An Introduction to the 20th Century Civil Rights Movement in the USA

The Civil Rights Movement in post-war America led to fundamental changes in the country. Here Jeremy Raynolds looks at the key events in the movement in the 1950s and 1960s in this introduction to the topic.

Martin Luther King, Jr. on the day of the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. It was the day he gave the ‘I have a dream’ speech.

The Civil Rights Movement greatly changed America and made it into what it is today. The pivotal moments in the movement took place after World War Two, but there was continued pressure for change following the abolishment of slavery after the US Civil War in the 1860s. Even after that war, African Americans continued to face dehumanizing and discriminative conditions. 

The key events in the civil rights movement that took place in the 1950s and 1960s and form part of one of the 20th century’s most epic fights for equal rights in world and American history. 

Jim Crow Laws

Despite the abolishment of slavery and being given the right to vote, African Americans continued to suffer from laws like the Jim Crow Laws. These laws followed the Reconstruction period and came into effect in the late nineteenth and early twentiesh centuries. They legalized segregation. 

The Jim Crow laws prevented black and white people from using the same facilities, marrying one another, attending the same schools, or living in the same areas. Invariably black people suffered most from these laws.

It was not until after World War Two that pressure grew enough for fundamental change and in the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts, which ended segregation. But we have to go back to the 1950s for a key moment in the post-war Civil Rights movement.

The Rosa Parks Moment 

Rosa Parks was a 42-year-old African American woman who sparked a revolutionary moment on a regular day on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. In 1955, Parks sat on a seat on the bus. However, the bus was full when a white man got on. 

Subsequently, she and three other women were asked to stand up and give up their seats for white men. Rosa Parks refused and she was arrested. However, her arrest was not in vain as she gained the support of the black community who formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) under the leadership of Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. 

As a result of the incident, the MIA mobilized a boycott of the Montgomery Bus Service for 381 days and finally, in 1956, segregated seating on public transport was deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957

Despite having the right to vote, African Americans continued to face segregation, particularly in the Southern states. Racist practices were put into place to prevent blacks from enjoying rights such as voting. 

For instance, they had to sometimes take bizarre and intricate tests to be allowed to vote. President Eisenhower’s Administration took on the difficult task of pressurizing Congress to commit to the Civil Rights Movement and tackle racism in the South. Ultimately, in 1957, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law. This established the Civil Rights Commission.

The March on Washington 

The March on Washington took place on August 28, 1963, and it was organized by civil rights leaders and activists including A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and Martin Luther King Jr. The March mobilized over 250,000 people of different races to address equality and argue against racism. It added pressure for Congress to implement Civil Rights. 

The march marked an important moment in the civil rights movement. Protestors took to Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. made one of his most famous speeches, in which he declared: “I have a dream…”.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The next major Civil Rights Act was President Johnson’s 1964 act. This act banned discrimination based on many charcteristics, including race. President Johnson also went a step further than Eisenhower and and introduced a law to ban voter literacy tests. 

The Assassination of Civil Rights’ Leaders

Important people within the movement were killed simply for fighting for the rights of black people. Malcolm X, a popular figue in the movement, was assassinated on February 21, 1965 by members of the Nation of Islam group.

Martin Luther King, Jr., probably the most famous civil rights leader, was assassinated by James Earl Ray on April 4, 1968

Many other civil rights movement figures were killed in the US in the 1960s.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968

The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968 and it prohibited housing discrimination. During the period, African Americans at times struggled to get housing due to their race. This act ensured that people of all races had the same rights housing. The Fair Housing Act was also one of the last acts of the Civil Rights Movement of the period.

Conclusion

The civil rights movement in America represents a difficult yet triumphant time in American history where people from different sections of society came together to end legalized racism. America is often used as a model for democracy and equality around the world – but its history is both depressing and inspiring. 

About & Author

Jeremy Raynolds is a freelance academic writer, editor and proofreader working with some of the top online writing services for college and university level students. He also runs a blog and comes up with a podcast every week on work from home options for students and everybody else looking for a side income. In his free time, he plays tennis, writes poetry and learns photography. 

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 1 - The decades leading up to the war

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs starts her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Germany’s 19th century rise, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and the complicated alliances in place in Europe before the war broke out.

German Kaiser Wilhelm II with Winston Churchill in 1906.

This is a question I asked years ago when I first learned about the World Wars. No one could really give an answer though. Even in college, the narrative was the same: An Austrian Archduke was assassinated and a war begins because of it. After four years of fighting, the country that started this whole thing isn’t even blamed or even stuck with some share of guilt? It seemed unfair for Germany to have all that on their shoulders; and it makes one wonder if it would have made a difference in the years leading up to WW2. So, because no one ever told me why I will tell you why. And I promise it won’t be boring, let's make history fun.

1871 – Germany is born

Now in order to understand how and why Germany gets the blame, we first have to look at the circumstances that started the war in the first place. We’ll need to take a trip down memory lane to establish just where everyone involved is in time. The year is 1871, and Germany, as we know it today territorially, is born. Before this, there was no unified German state. It was just a collection of separate Duchies all being ruled by their own head of the house. One of the most famous was the Duchy of Bavaria (and later the Kingdom of Bavaria). Its claim to history is the gorgeous Neuschwanstein Castle, built by Ludwig II. Ludwig wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and had a rather odd demise. That’s a story for another time. 

Each of the duchies (or in the case of Bavaria Kingdom) elected to become one country with one Emperor to rule. The one chosen became known as Kaiser Wilhelm I of house Hohenzollern. The name Kaiser is the German word for Caesar, the traditional name used by later Emperors of Rome. A little known fact about this - we in the present day have been mispronouncing Caesar this whole time. The German pronunciation of Kaiser is actually close to the Latin pronunciation. The ‘c’ is not an ‘s’ sound but more of a ‘ke’.

Wilhelm, I at the time of his ascension had a son that would in time wed the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria. Victoria, Princess Royal, married Frederick; who would later be known as Kaiser Frederick III. The son they have will become Kaiser Wilhelm II. Wilhelm was born with a deformed arm as a result of complications at birth. As a result, the arm was withered and smaller than the other. He, not wanting to look weak, took up every manly thing there was to do at the time.

A complex?

Wilhelm had this complex about himself, and really about the German people. He was proud to be a German and did not identify with his mother’s perception that everything British is best. She made him speak English to her and not his native German, and she also looked at Germany as a sort of step down. After all, her mother was the Empress of Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, and other places... So he hated all things British; and spent most of his life trying to be better in everything they did. But even though he hated all things British, he adored his grandmother Queen Victoria - a feeling that was not mutually shared by her. 

Knowing this about Wilhelm I will help to understand why Germany did the things it did as a whole. His commanders and leaders had the same feeling of pride about themselves and wanted the world to know it. He wanted to be up there with his cousins; King George V of Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. He would never be like them though in temperament or in ruling. Wilhelm got his chance when he ascends to the throne after his father Frederick III dies before anyone had a chance to get used to him being Emperor. He’s basically the blip on the story that is WWI. So Wilhelm gets the crown in 1888 and begins making his mark on the country.

Franco-German relations

He starts to build up his military and begins to take on colonies. Wilhelm is all about getting to this table; his cousins are already there. He’s the new kid on the block and he wants them to know that he can roll with the big boys too. But that’s not all the reason he’s building. Germany’s arch-rival is France. They’ve had quite the skirmishes in the past. The last being the Franco-Prussian War; where at its conclusion Imperial Germany was born. They won this war against France and took land in that victory. So the more powerful he looked the better to keep France from thinking about revenge. 

But all the building and changes he did was really making people uneasy. To its east, in Russia, there was a concern that if they got too confident Germany could try and gain more territory. To the west, in France, they were immensely concerned that the rapid armament of Germany was increasing the chances of a conflict. Even though France lost the war, they still wanted that land back. They wanted payback, but not if they couldn’t do it alone. They needed some help.

The Triple Entente

One of the many reasons the war occurred was due to the number of treaties, alliances, and pacts made between countries over the 30-40 years prior to 1914. These agreements crossed over each other; some secret, some out in the open, and some that weren’t even official. When it came to France, they knew that if Germany became too powerful, it could be a threat to everyone in Europe. So in 1904, they proposed a formal agreement with Great Britain. For those not familiar, this was significant as the fight between Britain and France is legendary for the sheer span of time that they fought off and on. Both countries agreed to come to each other’s aid; with Britain not being exclusively required to do so. That would be determined by the circumstances. Either way, France now had an ally. This agreement became known as the Entente Cordiale. 

Russia, feeling the same as France and not wanting to fight without an ally, also formed an alliance. The Franco-Russian Alliance enabled each to come to the aid of the other when or if Germany ever threatened their parts of mainland Europe. Great Britain also teamed up with Russia and formed an alliance at the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907. Now we have three countries that all have some kind of an alliance with each other. They combined into one alliance becoming the Triple Entente. 

One treaty that is not part of the Triple Entente is the Treaty of London of 1839. This treaty applied only to Great Britain. The treaty was in regards to the newly minted country of Belgium. One of its main terms were that being a new independent state, Belgium had to remain neutral in any subsequent conflicts. This will become an important treaty to remember as we get closer to Germany’s overall blame.

The Triple Alliance

Now, just because there were alliances on one side didn’t mean that Germany was alone. Because of the Franco-Russian Alliance, they were now facing a potential threat both east and west. In adding Great Britain with the Triple Entente, the threat was even more stressful. Britain and Germany had been in a small but potentially heated arms race between 1898 and 1912. Both countries essentially tried to psych the other out. The idea was for Germany to build a fleet of ships that could defeat Britain, assuming that any relief from a British Colony would take time to arrive. (This thought process is an example of Germany thinking too well of itself and having the confidence that they could actually do this. Having self-confidence isn’t a bad thing, but it is problematic when that self-confidence isn’t based in reality). Germany would continue to make that assumption of their power, and this will eventually lead to their downfall. 

In 1882, an agreement was struck between Austria-Hungary and Germany. It will come to be known as the Triple Alliance. Like the Triple Entente, there were three countries in the agreement to support each other. The third country was Italy. (This is surprising to some since we know what happens during World War I, but the events of the beginning of the war will cause Italy to reconsider some priorities.) Eventually, another country would be added to the alliance bringing the total to four, yet still kept the name triple. The alliance had discussed the opportunity of Italy gaining colonies just like the other powers of Europe. The Triple Alliance was a renewable agreement, and it would be renewed up until the breakout of war in 1914. But unbeknownst to Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy had also signed a secret treaty with France in 1902. Italy did this because they still did not have any new territories that were promised to them from Germany. So the treaty with France is similar in nature to the original one with Germany.

Up until now we’ve explored Germany’s rise to an empire, covered their ruler, and discussed the enemies surrounding them. Their allies, though they may look great on paper, are in reality no more than out-dated old men.  In part two, we’ll start with the Hapsburg family in Austria-Hungary. 

What events in the decades prior to World War One were most important to Germany getting the blame at the end of the war? Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Wikipedia

What was Puritan Society like in Seventeenth Century America?

Puritans started arriving to America from Britain in the seventeenth century. They had strong religious beliefs and social customs, many of which were different to official Protestant teachings in England. Here, we consider Puritan society in seventeenth century New England.

You can read a few of the author’s former articles on US history on the bodies in Benjamin Franklin’s basement (here) and the humility of George Washington (here).

Pilgrims Going to Church, an 1867 painting by George Henry Boughton.

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the English Parliament put forth measures designed to reform the theological doctrines and rituals of the Church of England. This church was founded during the reign of King Henry VIII in 1534 after separating papal authority from England in order to annul his marriage to his first wife and marry Elizabeth’s mother. From then on, the Puritan movement flourished both in prosperity and persecution. [1]

However, even after Elizabeth’s death and ascension of her cousin, King James I of England, Puritan leaders requested he grant numerous reforms including the abolition of bishops, most of which the king rejected. Fed up with mounting subjugation from the English government and church hierarchy, many Puritans immigrated to the New World.

Under the backing of the Massachusetts Bay Company, the first major Puritan migration to New England occurred, and with that, strong religious convictions to shape all colonies north of Virginia with New England as its center. A key difference between pilgrims and puritans is that the pilgrims were commonly known as “Separatists” who believed that the only way to live according to the Bible involved leaving the Church of England completely while Puritans believed they could reform the church from within and live out the congregational way in their local churches without abandoning the Church of England which is how they earned their occasional nickname – “non-separating” Puritans. [2]Both groups shared much in common pertaining to forms of worship and self-organization referred to as “the congregational way.”

The Puritans, with more money to bring with them than the Pilgrims, saw a desirable investment opportunity by owning land in the New World while also believing that due to the distance from England, they could create the ideal English church. John Winthrop, a Puritan leader, commented regarding founding a church “that will be a light to the nations,” according to Vicki Oman, associate director of group participation and learning at the historic Plimouth Plantation. The first great migration of Puritans took place in 1630, placing God and church at the center of their lives. The ministers of these churches wielded considerable influence in their communities and the colonies.

Political Life

The people of a society were bound by a social covenant according to the Puritans. Examples of such an agreement are the Mayflower Compact in Plymouth and New Haven’s Fundamental Agreement. Eligible voters chose qualified men to govern and submit to the covenant and to God as well as promote the common good. On a national scale, the Puritans believed in a national covenant with God, that they were chosen by God to help redeem the world through their complete obedience to his will. If they honored the covenant, they were rewarded; if not, they would fail. In Puritan colonies, the Congregational church operated as a state religion. All residents in Massachusetts and Connecticut were required to pay taxes to support the Congregational churches. Church attendance was mandatory. There was greater separation between church and state in Puritan commonwealths than anywhere in Europe at the time. Secular matters were conducted only by civil authorities and those who held religious offices were barred from holding positions in civil government. [3]

Family Life 

For Puritans, marriage was the foundation of the family and hence society. While in England, people were wed by ministers in church mandated by the Book of Common Prayer, Puritans thought that there was no biblical justification for church weddings or the exchange of wedding rings. Instead, marriages were conducted as a private, contractual occasion oversaw by a civil magistrate in his home or a member of the bride’s family. [4]

Scholars debate on the nature of Puritan child-rearing with some historians arguing that it was repressive, based on the equally debated views of John Robinson, the Pilgrims’ first pastor. Others argue that child-rearing aimed to grow godly affection and reason in children with corporal punishment utilized as a last resort.[5]

Education 

England at the time possessed a literacy rate of less than 30 percent. Therefore, Puritan leaders in colonial New England strongly encouraged that children be educated for religious and civil reasons. In 1642, Massachusetts mandated that men, the heads of their households, teach their wives, children, and servants fundamental reading and writing skills so they could read the Bible and comprehend colonial laws. Teachings of enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke’s ‘blank slate’ in children, were shared by the Puritans. In 1647, the government asked all towns with fifty or more households to hire a teacher and towns of a hundred or more households to hire a grammar school instructor to prepare boys for college. [6]Thanks to these efforts, the Puritans were “[o]ne of the most literate groups in the early modern world,” according to historian Bruce C. Daniels, with an approximately 60 percent literacy rate in New England.

Recreation and Leisure

According to satirist and journalist H.L. Mencken, Puritanism is “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”[7]While Puritans did not celebrate traditional or personal holidays like Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or anniversaries, they did celebrate military victories, harvests, ordinations, weddings, and births. The tavern was also a significant place for people to gather on a regular basis. A Puritan clergyman, Increase Mather, wrote that dancing was “a natural expression of joy; so that there is no more sin in it, than in laughter,” but discouraged mixed dancing between men and women, something that was illegal in taverns. [8]

Sports and games were also a favorite pastime so long as gambling was not in the picture. The Puritans were opposed to blood sports that included cockfighting, cudgel-fighting, and bear-baiting as these were viewed as cruel and harmful to God’s creatures. Hunting and fishing were considered productive and therefore, accepted. Sports that promoted civic virtue in the views of the Puritans involved marksmanship, running, and wrestling.

Decline in Influence

The Half-Way Covenant, a form of partial church membership, in addition to the rise of dissenting Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, meant Puritan and Congregational churches were on the decline. While a specific year or set of years when the Puritan era ended is not recorded or agreed upon universally, 1740 seems the most likely year for the end of the Puritan era. At this time, Puritan tradition branched off into conservatives, pietists, and rationalists. [9]Puritan decline was also making way for the Great Awakening of the 1740s, marked by widespread religious fervor and calls for toleration in the colonies, and the Enlightenment of the 1750s, marked by many scientific discoveries and inventions and the power of human reason. [10]There is no doubt the Puritan foundation of New England’s colonies provided the blueprint for breaking away from Great Britain in the Revolutionary War more than a century later.

Having contributed a wide range of articles over the last two years, this is Casey’s last article for the site (but hopefully she’ll be back one day!). The editors would like to thank her for the numerous excellent articles she has written.

Now, please feel free to share a comment on this article below.

[1]“People and Ideas: Early American Groups.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service,www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/godinamerica-early-american-groups/.

[2]Roos, Dave. “What's the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims?” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 31 July 2019, www.history.com/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences.

[3]Bremer, Francis J. (1995). The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards (Revised ed.). University Press of New England.

[4]HOCHSTETLER, LAURIE. “MAKING MINISTERIAL MARRIAGE: THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS LEGACY OF THE DOMINION OF NEW ENGLAND.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 86, no. 3, 2013, pp. 488–499. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43285011.

[5]Moran, Gerald F., and Maris A. Vinovskis. “The Great Care of Godly Parents: Early Childhood in Puritan New England.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, vol. 50, no. 4/5, 1985, pp. 24–37. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3333861.

[6]Bremer, Francis J. “Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction.” Google Books, Google, 2009, books.google.com/books?id=RDnRCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[7]Mencken, H. L. “A Quote from A Mencken Chrestomathy.” Goodreads, Goodreads, www.goodreads.com/quotes/34745-puritanism-the-haunting-fear-that-someone-somewhere-may-be-happy.

[8]Daniels, Bruce C. “Sober Mirth and Pleasant Poisons: Purltan Ambivalence Toward Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England.” American Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 1993, pp. 121–137. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40642499.

[9]Noll, Mark A. “America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.” Google Books, Oxford University Press, 3 Oct. 2002, books.google.com/books?id=LanKhFle9BUC&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

[10]“Americans Share New Ideas.” The Story of America, by John A. Garraty, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1994, pp. 95–98.

The Year Thanksgiving Changed to a New Date: Franksgiving

Thanksgiving now occurs in America on the fourth Thursday of November – but it has not always been the case. Here, Mac Guffey looks at how President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the date of Thanksgiving in 1939 – and the issues it caused.

You can read Mac’s first article on the site, A Brief History of Impeachment in the US, here.

Troops enjoying Thanksgiving after the end of World War I, November 1918.

November 1939: ‘The Great Turkey Issue’

In the summer of 1939, an executive order was whimsically issued by the President of the United States, while vacationing at his resort. It came at the request of one of his Cabinet members, and it was executed without any due diligence other than a request by the head of a national business association for the change. His irresponsible action caused an unprecedented uproar across the country for three years.

Sound familiar?

That ‘Executive Order’ happened eighty years ago; the President was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the issue that caused the uproar was the date of Thanksgiving.  

Traditions

Since 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the executive order (then known as proclamations) officially proclaiming the first Thanksgiving and stipulating the last Thursday in November as the date of its observance, it became a yearly tradition followed by every President of the United States to do the same (except President U.S. Grant in 1869, but that’s another story). [1]

Periodically however, Novembers have five Thursdays. In Lincoln’s time, no one cared. But by 1939, another holiday tradition had become a part of America’s yearly holiday traditions – the Christmas shopping season. And it officially kicked off the day after Thanksgiving.

As the Daily Republican (Monongahela, PA) explained:

“It is a tradition among business men that advertising and display of Christmas goods is withheld until after Thanksgiving, and since that holiday would have fallen this year on the latest possible date, there would have been only 20 Christmas shopping days.” [2]

Big Business

Since the American economy was finally picking up its pace after being dormant for so many years due to the Great Depression, and because a minor recession in 1937-38 scared many business owners, some retailers were naturally concerned that losing six days of the Christmas shopping season might have a detrimental effect on their businesses. 

Therefore, Lew Hahn the general manager of a retail groups and more than 5,000 storeowners - the National Retail Dry Goods Association– wrote a letter to Harry Hopkins, Secretary of Commerce for FDR, with a request: An earlier Thanksgiving would be “good for business”. [3]

Time Magazinewryly noted FDR’s August response to the delegation’s request in its August 21stissue:

“At his Campobello cottage, Franklin Roosevelt broke his umptieth precedent, and gave a headache to football fans and turkey-growers by moving Thanksgiving Day up this year from November 30 to November 23.” [4]

Roosevelt explained that his decision was at the requests of thousands of businessmen and merchants, and since there was nothing sacred about the customary date – and no Federal law governing it – he moved it up a week. He also announced that all future Thanksgivings, beginning in 1940, would be on the second Thursday of November. [2]

Here’s a key fact worth noting at this point: Since there was no Federal law regarding the date of Thanksgiving, any President’s Thanksgiving proclamation truly affected only the District of Columbia and any territories belonging to the United States. It was actually up to the governors of each state to decide when to celebrate that day in their state. Since 1863, the governors traditionally just echoed the President’s proclamation.

Until 1939.

America’s Split Reaction

FDR’s lack of economic “due diligence”, his political oversight, and his insensitivity to the American public’s reverence for its traditions all combined to make this issue a political bludgeon and a public relations nightmare for his administration!  

The political backlash was immediate. 

“Mayor C.D. White of Atlantic City, N.J. dubbed it ‘Franksgiving’…” The term went national (and historical, and it was seemingly misattributed). [5*]

Alf Landon - FDR’s 1936 G.O.P. presidential opponent - pointed out:

“If the change has any merit at all, more time should have been taken in working it out so as to assure wholehearted co-operation instead of springing it upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.” [6]

Other Republican politicos insisted that such important changes should be resolved through a deliberate, bipartisan legislative process, and not by arbitrary, executive decisions. Many Democrats agreed. 

The governors of each state were forced to decide whether to follow Roosevelt’s proclamation or stick with the traditional fourth Thursday in November. The results were twenty-three states and D.C. followed FDR’s proclamation date of November 23rd, and twenty-three other states disagreed and kept the traditional date. Two states – Texas and Colorado - decided to honor BOTH days. [7]

The American public flooded the White House with letters and telegrams. One Brooklyn businessman immediately wrote to FDR regarding the President’s sweeping but unsubstantiated allegation that more shopping days benefitted merchants.

“The small storekeeper would prefer leaving Thanksgiving Day where it belongs. If the large department stores are overcrowded during the shorter shopping period before Christmas, the overflow will come, naturally, to the neighborhood store…We have waited many years for a late Thanksgiving to give us an advantage over the large stores, and we are sadly disappointed at your action in this ma tter[sic]…Kindly reconsider and oblige thousands of small retail storekeepers throughout this country.” [8]

Newspaper articles pointed out some of the glaring consequences of FDR’s hasty decision. One consequence was the $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 costs to the calendar business. In 1939, the ONLY calendars America had were printed ones, and they were used by every business, school, government office, and many individuals.

“It will be terrible” [Fredrick E. Baker, president of H.G. Brace Calendar Co.] said. “Better than 70 per cent of 1940 calendars have already been sold and about 50 per cent or $50,000,000 worth are already in production throughout the country. Most calendar makers begin production in January on the following year’s calendar.” [2]

Other articles detailed how America’s schools, both public and private, as well as both K-12 and universities were totally disrupted.  Like the calendar businesses, schools schedule everything in advance – school functions, vacations, and annual sports events. FDR's new date for Thanksgiving forced school boards, teaching staffs, athletic departments, and athletic conferences into emergency meetings to reconsider set schedules and decide whether and how to reschedule everything just prior to the start of the new school year.  Boston College decided to ignore it.

“Franksgiving was held yesterday but don’t let that worry you, our turkey stuffing day comes on the 30thwhen we get time from classes to stuff ourselves.” [9]

Besides all of that, many Americans were just plain angry that Roosevelt tried to alter such a long-standing tradition to help businesses make more money. A very sarcastic editorial, “Thanksgiving – A La FDR”, appeared in a small town weekly in upstate New York - ironically published ‘on Thursday of each week’.

“But why should the President stop with this slight change in the traditions of a nation? Why not extend his pet whimsies? We would suggest the following…Advance the observance of Thanksgiving Day to January first of each year, which, in accordance with presidential opinion, would give the public fifty-one solid weeks of Christmas shopping.” [10]

The uproar even found its way onto the Hollywood Big Screens with the 1940 Three Stooges short film No Census, No Feeling, and Irving Berlin’s 1942 filmHoliday Inn(Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, and Marjorie Reynolds).  [11]

George Gallup Takes a Poll

Because the 1940 Presidential primaries and election were just around the corner and FDR was planning an unprecedented third term run, was every American against the change or was this just a party issue? George Gallup decided to take a poll and find out. 

According to Dr. Gallup, Republicans disapproved of the plan by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent. Even the Democrats weren’t happy, with 52 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. “Dictatorship,” “whimsy” and “just upsetting everything he can” were among the most frequent negative responses given to the poll-administrators. [6]

Gallup’s summary:

“What John Smith, U.S.A., thinks about President Roosevelt's plan to change Thanksgiving Day pretty much depends on what John Smith thinks of President Roosevelt…Though President Roosevelt acted in response to the wishes of retail organizations who want the period of Christmas shopping extended, the survey shows that a majority of Americans - and particularly Republicans - are in favor of letting the nation's turkeys live a week longer.”[6]

Gallup also added this final - and rather sage - comment:

“No issue to make cabinets totter, the turkey day issue is, nevertheless, a prime example of the way Americans sometimes see questions through party-colored spectacles [glasses].” [6]

Leftovers

Three weeks after FDR’s Thanksgiving proclamation – at dawn on September 1,1939 – German troops stormed across the Polish frontier. WWII had begun, capturing much of the world’s attention. 

Despite the war and our struggle to remain neutral, the ‘Franksgiving’ or Thanksgivinginconvenience continued to be a distraction in America for two more years. By 1941, the business data indicated that FDR’s date-change had no significant effect on Christmas retail revenue. In fact, it actually affected revenue negatively in some places. So bowing to public opinion in the fall of 1941, President Roosevelt returned Thanksgiving 1942 to its traditional date.

But Congress decided to formally mandate that Thanksgiving be observed on the fourth Thursday in November to prevent any future problems. President Roosevelt signed the legislation on December 26thwithout fanfare. [13]

‘The Great Turkey issue’ was finally over.

The ViewNow

Although that was eighty years ago this month, the causes of 1939’s ‘Franksgiving’ fiasco are still around. Those very same forces that created that upheaval – insensitivity to the public, executive orders without bi-partisan cooperation and executive due diligence, the strong political and economic force of big business and retail sales, and special access to the Oval Office - are all the same forces causing our current political, economic, and social uproar. And, unfortunately, our ‘party-colored spectacles’ are still warping the view of our political system, and its proper limitations.

Two Turkey Days anyone?

This is the first of a new monthly feature. We will select one story that occurred during that month from history and take a fresh look at the story through modern eyes.

You can let us know what you thought of this article below.

References

[1] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.) v.6: pp.497-498. Also, Ulysses S. Grant, Proclamation 186—Thanksgiving Day, 1869 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.Retrieved October 20, 2019 from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204624https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-186-thanksgiving-day-1869

[2] “Roosevelt Advances Thanksgiving Day a Week; Business Pleased, But Grid Managers Aren’t”. The Daily Republican – Tuesday, August 15, 1939. Monongahela, PA.

[3] “Rebellion Grows Against Change in Thanksgiving Date by F.D.R.” Plattsburgh Daily Press – Wednesday, August 16, 1939. p.1.

[4] Time Magazine.(August 21, 1939: Vol. XXXIVNo. 8.). “The Presidency: Off the Floor” p.7.

[5] “Nation, Divided On The Date Of Thanksgiving, Thankful For Peace”. Plattsburgh [NY] Daily Press, Friday, November 24, 1939. p.1. [*] “Franksgiving’ is often misattributed to Thomas D. Taggart, Jr. The term appears in many newspapers during the fall of 1939. Taggart was a NJ state assemblyman AND a Democrat at the time. The Mayor of Atlantic City in 1939 was Charles D. White, a Republican. The term ‘Franksgiving’ was White’s portmanteau.

[6] Gallup, Dr. George. “News Release: August 25, 1939 - Public Sees Thanksgiving Issue Through Party Classes”. Gallup VaultRetrieved October 23, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/vault/222494/gallup-vault-thanksgiving-sparked-partisan-storm-1939.aspx

[7] Waxman, Olivia. “The Real Reason Why Thanksgiving is Always on a Thursday”. Time.com – November 20, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2019 from https://time.com/5455162/thanksgiving-on-thursday/

[8] “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Thanksgiving Proclamation.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.fdrlibrary.org/document-november

[9] Cullen, Art. “Tabloid”. The Boston College Heights – Volume XIX, Number 37, 24 November 1939. p.2. 

[10] Tefft, W.R. editor. “Thanksgiving  - A LA FDR”. Ticonderoga Sentinel - Thursday, August 24, 1939. p.2.

[11] Retrieved October 25, 2019 from The Three Stooges Website @ https://www.threestooges.com/1940/10/04/no-census-no-feeling/. Also, my parents told me the story behind Berlin’s Holiday Inngraphic the first time we watched Holiday Innon television back in the 1950s. Their personal stories were hilarious – (btw, they chose Thanks notFrank’s). The topic has intrigued me ever since. 

[12] “Abandons Early Thanksgiving: Roosevelt to Return to Old Date in November 1942”Hope[AK]Star – Tuesday, May 20, 1941. p. 1. Also,Jackson, Debbie and Pittman, Hilary. “Throwback Tulsa: Roosevelt created a ‘Franksgiving’ monster.”Tulsa World – November 16, 2017.Retrieved October 29, 2019 fromhttps://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-roosevelt-created-a-franksgiving-monster/article_9e6c3704-d31c-5c48-b79b-1a14a1a7f683.html

The First Anglo-Dutch War: How it Began

The First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654) was the first of three wars fought between England and the Netherlands in the 17th century. Here, Daniel Smith considers the background to the war and some of the key battles and events during the war’s first year

Daniel’s new book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

An 1873 depiction of the Battle of Dover/Battle of Goodwin Sands.

Into The First War

It was between the years of 1652 and 1678 that England and the Netherlands would fight a terrible series of wars for ultimate control of trade and mercantile establishments over both the English Channel and the North Sea. During this time period, most nations would come to rely on merchant shipping with a couple of cannons for their naval defense. However with the rise of trade and the pretense to control trade, this series of events may have been the catalyst that led to England’s historic reputation as a naval superpower.

In 1790, the Royal Navy was ten times larger than it was in 1650. Soon well-crafted vessels which were well-armed in cannon with disciplined crews began to emerge. In the Anglo-Dutch Wars, British ships would end up attacking Dutch interests all over the world: Africa, North America, the West Indies, and actually capturing New Amsterdam—where it was immediately renamed New York. It was the growth of the English and the Dutch fleets, who had been rapidly expanding since earlier in the 17th century, that would cause hostilities and political friction. It was them who had been competing in a rivalry over securing maritime trade and in pushing early colonial expansion.

Prior to the year 1648, the Dutch were at war with the Spanish. This was beneficial to English traders who could profit from the Spanish marketplace, where the warring Dutch merchants were banned from commerce. This was typical of warfare, where neighboring nations would capitalize on trade with neighboring belligerent nations, while staying far away from participation. Spain and the Netherlands would sign a formal peace treaty to cease hostilities in 1648. Due to this, the very expertly mercantile Dutch nation would return to the trading sphere globally. As a result of this, English merchants would end up being economically pushed out of the very profitable East Indian spice trade and their economic markets would resultingly plummet. To make matters worse, England would quickly lose global trade power and suffer a significantly detrimental shock to its economy. 

Due to security fears, the Navigation Act of 1651 was passed through parliament and opened up privateering (codified contractual piracy) to ordinary captains of vessels outside of the Royal Navy. English privateers began to exercise these new legal rights and the profitable Dutch shipping trade and their cargo became main targets. The Dutch government regarded England as a traditional Protestant ally against Catholicism and the Pope, despite the aggressive trade war that had been ensuing. At this point there had been internal struggles inside both nations, but more specifically with the beheading of King Charles I in England and no hereditary heir to the Dutch Stadtholder (government). Stability in both nations was at a low point. In the Netherlands, as the Prince of Orange, Willem II, was too young to inherit the responsibilities and obligations to lead the Dutch government, two elite individuals jumped on the opportunity.

It’s Just Politics

Dutch republicans (government party officials) led by Cornelis de Graeff and Johan de Witt used their cunning and wit to influence the House of Orange – the very influential aristocrats. While this velvet takeover was taking place inside of the Dutch palace, the English had sent a diplomatic envoy to The Hague led by Oliver St. John in March 1651. The ultimate goal of St. John’s was to present a political union between England and the Netherlands; however the political upheaval in England was too heavy for the Dutch to consider a union. Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector over England with the execution of Charles I. Besides religious and political turmoil, the House of Orange would never accept an informal government.

Soon after the negotiations between the two nations fell apart, St. John drafted a malicious trade policy that would later be drafted into law called the Navigation Act of 1651—which would further increase the tensions between the Dutch and the English. Besides that, the Dutch did not want to risk losing their sovereignty over a political union with England. They felt the plan was underhand and could even compromise the existence of the Netherlands. With such an excessive and aggressive maritime policy in effect and relations spiraling out of control, the Dutch and English both felt war inevitably on the way.

It was during the blistery winter of 1651 and into the spring of 1652 that the English would press their will onto Dutch shipping with letters of marque. Later, France would lend political support to the English Royalists - the opposition of the English government. Because of this, the English authorized letters of reprisal—allowing them to confiscate French cargo onboard Dutch shipping. Meanwhile, the naval officer and well-respected veteran Maarten Tromp took to the ocean in May of 1652. 

Lieutenant-Admiral Maarten Tromp had orders to defend Dutch merchant shipping from any belligerent flying the English flag. English Captain Robert Blake and Tromp of the Netherlands would end up meeting in a naval engagement off the coast of Dover, England in May. War would be officially declared by both nations on July 8, 1652. Naval battles would be fought predominantly in the English Channel and the North Sea, with minor action in the Mediterranean.

The engagement by both naval commanders would officially be titled the Battle of Dover (Goodwin Sands) on May 19, 1652. Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp sailed with a strong fleet of 42-ships one-month prior in April, with naval superiority as the goal set for his fleet inside of the English Channel. This was a logical attempt to prevent Dutch merchant trade from being disrupted by English hostility and naval aggressions. During his patrol of the straits, Tromp and his fleet experienced a storm that would have surely battered down the fleet. To protect it, he attempted to duck into a pocket near the Kent coastline outside of Dover under the South Foreland. Much to his dismay, Tromp sailed right into nine British warships under the command of Nehemiah Bourne. There was a timid stand-off between the two fleets before the Dutch officers insisted that they were only seeking shelter from the storm. 

Ducking the Channel

The two opposing fleets would stay anchored within sight of each other until the next day. An awkward departure, Tromp’s fleet sailed off towards Calais, France. At one point, Tromp’s War Galleon rendezvoused with two Dutch merchants who had been shot at by an English fleet near Kent’s coast at Start Point. Tromp’s fleet responded by punctually returning back to meet Captain Blake’s squadron. On May 19, upon arriving near Dover, Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp ordered his ships into the oncoming path of Blake’s ships. Further, he refused to hoist their Dutch colors up the mast when approaching the English - a complete sign of disrespect. Captain Blake responded in kind by sending a warning shot over their bows. The event would spiral out of control and a full-blown battle occurred.

There were two highlights to the battle: Captain Blake’s fleet had considerably more heavy ships, in comparison to Tromp’s fleet which only had one heavy ship—his own—theBrederode off Helvoetsluys. The Dutch fleet was also very uncoordinated in their execution of tactical and logistical planning during the battle. Further, the back-up fleet of Nehemiah Bourne’s nine warships arrived unexpectedly to attack the Dutch rear. In knowing that the battle was lost, Tromp’s merchant fleet returned to the Netherlands (minus two that had been captured) after sundown without further actions or incident.

The English were content on retaliating. The English Council of State would end up ordering Sir Robert Blake to cut off (and possibly capture) the Dutch East Indian trading convoy that was headed towards the Netherlands from Scotland. Their course was dialed in to avoid any English patrols in and around the English Channel. On June 27, 1652, Captain Robert Blake took his fleet of warships north, and Sir Ayscue would stay to patrol. Six days later in the Channel, Ayscue with ten warships, would spot a Dutch merchantmen fleet near Calais. He moved to attack. In the melee, three Dutch ships were destroyed. Five of them were captured, and out of further fear of death, the others would purposefully run themselves aground on the local sandbars.

A month later, on July 8, Maarten Tromp’s now had a massive war-fleet of eighty-two vessels and nine fireships (boats designed to be set afire and pushed into enemy vessels). In seeing the outnumbered fleet, Ayscue parked his fleet underneath the artillery fort on the coast near Deal, England. This move was of course a defensive posture. It seems as though providence may have been on the side of the English, as a fierce storm prevented the massive Dutch fleet from entering the coastal area where Blake and his fleet were anchored. At this point, Captain Blake’s fleet was split into two. His smaller squadron located on the southern end of England, and the larger squadron on the northern end of England. 

A Twice-Bitter Ending

The Dutch fleet of warships patrolling the English Channel decided to pursue Blake’s more vulnerable flotilla in the north on July 10, 1652. Captain Blake in the meantime was busy between the northern islands of Orkney and Shetland near Scotland, awaiting the East India Trading convoy scheduled to make their appearance. While there, he also took aggressive action in breaking up the North Sea fishing fleet—a pride of the Dutch—while operating in the area. While on patrol near Fair Isle on July 24, Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp spotted Captain Blake and his fleet. 

In another turn of extraordinary events, another fierce storm took hold in their location that lasted for three days.  It seems it was another disaster, as the Dutch squadron was smashed apart on the rocks of Sumburgh Head. Captain Blake ended up ducking into Bressay Sound to avoid the winds and waves. Most of his fleet was damaged to some degree, but all of his ships managed to stay afloat. On July 27, the fierce storm began to subside and both the English and the Dutch fleets set a course to their own home ports. Both sides limped back; however, Tromp’s fleet had halved in size 

It would be in fact Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp that received a bitter homecoming, as his political opponents laid complete blame on him for all the losses involved. He would resign his commission showing his complete ownership of the defeat. Generally speaking it was the heavier weighted and well defended English warships that prevailed over the Dutch fleet. The war would end up peaking with the loss of the fleet and untimely death of Tromp in July of 1653. He etched his historical end at the battle of Scheveningen 

Daniel’s new book, 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California, is available here: Amazon US| Amazon UK

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), and early Christianity in Britain (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Bibliography

John Barratt, Cromwell's Wars at Sea, (Barnsley 2006)

Sir William Laird Clowes, The Royal Navy, a history from the earliest times to the present, vol.ii (London 1898)

Bernard Capp, Cromwell's Navy: the fleet and the English Revolution (Oxford 1989)

S.R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate vol. iii (London 1903)

A Chinese Legend and the Disney Movie: Who is Mulan?

The 1998 Disney film Mulan is based on the Chinese legend of Hua Mulan. But how did the film tell the story? And how true to reality was the film? Johann Hollar lets us know.

An 18th century depiction of Hua Mulan.

Did you know that Disney's Mulan is inspired by a Chinese poem?

The original work that was the 'Ballad of Mulan" is lost to history; however it was well documented enough to make its way into Chinese literature and popular culture as Disney has shown with its movie.  Whether Mulan was a real person or not has yet to be determined, but the story itself shows how women can change the course of history.  [1]

The Story

No matter how many centuries have passed, the beginning of her tale remains the same.  She joins the army disguised as a man to go in place of her father, who along with his age is also ill and would likely killed during the first battle.  She was said to have brought her family's ancestral blade with her into battle and she proved to be an efficient commander in battle. In the end she surprises her comrades-in-arms by revealing herself to be a woman. [2]

Other aspects of why Mulan did what she did

Other than the fact that Mulan was a woman and proved to the ruling Chinese dynasty at the time that a woman can lead, serve and fight as well as any man, she also proved that she could perform other roles too. In Chinese culture, honoring one's elders and being modest is paramount.  She refuses a favor offered to her by the emperor, preferring to go home, thus promoting modesty.  Her willingness to go into battle in place of her father shows how much she honors her elders (in this case her father). 

Different endings

One ending was that after she refused the Emperor’s gifts, she returned home to find out that her father had died and thus losing the reason for why she went in the first place.  Another version is where she comes home having been so traumatized by the fighting that she falls into depression and eventually commits suicide.[3]

What isn't mentioned in the movie

There are also a few notable historical inaccuracies or missing information in the movie.  The first is that Mulan was not an only child.  She had a brother, but he was far too young to serve. [4] Second, the use of rocket weapons in China did not occur until the Battle of Kai-Keng in 1232 CE (Common Era) against the Mongols. [5] Third and final is that the invading forces were called Huns in the Disney movie. According to historical facts about the Northern Wei Dynasty (386-534 CE, when the story of Mulan is said to take place [6]), they were attacked by the Rouran, who were, like the Huns, from Mongolia but were not the same people. [7]

Other warrior women

Mulan wasn’t the only warrior woman in the history of China.

Before her the first female general in the history of China was Fu Hao.

During the Shang Dynasty, she began her life as a consort and was able to rise up in the ranks to become the first female general in China. [8]

Another one was Xun Guan during the Western Jin Dynasty, who suppressed the Revolt of Xiangyang city, by breaking through enemy lines. [9]

Legacy

The tale of Hua Mulan has inspired adaptions before and after the Disney version.  Stage, television and even the live action movie Mulan: Rise of a Warriorare amongst the many depictions of famous warrior woman in China.  

Historically, two more examples of warrior women in China are the revolutionary Qiu Jin, who contributed to the fall of the Qing Dynasty [10], or even Liang Hongyu, who suppressed a rebellion that threatened the Song Dynasty. [11]

I am of course well aware of the fact that Disney is doing a live-action version of Mulan starring Lei Yifei as the title heroine and Jet Li as the Emperor of China.

It seems from a cultural perspective that women were treated far better in China than in Europe.  There may have still been some chauvinism in China, but that did not stop them from becoming the heroines of their time and becoming the legends that they are today.

What do you think of Mulan? Let us know below.

References

[1]http://www.char4u.com/content/the-legend-of-hua-mulan/

[2]http://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/learn/article/read/item/v7oZoV5fuog/mulan-chinese-stories-history.html

[3]http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/ballad-hua-mulan-legendary-warrior-woman-who-brought-hope-china-005084

[4]https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-real-story-of-mulan

[5]https://www.thoughtco.com/early-fireworks-and-fire-arrows-4070603

[6]http://www.nouahsark.com/en/infocenter/culture/history/dynasty/northern_wei.php

[7]http://chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/rouran.html

[8]https://gbtimes.com/fu-hao-chinas-first-female-general

[9] http://www.womenofchina.cn/womenofchina/html1/people/history/12/4863-2.htm

[10] https://theculturetrip.com/asia/china/articles/qiu-jin-the-female-knight-of-mirror-lake/

[11] https://people.wku.edu/haiwang.yuan/China/tales/lianghongyu_b.htm

The Letters of Amerigo Vespucci – And their Centuries Long-impact

Amerigo Vespucci  (1454-1512) was an Italian explorer and the man America is named after. He played a key role in exploring the ‘New World’ of the Americas in the early 1500s. Here, Jorge Jaramillo discusses the importance of Vespucci’s letters and their lasting impact through Thomas More’s book Utopia (Amazon US | Amazon UK) – even having a role in the Soviet Union.

A depiction of Amerigo Vespucci in the Americas. A 1592 engraving by Theodor de Bry.

Context: Vespucci in the discovery of America

America was baptized after the name of Amerigo Vespucci, but there might be some disinformation surrounding this event. As history tells, it was Christopher Columbus —not Vespucci— the first European man to set foot on the continent. That’s why many would think Vespucci was someone who took too much credit for something he didn’t actually do. The thing is that from the 1500s to even today, many historians have insisted on discrediting Vespucci’s name, making people lose sight of the facts. 

It is necessary to clarify the details of what happened, to understand the many achievements of Vespucci. Coming from a context of poetry, arts and knowledge as his native Florence was, he turned out to be quite a brilliant guy. In fact, one of the things that made him go down in history the way he did, was his remarkable capacity to interpret the position of stars. This was the key factor in concluding the lands Columbus discovered were actually a “New World”, against what Columbus thought. Christopher Columbus kept thinking he found a new path to Asia by crossing the Atlantic Ocean, ignoring the possible existence of land in between.

Vespucci’s letters

But the focus of this article is a side story that became an unexpected contribution to history. As a person who enjoyed writing masterful letters, Vespucci had the habit of documenting his sailing adventures in the form of letters that he sent to relatives and friends back in Florence. One of those letters, titled “The New World”, described the reasons why he thought the lands they were going to “opened” the Atlantic Ocean, and were actually a New World. This was the letter that stirred history and resulted in America being named after him.

The total number of trips Vespucci made to the New World is still disputed, but many claim there were three. Two were providing services to Spain and one to Portugal. In the letters he wrote to his relatives in Florence, he described with great poetry the many discoveries he made on these trips. It is said that his descriptions of the New World were more poetic and detailed than the messages Columbus wrote. One could say Columbus’ focus was more on himself and his achievements as a discoverer than on the discoveries themselves.

What is interesting is that Vespucci spent considerable effort in describing his not few encounters with the indigenous communities of the northern and central-east coast of South America (modern-day Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil). As was normal, most of the European sailors felt and acted upon a sense of superiority over the cultures they were unveiling. Maybe because of the apparent contrast in technological development between locals and Europeans, but also because of the Europeans’ desire to colonize. But Vespucci was amazingly distant to that. As a matter of fact, his descriptions of the indigenous communities were, in many cases, flattering of their customs.

Mainly, Vespucci was very impressed with what most of these communities gave value to. Unlike Europeans, the indigenous people gave no importance to gold but instead gave great significance to feathers or rocks, which were absolutely worthless to the visitors. Also, he was interested in the way people shared their belongings because they didn’t believe in private or personal property. This meant that everyone in the community owned everything, and any individual could use or enjoy anything equally. Vespucci’s letters described this type of social setting, highlighting the great harmony and balance these communities enjoyed thanks to those rules.

Unexpected reach

Vespucci’s letters were later translated to several languages in Europe, allowing his findings and descriptions to reach and influence many thinkers of the time. In fact, Utopiaby Thomas More (1516) was one of the literary pieces to be notoriously influenced by Vespucci’s letters. It described a fictional society discovered in an island by Vespucci’s crew in their exploration of South American coasts. Even as a fictional work, Thomas More used many of the indigenous customs Vespucci described, to set up the social structure of this society, baptized by the author as Utopia. The inexistence of money and property, the collective lifestyle in which everyone owned everything, and the irrelevance of gold, were some of the features of Utopiathat were strongly connected to pre-Columbian cultures.

The importance and meaning of Utopia are still debated. Many authors argue that More’s fictional society was a literary reaction to the injustices and perversions he was witnessing in England and Europe. Etymologically, Utopia is a place that doesn’t exist, so in a certain sense this is what More desired but considered unachievable for a society.

Through the following centuries, different thinkers from diverse ideological grounds appropriated the concept of utopia to back up their theories. In fact, in the 19th century, the idea of utopia was adopted by Marx to describe the proletarian revolution in industrialized societies. Therefore Thomas More’s work was one indirect but essential inspiration in the early development of communism. Most importantly, Utopia was in good part inspired by the indigenous cultures of the New World, making their lifestyle and customs an unexpected —and unacknowledged— influence to theories like communism. As many authors say, the society More created on the island of Utopia, which recreated many of the features Vespucci recorded from the indigenous communities, was quite close to communism to contemporary eyes. The link between utopia and communism was even reaffirmed by Lenin, who ordered the inscription of Thomas More’s name in the Obelisk next to the Kremlin. This monument honored thinkers and personalities of the revolution.

Conclusion

There are two significant conclusions that one can take from these events. For the one part, Vespucci’s letters had a fantastic value and reach, influencing many thinkers throughout history. His letters were meant to inform his relatives and friends in Florence of his discoveries but ended up being the base to name the continent after him. His writings later also served to inspire different political theories. The second conclusion is the fact that there were unexpected influences of the pre-Columbian cultures to knowledge in the modern world, even after their almost total extermination. It is quite interesting to see that maybe the remotest origin of contemporary socialism, for example, could be traced back to pre-Columbian times in America - to the tribes and cultures that Spanish and Portuguese sailors were discovering in the 15th and 16th centuries.

What do you think of Amerigo Vespucci’s influence? Let us know below.

References

Arciniegas, G. (2002). América 500 años de un nombre. Vida y época de Amerigo Vespucci(3rd ed.; B. Villegas, ed.). Bogotá D.C., Colombia: Villegas Editores S.A. (Original work published 1954).

Martínez, C. (2017, October). The impact of the New World on the invention of Tomás Moro’s Utopia. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from NÓMADAS website: http://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/index.php/inicio/2369-utopias-entre-lo-posible-y-lo-probable-nomadas-47/3-islas-y-planetas/936-el-impacto-del-nuevo-mundo-en-la-invencion-de-utopia-de-tomas-moro#volver_2

Phélippeau, M.-C. (2017, June 30). La utopía de Tomás Moro: 500 años de enigma. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from Humanitas. Revista de antropología y cultura cristianas. website: http://www.humanitas.cl/filosofia/la-utopia-de-tomas-moro-500-anos-de-enigma

Early Christianity in Britain – And the Role of Alfred the Great

We look at early British history here, including how Christianity arrived in Britain and the battles between King Alfred (Alfred the Great) and the Vikings that consolidated Christianity in the country. Daniel Smith explains.

Daniel’s new book on mid-19thcentury northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

An 18th century painting of Alfred the Great by Samuel Woodforde.

In the 1stcentury, the British Isles was turning over to a new cultural-era of change. Christianity was introduced to Britain, and it is rumored that the catalyst to the Christian hold on the island was attributed to Joseph of Arimathea. Churches were built in villages and towns at random, as the church itself was decentralized. The Catholic and Orthodox Christian sects of religion, which were developed in the Roman and Byzantine Empires, are two examples of centralized religious hierarchy. By A.D. 150, the Pastors of the Celtic Churches preached the common language from interlinear bible translations called “glosses.” The most famous and well known of all the pastors was Patrick. He left England and went on to spread the Gospel to all of Ireland.

Patrick was made to be King Loeghaire’s “Annchara,” or personal counselor, after he was converted. It was here that Biblical law was introduced into the civil realm. Patrick was the author of Liber Ex Lege Moisi(Book of the Law of Moses), which he penned in 432 and that was applied by local chieftains throughout Ireland. The emerald isle was not yet a united political entity, only a Biblical/religious unity that brought the people and government together. It emphasized the rule of law and local self-government. These of course being two fundamental principles of basic Christian government.[1]

Two Anglo-Saxon brothers arrived in Britain around 428 A.D. by the names of Hengist and Horsa. The barbarian brothers had been called upon to help the king of Kent fight off his rivals. In fact, the king of Kent also invited them to bring their relatives as well. After Kent was saved from capture, the barbarians would end up staying and living in Britain. After some time, families grew on the island, eventually taking it over and naming it Anglo-land, or Engel-land (today’s England).

At the very start of emigration into Britain, the Anglo-Saxons turned on the native Celts. They killed countless numbers of them. During one event, they killed 1200 Celtic Pastors in the middle of prayer. In a stroke of Divine Providence however, while the Saxons conquered the Celts militarily, the Celts would conquer the Saxons spiritually. Over time, gradually the Saxons were converted to Celtic Christianity. Catholicism did not actually arrive in Britain until 597 A.D. Celtic influences emphasized the Bible (or Scriptural authority) over Papal authority. This was even after the introduction of Catholicism. A loyal follower of Patrick, named Columba, left his Ireland during this time, and would come to evangelize the king of the Picts (today’s Scotland). Columba also translated Liber Ex Lege Moisi in the Scottish language.[2]

Struggle in Wessex

King Alfred was the first leader revered enough to bring together all of England into one nation. Alfred was known from that time on as Alfred the Great, who ruled from A.D. 871 to 899. Interestingly enough though, just before Alfred was crowned king, most of England had been taken over viciously by the Vikings through a long series of ferocious battles. Wessex, in southern England, was the only area that remained open for Alfred to rule. For years to follow, Alfred would be continually thrown into the thick of battle with the Viking Danes.[3]

Historian David Chilton wrote of this struggle:

“In 876 the Danish chieftain Guthrum attacked Wessex in earnest with a powerful host, aiming to break Alfred’s hold on the country once and for all. The Vikings succeeded: in the winter of early 878 Guthrum pushed Alfred into the marshes, where the king and a small group of loyal followers were forced to hide out on the Isle of Athelney. Historians have called this time of testing Alfred’s “Valley Forge,” where he had to bide his time while virtually all England was overrun with pagan enemies of the faith who sacked churches and monasteries, wiping out the tattered remains of a Christian past. The legends say, however, that the bold and daring Alfred entered the Viking camp disguised as a minstrel and actually performed for Guthrum and his chiefs—getting a chance to listen to their plans and plotting his own strategy. 

When spring came, Alfred rallied the English army for a final push against the invader’s vastly superior forces. This time Alfred was victorious. As the Anglo-Saxon Chronicleputs it, “he fought against the entire host, and put it to flight.” The Vikings agreed never to attack Wessex again, and they submitted to the terms of peace. Alfred did not banish Guthrum and his men. He didn’t have them executed, either. His solution to the problem of the Vikings seems incredible to us, but it worked. The peace treaty he imposed on them included this provision: that Guthrum and “thirty of the most honorable men in the host” become Christians! 

Guthrum accepted the conditions, and he was baptized into the Christian faith, Alfred standing as his godfather. At the conclusion of the ceremony, Alfred embraced his newborn brother in Christ and threw a twelve-day feast for him and his men. And then, as if this weren’t enough already, Alfred made the strangest political move of all. He said to Guthrum, in effect: “My brother, this land is much too big for me to rule all by myself; and the important thing isn’t who’s in charge. The real issue is a Christian England. So don’t go back to Denmark. Stay here and rule this land with me, under the lordship of Jesus Christ.”[4]

Alfred’s Code

King Alfred moved to institute Christian reforms, and with the newfound peace, many areas in Britain included the creation of government that served the people’s needs. He, himself, was taught how to read the Asser (the Celtic Christian scholar), and also studied Patrick’s Liber. His knowledge allowed him to establish the Ten Commandments as the basis of civil law and adopted many other patterns of government from the Hebrew Republic. As far as English politics were concerned, the nation organized itself into units of tens, fifties, hundreds and thousands and elected an assembly called a “Witen.” The representatives of these units had official titles: a tighingman (over 10 families), a vilman (over 50 families), a hundredman (over 100 families), and an earl.

The land that the earl would rule over was called a “shire,” and his direct assistant was called the “shire-reef,” which is where the word Sheriff today comes from. There was also an unelected group made up of nobleman within the Witen; however at this time—the king was an elected position—not a hereditary one. Thus their laws of the land were created by their consent. King Alfred’s civil laws became the root of all English and American common law, trial by jury, and habeas corpus. It was Alfred’s legal code which was derived from Mosaic Law and Jesus’ golden rule.

Thomas Jefferson said about Anglo-Saxon laws:“…the sources of the Common Law…[and] the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the 8th century;…”Thomas Jefferson said that Anglo-Saxon laws should be printed on one side of the American National Seal proposed by him in 1776, saying:“the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by the night.”But, on the other side, Jefferson offered images of “Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs… whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.”[5]Ultimately this is true because of the Germanic Saxons’ contact with the Celtic Christians (or British natives), but the Saxon culture in Germany from which they originated provided no constitutionalism whatsoever to guide their civilization.

In the 9thcentury, the clergy would begin to serve as the judges in England and would build common law based on the Bible, but Anglo-Saxon law was eroding by the time of Norman Conquest in 1066. The Normans, then under William the Conqueror, established a royal dynasty—a system which destroyed the rights of the people, yet increased efficiency by centralization of common law under King Henry II. In the end, the English people would experience a period of over 400 years of civil and religious stagnation until 1215, when King John would reluctantly sign the Magna Carta.[6]

Daniel’s new book, 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), and the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here).

[1]Jurasinski, Stefan. 2014. “Noxal Surrender, the Deodand, and the Laws of King Alfred.” Studies in Philology 111 (2): 195–224. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mlf&AN=2014289482&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[2]"Tribal Roots Point to Hebrew Origins." United Israel World Union. Last modified October 16, 2017. https://unitedisrael.org/tribal-roots-point-hebrew-origins/.

[3]DiLascio, Tracey M. 2015. “BYZANTIUM AND WESTERN EUROPE IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES: The Laws of Alfred, Guthrum, and Edward the Elder.” Defining Documents: Middle Ages, July, 19–25. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&AN=118279323&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[4]Chilton, David. "The Origin of Common Law." The ARK Foundation. Accessed August 21, 2019. http://www.arky.org/Constitution/IOTC/W2%20The%20Origin%20of%20Common%20Law.pdf.

[5]"The History of the Seal of the United States." Internet Archive: Digital Library. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://archive.org/stream/historyofsealofu00unit/historyofsealofu00unit_djvu.txt.

[6]Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life. 1989. pp. 39-42.

Bibliography

Mark A. Beliles, and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life. 1989. pp. 39-42.

David Chilton, "The Origin of Common Law." The ARK Foundation. Accessed August 21, 2019. http://www.arky.org/Constitution/IOTC/W2%20The%20Origin%20of%20Common%20Law.pdf.

Tracey M. DiLascio, 2015. “BYZANTIUM AND WESTERN EUROPE IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES: The Laws of Alfred, Guthrum, and Edward the Elder.” Defining Documents: Middle Ages, July, 19–25. 

Stefan Jurasinski,2014. “Noxal Surrender, the Deodand, and the Laws of King Alfred.” Studies in Philology 111.

Jim Keys, "The Coming of the Vikings | Anglo-Saxon (500-1000) | British & Irish History." The History Herald. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://www.thehistoryherald.com/Articles/British-Irish-History/Anglo-Saxon-500-1000/the-coming-of-the-vikings/Page-4.

"The History of the Seal of the United States." Internet Archive: Digital Library. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://archive.org/stream/historyofsealofu00unit/historyofsealofu00unit_djvu.txt.

"Tribal Roots Point to Hebrew Origins." United Israel World Union. Last modified October 16, 2017. https://unitedisrael.org/tribal-roots-point-hebrew-origins/.

World War Two: The Context to Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach

Operation Overlord and the D-Day landings were a huge Allied undertaking in June 1944 during World War Two that opened up the Western European Theater of Operations. Here, Robert Tremblay considers the historical context behind the operation and key considerations for the battle itself.

Robert’s previous article on Operation Overlord and the Differing Allied and Nazi Leaderships is here.

‘Into the Jaws of Death’ - U.S. Troops wading through water and Nazi gunfire on Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944, available here.

Introduction

General (GEN) Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the best description in “At Ease”: “Overlord was at once a singular military expedition and fearsome risk”.[1]The concept of operations for the occupation of Omaha Beach was the decisive reason for the victory of Operation Overlord in Normandy.  Operation Overlord enabled the Allies’ momentum through Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 to the occupation of Berlin.  Operation Overlord was a result of the German aggressive expansionism during WWII. Then, German aggressive expansionism within WWII was the result of factors during the interwar years.  

During the interwar years, America and European countries had the inability to respond to Germany’s aggression; therefore, enabling WWII.  Further analysis shows that these countries did not respond appropriately to Germany’s mature military industrial base and its doctrine through the interwar period and the onset of WWII.  This lack of response facilitated the German aggression. Germany then used this power to be aggressive towards other European military powers. These same European military powers enabled this German aggression by not responding effectively to the earlier warning signs.  Additionally, the United States did not respond effectively either.  

Germany’s mature military industry enabled the aggressive expansionism through its occupation of Austria and Eastern Europe that led to its objective of an increased ideological legitimacy within the European region.  Germany’s military industry had the ability to produce war materials in an effective and efficient matter.  Murray & Millett stated that from a strategic perceptive, while Germany lost the War (World War I), its industrial base stayed undamaged.[2]  In the mid-1930s, Germany was dedicating a large amount of its finances to its industrial base.  Winston Churchill stated in his memoirs, that in 1936, he reported to Parliament that Germany was contributing large amount of its finances for military armaments and materials.[3]  Inability to respond to Germany’s mature military industrial base facilitated aggression from Hitler.

Thirdly, the German military inaugurated a creative combined arms military effort calledBlitzkrieg.  The Germans were able to adapt and improve their Blitzkrieg doctrine through their evolution from WWI and most recently the Polish WWII campaign. German Blitzkrieg took doctrinal lessons from World War I to the Poland invasion.[4]  There was limited response to the Blitzkrieg method from Germany’s adversarial countries. Therefore, this led to Hitler’s strategic gain and confidence, leading to the invasion and occupation of France and Western USSR.

In conclusion, Germany was able to succeed militarily in the beginning of World War II, 1939-1943, based on its mature military industrial base and doctrine during the interwar years.  This German aggressive expansionism led to the Allies needing to conduct a cross-channel invasion (Operation Overlord) in order to liberate Europe and to create an envelopment around Germany. The Battle of Omaha Beach was the main effort for Operation Overlord based on its mission.  There is no way that the Americans could have conducted Operation Overlord without the ability to secure Omaha beach.  There would be a gap between the Gold (British) and Utah (American) beach of 7,000 yards.[5]    

Situation

German Military

The German military had inadequate forces in the Normandy region to defend the Allied operation in Normandy.  Before D-Day, there were sixty divisions throughout Western Europe (France, Belgium, and Holland); however, in the immediate area of Normandy, there were only nine infantry divisions and one panzer division.[6]  The German response to the V Corps invasion was not responsive based on its intense centralized command control.  The lack of responsiveness provided ideal conditions for the German forces being chaotic and inundated during the invasion.

German naval forces were projected to harass the cross-channel invasion. Therefore, the Allied Navy placed sea mines to act as a barrier to which it would secure the approach.[7]  There was limited German air power due to the Allies already having air superiority.

Therefore, the Germans concentrated on defense.  Field Marshal Rommel recognized that the Allies were going to invade Normandy; but, he did not have an accurate time and date.  Consequently, Rommel concentrated German resources to ensure its defense. Mines were established on the Omaha battlefield.  Then, the Germans placed huge iron obstacles at the Omaha beachhead.  Next, there were huge and thick concreated fortifications on the cliffs at the end of beachhead.  In fact, Rommel stated that the defensive works would lead to fortifications and mines going five to six miles inland.[8]  The result was the Allies faced strongly protected and cleverly concealed gun replacements and pill boxes.[9]  Additionally, there were height advantages to the cliffs.  

Concept of Operations for Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach 

Shaping Operations

The shaping operations consisted of Allied naval and aerial bombardment with the intent to destroy the defensive positions and works and to eliminate German forces. Their contributions were the disruption of the fortifications of the defense works.[10]The effect was to give the Germans the inability to have effective defense for their firepower.  Additionally, the bombardments impacted the defense postures beyond the beachhead by destroying mine fields and other defensive fortifications.[11]  During June 5, Allied air forces conducted over 2,200 missions and dropped over 7,600 tons of explosives.[12]  During June 6, the strategic level air forces conducted 5,309 missions to drop 10,396 tons of explosives while the tactical air force conducted another 5,276.[13]  The Naval gunfire and bombardment proved to be effective at destroying the obstacles and other defensive works.[14]

Missions

SHAFE Mission for Operation Overlord

GEN Eisenhower and Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces-Europe (SHAFE)’s mission for Operation Overlord was a multi-divisional invasion front on the territory between Ouistreham and Varreville with an urgent purpose to force project follow-on forces.[15]/[16]  SHAFE knew that the Allies had two areas of operations.  These areas of operations served two purposes for GEN Eisenhower’s strategy for the liberation of Europe.  First, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean served as a secure supply chain for sustainment for their respective fronts while simultaneously exhausting the German’s supply chain at the same time.  Then, Eastern Europe and the Southern Europe area of operations served as a flank that was designed to envelope Nazi Germany for final occupation. Therefore, SHAFE needs to open up another supply chain and force projection from a different European area of operations and flank.  This context led to GEN Eisenhower’s mission for the invasion.  Then, the occupation of Omaha Beach became the vital effort for Operation Overlord’s mission.

V Corps Mission for the Occupation of Omaha Beach

MG Gerow and the V Corp’s mission was to attack, occupy, and secure a 7,000 yard wide Omaha Beach on the northern coast of Calvados near St-Laurent.[17]  As stated before, the secure occupation of Omaha Beach was the main effort for the execution of Operation Overlord.  The other Allied beaches and the American Utah beach provided an advantageous gap (Omaha Beach) for the German defense.  The gap would create a divide in the Allied Forces that were invading Normandy Beach. The separation of Allied Forces would cause disorganized command and control with the divergence of command.  This disorganization and divergence would create conditions for a tactical success for the Germans.  Furthermore, SHAFE considered occupation of Omaha Beach as the main effort based on its impact to the overall Overlord mission and operation. V Corps would invade Omaha Beach with approximately 34,000 men and 3,306 vehicles with follow-on forces consisting of 25,117 men and 4,429 vehicles.[18]  In order to accomplish its objectives, V Corp relied and empowered 1st ID and 29th ID to perform its objectives.

Conclusion

Operation Overlord was a follow-on projection of the Allies’ force in order to finish the theater-wide envelopment of Germany for the European Theater of Operations. The Allies Operation Overlord assault was a tactical surprise to the Germans.[19]  On June 7, 1944, the Allies were 5 to 6 miles inland and on 10 June, the Allies had a sixty by twelve miles lodgment area.[20]

Allies

Operation Overlord’s successes enabled the Allies to have a port of entry through the opening of the western European Theater of Operations.  It took approximately six weeks to establish an intermediate staging base with a line of communication.[21]  This line of communication was critical to the Western European Theater of Operations for the follow-on forces.  It provided the resources needed to sustain the Allies advance to liberate Paris and the rest of France.  Then, this supply chain gave the logistical ability for the Allies to win the Battle of the Bulge and to reach their culminating point in Germany for the Battle of Berlin.  Additionally, it created opportunities of advancement for the Soviets in the Eastern European area of operations and the Allies on the Southern area of operations. 

Finally, psychologically, it created conditions for the Allies to project their forces with speed, surprise and mass through France, Luxemburg, Belgium, and eventually Germany.  Furthermore, it gave the Allies the confidence that a coalition of nations can maneuver, with combined arms, under one commander. This would have a strong impact during the final stages of the war that led to the surrender of Nazi Germany in the Battle of Berlin. Finally, it is stated that Operation Overlord was a domineering accomplishment of the Allies military judgement, technology, industry and ingenuity advanced through the war.[22]   

Germans

The occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord had a huge and adverse impact on the German industrial base.  Operation Overlord provided the final overwhelming impact to Germans lines of communication and industry.  These lines of communication and industry did not have the endurance to support the three areas of operation.  Finally, psychologically speaking, the Germans took a great blow.  In Germany, the population’s morale and confidence went down.  For example, shortly after the success at the occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord, there was a plot to assassinate Hitler.  All of these factors have a strong ripple impact on the Axis during the final stages of the war that would eventually lead to the surrender of Germany.

What do you think of the Battle of Omaha Beach? Let us know below.

[1]Dwight D. Eisenhower. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends(Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company INC, 1967), 273..

[2]         Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War.  (Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000), 16-22.  

[3]Winston Churchill.  The Second World War (Condensed Version).  (London, England: Penguin Books, 1989), 94-97.

[4]Murray and Millett, Second World War, 16-22

[5]         Dwight D. Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946, 6.

[6] Ibid, 17.

[7]  Ibid. 

[8] Erwin Rommel. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart (New York: DaCapo Press, 1988), 455.

[9]             Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944), 4-1.

[10]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 57. 

[11]Ibid, 21, 57.

[12]Ibid, 19

[13]Ibid, 20.

[14]Ibid, 20.

[15]Ibid

[16]John J. Marr. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 (2011): 64.

[17]Ibid. 

[18]Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1945, 9.

[19]Viscount Montgomery. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery(South Yorkshire, England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005), 257-260.

[20]Ibid

[21]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 42.  

[22]Adrian R. Lewis. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss. (University of Chicago, 1995), 442.

Bibliography

1.    Churchill, Winston.  The Second World War (Condensed Version). London, England:   

          Penguin Books, 1989.

2.    Eisenhower, Dwight D. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends. Garden City, NY: Doubleday   

            and Company INC, 1967.  

3.    --. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations 

    in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington  

         D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946. 

4.     Lewis, Adrian R. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss., University of 

     Chicago, 1995.

5.     Marr, John J. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 

          (2011): 62-68.

6.     Montgomery, Viscount. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery.  South Yorkshire, 

         England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005.

7.     Murray, Williamson and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World 

         War. Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University   

          Press, 2000.

8.      Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, 

      first published in 1945, 9.

9.      Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, 

        United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944).

10.   Rommel, Erwin. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart. New York: DaCapo Press, 

         1988.

A Brief History of Impeachment in America: ‘The perpetuation of our political institutions’

Impeachment has been a topical subject in recent months in America. Here, Mac Guffey considers the history of impeachment in American, including how it was designed by America’s Founding Fathers.

The impeachment trial of the 17th President of the USA, Andrew Johnson, in 1868.

Historian David Dewitt wrote this rather vivid description of America’s impeachment process:

The ponderous two-handed engine of impeachment, designed to be kept in cryptic darkness until some crisis of the nation's life cried out for interposition, was being dragged into open day to crush a formidable political antagonist a few months before the appointed time when the people might get rid of him altogether. [1]

It was a passage from his 1903 publication regarding the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson - Abraham Lincoln's successor.

But it's true - "impeachment" is one of those terms in the lexicon of American government and politics that, until some crisis of the nation's life, as Dewitt so dramatically put it, remains in the political closet. 

But the nature of this process, once this ‘engine’ is dragged forth, makes it essential for a free people to understand the process, and most importantly, the potential effect being unleashed. 

It is, and always should be, the people’s weapon of last resort.

Definition

First, the word impeach has two distinct meanings. One sub-definition means “to challenge the integrity of or the validity of”. The other sub-definition refers to a practice that originated in England - “to charge before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office”. [2] 

Alexander Hamilton even defined impeachment as “a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men.” [3]

To be clear, impeachment is not the end result of a Constitutional process as we often erroneously use it. It’s merely the beginning – to challenge the integrity of a public official’s behavior. The rest remains to be determined.

However, this process has a gravely inherent flaw the Founders did NOT expect - politics.

Who and how to impeach - the Constitutional guidelines 

This process of removing an elected or appointed official from office is structured by the Constitution exactly like the trials we see in all the courtroom dramas on T.V.  It begins with a formal investigation to determine if there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to elicit a charge, formal charges, and a trial before a jury. If there is a conviction, the Constitution even provides the penalty guidelines for the judge. Each specific role in this drama is assigned to a particular branch of the government, with the exception of the defense counsel. (The defendant provides his/her own.) 

The Founding Fathers designed and defined this process as a severely restricted power for the Legislative branch to useif and when the actions of an official in the Executive or Judicial branches appear to meet the Founders’ narrow definition. 

Here’s how they structured it.

Who is eligible for this process and on what grounds? (Article 2, Section 4)

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

After the Richard Nixon - Watergate fiasco (1972-1974), the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry in the House of Representatives attempted to add a bit more clarity with this rather relative guideline as to the types of misconduct that may constitute grounds for impeachment.

1.    Improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

2.    Behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

3.    Misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. [4]

It’s still vague, and it’s by no means complete, but it was a start.

Who serves as the Prosecutor and the Grand Jury? (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5)

The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Who acts as the Jury? (Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6)

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments… And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Who sits as the Judge? (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6) Normally, the President of the Senate (Vice-President) or the President Pro-Tempore (Majority Party Leader) serves as the Judge EXCEPT:

When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside;

If there is a conviction, what are the penalty guidelines? (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7)

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: 

The Founders did not want the government to go beyond this two-phase penalty. They felt that removal and banishment accomplished the role that a government of elected representatives should play in judging whether the actions or integrity of another elected official met the narrow limits of ‘treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors’. 

However, they felt that judging ‘criminal intent’ belonged to the people’s court, so they added this caveat to the end of Clause 7: “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.”

There’s always a ‘but’

Thomas Jefferson once said that "... In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution...". [4] However, David Dewitt and Alexander Hamilton were more pragmatic than Jefferson.

Writing about the subject of ‘impeachment’ one hundred and fifteen years apart, both men mentioned the politics of it all. Because this process is set in motion by perceived violation(s) of the public trust due to the misconduct of public officials, the prosecution of these officials, as Hamilton put it, 

…will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other. [3]

But, the greatest danger from this power to impeach, Hamilton noted, is not the potential for chaos and disruption. It’s the danger of this process – which is governed by the comparative political strength of the parties in Congress – being misused as a threat to bully or render the Executive and/or Judicial branches subordinate, rather than coveted as the only Constitutional means to determine official misconduct and remove the offender.

The true Guardians of our power to impeach

Abraham Lincoln once identified the greatest danger to our Republic as a country that elects its own leaders and the greatest bulwark against that danger. 

Invited to give a talk one cold January evening in 1836, Lincoln chose as his topic, The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions. Near the end of his talk, he posed a rhetorical question: “Is it unreasonable then to expect that some man possessed of…ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us?” His answer to the question also contained the solution to this potential threat.

And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.          

We, the People – are both the threat and the answer to the perpetuation of our political institutions. Respect for one another and for our Constitution and laws require a thorough understanding of our impeachment process, and a demand for its judicious use.

We are its true Guardians.

What do you think about the impeachment process? Let us know below.

References

[1] Dewitt, David (1903) "The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson" New York City, NY: Macmillan Company, p. 405.

[2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary @ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

[3] Hamilton, Alexander (1788). The Federalist Papers: No. 65from The Avalon Project, The Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School @ https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

[4] Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. (1950-) The Papers of Thomas Jefferson- 33 vols. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. v.30:pp.529-556.

[4] Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry (1974). Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93rd Conf. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 1974).

[5] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. v.1: pp.109-116.