superb leadership, out-flanking a superior force of Afghans at night around a mountain and defeating the insurgents. Roberts was reinforced with 2,685 troops and 868 cavalry, including the highly esteemed 92nd Gordan Highlanders.

The Cavagnari Massacre in Kabul

Emir Shere Ali fled Afghanistan, leaving his son Yakub Khan in charge of the fractured nation. The subsequent Treaty of Gandamuk allowed for a British mission in Kabul. The British mission delegation was led by Sir Louis Cavagnari.

Without significant British protection, however, his position was vulnerable. Two months after the treaty, Cavagnari, his staff, and the entire small military escort were murdered.

Britain’s Punitive Expedition to Kabul and Kandahar

General Roberts led the Kabul Field Force back into Afghanistan in September 1879 and swiftly captured and occupied Kabul. But in December, Afghans in the surrounding regions rose up again and Roberts faced an enemy force of 100,000. At the same time, the British suffered a disastrous defeat at Maiward.

Roberts held Kabul and defeated the Afghan insurgents. In August 1880, he marched into Kandahar, relieved the pitiful survivors, and pacified the region. But it was impossible to hold. The mountains were treacherous, teeming with Afghan insurgents. The British left Afghanistan, unable to hold the country or influence its fragile leadership.

Lessons from the Afghan Wars

Afghanistan has been called the “graveyard of empires.” Alexander the Great attempted to conquer the land but was unsuccessful. In the 1980s, Soviet Russia fought a costly and unsuccessful war for control of Afghanistan in what observers have called “Russia’s Vietnam.” Today, America and its European allies are fighting in Afghanistan, ironically, attempting to pacify Kandahar, the same region that witnessed a major British defeat in the second phase of the Second Afghan War.

Every invader has found the same thing in Afghanistan: a poor nation that is politically fractured and divided into spheres of power controlled by local warlords. The enemy is both a fanatic insurgency as well as difficult terrain. The wars have also been expensive. According to historian Simon Schama, “When the news of the expensive disaster came in the prime minister [Disraeli] was appalled…” Although the conditions of the contemporary Afghan War are very different, one fact remains the same: the Afghans refuse to be conquered.

Sources:

• Byron Farwell, Queen Victoria’s Little Wars (NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1972)
• Lawrence James, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India (Little, Brown and Company, 1997)
• Andrew Porter, editor, The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century (Oxford University Press, 1999)
• Simon Schama, A History of Britain, Volume III, The Fate of Empire 1776 – 2000 (Hyperion, 2002)

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

Teaching Democracy in all Grade Levels

 Michael Streich

Teaching democracy can involve applications to American history as well as contrasting forms of government within the current global community. Lesson plans should begin with what students already know or think they know, such as definitions, examples, and the characteristics of democratic societies. Encouraging students to research issues and problems regarding democratic societies will help to identify, analyze, and articulate essential civics goals and desired outcomes.

 

Identifying the Elements of a Democracy

 

The first aspect of a lesson plan on democracy might be guided brain-storming sessions in which students go to the classroom board and list what they believe are elements of a democracy. After cataloging all student responses, they can form a framework for further discussion and research. Ideally, elements will include

 

The rights of citizens

Voting for people to lead the government

Due process for all citizens

The duties and responsibilities of citizenship

Freedom of speech and the press

Civil rights

Equality for all members of the national community

 

The June 27, 2000 Warsaw Declaration, formulated by members of the Community of Democracies, lists nineteen characteristics believed to describe a democratic society. The Community of Democracies, which has increased in number since its inception, is celebrating its tenth anniversary. Students can be given this four-page document as a handout or covered in a power-point presentation to compare to their own list.

 

The Origin and Development of Democratic Government

 

The historical record can provide further areas for contrast and comparison. Traditionally, this begins with Athenian democracy and an evaluation of differing forms of government in ancient Greece. Discussion can focus on the difference between a direct democracy and the system employed in the United States.

 

A homework assignment to reinforce classroom discussion might center on one or more questions that can be researched by students with minimal effort. Questions could include:

 

Why was Greek democracy limited only to free males?

Was early democracy a first step or a model for the future?

Why was ancient democracy replaced in later years?

Did the American Founding Fathers value ancient democracy?

Was the Constitution inspired by Greek democracy?

How did democracy evolve in the U.S., such as in the time of Andrew Jackson?

Was this evolution natural?

How does a democracy differ from a republic?

 

If given several days to research and bring back an answer, it might be helpful to divide the class into groups with each group focusing on one question to report to the rest of the class.

 

Comparing Democratic Nations to Non-Democratic Ones

 

Most observers would hardly classify North Korea as a democratic nation, yet its name is the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (DPRK). Before reunification, Communist-led East Germany was known as “The German Democratic Republic” or DDR. Does using the term “democratic” in a name mean that those nations exhibit the elements of a democratic society?

 

Students can be asked to compare true democracies like Chile or Australia with countries that are not such as Cuba or Vietnam. Other topics of interests might include:

 

Although Hugo Chavez was legally elected several times, is Venezuela a democratic nation?

How does a nation like Argentina move from right-wing dictatorship to democracy?

Is Australia a true democracy even though Queen Elizabeth I is still the head of state and can dissolve the Parliament in Canberra?

Are democracies increasing or decreasing globally?

What threats do democracies face in the 21^st Century?

How important is a national debt in preserving democracy, such as in Greece?

 

Incorporating Civics, History, and Global Issues

 

As school systems revise goals and outcomes in civics and government classes, lesson plans often call for several days of thematic and in-depth instruction. Well constructed plans will be highly successful if inter-disciplinary approaches are taken by incorporating history, global issues, and current events. Students participating in a variety of activities relevant to the primary theme will experience consistent reinforcement and have fun at the same time.

Copyright of this article owned by Michael Streich; republishing requires written permission.

The Contribution of Athenian Democracy

Michael Streich

Copyright Owned by Michael Streich

 

Democracy in Ancient Greece is most frequently associated with Athens where a complex system allowed for broad political participation by the free male citizens of the city-state. Democracy, however, was found in other areas as well and after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the process of Hellenization, it became the norm for both the liberated cities in Asia Minor as well as new cities built in conjunction with Greek occupation. Democracy, although a functioning ideal, weakened with the Roman conquest of Greece which gave more power to local oligarchs than to average citizens.

 

Characteristics of Athenian Democracy

 

The goal of Athenian democracy was that all citizens should have equal political rights and the ability to fully participate in either the council or the Assembly. Participation, however, was limited to free males whose parents were also deemed citizens. This eliminated foreign residents, aliens, even if they had lived in the city-state for many years. Additionally, freed slaves were never considered citizens. The same model was used in cities established by Greek colonists or in the wake of Alexander’s conquests. One historian, for example, estimates that the citizenry of Alexandria in Egypt was a very small percentage given that the indigenous Egyptian population was barred from citizenship.

 

Although citizenship was determined by birth in the city-state, interchangeable citizenship treaties existed whereby citizens of one city-state could be considered citizens of another. The Ionia city-state of Miletus is cited as an example. While there were no property qualifications attached to citizenship initially, Roman expansion introduced this limitation in Greece and is usually attributed to Pompey in the late Republican period.

 

The Council and the Assembly

 

The council’s function was to limit the Assembly’s power by proposing legislation and, in the later centuries, vetoing measures coming out of the Assembly. Historian A. H. M. Jones writes that, ideally, the council was designed to, “accurately reflect the general sentiments of the people.” [1] Members of the council usually reflected the wealthier classes who saw political leadership as a civic obligation.

 

The Assembly, at least in Athens, was composed of 500 members, chosen by lot from the various “tribes” or clans in Athens. Their chairman or designated leader was also chosen by lot and only served for the one designated meeting. In Athens, the Assembly met forty times a year. By 400 BCE, members of the Assembly received a minimal stipend to attend the sessions in order to encourage participation and defray lost income from time spent in the Assembly.

 

Early Forms of Checks and Balances

 

Ostracism, from the Greek work ostrakismos, banished persons deemed by the collective citizenry to be a potential threat to their form of democracy for ten years. The entire complex system was designed to curb and limit the powers of executives and magistrates so prevalent in the times before the advent of democracy. According to Jones, by the time of Alexander’s death, “democracy was the normal constitution of every city.”

 

Historical Effects of Greek Democracy

 

The historical record indicates that the Ancient Greeks fully believed that men were qualified to participate in the political process, despite the misgivings of some thinkers such as Plato. The crafting of the U.S. Constitution, for example – though owing its greatest inspiration to English freedoms dating to Magna Carta, was heavily influenced by both Greek and Roman historical models.

 

Historian Colin B. Goodykoontz [3] (deceased) points out that the Founding Fathers were highly educated in the Classics and, dismissing Ben Franklin’s recommendation to spend time in prayer, looked instead to Greece and Rome for inspiration. Goodykoontz writes that, “…the references to ancient history by the advocates of constitutional change were intended to show that the early confederacies had often failed because of faulty organization; and that they had been in more danger from the insubordination of their own members than from the tyranny of rulers.”

 

Athenian Democracy and the Value of Man

 

Ancient forms of democracy, though limited in some respects, were predicated on the belief that citizens had the right and the intellectual ability to make sound decisions affecting their communities. Further, a detailed analysis of the complexities of these early forms of ancient government shows that there was an effort to hold accountable persons entrusted with the welfare of the state. This remarkable step in Western Civilization paved the way for notions of due process.

 

[1] A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City: From Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: the Clarendon Press, 1940)

[2] Sarah B. Pomeroy, Stanley M. Burnstein, and others, Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History (Oxford University Press, 1999)

[3] Colin B. Goodykoontz, “The Founding Fathers and Clio,” The Vital Past:Writings on the Uses of History (University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1985)

Is the Tradition and Reality of the American Republic Worth Saving?

Michael Streich

 

During the American Revolutionary War, delegates of the Continental Congress created a new government for the soon-to-be independent United States that was called the Articles of Confederation. At the end of the war in 1783, the Articles formed the basis of the national government even as individual states wrote constitutions. Because the Articles proved inadequate, by 1787 it became apparent that a new Constitution needed to be written. That effort resulted in a central government that has governed the nation ever since its ratification. The question often raised, however, is why this happened in America.

 

The Enlightenment and a Constitutional Tradition

 

From the very beginning of seventeenth century colonial efforts, colonial charters detailed not only the formation of colonial communities but political relationships. In rudimentary form, the Mayflower Compact established a social order agreed to by the consensus of Separatists. Other charters were more elaborate and went through several incarnations, such as that of Pennsylvania.

 

Puritan thinkers advanced the notion of a covenant or contract form of government that was later employed by John Locke at the time of the Glorious Revolution. William and Mary accepted these principles, embodied in part in the English Bill of Rights, and constitutionalism replaced divine right theory that had been held so dearly by earlier Stuart kings.

 

Ben Franklin, perhaps the greatest example of colonial Enlightenment thinkers, advanced an early blue print of colonial union with his Albany Plan at the start of the French and Indian War, but it was rejected both by colonial leaders and Britain. Most colonies, mirroring the English Parliamentary system, had Assemblies comprised of upper and lower houses. In short, the notions of representative government were planted long before the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

 

The Lessons of History and Enlightenment Writing

 

Colin Goodykoontz writes that the crafting of the US Constitution called attention to “the contributions of the Americans to the development of the convention method of forming constitutions and giving reality to the compact theory.” Goodykoontz demonstrates that the delegates sought inspiration from the experience of history rather than reason, recalling Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic. Yet the greatest example for the framers was the unwritten English Constitution.

 

While providing a vehicle for self-government, however, the framers also understood the dangers posed by “the violence of popular bodies,” according to Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania. This view, held by almost all of the framers, helps to explain the later fears associated with the French Revolution and the mob rule during the French “reign of terror.” Yet it was one French Enlightenment thinker, the Baron de Montesquieu, whose book The Spirit of the Laws, inspired the separation of powers.

 

Goodykoontz quotes Pierce Butler at the Constitutional Convention: “We had before us all the Ancient and modern constitutions on record, but none of them was more influential on Our Judgments than the British in Its Original purity.” American Constitutionalism developed out of a constitutional and covenant tradition, something other European societies lacked. Coupled with a strong agricultural base and the growth of manufacturing, the American democracy would evolve into what Gordon Wood called the “most egalitarian society” the world had ever seen.

 

Sources:

 

Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation (New York University Press, 1995).

Colin B. Goodykoontz, “The Founding Fathers and Clio,” The Vital Past: Writings on the Uses of History, Stephen Vaughn, Ed. (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985).

Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution: How a Revolution Transformed a Monarchical Society Into a Democratic One Unlike Any That Had Ever Existed (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992).

American Electoral College Part of the Early Republic's Formation of Government and Representation

Michael Streich

 The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence begins with the ringing words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal…” Thomas Jefferson’s words go on to highlight the “unalienable” rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But, as students of American history have long pointed out, this would not become reality for over two hundred years. The development of a democratic society in which all members share both political and social rights, took a very long time in American history.

 

The Early Republic

 

Framers of the United States Constitution were cautious and followed the precepts known to them regarding representation. Only white males that owned property (land) could participate politically. The Constitution, as it was originally ratified, only allowed for the House of Representatives to be elected by direct popular vote. The President, ultimately, was elected by an Electoral College and Senators serving in the national legislature were appointed by state legislatures.

 

By the 1820s states began to change voting qualifications to open the franchise to all white males whether they owned property or not. Historians estimate that between 1824 and 1828, nearly one million new voters were eligible to participate in the political life of the fledgling nation.

 

By the 1840s, groups of women began to actively advocate for the right to vote. The 1848 Seneca Falls Convention publicized the Declaration of Sentiments, written by early Feminist leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. The early Women’s Movement would join forces with a growing Abolitionist Movement, hopeful that their political emancipation would come with the emancipation of slaves. The 15^th Amendment proved them wrong.

 

The Post Civil War Years

 

The Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in 1870, upheld the right to vote by all citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” On the heels of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws” and “due process,” the Fifteenth Amendment enabled African Americans the opportunity to participate politically.

 

But even as Southern states sought to circumvent Reconstruction legislation designed to mainstream freedman into the political system, social equality was not addressed. Additionally, the clamor to include women in the political process met with deaf ears.

 

The “separate but equal” doctrine, affirmed by the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v Ferguson, denied blacks social equality while prohibitive policies geared toward political participation kept blacks from exercising the vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other local devices in the South stifled the notion that “all men are created equal.”

 

Women finally achieved the right to vote in 1920 with the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment, although some territorial jurisdictions had already allowed women to vote in that last 1800s.  It was not until 1964 that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment did away with the “poll tax” as a requirement to vote in a national election. By 1971, citizens attaining the age of 18 were given the right to vote.

 

Social Equality in the United States

 

Enough evidence exists from the lives of post Civil War Radical Republicans that social equality between races was not a part of the political equality enshrined in federal law and Constitutional amendments. Social equality began with Brown v. Board of Education when the Warren Court ruled that separate but equal was “inherently unequal.” The inability of African American students to obtain an equal education directly impacted their ability to be successful in society.

 

Ultimately, the Civil Rights movement and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s legislative initiatives would pave the road toward social equality for all citizens. Over two hundred years after Jefferson’s Declaration, the nation would truly become the world’s greatest democracy.

 

Sources:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development