History Looks Back

Toward the latter part of spring in 2023, people hovered around their smart devices trying to ascertain the progress of Congressional debt talks. President Biden had cut short his G-7 meeting to broker an end to the process but many observers thought Biden had procrastinated for months. His counterpart, Speaker Kevin McCarthy was no better. Each represented divergent priorities for the national budget, all of which impinged on the debt ceiling being raised.

At one point the budget had been balanced when President George W Bush was elected president in 2000. But Republican led wars in  Afghanistan and Iraq raised the budget and national debt substantially. Then came the pandemic which cost America 16 trillions of dollars or 90% of the national GDP. (JAMA network, October 12, 2020)

During the 1929 Great Crash of the Stock Market men had flung themselves from buildings or shot themselves. It was that time no American ever wanted to repeat. Buy, in 2023. with no new debt ceiling and no movement of the budget, financial ruin was in the cards for everyone.

Seniors on Social Security; Veterans that expected checks; Disabled folks depending on monthly support - all will be part of the new Bonus Army, or perhaps an earlier, late 19th Century, Coxy's Army, marching on D.C. to right the wrongs and confront Congressional corruption. Has America's "little man" ever been treated as a citizen?

In 2023 it was gross corruption. A Congress that does not represent "we the people".  A Congress that holds on to power and enriches itself.

The failure in 2023 to set a path toward financial recovery and to chart a plan to eliminate blatant spending by both parties would destroy the Republic. Is it any wonder certain politicians strove to eliminate history from the nation's curricula? 

 

The Crimean War Disrupted European Peace and branded Russia the Aggressor  mike Streich 

 

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

 

Napoleon III of France and Tsar Nicholas I of Russia

 

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

 

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

 

Outbreak of the Crimean War

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Course of the War

 

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

 

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

 

Results of the Crimean War

 

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

 

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

 

Sources:

 

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

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

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

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

Tags

Crimea  Light Brigade  Piedmont Sardinia  Napoleon III Tsar Nicholas II

 Khartoum in the 1880's: the Revolt of Muhammad Ahmad and the murder of General Charles Gordon

by Michael Streich

In the early 1880s, a Muslim uprising began in the Sudan, threatening Egypt and British colonial interests. The leader of the revolt was Muhammad Ahmad who called himself the “Mahdi” or expected one. His object was to restore Muslim practices and eradicate foreign influences. Through awe and fear, the Mahdi managed to gather thousands of loyal followers. Ultimately, Great Britain was obliged to address the situation, and did so by sending a national hero to Khartoum, General Charles Gordon, known as “Chinese” Gordon for his leadership in suppressing the Taiping Uprising in China some years earlier.

 

Early Attempts to Restore Peace

 

The liberal government of Prime Minister William Gladstone was discussing down-sizing imperial military commitments and rejected any initial appeals to significantly take on the Sudanese uprising. Sudan was a province of Egypt, which was, ostensibly, part of the Ottoman Empire but “advised” by the British through their proconsul, Lord Cromer.

 

The Egyptian khedive hired a British colonel and tasked him with leading an army into the Sudan to destroy the Mahdi. Given the rank of general in the Egyptian army, William Hicks led a force of 10,000 men (some estimates are lower) into the one million square miles of desert. Ambushed, Hicks and his entire command were annihilated virtually to the last man. Although subsequent forays led by Valentine Baker and Lt. General Gerald Graham were slightly more successful, public outcry in Britain forced the government to react.

 

Chinese Gordon is sent to Evacuate Khartoum

 

Charles Gordon was seen as a “Christian soldier,” who, as previous Governor General of Equatoria and then the full Sudan, ended slavery. He knew the Bible well and had even managed to locate the site of the Genesis “Garden of Eden.” As a soldier, Gordon was a sapper – a military engineer. This would serve him well when forced to fortify Khartoum.

 

Yet Gordon was also fiercely independent and whose personal view of justice conflicted with political prerogatives. Stubborn, insubordinate, and frequently arrogant, he traveled up the Nile River to evacuate the Europeans and Egyptians despite having publicly criticized this policy in the British press only weeks before the assignment was given. Gordon had his own agenda. He would defend Khartoum against the Mahdi.

 

The Relief of Gordon

 

By 1884 it became apparent that Gordon was not leaving Khartoum. The prospect of his death and the loss of the Sudan prompted national outcry in Britain, including Queen Victoria who pressured Prime Minister Gladstone into sending a relief force. On March 25^th, the Queen wrote the Secretary of War, Lord Hartington (a hawk in the Cabinet), “Gordon is in danger: you are bound to try to save him.”

 

Gordon was a living symbol of all that Britons saw of their empire and their values. In death, he became, according to Karl Meyer, “a devout martyr who died bravely while on an impossible mission for an ingrate government.” In Parliament, Gladstone’s government narrowly averted a vote of censure.

 

Ultimately, General, Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent to Cairo to command a relief force of 10,000 British soldiers. Wolseley was a friend of Charles Gordon and a bitter critic of Gladstone, whom he blamed for Gordon’s death. Through brilliantly improvised tactics, including the construction of hundreds of specially designed boats that could navigate the Nile cataracts, the relief expedition moved up the Nile.

 

“Too Late”

 

The forces of the Mahdi breached Khartoum’s defenses in January 1885, slaughtering the inhabitants and murdering Governor-General Charles Gordon. His severed head was paraded before the Mahdi on a pike. Referring to Prime Minister Gladstone, General Wolseley wrote in his journal, “He is responsible for Gordon’s death and all the bloodshed and horrors attendant upon the fall of Khartoum.” (Tuesday, 17^th February, 1885)

 

Sources:

 

Byron Farwell, Queen Victoria’s Little Wars (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972)

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

Lytton Strachey, Eminent Victorians New York: Harvest Books/Harcourt Brace & Company, 1969)

Lord Garnet Wolseley, In Relief of Gordon: Lord Wolseley’s Campaign Journal of the Khartoum Relief Expedition 1884-1885, edited by Adrian Preston (London: Hutchinson Press, 1967)

How Social Security was Born: Not a Bonus, But a Guaranteed Retirement for all Americans Michael Streich

 

Formally known as the Wagner-Lewis-Doughton social security bill, the Social Security Act was passed by Congress June 19, 1935 and signed into law as immediate legislation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Old age benefits were discussed by Roosevelt and key supporters who would hold positions in his administration before his 1933 inauguration. His Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, writes that Roosevelt, “…always regarded the Social Security Act as the cornerstone of his administration…” Not all Americans supported the measure, referring to the act as “socialism.” It is still considered controversial and falls under Congressional scrutiny whenever Republicans make significant gains in Congressional representation, as happened most recently in the 2010 midterm elections.

 

The Social Security Act Begins as an Unemployment Insurance Measure

 

During the heady days of FDR’s first Hundred Days, New York Senator Robert Wagner and Rep. David J. Lewis of Maryland approached Roosevelt with a rudimentary bill to provide unemployment insurance. Roosevelt, however, wanted to include social security. Concerns over benefits for America’s seniors arose out of the popularity of the Townsend Movement. This movement proposed generous old age pensions at federal expense.

 

The 1935 bill was the product of many lengthy committee hearings, unending hours of research, and continual brainstorming by FDR’s brain-trust. The initial measure included a health care plan, but this part of the bill was dropped as Roosevelt knew the medical establishment would oppose it, and the rest of the bill was not to be opened to the danger of failure.

 

Passing Social Security and Unemployment Insurance

 

Combining Social Security and unemployment benefits was the recommendation of Harry Hopkins, one of FDR’s key advisers. Unlike other New Deal programs, it was to be a permanent program and not deficit funded. Roosevelt stated, “We can’t sell the United States short in 1980 any more than in 1935.”

 

Roosevelt might have been astounded that in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President, beginning the tide of conservative ascendancy in the Congress. By 1985, into his second term, the Senate Budget Committee, led by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, recommended a one-year freeze on Social Security benefits.

 

As passed in 1935, Social Security was limited. During Committee hearings, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau opposed a universal system, suggesting that rural farm workers be exempted as well as small businesses that employed less than ten people. Frances Perkins recounts in her memoirs, none of the provisions would completely solve the nation’s poverty, but it was the first step in solving future depression-condition problems.

 

Opposition to Social Security during the New Deal and Beyond

 

No emergency legislation will make an immediate difference without the necessary funding. Before Congress adjourned in the summer of 1935, Louisiana Senator Huey Long, one of Roosevelt’s most ardent critics, mounted a filibuster to stop any funding legislation. His filibuster lasted until adjournment and Roosevelt was forced to creatively look for temporary workers to help set up the newly independent agency.

 

Others, like Oklahoma Senator Thomas Gore, asked Secretary Perkins during a hearing “isn’t this like socialism?” The entire notion of “cradle to grave” federal entitlement reeked of socialism for stalwart GOP lawmakers. These views were vocally resurrected every time Congress expanded Social Security.

 

In 2010 and again in 2011, Social Security recipients received no cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) yet their Medicare contribution costs rose. In the 2010 midterm election, most seniors voted Republican.

 

Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky campaigned on the promise that he opposes “any cuts in benefits for seniors” and “raising the Social Security retirement age…” Days after the election, however, he said “everything is on the table” to balance the budget. (ABC News, November 3, 2010)

 

National Health Care Tied to the Social Security Bill

 

Although Roosevelt cut health care from the 1935 bill, when Congress revisited Social Security in 1939 Senator Wagner attempted to add amendments, including a disability benefit. Congress voted down these expansions.

 

Wagner’s 1939 Health Bill was designed to expand unemployment benefits and Social Security. This was not a universal, federally mandated health plan such as found in other nations. Opting into the plan was not mandatory nor did his bill include forcing Americans to purchase health insurance.

 

Nevertheless, it was severely attacked, most notably by the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry. Universal health care had been attempted since 1915 and was deemed a progressive measure. Not until March 2009 would Congress enact a health care bill that provided affordable coverage for all Americans.

 

The Role of Government during Periods of Economic Hard Times

 

Conservative Republicans led by President Herbert Hoover in the early years of the Great Depression abhorred federal intervention that amounted to any hint of welfare. Even Franklin Roosevelt rejected the government “dole.” But Roosevelt and the liberal Democrats believed that the role of the federal government was to stimulate the economy by putting people to work and providing safety mechanisms like unemployment insurance.

 

Advisers like Frances Perkins made the argument that even a minimal unemployment payout in the first weeks of unemployment would stop evictions and enable breadwinners to provide for their families.

 

Senator Wagner stated that, “Industry can not run with the mechanical perfection of a gyroscope and out of simple caution we must continue to devise methods of dealing with those who may be severed from their normal work despite our best efforts.”

 

Social Security provided one concrete method for ensuring the survival of American retirees. It continues to do so today. For most, the monthly payout represents a fixed income that covers the bare necessities. Any tampering with those benefits would be criminal to the millions who paid into the system all of their lives.

 

Sources:

 

Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club (Basic Books, 2005)

J. Joseph Huthmacher, Senator Robert F. Wagner and the Rise of Urban Liberalism (Atheneum, 1968)

Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew (Viking Press, 1946 First Edition)

 

Earth Day: Make it a Reality  - Michael Streich

Earth Day is April 22nd, 2023, a designation that should cause every civilized person to shiver. Germany is shutting down it's last three nuclear powered plants - Emsland , Neckarwestheim, and Isar II. Yet 49% of the Germany people, according to NDR, oppose this and want the plants kept open. Most in opposition were over the age of 35. Younger citizens who approve of the closings are members of the Greens, FDP, and Linke parties. To make up any future energy losses, the government plans to increase coal exploitation, which becaomes a major pollutant in and of itself.

The same arguments are heard in the U.S., especially as the Biden Administration seeks to force a new Executive Order auto featuring regulations vastly increasing the number of EVs. But where are the charge stations and how strong is the existing power grid? On Earth Day, inhabitants of East Palistine, Ohio will still breath toxic air and drink bottled water because tap water may still be contaminated. Across the United States, many water sources are contaminated for a variety of reasons, some affecting large population centers such as Philadelphia.

"...With purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain..." May be becoming a lovely history reference but hardly the everyday truth. 

Climate change is on many world leaders public narratives but cities like Jakarta and Bangkok are still sinking into the ocean. And South Africa still suffers from an on-going water shortgage. What countries can claim they have no examples of climate change? Yet world leaders, prodded by corporate and other monied interests, act like Climate Change is just another Jules Verne novel.

In February 11-20th, 2021, the state of Texas underwent an unprecedented freeze, it's power grid almost completely failing, and twitter commentators reminding Senator Ted Cruz of a comment he once made that he would believe in climate change when, "Texas freezes over." 

As this is written, Fort Lauderdale, Florida is under water after a so-called once in a thousand year rain event, nearly 26 inches within a 24 hour period. How many more records will be broken as the climate change narrative becomes more true?

Earth Day should be a funeral dirge for people that go about their lives dismissing all actions such as those mentioned above. Of course, older politicans who have always denied climate change like former president Donald Trump may not care since many drastic predictions will work themselves out after these politician have passed on.

In the Broadway musical "CoCo," (1969) Katherine Hepburn sings, "...the world belongs to the young..." This Earth Day, youth must take a stand and demand change. Thus far, at least in the U.S., no democrats and no anti-woke candidates even believe in the changes yet to come. That must not become a harbinger of the next two decades.

 The Protestant View of Heaven: Are the Streets Really Gold?  M.Streich

In 1949, Ira F. Stanphill, a preacher in the Assemblies of God denomination, wrote the hymn “Mansion Over the Hilltop.” The chorus exemplifies the view of heaven as believed by most Christians:

 

“I’ve got a mansion just over the hilltop,

In that bright land where we’ll never grow old;

And someday yonder we will never more wander,

But walk the streets that are purest gold.”

 

Stanphill’s verses are not alone in depicting heaven as a city of gold full of mansions. A popular late 19^th Century Methodist hymn by Edgar Stites refers to “…Beulah Land…where mansions are prepared for me…”

 

The Christian Belief of Mansions in Heaven

 

This popular belief derives from a mistranslation of the Gospel of John 14 2-3 that occurred during the creation of the King James Version of the Bible. None of the original sources of this passage refer to mansions. Scholars point to the use of the term “chateau” in French translations used to help produce the King James Version.

 

Based on original sources, the best translation seems to be, “In my father’s house are many resting places.” The German Reformer, Martin Luther, translated the passage as “Wohnungen” or places to live. The fact remains, however, that for Christians, heaven is a real place.

 

Human Models of Heaven

 

C. Austin Miles captured the human model of heaven in his early 20^th Century hymn, “Dwelling in Beulah Land.” The skies are cloudless, the fountains never run dry, and manna is in “bountiful supply.” Similarly, the time of American slavery produced dozens of Spirituals depicting heaven as a place of freedom from the bondage of slavery. These Spirituals often utilized imagery from the Hebrew Exodus.

 

In John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, the journey of “Christian” is chronicled through a series of obstacles and temptations. In the end, however, he reaches the “Land of Beulah,” crosses the river, and is welcomed into the “Celestial City.” Heaven as a Celestial City is the hallmark of Christian images of the afterlife.

 

I Peter 3.22 speaks of Christ as being in heaven, “at the right hand of God.” Although Christians believe that God is omnipresent, they also refer to the “throne of God,” images taken from allegorical literature like the Apocalypse of St. John. Psalm 139.8 highlights this dilemma: God is in heaven yet also in “Sheol.” Francis Thompson’s poem, “The Hound of Heaven” classically describes the God of Heaven who is also the God of everywhere.

 

The Christian image of heaven is frequently criticized by those that question an absolute and eternal state of grace. Unlike C.S. Lewis’ Great Divorce, which emphasizes repentance for the travelers from the “Grey Town” to heaven, George Bernard Shaw’s Don Juan in Hell derides heaven as “the most angelically dull place in all creation.”

 

The Location of Heaven

 

Heaven was always thought to be beyond the reaches of earth. After the resurrection of Jesus, he ascended into heaven (Mark 16.19) and “sat down at the right hand of God.” In the Old Testament, the great prophet Elijah was taken by a “whirlwind to heaven…” (II King 2.1).

 

Throughout the ancient world the high place was the abode of God or the gods. The Psalmist writes, “I will life up my eyes to the mountains; From whence shall my help come?” (121.1) In Genesis 6, God prepares to blot out his creation when he “saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth.”

 

The promise of heaven has served Christians for centuries as an eternal hope, especially when times are desperate. Whether an actual “place,” a state of the mind, or some notion of a parallel universe, heaven continues to reflect a worthy goal for many questioning the afterlife.

 

Sources:

 

Favorite Hymns of Praise, (Tabernacle Publishing Company, 1967)

New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973)

They Walked With God, Michael Williams, editor (Fawcett Publications, 1957)

 Luther and the Lawless One: A former presidential candidate view of Anti-Christ  m.Streich

 

 

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann recently changed her church affiliation from Lutheranism to an interdenominational faith institution. At issue, in part, was the Lutheran position that the papacy was equated with the Biblical Antichrist. Bachmann’s decision highlights the role religion plays in contemporary American politics, especially among Evangelicals. Evangelicals tend to support conservative candidates that are pro-life, reject homosexuality, and support Israel on the basis of “end times” prophetic themes. Equating the papacy with the Antichrist, however, alienates Roman Catholics who, as a group, have tended to vote Republican based on social issues.

 

Should Lutherans “Backpedal” the Notion of the Pope as Antichrist?

 

The historical “search” for the Biblical Antichrist can be traced back to the first generation of Christians. The Lutheran view is based on Martin Luther’s belief that his generation would witness the prophetic end of times. Luther scholar Heiko Oberman, for example, wrote that Luther perceived that, “shadow of the chaos of the last days and the imminence of eternity.”

 

Luther’s view of a satanically inspired papacy can also be corroborated by the 1545 Origins of the Pope. Historian R.W. Scribner points out that Luther was very deliberate in associating his name with the offending woodcuts, each of which equates the papacy and Church hierarchy with demonic roots and influences. Reformation scholar Mark Edwards, Jr. writes that, “At the heart of Luther’s Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil lies his intense conviction that he was attacking the antichrist itself.”

 

Selectively Using Bible Passages to fit Political Agendas

 

Both Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin identify with evangelical beliefs. Both tend to highlight Bible passages in the same casual and erroneous way that they perceive American History. Both of these observations are highly significant. There is little consistency. Bachmann, for example, has been criticized for her recommendation of a revisionist biography of Robert E. Lee that defends American slavery much as Southern apologists John C. Calhoun and George Fitzhugh did over 150 years ago (see Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article on Bachmann, August 15, 2011).

 

Slavery was condoned in the Bible. Conservatives also extrapolate Old Testament Mosaic law to build a case against homosexuality. Bachmann’s husband runs a clinic that, among other things, “cures” homosexuals. Lizza identifies Bachmann, for example, with the Christian evangelical belief known as Dominionism and writes about the influence of Francis Schaeffer on Bachmann’s world view. But consistency is not part of that Biblical foundation.

 

If politicians like Bachmann and Palin applied the Bible consistently, they would have to account for Christ’s many challenges regarding social justice, a phrase used by conservatives to define so-called liberal “give-away” programs like Medicaid. Yet some of the very conservatives identifying with this view have accepted federal funds like Medicaid, including Rand Paul, a rising star among Tea Party activists and a former medical doctor, as well as Bachmann’s husband.

 

Re-Interpreting History to Promote Inconsistent Conclusions

 

The cavalier attitude toward slavery is but one example of historical revisionism and misinformation. Consider the following statement by the Family Value, a conservative group, that was signed by presidential hopefuls Bachmann and Rick Santorum: “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.”

 

Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass would disagree. In fact, Republicans in 1860 would vehemently disagree. But times have changed. According to the Air Force Times (August 15, 2011), the US Air Force has discontinued an “ethics” training course “for new nuclear missile officers” after receiving objections to the content. Course content used Christian saints like Augustine to defend the notion of a “just war” as well as military leaders such as George Washington and “Stonewall” Jackson “as examples of men with strong religious convictions who fought in wars.”

 

The “just war” fits well with the nebulous war on terror. It enables conservatives like Senator John McCain to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It encourages Sarah Palin to advocate a continued military presence in the Middle East. Like her fellow Tea Party conservatives, she wants to cut spending, but that does not include defense expenditures; the Middle East wars have cost an estimated $4 trillion. For politicians that use the Bible to crucify gays, the Sermon on the Mount is never applied to “collateral damage.”

 

Women in the New Testament

 

Female candidates gleaning the Bible for “proof texts” to support conservative agendas like the Defense of Marriage Act should turn to I Timothy 2:11: “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.” Evangelicals will quickly point out that such passages refer to women within a specific church hierarchy. The entire passage, however, is indicative of how women were perceived in the first century.

 

Only a small number of American faith traditions deny women an equal role. Mitt Romney may have a problem with that if Mormonism becomes an issue. It can also be argued that Catholicism denies women an equal role. Most Americans accept the equal role of women even as they accept homosexuality. Certainly most Americans view American slavery as an evil, rejecting the idea that slave families in the pre-Civil War South were well cared for by slave-masters.

 

Religion, Political Agendas, and Truth

 

The Lutheran position regarding the papacy and the Antichrist may be offensive, but it is true – which may be why politicians would want to distance themselves from the denomination. The truth is, however, that all faith traditions have a history and a set of beliefs, some of which may be offensive to certain voting groups. The notion of heaven and hell can be very selective and should have no part in political debate. The United States was founded by Christians but not as a theocracy. This is frequently forgotten by some presidential candidates.

 

Sources:

 

Mark U. Edwards, Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics 1531-46 (Cornell University Press, 1983)

Toby Harnden, “Michele Bachmann signs controversial slavery marriage pact,” The Telegraph, July 10, 2011

Ryan Lizza, “Leap of Faith: The making of a Republican front-runner,” The New Yorker, August 15, 2011

Eric Marrapodi, “Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church,” CNN, July 15, 2011

Markeshia Ricks, “Air Force yanks nuke ethics course,” Air Force Times, August 15, 2011

 Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins M.Streich

The parable of the ten virgins, found in the Gospel of Matthew 25, 1-13, relates the story of a wedding night to the “kingdom of heaven.” Told by Jesus, the parable uses imagery recognizable in both Greek and Roman weddings. The action takes place at night and highlights the plight of ten virgins, five foolish and five wise. The parable lends itself to a number of so-called spiritual or meditative applications by contemporary Christians, but at the time of Christ, the details would have been more profound.

 

Preparation for the Coming of the Bridegroom

 

Ancient Mediterranean weddings, notably in Greece, featured the bridegroom arriving in the evening at the home of the bride in order to escort her to his house. Once there, a banquet would take place celebrating the wedding for all of the invited guests.

 

Roman wedding days also ended with the groom escorting the bride to his house in the evening, followed by festivities that could last for days. The reader is reminded of the wedding feast of Cana in John’s Gospel (chapter 2) during which the wine “gave out” on the third day.

 

Ancient Lamps Fueled by Oil

 

In the Matthew parable, ten virgins “took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.” Each of the virgins had lamps. These small, hand-held lamps could hold enough oil for only one night. Five of the virgins took flasks of oil with them; they are described as “prudent.” The other five, however, brought no additional oil.

 

The Bridegroom is Delayed in the Parable of the Ten Virgins

 

The actual passage in Matthew 25 states that the bridegroom “was delaying.” It was his choice to arrive late. His delay was not caused by any unexpected actions. Was he testing the fidelity of his brides? The ten virgins, however, “began to sleep,” waiting for the bridegroom.

 

At “midnight” the word was given that the bridegroom was arriving. But the five “foolish” virgins had no oil and their lamps had extinguished. They asked the five prudent virgins to share their oil, but were told to “go instead to the dealers and buy for yourselves.” The sharing of precious oil was out of the question.

 

Unconditional Love and the Blindness of the Foolish Virgins

 

Christians are often at a loss for words by this advice. The five prudent virgins refused to share. They must have known that the five foolish virgins would never make it to the bridegroom’s house. The five prudent virgins persevered and planned ahead, but there was no contingency plan to assist fellow virgins in need of oil.

 

The parable seems to address the issue of unconditional love as well. Surely the bridegroom could have provided for the foolish virgins if they were betrothed to him, but he did not. He was betrothed to ten virgins, but only five were waiting for him.

 

The Wedding Feast Excludes the Foolish Virgins

 

When the bridegroom arrived, he took the five prudent virgins with him to his house. In the ancient world, this procession would have included invited wedding guests, following the wedding carriage aglow with torches of light. Once at the bridegroom’s house, the bride would be ceremonially taken into the dwelling and the guests would enter for a celebration.

 

Once the foolish virgins replenished their oil, they made their way to the bridegroom’s house, but the doors were closed. When they asked to be admitted, the bridegroom sent his answer: “I do not know you.” They missed their opportunity. The parable does not suggest what happened to them.

 

Message of the Parable of the Ten Virgins

 

Verse 13 of Matthew 25 summarizes the intent of Jesus’ story: “Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day not the hour.” This can be applied in many ways. Some Christians apply it to the Second Coming of Christ. Others relate it to the everyday spiritual faith journey.

 

Some readers question the use of ten virgins for one bridegroom. Does this suggest plural marriage? Others note the actions of the five prudent virgins that refused to share their oil, knowing that sending out the foolish virgins to buy oil would decrease their chances of seeing and being escorted by the bridegroom.

 

But Jesus began the parable by comparing it to the Kingdom of Heaven. A literal reading and understanding of the parable demonstrates that not all will be at the final banquet, not all will be at the wedding feast. Another application might suggest that some who claim to be of God are hypocrites, whose personal agendas lead to a lack of oil in their lamps. Jesus seems to be asking, “have you enough oil to recognize the bridegroom?”

 

The final verse also indicates the mental and spiritual state of those seeking the Kingdom of heaven: since the time of the bridegroom is not known, it is important to be “on alert.”

 

Source:

 

New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973)

     Europe in the 1930's was treated to the daily rants of Nazi propagandist Dr. Joseph Goebbels. It was against the law to listen to foreign broadcast news such as the BBC. Doing so could get an offender time in one of the many Concentration Camps in the greater Reich. This policy began long before the "Final Solution," begun at the Wannassee Conference outside of Berlin in 1942 in order to deal with the so-called Jewish Question." 

      Before the decision to enact Genocide, Europe had many camps, several built along the lines of Auschwitz, for political prisoners. Later, they would also hold Jehovas Witnessess, recalticent Catholic Priests, homosexuals, and gypsies. POWs were also held in these camps.

     The camps were a maze of operations - transit camps, holding camps, and finally the work camps and death camps. \

     Today in America we also have our Joseph Goebbels whose daily lies infect the thinking of honest Americans. Seeking to minimize the January 6th Insurrection, Fox News anchor Tucker Carson deliberately minimized the events. When called to accout for his obvious transgressions, he attempted to update the facts but failed.

     Unless Americans demand that criminal Nazis like Carlson, Ingram, and Hannity are thrown out on the street, they will continue to spew their false woke narratives.

 

Soviet Security Concerns After World War II

 Michael Streich

Stalin's Demands at Yalta and Potsdam - National Archives Image

Stalin's motives for occupying Eastern Europe in 1945 were driven by fears of another invasion from the West, reparations, & the desire to spread communism.

In the aftermath of World War II and the allied agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, half of Europe was occupied by the Red Army. Those nations would shortly be identified by the Iron Curtain, a phrase Winston Churchill used to describe the borders between the Soviet-controlled “East” and the free democracies of the “West.” Josef Stalin’s motives are usually explained by defining traditional Russian security concerns that paralleled Tsarist diplomacy before the October 1917 Revolution. Stalin’s motives, however, may have been more complex.

Soviet Goals Before the Nazi Invasion of 1941

The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939 contained secret protocols that allowed Stalin to occupy large areas of “Eastern Europe,” including parts of Poland, once the Germans began their advance into Polish territory. The lands subsequently occupied by Russia would never be freed, even after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 and Stalin became, by default, an ally of Britain and the United States.

Soviet Claims to Eastern Europe During the War

According to historian and diplomat George F. Kennan [1], Churchill never challenged the Soviet position in the early years of the war while President Franklin D. Roosevelt by 1942 opted to relegate any such questions to post-war negotiations. The primary goal was to defeat Germany. But until the pivotal battle of Stalingrad, Stalin demanded that the allies open a second front in Western Europe.

The opening of a second front would draw German forces from Russia, where initially, spectacular military successes seriously threatened Stalin’s position. The Soviets long maintained that, “the defeat of fascism in the Second World War [occurred because of]…the decisive part…played by the Soviet Union.” [2] In many ways this was true. The war cost twenty million Russian lives.

Stalin’s Motives for Soviet Expansion and Occupation

Western Russian historians cite traditional Russian fears of encirclement and invasion from the West, notably Germany [3]. Imperial Germany invaded Russia during World War I, occupying large areas of “European Russia.” Russian history mythologizes Alexander Nevskii – a saint in the Orthodox Church, for defeating the Germanic Teutonic Knights in the 13th century. A 1938 Soviet film by Sergei Eisenstein about the event popularized anti-German sentiment in Russia.

The occupation and control of “buffer” states on Russia’s borders was partial assurance that the Soviet Union would not again be invaded from the West. Additionally, as Stalin himself stated at Yalta and Potsdam, Russia had suffered the greatest in the war and deserved these lands as reparations. Thus, Poland’s borders were moved west and Germany was kept weak, divided by the allied occupation.

Soviet apologists after the war, however, had other motives. A 1964 commentary on Soviet aims [4] states that, “The Soviets view their foreign policy as a means to spread proletarian revolution. The neo-Czarist interpretation sees it as a means to expand Russian power and influence and to enhance the national security.”

Exporting Revolution and Creating the Socialist Commonwealth

In 1964 Soviet Premier A. N. Kosygin gave a speech in which he said, “I can assure you, comrades, that our party and the Soviet government consider it their primary task to do everything to strengthen the unity and solidarity of the socialist commonwealth…”[5] This goal, as Kennan also addresses, goes back to 1945.

The Allies may have never fully understood the tenacity of Soviet goals and aims. These were played out in the Cold War and the numerous proxy wars fought between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, led by the U.S. Capitalism was not only economic imperialism, but contributed to western decadence. Stalin knew this in 1945, maneuvering the best deal for Soviet Russia and, according to Kennan, playing a superb hand of cards.

Stalin’s Motives After the Defeat of Hitler

Encirclement may have been a dominant aspect of Stalin’s demands, yet he opposed a Chinese invasion of India, preferring a democratic state rather than one tied to Communist China. (See Kennan) Reparations were also on his agenda: the Soviets dismantled factories and carried them east to be reassembled in Russia; local populations in countries like Romania were forcibly deported to Siberia to work.

[1] George F. Kennan, Russia and the West (NY: New American Library, 1960)

[2] A. Sovetov, “Leninist Foreign Policy and International Relations,” International Affairs, No. 4, April 1960

[3] David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond, 4^th Ed. (Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1993)

[4] Current Digest of the Soviet Press, December 23, 1964, Columbia University

[5] Pravda, December 10, 1964

After the end of World War II in 1945, Republicans and Democrats attempted to paint each other as being stronger when dealing with Communists. "Who lost China?" was one political balloon designed to show the nation and the world that Republicans (or Democrats) were stronger against the adversaries of the free world. America's "Cold Warriors" tried to out-do each other proving they could stand up to the USSR or Red China. 

Today, a balloon floats over Montana and the same debate errupts in an almost totally inempt Congress. Even conspiracy theorist and QANON Queen Rep. Margorie Taylor Greene wants the balloon shot down while Secretary of State Blinken, who just returned from the Middle East after a blundering attempt at peace, has cancelled a trip to meet the Chinese President  Xi Jinping. The Chinese, however, state that the balloon is non-government and non-military.

Republicans are quick to say Biden is weak. As in the Cold War, that kind of partisan nonsense got America hopelessly entangled in Vietnam, earlier, in Korea, and consistently fed the Eisenhower years with one potential conflict after another.

I can't get the Nena ditty, "99 Redballoons," out of my head. But this one balloon is white.

 Stalingrad Remembered - m.streich

The Battle of Stalingrad is often referred to as the “Verdun of World War II.” Historian Martin Middlebrook calls it the “decisive battle of the Second World War.” Stalingrad turned the Russian army from defensive operations to an offensive stance and after the surrender of Field Marshal Paulus’ 6^th Army, the Germans began a long and bloody withdrawal all along the lines of battle. Russian expert David MacKenzie writes that Stalingrad was “the psychological and…military turning point of the German-Soviet War.”

 

The Russian Winter of 1942-1943

 

Adolf Hitler, having failed to take Leningrad and Moscow, was determined to conquer the city on the Volga River that bore the name of his nemesis. Possession of Stalingrad was key to controlling the Caucasus oil fields. The deployment of 6^th Army to Stalingrad coincided with two army groups ordered into the region of Baku. Control of Stalingrad meant control of the wheat crop, manganese ore, and oil. Additionally, Russia’s largest tank factory was located in Stalingrad.

 

The attack on Stalingrad, however, came with the onset of a bitter winter. The 6^th Army and its support troops made up of Romanian and Hungarian units deployed north of the city, was not prepared for the harsh conditions nor the arrival of fresh Russian troops from Siberia. Commanded by Marshal Zhukov, Stalin’s most brilliant general, the Soviets were able to ultimately complete a double-encirclement of the 6^th Army, which was reduced to house-to-house fighting in the pursuit of conquering “Fortress Stalingrad.”

 

Hitler’s Irrational Decisions Sacrificed the Sixth Army

 

Adamantly refusing to accept the recommendations of the most senior members of the German High Command, Hitler replaced the dissenters with generals willing to accept his blundering decisions. Among those dismissed was Colonel-General Franz Halder, a talented officer who foresaw the coming German disaster in Russia due to over-extended supply lines, faltering strategy, and the growing inability to adequate resupply troops.

 

Some historians question Hitler’s choice of Friedrich Paulus as commander of the 6^th Army, an able “thinker” who had helped design and plan Operation Barbarossa, but had never held a major command post. Paulus would follow Hitler’s orders to the letter, even after it became evident that by not breaking out of the Stalingrad ring, the army would be doomed.

 

Although the Battle of Stalingrad took place in November 1942, the 6^th Army continued to defend their positions until February 2^nd 1943 when Paulus, sickly and worn, finally agreed to the Soviet surrender ultimatum. Hitler had promoted him to Field Marshal during the final weeks of the battle, knowing that no German Field Marshal had ever surrendered. Paulus was expected to commit suicide, but instead lived for many years afterward as a Soviet prisoner.

 

Final Promises and Efforts Fail to Relieve the 6^th Army

 

There is some evidence that Hitler was finally persuaded to allow Paulus to extricate himself from Stalingrad through a northern corridor still open before the final encirclement. Additionally, Field Marshal Eric von Manstein had been ordered to create Army Group Don which was to rapidly move south to Stalingrad and relieve Paulus. But Hitler’s decision changed after Herman Goring convinced him that the Luftwaffe could keep the 6^th Army supplied. As in Dunkirk in 1940, Goring’s boasts proved ineffectual.

 

When Paulus surrendered his army, 90,000 surviving soldiers and officers were marched to Siberia; only 6,000 ever returned to Germany after the war. Paulus was kept under house arrest in Moscow before being allowed to move to Communist Eastern Germany where he eventually died in Dresden. Military historian Walter Goerlitz referred to Stalingrad as “the second Jena,” drawing a parallel to the Prussian defeat by Napoleon. This was the turning point in Europe that turned the tide of battle for the Russians.

 

Sources:

 

Walter Goerlitz, History of the German General Staff (London: Westview Press, 1985)

Martin Middlebrook, “Paulus,” Hitler’s Generals, Correlli Barnett, Ed. (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989)

Lynn Montross, War Through the Ages, 3^rd Ed (New York: Harper and Row, 1960)

Theodor Plievier, Stalingrad (Vienna: Verlag Kurt Desch, 1958)

Note: My grandfather, Karl Piehl, fought and was wounded at Stalingrad. He survived to return home to his family.

 Black History Month Classroom Ideas

Celebrating Black History Month should be a priority in every American school during February. Black History Month 2009 will be even more significant due to the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. The 2009 theme for February should be “From Slavery and Struggle to Freedom and Leadership.” There are many ways individual classes and schools as a

community can vitalize this theme.

 

From Classroom to Community

 

In History classrooms, teachers can assign a “poster project” in conjunction with Black History Month. To avoid duplication, each participating class can be given separate areas of American history to draw from”

 

Colonial Period

Pre-Civil War South

Reconstruction

“Separate But Equal”

Brown v. Board of Education

Civil Rights Movement

Post Civil Rights Movement

 

Students should create posters specific to the assigned period of history. For continuity, require a specific size poster. As a caveat, limit the number of computer generated pictures students may use. Establish as criteria a very specific focus or message to be contained in each poster and encourage creativity.

 

Allow students to present their posters in an oral presentation in which they share with the class why they chose the topic and how it relates to Black History Month. After all students have presented, allow them to display the posters as a narrative, chronological collage in the common areas of the school (assuming the teacher has administrative authority to do this). This activity should take place the last week of January or the first week of February to ensure maximum impact.

 

Contact community leaders and arrange for them to judge the collages. Reward the winning class with a special privilege or a pizza party. These kinds of rewards, if part of the initial instruction, go far in providing the kind of incentive students often need to surpass expectations. Through parent-school communications (newsletters, web pages) invite parents to visit the school and “tour the gallery.”

 

Using the Public Address System

 

Each morning in February, have a student read one significant achievement of African Americans in American History over the school’s PA system. Preparing these factoids can be turned into a January assignment or function as extra credit. Allow students to submit facts from their own research and then select those that conform to a pre-assignment criterion.

 

Other Black History Month Suggestions

 

There are many creative ways to emphasize the contributions of African Americans in our history. These include:

 

Facilitating a school-wide assembly program

Inviting guest speakers from the local community

Hanging banners throughout the school

Preparing classroom bulletin boards with a Black History theme

 

Overall Student Emphasis

 

Celebrating African American achievements should never end once February turns to March. Black History Month, like Native American History Month (November) and Woman’s History Month (March), is a unique opportunity to highlight the role played by African Americans in our national history. As a people “out of many,” African American achievements were too often glossed over or forgotten in history books and classroom lesson plans. From Crispus Attucks to Rosa Parks, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to Barack Obama, African Americans have contributed their talents and even given their lives in the march of freedom for all people. This truth must be a part of the history we teach well beyond Black History Month.

 Teddy Roosevelt in 1912: You Can't Put Down a Bull Moose! - Mike Streich MA

The presidential campaign of 1912 was drawing to a close as Theodore Roosevelt, the only living ex-president and candidate of the Progressive Party, arrived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 14. Before traveling to the auditorium where he was to give a speech, Roosevelt dined at the Hotel Gilpatrick. Leaving the hotel and standing up in his car to greet adoring well-wishers, Roosevelt heard the sound of a handgun. John Flammang Schrank had walked up and shot the Rough Rider. During the next tense hours, it seemed that the McKinley assassination of eleven years earlier was about to be repeated.

 

Roosevelt’s Would-Be Assassin

 

John Schrank had stalked Roosevelt as the former president traveled across the Northeast delivering speeches. Newspapers later reported that Schrank was a Socialist, but his attack on Roosevelt was motivated more by his insanity. Henry F. Cochems, in his first-hand account of the assassination attempt [1], referred to Schrank as a “paranoiac.” An October 16, 1912 New York Times commentary also placed the blame on Schrank’s insanity, discounting ties to Socialism. [2]

 

During the ensuing investigation and trial, Schrank claimed to have been influenced by a dream in which the ghost of William McKinley prompted his actions. According to historian James Chace [3], Schrank was also obsessed with Roosevelt’s intention to seek a third term as President. Although charged with assault and intent to kill, Schrank was consigned to an asylum for the rest of his life.

 

The Defiant Bull Moose

 

Schrank was tackled by security men and brought before Roosevelt who asked him why he did it. Schrank, however, was mute and taken away. Roosevelt, though wounded, insisted on going to the auditorium to deliver his speech. The 38 caliber bullet had entered his chest and his white shirt was bloody. His speech, tightly folded in his left jacket pocket, had lessened the effect of the bullet.

 

Teddy Roosevelt began his address, telling the audience, “I don’t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose.” Roosevelt spoke for an hour to the 9,000 people in the auditorium. After concluding, he was rushed to the hospital. But the bullet, which missed his heart by an inch, was not removed. Cochems wrote that Roosevelt recalled both Garfield and McKinley had died after surgery to find and remove a bullet. He spent the next few days in Chicago, recovering at Mercy Hospital where he was joined by his wife Edith as well as other family members. The New York Times called the assassination attempt “…the narrowest of escapes.” [4]

 

Progressives Blame the Press

 

In an October 15, 1912 New York Times article, Montana Senator Joseph Dixon blamed the press. “For months the enemies of Colonel Roosevelt…in public speech have combined to assassinate the public and private character of the greatest living American.” [5] The implication in Dixon’s complete quote was that Schrank’s actions were either directly or indirectly related to his actions on October 14^th.

 

Impact on the Election of 1912

 

Although one physician at Mercy Hospital declared that surviving the shot would seal victory in the November election (see Cochems’ account), Roosevelt lost to Woodrow Wilson. 1912 featured a three-way race. The Republicans were split between William H. Taft, the sitting President, and Teddy Roosevelt. Their combined popular vote was 7,604,518 to Wilson’s 6,293,454.

 

Notes:

 

[1] Henry F. Cochems, Oliver Ramey, and Wheeler P. Bloodgood, The Attempted Assassination of the Ex-President Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Publishing Company, 1912)

[2] “The Attack Upon the President,” New York Times, October 16, 1912

[3] James Chace, 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs – The Election That Changed the Country (Simon & Schuster, 2004)

[4] New York Times, October 16, 1912

[5] “Progressives Here Had Great Fright,” New York Times, October 15, 1912

 

Other:

 

Theodore Roosevelt’s Milwaukee speech, October 14, 1912