Christianity and the Fall of Rome

Gibbon's Argument Evaluated Relative to Other Consideration

Jan 27, 2009 Michael Streich

The transformation of the Roman Empire took several centuries and was the effect of numerous causes traced back to the 2nd Century but did not include Christianity.

In 1776 Edward Gibbon published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A product of Enlightenment rationalism and empirical thinking, Gibbon argues, in part, that Christianity helped weaken the Roman Empire, contributing to the eventual “fall.” Although that thesis is no longer fully accepted, the view that Christianity threatened the unity of Rome by virtue of its exclusionary beliefs is often still listed as one of many possible factors contributing to the dissolution of the Empire. The argument, however, is abstract.

Early Christianity and the Roman Empire

The argument that Christians, on a wide scale, refused to serve in the legions is often cited in support of the broader thesis that Christianity had a weakening affect on Imperial Rome, Yet, as Giuseppe Ricciotti documents in his book The Age of Martyrs: Christianity from Diocletian to Constantine (Barnes and Noble, 1992), at the start of Diocletian’s Great Purge, many of the martyrs had served in the legions and included a prominent Centurion.

Further, Christians comprised a relatively small minority, representing perhaps 30% of the total population at the time of Diocletian and mostly settled in the eastern empire. Comparatives figures for the western empire are below 25%. These figures represent a sect that had existed in the empire for almost three hundred years, indicating slow growth.

Christians, at the time of Diocletian, worked in high government positions and could be found in Diocletian’s own household and imperial court. The last significant persecution had been under Decius in the mid-century and prior to that under Marcus Aurelius who died in 180 C.E. It is difficult to correlate the influence of Christianity with the fall of Rome. Further, following the Diocletian/Galerian persecution, Constantine the Great ended persecution of Christianity, paving the way to growth of the religion.

Other Factors in the “Fall” of Rome

By the third century, the empire was already weakened by a number of factors. The imperial frontiers were fracturing as barbarians sought to cross the Rhine and the Danube into Roman territory. The growing self sufficiency of provinces disturbed trade patterns as did changes in climate that altered agricultural output. Fewer slaves were available and the empire had gone through several disease epidemics in the mid to latter second century.

Politically, the death of Marcus Aurelius ushered in an extended period of poor leadership, allowing a strong Praetorian Guard to dictate leadership by making and unmaking emperors. In order to payoff the men responsible for bringing emperors to power, the imperial coinage was debased, creating commercial problems and weakening the overall economic base.

An argument can be made that these difficult conditions in the third century actually enhanced Christianity by offering a belief system that was more promising, contained a strong element of hope (the belief that Christ’s kingdom was imminent), and equalized all members. If the gods of Rome had failed, the Christian god had not.

Christian Social Teachings

Christianity followed and facilitated certain practices that were un-Roman such as the opposition to abortion, care for widows and orphans, a social network that ensured compassion for the neediest members, and an aversion to the more blood thirsty entertainments enjoyed in Roman coliseums. Yet these practices in no way affected the political realm. During all of the imperial persecutions, it was difficult to prove directly that Christians were guilty of treason.

In some cases, the persecutions resulted from other reasons. Nero used Christians as scapegoats for the burning of Rome. Marcus Aurelius had a personal dislike of Christians based on philosophic ideology. Diocletian was practically forced into promoting the Great Purge by Galerius, who also had an intense personal hatred of Christianity. Very little evidence points to Christianity as a significant factor in the so-called fall of Rome.

Sources:

Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984)

Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1960)

Ricciotti, Giuseppe, The Age of Martyrs: Christianity From Diocletian to Constantine (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992)

Riddle, John M., Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)

Walsh, Michael, The Triumph of the Meek: Why Early Christianity Succeeded (New York: Harper and Row, 1986)

[copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any republishing in any form requires written permission from the author]

The First Crusade Preached by Pope Urban II

Michael Streich

December 14, 2008

Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the council of Clermont in France November 27, 1095. A holy endeavor to expel a people “enslaved by demons” would serve many purposes: the Seljuk Turks had successfully occupied the holy lands, once part of the Byzantine Empire. Since the pontificate of Gregory VII and the fateful Battle of Manzikert in which Byzantine forces were defeated, the eastern emperor had sent appeals to Rome for help. Now the pope would act, sensing an opportunity that went far beyond sending a few mounted knights.

 

A Mighty Army Serves Many Goals

 

Europe was a battlefield of incessant conflict and endless war. Uniting feudal factions against a common enemy would mitigate the likelihood of further wars and redirect resources and energy against the Muslims. “Let those who are accustomed to wage private wars wastefully even against Believers, go forth against the Infidels in a battle worthy to be undertaken…” Pope Urban II declared a plenary indulgence, the first of its kind, to those “struggling against the heathen.” To medieval man fearing the flames of purgatory, this was a powerful absolution.

 

A successful Crusade would greatly enhance the prestige of the papacy and perhaps even end the schism that had developed between the eastern and western Christian churches. And although Emperor Komnenus requested a comparatively smaller number of professional soldiers – mounted knights, Urban called upon all Christians: knights, footmen, “rich and poor,” and even “plunderers.” Although a mighty army, it would not be led by any kings of note; both Philip I and Henry VII had been excommunicated.

 

Immediate Rewards and Immediate Consequences

 

Landowning crusaders had their holding protected and guaranteed by the Church, lest interlopers attempted to steal their lands while the Lords were in distant lands fighting for Christ. Those taking up the cross had their debts forgiven. Since usury was forbidden, many of these debts had been incurred through Jewish money lenders.

 

The Jews in Europe, however, were not taken into account, even when crusaders began to slaughter them mercilessly throughout Europe, equating the Jews with the so-called Infidels they would soon encounter beyond the confines of Constantinople. Jews appealed to the church for help. Some courageous bishops opened their gates to Jews seeking asylum, yet many others turned a deaf ear to their cries.

 

Nicea would be liberated from Muslim control in 1097 and by 1099 the crusader army was at the gates of Jerusalem. The ensuring battle was a bloodbath as thousands were beheaded. Fulcher of Chartres recounts that, “If you had been there, your feet would have been stained up to the ankles with the blood of the slain. Not one of them was allowed to live. They did not spare the women and children.”

 

Legacy of the First Crusade

 

In March 2000, Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins committed in the name of the Church, including the Crusades. The First Crusade would lead to approximately 150 years of crusading activity both official and unofficial. A Peasant’s Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, ended in whole scale slaughter beyond the safety of Constantinople while the ill-begotten Children’s Crusade ended when ship’s captains ferried the youths to North Africa instead of the Middle East, there to be sold as slaves.

 

The Crusade did not end the schism nor did it end Europe’s “private wars.” It did spur a new age of commerce and trade, a significant benefit that would help pave the way toward great prosperity for emerging Italian city-states.

 

Sources:

 

Fulcher of Chartres, Chronicle of the First Crusade, M.E. McGinty, trans. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), pp. 15-17 and 66-69, in The Middle Ages, Vol. I: Sources of Medieval History, 5^th Ed., Brian Tierney, ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1992) pp.159ff.

 

See also:

 

Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge University Press, 1951).

[First published in Suite101. Copyright Michael Streich. Written permission required for reprints of any kind]

Christianity's Violent History

Michael Streich

June 16, 2010

 

The two thousand year history of Christianity is repeatedly marked by violence and bloodshed, often on a large scale. Although the religion’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth, preached peace and told the Roman Governor Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world…,” the later beliefs and actions of Christians often sought to destroy kingdoms and replace them with their own.

 

This was true when the first Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, it was true during the European post-Reformation wars of religion, and it was true of men like Columbus, Cortes, and Pizarro. Killing in the name of Christ, at least on a grand scale, slowed with the coming of the Enlightenment and secular reasoning.

 

The Christian Crusades against the Muslims and Heretics

 

The capture of Jerusalem was recorded by Fulcher of Chartres [1]. After the Crusaders entered the city, a great bloodletting began: “On the top of Solomon’s Temple, to which they had climbed in fleeing, many were shot to death with arrows and cast down headlong from the roof. Within this Temple about ten thousand were beheaded.”

 

Another kind of Crusade was carried out under Pope Innocent III in 1209 in southern France against the Cathari. This “Albigensian Crusade” resulted in the extermination of thousands of men, women, and children. When the crusaders besieged Beziers, there was some concern that good Catholics should be spared. The papal legate, representing Rome, however, replied, “Kill all! Kill all, for God will know his own.” [2]

 

The Post-Reformation Wars of Religion

 

The century after Martin Luther’s death witnessed unprecedented violence between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the devastating Thirty Years’ War. In Bohemia, Protestants were all but eliminated and those that survived went into hiding, later to form the Moravian Church. In the Netherland’s, Dutch Calvinists were slaughtered by the orders of Spain’s Philip II whose sincere desire was to root out all Protestantism.

 

The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France in 1572 represented widescale slaughter. Writing about those events in Paris, Mack P. Holt [3] details the example of Francoise Lussault: “They then took her and dragged her by the hair…She was then impaled on a spit and dragged through the streets…before she was eventually dumped into the Seine.” Another Huguenot woman about to give birth “…was stabbed in the abdomen and then hurled into the street below, as her nearly-born infant, with its head already protruding from its mother’s corpse, eventually died in the gutter.”

 

Conquest of the Americas

 

From the very first contact with Europeans in what would be called New Spain, Native Americans were compelled to become Christians or face death. Historian Howard Zinn, in his People’s History of the United States, cites examples from Columbus to Cotton Mather in Puritan New England. Native beliefs were forced underground but were never entirely eradicated.

 

In New Mexico the 1680 Pueblo Revolt represented a violent dissatisfaction with a local government closely tied to the Catholic Church in its operations. Historian Alan Taylor [4] states that, “The Pueblo Revolt of 1680 was the greatest setback that natives ever inflicted on European expansion in North America.” Although Spanish reprisals ended the revolt and the Pueblo accepted the rites of Catholicism, they continued their own traditional practices in secret.

 

In New England, Puritan leaders had no moral qualms in exterminating neighboring Native Americans. Puritans believed that these native peoples were already damned to hell and that the Old Testament promises given to God’s chosen were their own. Thus, God blessed their actions in taking native land.

 

Other Historical Examples of Violent Christianity

 

The history of the Christian Church is full of bloody examples of violence. Historians still debate how many hundreds of thousands of women lost their lives during the witch hunts. Protestant violence against Irish Catholics persisted for centuries and in Northern Ireland violent clashes were still common in the last decade. On June 15, 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron apologized for the shooting of 13 Catholics protesting in Londonderry, Northern Ireland in 1972.

 

Religions often breed the seed of violence when adherents depart from the original messages of peace, love, and brotherhood. Christianity, in this respect, is no different. Resurgent fanaticism and intolerance should never be equated with the ethical nature almost all world religions were founded upon. In this regard, reformation and renewal have, in the course of history, attempted to realign misguided interpretations with foundational truths.

 

[1] Brian Tierney, The Middle Ages: Volume I, Sources of Medieval History (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)

[2] Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, 5^th Edition (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)

[3] Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629 (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

[4] Alan Taylor, American Colonies (Viking, 2001)

[First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Written permission to republish required]

The Arab Spring Brought an Icy Chill and U.S. Miscalculations a Decade Ago

 Michael Streich, February 14, 2011

Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak stepped down February 11, 2011, ending the so-called Egyptian Revolution. American President Barack Obama exclaimed that Egypt would never be the same even as the Egyptian military suspended Parliament and the Constitution in preparation for new elections within six months. But few pundits are exposing Air Force General Mubarak for who he really was: a valuable U.S. ally in the Middle East who rose to power upon the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. Keeping that alliance alive can be traced to billions in military assistance awarded to both Egypt and Israel in order to facilitate the Camp David Peace accords.

 

The Many Revolutions of Egypt Stoke Militant Extremists

 

Long before the Nasser revolution of 1956, Anwar el-Sadat saw the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat. Referring to the sermons of Sheikh al-Banna, Sadat wrote that, “He never dealt with questions of ‘government,’ or ‘power’ in general, but always focused on Islam as both a religion and a way of life, equally essential for a healthy spirit and a healthy government.”

 

Following the assassination of Sadat and the consolidation of power by General Mubarak, renewed fears of extremism centered on the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Stanley Reed (Foreign Affairs, September/October 1993), “…American policymakers ask whether the enormous political and economic capital that they have invested in Egypt, including $35 billion in aid since 1975, is in danger of being swept away.”

 

The notion that democracy and Islamic states are somehow compatible was also addressed by Andrew McCarthy in The National Review (February 12, 2011). McCarthy writes that, “In Egypt, a self-consciously devout Islamic country, nothing is secular and Islamist-free, and therefore nothing is truly democratic, not in the Western sense.”

 

Revolutions Cloud the Realities of Changing Civilizations

 

The western media has portrayed the Mubarak regime as despotic yet even Sadat, writing about the 1970 revolution following the death of Nasser, admits to violations of human rights. In December 1997, Egypt’s highest court upheld a government ban on female circumcision, arguing that, “There is nothing in the Qur’an that authorizes it.”

 

Contrary to statements made in Congress by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the Muslim Brotherhood is not an umbrella term for various movements that are secular in nature. Clapper’s explanation obfuscates the conventional definition of “secular,” furthering western misjudgments and erroneous assumptions.

 

Samuel P. Huntington correctly identified the “Islamic Resurgence” as new and older world civilizations transform the 21^st Century. This “resurgence” “…embodies acceptance of modernity, rejection of Western culture, and recommitment to Islam as the guide to life in the modern world.”

 

The same transformation can be seen in other Middle East countries like Turkey. Secularization, as understood by the West, is viewed as self-serving jargon benefiting Western goals while stifling Islamic principles.

 

The Latest Egyptian Revolution Built on Centuries of History

 

Referring to the Egyptians, President Sadat once declared that, “…they never lose their sense of identity however hard the circumstances might be.” Egypt is custodian of one of the world’s oldest civilizations. Egypt was already old when the Roman Emperor Hadrian sailed up the Nile. Today the lure of Egypt transcends history; it is a nation poised to assert a new direction of regional power.

 

Sources:

 

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin books, 1997)

Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, editors, Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (Basic Books, 2000)

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster, 1996)

Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East (W. W. Norton & Company, 2008)

Anwar el-Sadat, In Search of Identity (Harper & Row, 1978)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing requires written permission.

 Ten Years Ago...

Egypt and the Consequences of Middle East Regime Changes

By Michael Streich

Published Jan 28, 2011

President Obama Speaks to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt
White House Photo by Peter Souza

digg

Middle East unrest in Tunisia and Yemen has spread to Egypt, a far more important nation in relation to Western response to Iranian-led extremism.

On January 28, 2011, riots in Egypt escalated and the Egyptian army finally patrolled Cairo, protecting museums and taking over from the police, hated by Egyptian protesters. Although it is no secret that the U.S. government considers Egypt a vital Middle East ally and supports the regime annually with millions in military foreign assistance, it did not help matters that tear gas canisters used against the mobs were labeled “made in the USA.” The Clinton led State Department faces a quandary: to make good on the human rights imperative, or to risk losing a long-term ally in the struggle against terrorism.

Middle East Views toward Recent Events among Arab Regimes

The Israeli government prefers the more rigid and tyrannical Egyptian regime under Hosni Mubarak, fearful of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, the incarceration of Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei may offer a potential leadership resolution if Mubarak should leave Egypt, although ElBaradei is 68 years old. (see Spiegel International, January 28, 2011) The Muslin Brotherhood is "the most popular political movement in Egypt" and the greatest threat to Israel (Spiegel, January 28, 2011).

The Iranian newspaper Kayhan (January 26, 2011) states that Iran is responsible for the current efforts in the Middle East to divorce Western influences from regimes such as Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt.

Saudi sources, following newspaper analysis from January 26 and 27, 2011, noting the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon, conclude that U.S. reactions will force acceptance of regime changes while Israel will be thrown into a panic: “…its fat years are now over and its lean years are about to begin…” (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London) January 27, 2011) (quoted in Middle East Media Research Institute, January 27, 2011, Special Dispatch 3540).

Palestinian Hopes Tied to Potential Middle East Changes

Writing in the Palestine Chronicle (January 28, 2011), Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh of Bethlehem University, states that, “The Arab world is in revolt. The fire is spreading. Responsible people need to step forward with courage and conviction.” The January 28, 2011 Electric Intifada reported that the January 25, 2011 “Day of Anger” has escalated into a major movement designed to remove the pharaoh “Mubarak.”

While the convoluted view of the United States is known, European response has been slower. An Op-ed piece in Israel National News by American professor Phyllis Chesler insinuates that Britain is inherently anti-Semitic and a staunch supporter of Mubarak.

Images

This may be tied to a long historical relationship with Egypt, strongest in the 19th Century when Sir Evelyn Baring, Lord Cromer, represented British interests in the Middle East from Cairo, sharing that influence with Lord Curzon in India.

If pro-Arab efforts in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, and Lebanon are successful, new governments, more radical than the pro-Western regimes, may reinvigorate the Palestinian cause but may also undermine the continued leadership of Mahmoud Abbas who has been too prone to compromise.

Egyptians Cutoff from the Outside World

Late in the day on January 28, 2011, the Egyptian regime cutoff cell phone service and internet use. This lesson was well learned from past rioting in Teheran. NPR’s Morning Edition (January 28, 2011) demonstrated police efforts to isolate western journalists, banning them from covering police responses to protests.

Robert Naiman, writing for Thruthout (January 28, 2011), quotes Egypt's Elbaradei asking, “If not Now, When?” The success of Egypt’s political firestorm will reshape Middle East policy and create entire new paradigms of power circles. These new regimes may distance themselves from the U.S., pose a greater threat to both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and seek regional direction from Iran.

In the 1950s, the chief foreign policy question was, “who lost China?” Today, the partisan question in Congress may well be, “who lost the Middle East?” On January 28, 2011, President Barak Obama finally addressed the on-going unrest in Egypt: “…all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion…” The U.S. administration is walking a fine line between supporting the goals of protest, reform efforts, and the legitimacy of governments like the Mubarak regime.

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

 

Electability in 1912

• Jan 25, 2012
• Michael Streich

Bob La Follette entered the 1912 campaign expecting the Progressive leadership, but was deceived by Teddy Roosevelt who wanted the nomination for himself.

By the time the first presidential preference primary was held in North Dakota on March 19, 1912, the Progressive Party was already split between Wisconsin’s Bob La Follette and Theodore Roosevelt. Both men concluded that the Taft administration was too closely aligned to the so-called establishment elements of the party, unconcerned with the progressive reform movement that championed, among other things, the Referendum, Initiative, and the Judicial Recall.

La Follette viewed himself as the only viable Republican with Progressive credentials strong enough to be considered for the presidency: “I had campaigned only for supporters willing to make the fight for principle, ready to win, or to lose, if need be, in the interest of a cause.” “Fighting Bob” handily defeated Roosevelt in North Dakota, impacting TR’s support in other contests still to come.

Progressivism in the Farm States

North Dakota was a farm state which had bitterly opposed the 1911 Reciprocity Treaty with Canada. William Howard Taft, Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, supported the treaty. Despite documentation demonstrating that former President Roosevelt supported the treaty and advised Taft to support it as well, TR entered the contest denying his past support. It didn’t help his efforts.

Farm states and Progressive havens had their own prerequisites. In North Dakota it was La Follette. In Iowa it was Albert B. Cummins. In California Governor Hiram Johnson had been seduced by the Roosevelt folks with the promise of the vice presidency. La Follette brought thirty-six delegates to the Republican National Convention on June 18, 1912 as a bargaining chip.

Big Business Funds Roosevelt’s Campaign: the First Super-Pac

In his “true” account of the 1912 campaign, La Follette intimates that Roosevelt’s poor showing in North Dakota resulted in a reappraisal of his candidacy. $300,000 would never be enough to secure the nomination. Both La Follette and Taft’s “political machine” blamed Roosevelt’s vast increase in campaign contributions on the pockets of big business (“Why Big Business is Attacking Taft,” New York Times, January 17, 1912).

Roosevelt’s largesse was due to the efforts of men like George W. Perkins who was on the board of the Steel Trust and managed a large New York insurance firm. The Taft administration had sought to abrogate an 1832 Treaty with Russia that would have been disadvantageous to Perkin’s corporate interests which included International Harvester, headquartered in Illinois. At the same time, La Follette was advocating stringent federal policies tied to business regulations. Little wonder that an unscientific January 28, 1912 Kansas City Poll gave Roosevelt 1,152 votes, followed by 197 for La Follette and 157 for Taft. People still saw TR as a "trust buster," although the facts gave a different conclusion.

The Roosevelt Myth

Roosevelt, for many Americans, was larger than life. During his two terms he had fought the evil trusts, gained global respect for American expansion, and secured the Panama Canal. His stewardship view of the presidency allowed him to take proactive steps not necessarily forbidden by the Constitution but not explicitly expressed either.

Roosevelt, acting through loyal cohorts like the Pinchot brothers, played a coy political game until the spring of 1912, hiding behind what his closest advisors viewed as a “dummy campaign” by Bob La Follette. La Follette, however, maintained until the end that he was a viable candidate, in it until the bitter end. As such he repudiated Roosevelt’s Progressive pedigree, claiming that Roosevelt had allowed himself to be used by the “interests” in order to ultimately divide the progressives.

The Most Electable Republican

Who was the most electable Republican? In hindsight, La Follette demonstrated that Roosevelt, even in the best circumstances, never had enough delegates to win the nomination. Part of the excuse used by close supporters hinged on early Southern presidential contests where Roosevelt’s team was still unorganized but Taft had a major organizing lead.

Roosevelt’s supporters claimed “theft” and vowed to set up an alternative party, in effect dooming the Republicans in 1912 and ensuring the election of New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson. Taft would go on to teach at Yale and end his days as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a position he always craved.

La Follette’s Philadelphia Speech

Some historians point to Bob La Follette’s February 2, 1912 Periodical Publishers’ Association Speech in Philadelphia as the crucial moment of decision concerning the candidate. La Follette spoke last and was exhausted. His daughter was scheduled for a surgical procedure the following morning. “Sensational accounts of this speech” have him drinking before the address; La Follette admits only to his physical condition.

Splitting the Republican Party gave victory to Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats; such was the animosity between Taft and Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s Progressives were viewed as too out of touch (La Follette, though remaining in the Republican Party, even advocated that the Recall be applied to Supreme Court Justices). La Follette would ultimately lead the charge against U.S. entry into World War I while TR deplored Wilson’s vacillation, demanding U.S. reaction to the European conflict. Wilson waited until 1917 to ask for a war declaration. His idealistic Fourteen Points evaporated, vindicating La Follette when they went down in the flames of European balance of power arguments by European leaders that knew how to divert Wilson.

For Republicans, 1912 was a year of electability. Three strong Republicans vied for the nomination. Had Roosevelt not bolted, Taft would have won reelection. As it was, some historians believe that the most unelectable man, Woodrow Wilson, entered the White House at the wrong time in order to involve the United States in the wrong war. Between Wilson and Roosevelt, La Follette’s priorities would have been America first, something not understood by the new Anglophile President who saw himself more as a Prime Minister rather than a chief executive.

References:

• “Why Big Business is Attacking Taft,” New York Times, January 17, 1912
• James Chase, 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs – The Election that Changed the Country (Simon & Schuster, 2004)
• Robert M. La Follette, La Follette’s Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences (Madison, WIS: The Robert M. La Follette Co., 1913)
• Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, Fifth Edition, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)
• Frank K. Kelly, The Fight for the White House: The Story of 1912 (NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1961)
• “Roosevelt Leads in the Polls,” New York Times, January 28, 1912
• Page Smith, America Enters the World: A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I, Volume Seven (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)

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

Home Grown Terrorism: Norway 2011

Michael Streich

Published in Suite101 July 24, 2011

 Oslo is a quiet and clean city, the kind of place visitors consider as an ideal retirement option if not for the cost of living. The waterfront is dotted with cafes, pubs, and unique shops. Norwegians are still proud to have hosted the 1952 Winter Olympics and visitors to Oslo are taken to the ski jump overlooking the city. But on a beautiful July 22, 2011 day, 32-year old Anders B. Breivik broke the tranquility of this Scandinavian capital by murdering ninety-two people, most of them teens attending a youth camp on a nearby island.

 

The Ideology of Anders Behring Breivik

 

How the assassin in the Oslo massacres views himself is a matter of interpretation. A CNN reporter referred to him as a “rightwing Christian fundamentalist.” Oyvind Power, writing in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (July 23, 2011) called him a neo-Nazi. In an interview with the German Bild newspaper (July 23, 2011), Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich identifies Breivik with “the right.” Breivik himself, on his Facebook page and in other writings, thought of himself as a pioneer and a “cultural conservative.”

 

Most initial reports argue that Breivik’s conservatism focused on a xenophobic hatred of Islam and of those groups, notably political parties like the Labor and Socialist Left parties that supported immigration and asylum laws increasing the European Islamic presence. Power writes that Breivik was, “Inspired by an internet environment that calls itself ‘counter-jihadist’…” These internet connections have “links to European neo-fascism.”

 

According to James S. Robbins, who analyzed Breivik’s writings (The Washington Times, July 23, 2011), “Mr. Breivik believed that an impending economic crisis would be the trigger for action against the perceived Islamic threat.” News writers familiar with Breivik’s beliefs comment on his actions in Oslo as part of a “conflagration.” In this regard, Breivik may be more of a neo-anarchist ala Bakunin whose actions were designed to arouse the apathetic into similar action.

 

Growing European Extremism and the Neo Nazi Phenomenon

 

Anti-Muslim feelings in Europe have been on the rise. A 2011 Pew Research Center poll (Pew Global Attitudes Project) notes that concerns over Islamic extremism are well above 50% in most of the developed world. In Germany, for example, 73% of those polled demonstrated concern. Concern about Islam is tied, however, to the growth of neo-Nazi activities in Europe and may help to explain the actions of Anders Breivik.

 

Khaled Diab, writing in the Guardian (July 10, 2010), contends that, “Hitler’s ideological descendants, who have become increasingly emboldened in recent years, constitute a growing…threat that largely goes unnoticed and under-reported.” Citing several examples, Diab states that, “More attention needs to be paid to the fact that it is a growing menace.”

 

Right-wing extremism has been on the rise in several European countries. A Wall Street Journal item (February 16, 2010) notes that, “demand for far-right extremism in Hungary more than doubled between 2003 and 2009…” The percentage of pro-right-wing support was second to Bulgaria and just ahead of Greece. This is significant given the impact of current austerity measures imposed upon Greece as part of the EU Euro-bailout package of July 2011.

 

Neo Fascism in Germany

 

Neo-Nazis in Germany are attempting to mainstream into society as they sense growing dissatisfaction within the overall population with the slow pace of Muslim acceptance into German society. Spiegel magazine observes that, “For some time now, these families have no longer belonged to subcultures on the fringe of society. Instead, most of them now lead their lives right in the middle of society.” (July 21, 2011) In 2009, the German government banned a neo-Nazi youth camp that was indoctrinating young people.

 

According to Spiegel, children of neo-Nazis are taught that democracy will fail and that an ideal world is based on a “pure racial community.” Such ideological beliefs parallel those of Anders Breivik. The German-Foreign-Policy newsletter (September 17, 2008) observes that several right-wing political groups “…maintain a tradition of Nazi collaboration.” This includes groups in France, Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

 

Breivik May Force Changes in European Security

 

As the smoke dissipated from the massive explosion in the heart of Oslo, commentators already made analogies to America’s Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 tragedy. To what extent will life ever be the same in Norway? Norway’s King Harald told his people that, “This act is an attack on the Norwegian society and on the core of democracy…”

 

Perhaps the greater fear will come from the threat of copy-cat attempts. This will require the kind of on-going vigilance German Interior Minister Friedrich referred to in the Bild interview. Breivik, in his writings, saw himself as part of a vanguard, destined to cleanse Europe of the unfit. This is the growing face of right wing extremism, even in a peaceful country like Norway.

 

Sources:

 

Michael Backhaus, “Muessen wir Deutschen mit rechtem Amoklauf rechnen?” Bild, July 23, 2011

Khaled Diab, “Neo-nazism is Europe’s hidden terrorist menace,” Guardian, July 11, 2010

“Freedom is stronger than fear,” Norway Post, July 23, 2011

“Europe of Right-Wing Extremists,” German Foreign Policy Newsletter, September 17, 2009

“Growing-Up Neo Nazi: Family Life Among Germany’s Far-Right Extremists,” Spiegel, July 21, 2011

William Maclean, “Norway Attack: Right-wing extremism emerging?” Reuters, July 22, 2011

Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center, July 2011

Oyvind Power, “Who’s the Terrorist?” Aftenpost, July 23, 2011

“Right-Wing Extremism? Yes, Please, One-Fifth of Hungarians Say,” The Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2010

James S. Robbins, “The Oslo Terrorist in His Own Words: Bomber Predicted ‘Europe soon will burn once again,’” The Washington Times, July 23, 2011

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich. No reprints of any kind without written permission from author]

French Revolution's Anti-Christian Message

Michael Streich

 It was Voltaire, whose writings in part contributed to the coming of the French Revolution, when asked what to do about the Church stated, “crush the infamous thing.” When the Revolution came in 1789, the Church was inevitably targeted as part of the old feudal regime that needed to be replaced. By 1792, the September Massacres saw the murders of hundreds of prisoners, many of whom were seminarians and clerics, including Church leaders like the Archbishop of Arles. The French Revolution was, in many ways, anti-Catholic.

 

The Catholic Church on the eve of the French Revolution

 

The French Catholic Church comprised the First Estate, 130,000 out of a population of twenty-three million. The clergy were exempt from state taxation, ran their own courts, collected a tithe, and held a monopoly on education. Immensely wealthy, the Church paid a yearly “free donation” to the state out of borrowed money. Owning one-tenth of the realm, the Church had full control over all official records.

 

At the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, only one bishop out of the 135 in France came from a non-noble background. All of the other bishops had ties to the nobility, many of them coming out of the finest, oldest aristocratic families in France. The Church guarded its privileges jealously and was unassailable. Most of the local parish priests and the regular clergy, however, identified with the peasants and were frequently looked down upon by the Church hierarchy.

 

The Revolution Dissolves the Established Church

 

Immediately after the disbanding of the Estates General, the newly formed National Assembly, which included members of the First Estate that had crossed over, began to eliminate the feudal rights of the Church. Henceforth, clerics would be paid by the state and Church lands confiscated. Monasteries not involved in the public good were closed. In many ways, the actions of the Assembly paralleled those taken earlier by Austria’s Emperor Joseph II.

 

Ecclesiastical tithes were abolished and some religious ordered disbanded. Because of the Church’s long identity with the nobility and absolute rule in France, the institution itself was attacked. Perceived as an extension of the aristocracy, the Church found itself in a vulnerable position. Offering to limit and give up some of its privileges, the Church was seen as attempting to avoid the same fate that inevitably awaited the monarchy and the Second Estate.

 

The Revolution Moves into the Reign of Terror

 

Under the leadership of Robespierre during the height of the Reign of Terror, Notre Dame Cathedral was turned into the Temple of Reason. The dechristianization of France was underway. Robespierre introduced the “Cult of the Supreme Being” that attempted to infuse a new moral universe based solely on the values of the revolution.

 

Although Robespierre was eventually executed and France moved to a new government under the Directory, the Church never regained its power or control. Even after signing a Concordat with Rome, Napoleon Bonaparte, during his coronation in Notre Dame in 1804, took the crown from the Pope Pius VII and placed it on his head himself, symbolic of the independence from papal control.

 

Sources:

 

Olivier Bernier, Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood: The Mob, the Monarchy, and the French Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989).

Michael Burleigh, Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and Politics in Europe, from the French Revolution to the Great War (HarperCollins, 2005).

Isser Woloch, The New Regime: Transformations of the French Civic Order, 1789-1820s (W.W. Norton & Company, 1994).

[First published in Suite101 2009. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. All republishing with written permission only]

Reign of Terror: French Revolution Devolves into Lawless Blood-letting 

Michael Streich

 The September Massacres of 1792 changed the direction of the French Revolution. Within the next two years, a Reign of Terror would engulf France as thousands of royalists, political moderates, revolutionaries, and members of the bourgeoisie were beheaded. The excesses of the Revolution at the hands of Maximilien Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety gave impetus to counterrevolutionary forces in France as well as the prospect of foreign intervention.

 

The Terror Begins in 1793

 

King Louis XVI was beheaded January 21, 1793. Over the next months, radical Jacobins began to target the Girondists, moderate leaders that opposed the program of the Jacobin leadership. Toward that end, the Jacobins used crowd action, the violence of the sans-culottes, average French workers. Many of these Parisian workers had been effectively used during the September Massacres.

 

At the same time, revolts broke out in the countryside, most notably in the Vendee region where Girondist support was strong. Rural areas loyal to Catholicism also saw an increase in opposition to what historian Simon Schama called the “dictatorship of Paris.”

 

France was already at war with Great Britain, Holland, and Spain. The threat of foreign intervention as well as the realities of internal opposition led to mass conscription and a concerted effort to root out counterrevolution. These measures were particularly brutal in Vendee. At Nantes, hundreds of men, women, and children were chained to barges in the Loire and drowned when the vessels were sunk.

 

On October 16^th, Marie Antoinette was beheaded, following a shameless trial that accused her, among other things, of incest and participating in orgies with Swiss Guards. Above all, however, the former queen represented monarchy, a hated institution incompatible with the new revolutionary order. It was this general mentality that, when applied to all former royalists, enabled mass executions of all associated with the Old Regime.

 

The Final Year of Terror

 

As 1794 progressed, the Committee of Public Safety had turned on its own. Jacques Danton, the force behind the September Massacres, was denounced and, along with his friends, beheaded. Fear gripped members of the Committee itself, each deputy afraid to make eye contact with Robespierre, the messianic force behind the “republic of virtue” and the Cult of the Supreme Being, for fear of being the next victim.

 

Everyday workers could be denounced for any careless criticism or for invoking the royalist past. The Reign of Terror, contrary to perception, resulted in the deaths of more non-aristocrats than those with blue blood. Some scholars estimate that only 30% of those sent to the guillotine were aristocrats.

 

Even the leaders of the sans-culottes had been executed earlier in the year. Historians speculate that Robespierre’s greatest weakness was his lack of a base of support. He had no lieutenants and many of his former radical colleagues had been denounced and executed. This made it possible for the Committee to band together in July and send Robespierre to the guillotine, ending the Terror.

 

The Lessons of the Reign of Terror

 

Within a two year period, a relatively small handful of revolutionary leaders commandeered the Revolution. They did so by eliminating opposition groups, often using mob violence while appealing to the ideal that the Revolution demanded the sacrifice of individualism for the good of society. Once the mob had served its purpose, its leaders too were executed.

 

Finally, the strongest radicals to emerge turned on their colleagues, eliminating further opposition and branding it as counterrevolutionary. Similar patterns would be seen in the 20^th Century after the 1917 Russian Revolution as well as the Spanish Civil War. In Nazi Germany, Hitler also employed similar tactics to consolidate power. In many ways, the Reign of Terror is a case study in obtaining and maintaining absolute power.

 

Sources:

 

Olivier Bernier, Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood: The Mob, the Monarchy, and the French Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989)

Albert Goodwin, The French Revolution (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962)

Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989)

[First published in Suite101; copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing requires written permission]