The Mexican American War Congressional Debate

A Gag on Debating the Resolution Forced a Vote in One Afternoon

Nov 1, 2009 Michael Streich

The Polk administration was determined to navigate a declaration of war against Mexico through the Congress even if it meant withholding crucial evidence.

On May 11, 1846, President James K. Polk sent a war message to the Congress declaring that “war exists…by the act of Mexico herself.” After one afternoon of “debate” in the House, during which opposition was silenced by a gag on meaningful debate, a war resolution was swiftly passed. Although the Senate took longer to approve the measure, South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun would later say that had the documents relevant to the president’s message been given proper scrutiny, less than 10% of the Congress would have voted for war.

“Hostilities May Now be considered as Commenced”

President Polk’s desire to annex Mexico’s North American provinces began with a diplomatic mission to Mexico City led by John Slidell. The Mexican leadership, however, refused to meet with Slidell. At the same time, Polk ordered Brigadier General Zachary Taylor to move his army, then stationed in Texas, across the Nueces River in January 1846.

Taylor’s troops crossed into the disputed territory, arriving at the Rio Grande. Mexicans regarded the disputed territory as theirs. Even the 1845 Annexation Resolution bringing Texas into the Union accepted the Nueces River as the proper boundary. When debate began on the war resolution, this would be a key factor for many Congressmen, including Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton who expressed his concerns to Polk at the White House hours before the crucial vote.

American troops constructed a fort on the hills overlooking the Mexican port city of Matamoros and aimed cannons at the city. At the same time, American warships were ordered to the Mexican coast off Vera Cruz. On April 24th, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and engaged American dragoons, killing three.

John Slidell returned to Washington one day before news of the military encounter reached Polk. Even before this news, Polk and the majority of his Cabinet were willing to send a war message to Congress. Zachary Taylor’s skirmish with the Mexican army made a war message all the easier.

“Forced into a Conflict with a Semi-Barbarous People”

Thus stated a passage in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Yet House Whigs, in the minority, and supported by a handful of dissident Democrats, rejected the president’s claims. 114 pages of documents sat on the Speaker’s desk yet only a select few were read in the chamber. Neither the House nor the Senate were allowed adequate time to fully review the documents. Once a gag on debate was imposed in the House, Whigs used Parliamentary Procedure to voice their arguments, most notably regarding the preamble of the war bill which made Mexico the aggressor.

Members were recognized with a “point of personal privilege” which takes parliamentary precedence in debate and is usually used to receive permission to leave the chamber. Once recognized, however, these members used their time to berate the war message and demand scrutiny of all the accompanying documents.

The Senate debate was just as short, spending only one day on the measure. As in the House, senators were not afforded the time to hold committee hearings or read all of the documents. Senator Calhoun abstained from voting while others voted taking exception to the preamble.

War Divides the Nation

The lack of public debate affected public perceptions. Writers like Emerson and Whitman supported the war while Thoreau refused to pay taxes in protest. Some Americans, agreeing with Polk, favored annexing Mexico while others were content to own “uninhabited” land ripe for expansion.

The lack of proper debate led the United States down a slippery path that still causes ill feelings between Mexico and America. Yet the past has been repeated too often in history, as Congress responded emotionally without consulting all relevant facts.

Sources:

• Polk: The Diary of a President, Allan Nevins, editor (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952)
• Seymour A. Connor and Odie B. Faulk, North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971)
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• John Edward Weems, To Conquer a Peace (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974)
• Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958)

The copyright of the article The Mexican American War Congressional Debate in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Mexican American War Congressional Debate in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

1950s and 1960s Main Streets Fuel Prosperity

Consumerism in Post War America Focused on Downtown Shopping

Nov 22, 2009 Michael Streich

As individual wages rose in the 1950s and products expanded, affordable consumer goods from food to clothing helped fuel a period of economic prosperity and well being.

   

In 1965 Petula Clark’s hit song “Downtown” reminded listeners to “listen to the music of the traffic in the city, linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty.” In the 1950s and 60s Main Street in most American cities represented the life and prosperity of a consumer driven society. Here shoppers bought everything from Smith-Corona typewriters made in the USA to a pair of Hagar slacks selling for $6.95. New products, often advertised as “fully automatic,” characterized a period of conformity while giving workers the opportunity to purchase consumer goods as their wages rose.

Post Depression Economic Expansion

After over a decade of national depression and four years of a world war that demanded sacrifices, the Cold War peace was a breath of fresh air for most Americans. The average national income in 1950 was $3,216 and the cost of a new house in suburbs approximately $12,400. Cold War families paid 16 cents for a gallon of gas and 3 cents to mail a letter.

The American housewife experienced dramatic changes in the kitchen. Hotpoint’s new range, introduced in the 1950s, was advertised as “super automatic” and could bake, broil, grill, barbeque (like modern rotisserie appliances), and had the ability to fry fries in a special frying unit. Changes in processed food also meant less time in the kitchen.

The Swanson “TV dinners” began a food revolution while the producers of evaporated milk proclaimed their product as a “magical marvel.” In 1957 a can of Campbell’s tomato soup cost 10 cents and for those families seeking to dine out, a chicken dinner in Topeka in 1951 was only $1.50 and included a choice of sides and dessert at Hoofer’s Dinner-House. Products were made in America, fueling an industrial and manufacturing economy.

Main Street in Every Downtown

For most urban Americans, the city “downtown” was a microcosm of the national consumer spirit. Specialty shops linked the “five-and-dime” stores like Kresge and McCrory’s along every main thoroughfare. Because many neighborhoods reflected ethnic immigrant patterns, an Italian bakery might be across the street from a Polish butcher.

Downtowns in the sprawling Northeastern communities within driving distance of New York or Philadelphia were connected by bus routes and rail transportation. In New Jersey, the Erie-Lakawanna line took passengers from Newark to Main Streets in Passaic and Patterson while buses ferried shoppers to the larger downtown avenues such as Bergenline Avenue in West New York on the Jersey side of the Hudson River.

Many downtowns across the nation featured venerable old department stories like Sterns in Newark, NJ or Belks in Charlotte, NC. Every downtown hosted a Sears store. It was the departure of these important establishments in favor of suburban malls that began the decline of Main Street in many communities. Along with malls, free-standing all-purpose stories like W.T. Grant lured shoppers away from downtowns.

Increased Mobility Added to the Demise of Downtown Shopping

By the late 1960s more Americans than ever were driving. A gallon of gas was still only 25 cents in 1959 and Detroit was producing attractive and affordable new models every year. This was also the period when America went from an urban nation a suburban one. Families traveled more and the suburban shopping mall was a new experience. In 1967, a one-night stay at a Howard Johnson’s motor lodge was only $15.50 plus tax.

As the five-and-dime stores consolidated in the 1980s or filed for bankruptcy, many downtown merchants found the decreasing interest in Main Street shopping unsustainable to their businesses. Today, communities have spent millions of dollars to “revitalize” dead downtowns but have generally been unsuccessful in bringing back meaningful merchant business. The Main Streets that helped fuel fifties and sixties prosperity remain a nostalgic memory of a bygone era.

Sources:

• Reminisce magazine and on-line site.
• Jeff Little, “A Bargain at Any Price.”
• Laura Shapiro, Something from the Oven: Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America (Viking, 2004)
• “1950s & 1960s Commercials,” The Video Beat, New Paltz, NY (VHS)

The copyright of the article 1950s and 1960s Main Streets Fuel Prosperity in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish 1950s and 1960s Main Streets Fuel Prosperity in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

   

Mobility Enhanced Consumer Spending

 

Global Studies and Short Term Student Travel

May 11, 2010 Michael Streich

Short-term foreign travel lasting two to four weeks can fulfill Global Studies objectives and develop globally minded students.

Studies abroad, lasting a semester or longer, have become common place for many university students. Global Studies departments facilitate such endeavors and assist students both in the preparation phase and reentry. American high schools, however, have not had similar successes in terms of sending students on “foreign exchange” experiences. The reasons are many. According to Karin Fischer, however, “The length of time students study overseas has no significant impact on whether they become globally engaged in later life…” (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2009)

Linking a Global Studies Curriculum with Foreign Travel

A high school French teacher planned a two-week summer trip for upper-level French students, placing them with families living in France. Although the students were taken to the historical and cultural sites during their stay in France, their two-week encounter with a French family left a lasting impression. People to People tours also places students with host families for part of their trips. Such one-on-one encounters leave lasting impressions.

Karin Fischer notes that researchers at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities concluded that short term immersion “can have lasting effects.” “Students who go overseas for a short period of time, four weeks or less, are just as likely as those who study abroad for several months or even a year to be globally engaged.”

In terms of university programs, short term summer experiences abroad are less expensive. Since financial aid covers studying abroad, shorter summer immersion programs may be more affordable. Regarding high school experiences, many front-line companies that cater to middle and high school foreign travelers can customize such experiences, much like the French trip planned by the French teacher noted above.

Moving Toward a Global Studies Curriculum

In North Carolina, the state Department of Public Instruction recently acted to replace high school “World Cultures” or “World History” with a Global Studies curriculum that focuses on relevant, contemporary global issues. Global inter-connectiveness, in such areas as economics, population migration, climate control, and poverty are emphasized. Although short term tours abroad may not include destinations like Darfur, the Congo, or Thailand, any travels – even to the more secure areas of Europe, are considered beneficial.

Tammy Lewis (Chronicle of Higher Education, June 3, 2005) writes that, “Both short term and long term study-abroad programs can meet some of the goals of the liberal arts in general.” Lewis cites a report of the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad, which called for a working knowledge of one foreign language as well as “an understanding of at least one foreign area…” This becomes even more crucial as Asian countries, notably China and India, emerge as powerful economic competitors.

Global Studies beyond the Classroom

North Carolina A & T State University offers a Global Studies certificate upon graduation. Many of the students receiving such distinctions have spent time in countries like Costa Rica and Ghana. They graduate with a deep sense of wanting to change the world – to improve the lives of the people they met on their travels. This is a primary goal of linking Global Studies with the millions of struggling and less fortunate people encountered.

Although more difficult in high school, the goal is not impossible. This is particularly true of summer trips to Central and South America as well as some Asian countries.

This writer took a group of private school students to Fiji where they spent a day deep in the rain forest with an impoverished tribe. Boarding the boats returning the students to their four star hotel, one young man said, “We have to do something. We just can’t forget.” That response is the goal of linking the Global Studies classroom to the real world.

The copyright of the article Global Studies and Short Term Student Travel in Educational Issues is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Global Studies and Short Term Student Travel in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 America Has a Long History of Anti-Asian Action

In the days after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the New York World Trade Center building, comparisons to Pearl Harbor were frequently made. Both attacks resulted in a spirit of American unity. A common enemy was identified. A national government galvanized American energies to combat and destroy the forces that attacked the homeland. How true are comparisons of these events? In many ways, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 represented vastly different events that affected Americans in dissimilar ways.

 

Pearl Harbor and the American Aftermath

 

The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii roused American hatred and galvanized the nation. Discrimination against Asian peoples had long been part of American cultural and social history. In the latter 19^th Century, political party platforms called for the limitation and cessation of Asian immigration, often labeled “Mongolian” immigration. San Francisco’s Angel Island was a stark reminder of American antipathy toward Asians seeking to migrate to the United States.

 

In early 1942, by Presidential executive order, Japanese-Americans living primarily on the west coast were taken to internment camps as a security measure following the massive Pearl Harbor raid that temporarily incapacitated the Pacific fleet. As John Toland comments, a national sense of outrage consumed Americans. According to Toland, news of the attack united Americans: “Strangers on the streets looked at one another with a new awareness.”

 

Toland relates that “on the banks of the Potomac someone cut down one of the cherry trees donated years before by Japan.” A New York Times letter to the editor (December 8, 1941) states that, “the unhoped-for has happened, and we shall unitedly arise to crush the offender; we project no happy ideal save the continuance and preservation for posterity of the American way of life.”

 

Secretary of War Stimson,  having been told by President Roosevelt of the December 7^th attack by telephone, noted that “a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.” As late as August 1945, after President Truman authorized the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans recalled Pearl Harbor and viewed the new weapon as just retribution for the attack that began the war.

 

September 11, 2001, the New Pearl Harbor

 

The aftermath of 9/11 saw a concerted effort on the part of the Bush Administration to forestall any anti-Muslim violence in the United States. Unlike 1941, no popular songs targeted Islamic or Muslim nations. National Public Radio’s “Performance Tonight” featured somber, mournful concerts from around the world. It was time of global solidarity. Americans bought stickers displaying the stars and stripes and pasted them on their cars. Members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol singing “God Bless America.”

 

But the enemy in 2001 was elusive, identified with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Unlike the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the fast-paced nature of American society soon forgot the initial shock. A prolonged war in the Middle East, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, imposed no sacrifices on American society. Muslims in America were not put into camps or targeted, and great efforts were made to avoid “racial profiling.” In many ways, this was a step in the right direction.

 

Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 evokes much passion among young Americans as the nation approaches the second decade of the new century. The pace of technology has relegated these events to the confines of “history.” Pearl Harbor was a rallying cry, much like “Remember the Maine” in 1898. But as the “greatest generation” passes on, the “day of infamy” becomes a foggy remembrance of a past that seems disconnected to the present.

 

Sources:

 

John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, Vol. I (New York: Random House, 1970).

New York Times, “Letters to the Times,” December 8, 1941.

(First published in Suite101 by Michael Streich in 2009. Copyright owned by Michael Streich and reprints require written permission)

On April 22, 2021 The U.S. Senate passed anti-Asian legislation. Only one senator voted against it: Josh Hawley (R-MO) who stated the bill was too broad.

The Council of Constance Ended the Period of Three Popes and Sought to Repudiate Heretical Beliefs

Michael Streich 

In the first decade of the 15^th Century, the Catholic Church was plagued with corruption at the highest levels and split by three popes, all ruling simultaneously and each claiming sole legitimacy. The Council of Constance, which opened November 5, 1414, was called by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to solve the problem of the three popes, return the church to morality through reform, and address the heretical factions begun in England by John Wycliffe and expanded by the Bohemian priest Jan Hus. By the close of the Council in 1418, its work was only partially successful.

 

Church Impotency Forced the Actions of the State

 

The 1409 Council of Pisa had attempted to resolve the issue of multiple popes but only managed to complicate matters by electing a third pope, expanding the Great Schism that divided Christendom in the West. Additionally, Pisa was a non-canonical council.

 

Thus, the only one of the three pontiffs to attend Constance, John XXIII, of the Pisan line of popes, could not legally convene a council that could be considered canonical.

 

The only one of the three popes who could claim any sense of legitimacy was Benedict XIII of Avignon. At the time of the Council of Constance, he was the only living prelate who had been a cardinal in 1378 and who participated in the conclave that elected Pope Urban VI in Rome – a dubious election given the circumstances of that papal election.

 

Given the intransigence of the Church in 1414, Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund took it upon himself to resolve the important issues of the day by convening the Council of Constance.

 

The Council of Constance Deposes Pope John and Burns Hus as a Heretic

 

Pope John XXIII’s mistake was in attending the council personally; neither of the other rival popes attended. Facing over fifty serious charges including sexual depravity and simony, and being confronted by Sigismund himself with an abdication document, John XXIII disguised himself and fled from Constance.

 

After a public reading of John’s sins, the Council deposed him, although John would abdicate shortly thereafter. Jan Hus, who had journeyed from Prague to answer charges of heresy, was not as fortunate, despite a guarantee of safe conduct from Sigismund.

 

Hus was kept in chains in a prison where his body slowly weakened. Brought before the Council and urged to recant, Hus, much like Luther at Worms in the next century, asked his inquisitors to prove his errors from Scripture. Declared a heretic, he was taken out of the city and burned, his ashes and skeletal remains thrown into the river.

 

The Council Demands Concurrent Jurisdiction with the Papacy

 

By declaring itself canonical and asserting its right of concurrent jurisdiction, the Council of Constance attempted to overturn the doctrine of Papal Primacy. Any such actions would result in the weakening of the pope’s authority and perhaps his gift to speak infallibly.

 

Pope Gregory XII of the Roman line abdicated July 4, 1415 but Benedict XIII refused to do so, even after meeting with Sigismund. It would be his Avignon successor, Clement VIII, who abdicated in 1429. The newly elected pope at Constance on November 11, 1417 was Martin V.

 

Church Reform Ignored by the Council of Constance

 

Widespread Church corruption had been a chief reason for the calling together of an Ecumenical Council at Constance in 1414. But the Council remained preoccupied with the papal schism and heresy. Church reform was never serious addressed or attempted. The new pope, Martin V, did not support Church reform.

 

Sigismund, however, had managed to demonstrate that the state could impose itself on the Church, especially when the Papacy was incompetent and its high ranking prelates were corrupt. When Pope Martin V closed the council on November 11, 1417, the words of Hus must have rung in several ears: the Council was nothing more than “the scarlet woman of the Apocalypse.”

 

Historian Marzieh Gail writes that, “The great failure at Constance…was the Council’s inability to deal with the problems of moral conduct – not of simple believers but of those who were supposed to guide them and set the example.” Although the next decades would see localized reform guided by wiser men and women, as in Spain, the laxity of  Church leadership, including popes, would feed the 16^th Century Reformation.

 

The Partial Successes of the Council of Constance: Ending the Babylonian Captivity of the Church

 

The 1414 Council managed to end the Great Schism, but only after the efforts of a secular king forced the issue. By burning Hus, the Council sent a strong message to heretics. But the most important issue, Church reform, was ignored. This inaction directly led to further abuses as well as the election of men to the papacy whose spirituality was dubious, men such as Pope Julius II.

 

Contemporary Catholics are quick to point out that Constance was an unofficial council, not canonical. Although true, this convolutes the larger issue: does the spirit and passion to reform in order to more closely align the Church to Christ supersede centuries of tradition and canon law? Those men and women who advocated the former were later deemed saints, like Vincent Ferrer. But their words were seldom considered by the Church leadership while they were alive.

 

Sources:

 

Richard Cattermole, The Council of Constance and the war in Bohemia (Nabu Press, 2010)

Marzieh Gail, The Three Popes (Simon and Schuster, 1969)

Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, 5yh Ed. (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3^rd Ed. (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970)

(Copyright owned by Michael Streich; republishing in any form requires written permission)

 Constantine Transforms the Roman Empire Toward Christianity

The Pivotal Battle of the Milvian Bridge

Michael Streich

The Battle of the Milvian Bridge, just outside the walls of Rome, in AD 312, resulted in significant changes that ultimately would enable the rise of Christian institutions in the western empire to achieve a degree of power necessary in replacing secular control once the west was overrun by barbarian hordes. Emperor Constantine’s  acceptance of the Christian God inaugurated a new official respect for Christianity well beyond simple toleration. It began with a sign and ended with military victory, replacing paganism with a new faith now embraced by the emperor.

 

“With This Sign You Will Conquer”

 

The story of the miraculous sign from heaven is recounted, with distinct variations, by the writers Lactantius and Eusebius. Eusebius’ rendering is considered the more accurate because Constantine had personally told him the story and confirmed its truth by an oath.

 

According to Eusebius, the omen was seen by Constantine and his entire army days before the actual battle outside of the walls of Rome. Constantine recounted that the sign was an answer to a prayer he had made to the God of his father, Constantius, a Christian. The sign itself displayed a cross in the font of a sun. Eusebius continues that the sign was confirmed to Constantine that night in a dream during which Christ appeared to him.

 

Lactantius states that the sign occurred the night before the actual battle and refers to it as, “a heavenly sign from God.” The triumphal arch, dedicated to Constantine in AD 315, gives an account of the battle, stating that, “with the guidance of divinity…he freed…the Republic from a tyrant.” Although the phrase does not specifically identify the Christian God, scholars point out that Constantine’s public attribution confirms the reference.

 

Saxa Rubra and the Milvian Bridge

 

Constantine’s adversary, Maxentius, a co-emperor approving Christian persecutions, left the security of Rome’s walls to confront the army approaching on the Via Flamina. Why Maxentius didn't remain behind the walls is a mystery. He outnumbered Constantine and had enough supplies to last any long siege attempted by his opponent.

 

The armies first met nine miles from Rome at Saxa Rubra, Constantine’s army routing Maxentius’ feared cavalry, the cataphracti. This caused panic among the mercenary troops that began a disorganized retreat to the Tiber, crossing the river over a crude wooden bridge as well as the more stable Milvian Bridge. 

The battleground favored the attacker as there was little room to maneuver soldiers. The unfortunate Maxentius, however, could only depend upon the Praetorian Guard, fierce fighters that fought to the death. After the battle and once inside Rome, Constantine would disband the Guard forever. Constantine led the central attack himself, pushing toward the bridge as any hope for a retreating Maxentius evaporated. Maxentius died crossing the river, pulled down by his armor, according to later accounts. Constantine entered the city on October 29, AD 312.

 

Impact of the Battle

 

The long term consequence of Constantine’s conversion and victory went far beyond the basilicas he endowed (among them St. John Lateran in Rome). Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, in Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, assert that, “the subsequent rise of Christianity and its acceptance as the official religion of the empire transformed the whole nature of late classical culture.” 

The sign that led to Constantine’s victory may have begun that process. Before his death, the Emperor helped to preside over the Council of Nicaea, one of the most significant early church councils that detailed key elements of Christian doctrine, including the creed. 

As the centuries progressed and Rome “fell,” at least in the west, it was the Church that provided stability and leadership, its bishops functioning as both secular and religious administrators, this the long term effect of AD 312.

Copyright owned by Michael Streich; any republishing requires written permission.

Regime Change in Iran in the Early Cold War

How the US Turned Iran into a Strong Middle East Ally 

Over a three week period in 1953, CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf helped to stage a coup in Iran that overthrew the pro-communist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Although the restored Shah of Iran wrote that “the cold war really began in Iran,” the coup had more to do with oil than with Communism. It would also mark the beginning of United States active participation in the Middle East as part of global security concerns.

 

Nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company

 

Prior to the 1951 nationalization of Iranian oil, Great Britain benefited from its monopoly of Iranian oil. Although Teheran received generous yearly stipends or royalty fees, the British built and maintained the oil fields. Iran possessed neither the expertise to do this not did it have the capacity to refine, transport, or market its oil.

 

Following the nationalization decree, passed by the Iranian parliament and signed by Prime Minister Mossadegh, the British withdrew all personnel from the oil fields, sent soldiers to Cyprus, and began to flex its colonial muscles. Mossadegh was portrayed as a pro-communist stooge, although he had been Time magazine’s man of the year in 1951.

 

It was at this point that a 37-year old Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt met with Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen W. Dulles to discuss “Operation Ajax,” the plan to topple Mossadegh. Allen Dulles headed the CIA but both Dulles brothers were also senior partners in the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. One of the firm’s clients was Anglo-Iranian Oil.

 

The Almost Failed Iranian Coup of 1953

 

Prior to the arrival of Roosevelt in Iran, both Britain and the U.S. began a vicious propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. The Prime Minister was portrayed as a madman who would ultimately sell his nation to the Soviet Union. The anti-communist aspect of the propaganda was particularly timely in 1953. In the U.S., Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch hunts” were leaving a legacy of fear.

 

In Teheran, the Shah issued several decrees, replacing Mossadegh with General Zahedi. But the decrees were declared false by Mossadegh and his supporters. Riots broke out and the Shah fled to Rome, meeting with Allen Dulles in the Hotel Excelsior. Kermit Roosevelt, assisted by General Schwarzkopf (who had helped to train the Shah’s secret police), used $100,000 in bribe money as well as propaganda leaflets to turn the tide, just when all seemed lost. Police and royalist troops, many on the CIA payroll, gained control of the streets and surrounded the Prime Minister’s heavily fortified residence.

 

According to Shah Reza Pahlavi’s published account, Mossadegh fled across a roof top in his pajamas. The Shah’s memoir, published in 1979 (the same year Kermit Roosevelt published his own account, Countercoup), barely mentioned the CIA role. Both books coincide with the tumultuous events occurring in Iran at the time when the Carter Administration ended support for the man who called himself the staunchest ally of the United States.

 

The Oil Settlement

 

New agreements with the Shah gave Great Britain 40% and the United States 40% of total Iranian oil production. The fact that Josef Stalin had conveniently died in early 1953 also helped to diffuse the communist Tudeh Party, much as his death hurt Communist causes in other nations. For the United States, it was one of the first adventures in the Middle East that would highlight the crucial factor of oil, an important commodity the U.S. needed and had been running out of since the end of World War I.

 

Sources:

 

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

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

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Answer to History (New York: Stein and Day, 1979) 

(copyright of this article is owned by the author, Michael Streich;any republishing in any for requires written permission)

 

Preface to Luther's Commentary on Romans

• Sep 6, 2011
• Michael Streich

Martin Luther's Preface to St Paul's Epistle to the Romans summarizes the core beliefs of the Reformation by explaining justification by faith in Christ.

On May 24, 1738, John Wesley was attending a Bible reading at a home in Aldersgate, London. During the reading of Martin Luther’s Preface to St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Wesley later related that he felt “his heart strangely warmed…” That reading showed the founder of Methodism that only by God’s grace, given freely through faith in Christ, can salvation be attained. Luther referred to Romans as the “daily bread of the soul,” and that every Christian should know this epistle word for word.

The Law of Man, God’s Law and Good Works

Luther’s exposition of Romans began as a series of lectures. The Preface outlines Luther’s understandings of each chapter and begins with a series of “words” associated with the epistle. Luther points out that it is important to know what Paul, the author of the epistle, actually meant when writing about law, grace, sin, flesh, and righteousness. Luther begins with law, differentiating between the law of man and the law of God.

In discussing the law of God, going back to the Old Testament for example, Luther introduces the conclusion that law, “cannot be satisfied with works.” Grace versus works would comprise the debates between Reformers like Luther and apologists for Catholic doctrine and everyday faith practices. The Catholic Church taught that good works were tied to grace. For Luther, St Paul’s message was very clear: no amount of works could ever repay the debt of mankind’s sinful condition before God. Only God himself could repay it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Luther identifies the hypocrisy of the law: people keep the law outwardly in order to avoid punishment, but have a spirit tied to sin inwardly. Referring to Romans 5, Luther states that, “the more the law demands what men cannot do, the more they hate the law.” The law, according to Luther, must be fulfilled “from the heart,” and that is only possible through an infusion by God’s Holy Spirit.

Faith, Sin, and Good Works

Luther always emphasized faith. St Paul’s definition of faith, preached by Luther after his “conversion” by reading Romans without the blinders of medieval scholasticism, became a cornerstone belief of the Reformation. In his Preface, Luther notes that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit cannot be given to men apart from faith in Jesus Christ. That faith comes through the Gospel and the various epistles of which Romans was, per Luther, “the very purest.”

Referencing John’s Gospel, Luther writes that faith “makes us to be born anew of God.” In this, Luther reminds the reader that faith results in good works, the fruits of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. The other side of the equation is sin. Luther’s exposition demonstrates that pleasure in external works, to fulfill the law for example, or to act righteously without having God’s inner righteousness, is sin. Those people fitting this description may appear righteous outwardly, but – according to Luther, “commit sin in secret.”

All men are sinners by virtue of the “first Adam.” But, as Luther notes, Christ is the second Adam. Referencing Genesis, Luther demonstrates that Christ’s death was the bruising of the serpent’s head, the “Protoevangelion” associated with Genesis 3.15. In order that the law would be fulfilled, Jesus paid the debt through his own death. Luther uses a simple example to help people understand this:

“It is just as if you owed a debt to your landlord and could not pay it. There are two ways in which you could rid yourself of the debt – either he would take nothing from you and would tear up the account; or some good man would pay it for you, and give you the means to satisfy your account. It is this latter way that Christ has made us free from the law.”

Conflict between the Spirit and the Flesh

Flesh refers to “everything that is born of the flesh” (Luther), and not merely “unchastity.” Luther states that the reader must think of this condition as “fleshly,” a state of being. Thus, a “fleshly” man might talk about God and “spiritual matters” outwardly, but lack inward grace. Hence, the works of the flesh include sinful living as well as unbelief.

Luther contrasts this with the spiritual man who, like Jesus, would wash the feet of the disciples. The spiritual man doesn’t work for “temporal profit,” but demonstrates the “spirit” both inwardly and outwardly. The spiritual man puts the love of God before any endeavor or personal thought.

The conflict between the Spirit and the flesh continues in the life of a Christian and, as Luther points out, even St Paul referred to this conflict in his own life. But men that are free from the debts of the law have strength in Christ through faith. According to Luther, “Christ bears with the weak, strengthening their faith.” This is, according to Luther, "pure liberty."

Final Considerations in Luther’s Preface

Luther comments on St Paul’s admonition to obey the civil government as well as his request for a donation to help the poor in Jerusalem. Luther ends his Preface noting that St Paul “wanted to comprise briefly in this one Epistle the whole Christian and evangelical doctrine…” Given the importance of Romans, Luther counsels Christians to read and know the epistle regularly.

Reference:

• Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, J. Theodore Mueller Trans. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976)

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

 Teaching History is Enhanced through Student Tours that Parallel the Classroom Course Content

How To Pick Foreign Student Tours

Selecting the Right Tour Fulfills Educational Goals

• Nov 11, 2008
• Michael Streich

Teacher group leaders must assess reasons they decide to lead international student tours and decide on itineraries that mesh with published itineraries and school aims.

Teachers agree to lead student foreign tours for many reasons. Foreign tours are educational and enhance classroom instruction. Trips are a fun experience during breaks and present opportunities to see the world for free if you are a teacher group leader or chaperon. Sponsoring companies offer a variety of perks that include cash stipends, reward points that can be redeemed for everything from luggage to laptop computers, and free airline tickets and vacation packages. Whatever the reasons a teacher may have for leading a tour, the first crucial question must be the ultimate destination.

Every Trip to Europe Should Include Paris

An administrator at a high school that sponsors several yearly foreign trips once quipped that every student traveling to Europe should experience Paris. Many student travel companies include Paris as the first or last stop in a European tour. Teachers that lead foreign student tours need to assess how the destination and itinerary will impact the overall motives for the trip:

• Enhancing classroom curriculum
• Including well known cities like London, Paris, and Rome
• Enriching an AP course of study
• Offering a tour that touches on a variety of countries

Students are attracted to itineraries that span several countries. Although they no longer receive passport stamps when moving from one European country to another, student travelers enrolling on a European smorgasbord tour that stops in a number of capitals will experience a variety of different cultures. Teachers that select tours reflecting more esoteric goals may experience lower enrollments. Sadly, a tour that includes Budapest, Prague, or Warsaw is simply not as popular as one that includes Paris, Amsterdam, or Barcelona

Soliciting Student Interest

The best way to start is to host a trip meeting that offers three tour alternatives. Students and parents can give input on which destination and itinerary is most appealing. An "In-Depth Italy" tour may result in far higher enrollment numbers than Austria with a Budapest stay-behind extension. Interest in the tour may be motivated by family background and a desire to see the countries represented by immigrant roots. This makes Italy and Ireland very popular when coupled with interesting stay behind excursions.

The teacher may be interested in Scandinavia or North Africa, but these destinations may not translate into trip enrollments. Some destinations, such as Israel or Egypt, are deemed unsafe by parents. After 9/11, Australia destinations were seen as very desirable and parents considered Australia safer than the United States. In the end result, what the teacher or group leader finds appealing may not reflect what students are willing to pay to see.

Other Trip Planning Factors

The value of the US dollar must be considered. Touring the British Isles can be far more costly in terms of out of pocket expenses than Mediterranean Europe. Asian destinations offer a better dollar value than Switzerland or Scandinavia.

Selecting a foreign tour must take in account many factors. If the overall goal is to enroll a high number of participants, a generic tour of Europe is the best alternative. Aligning tours with curricular goals may limit enrollments but result in a group more receptive to fringe destinations. Teachers planning foreign student tours must know their clientele and act accordingly. A good tour itinerary can fill two buses; poor choices result in a handful of enrollments. The key to success is to include or start at major cities such as Paris, and then move on to the cities and sites most travelers have never heard of.

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

Leading foreign student tours for many years, I affiliated with EF Educational Tours who have many years of experience in many aspects of student exposure to foreign cultures and languages.

Print ArticleShare on