US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Real Change, Enduring Change

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020) was on the US Supreme Court from 1993 until 2020. She was a very influential figure while on the Supreme Court and part of the liberal wing of the court. Here, Amanda L. Walton tells us about Ginsburg’s cases as an attorney, her time as part of the Supreme Court, and her lasting legacy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepting the Supreme Court nomination in 1993. President Bill Clinton is next to her.

“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) spoke these words about the impact of change and how we all can make a difference, but there couldn’t be better words to describe her lengthy career working towards equality and justice for all. Ginsburg was a pioneer, activist, lawyer, and eventually justice who dedicated her life to fighting for equality and social justice. She is one of the few women who truly worked their way up the patriarchal ladder.

Her career is defined by the work that she did to help ensure that women would have gender equality and marginalized peoples would have equal rights under the law. She co-founded the Women’s Rights Project under the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1961. This project helped to guarantee that women would have equal pay and equal employment rights.

Fighting for Equality – A Look at RBG’s Landmark Cases as an Attorney

Ruth started at Harvard Law School in 1956 where she was one of just nine women who were admitted to the program. Harvard only began allowing women to attend law school in 1950. As a lawyer, she would try six cases in in front of the United States Supreme Court. 

While Ginsburg was largely fighting alongside the ACLU to prove that women deserved to have equal protections and rights under the law, she would go on to try cases that dealt with issues facing men. This was a unique and strategic way of being able to open the doors for cases where women could prove that they were being discriminated against legally.

Equal Protection Under the Law – Frontiero v. Richardson

On January 17, 1973, Ginsburg first stepped foot into the Supreme Court to argue for the ACLU and assist with expertise and insight that has a bearing on the case. In this case, Shannon Frontiero had sought to have her husband get the dependent’s allowance that her fellow soldier’s wives were receiving. The law at the time stated that husbands could not be considered dependents unless their wives were the providers of more than 50% of the total income. In a ruling on May 14, 1973, the court ruled that this violated the due process clause and equal protection requirements based on the fact that the government could not legally justify gender-discrimination, as it was the same as race-discrimination. 

This case was one of the first to discuss gender discriminations and how women and men should be viewed the same under the law. 

Arguing Against Gender Clauses – Kahn v. Shevin 

Ginsburg argued for the appellee on February 25 & 26, 1974 in a case based on gender biased Florida law that allowed for widows to be granted a $500 property tax exemption that did not apply to widowers. She lost this case with a ruling on April 24, 1974 that stated that women faced more hardships when they were without a spouse and therefore needed this type of protection that men did not.

While the ruling was not in her favor, the dissents argued that gender classifications (a classification where there is no control) should be looked at judicially and that to have a gender-based classification there needed to be a significant justification that was not present.  

Social Security Gender Discrimination Cannot Stand – Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld

On January 20, 1975 Ginsburg argued for the appellee in Weinberger v. Wisenfeld. In this case Stephen Wiesenfeld had applied for survivor benefits for himself and his son after his wife died in childbirth. Wiesenfeld claimed that he was being discriminated against based on sex, because if he had died both his wife and son would have received benefits. The Supreme Court issued a ruling on March 19, 1975 that gender-based discrimination did not serve a valid legislative purpose.

This case paved the way for women to fight against gender discrimination as the court had ruled that there was no legislative purpose for gender-based discrimination. 

Old Gender Laws Must Go -- Challenging the 5th Amendment with Califano v. Goldfarb

In this case, Ginsburg argued on October 5, 1976 for the appellee, Leon Goldfarb. He had been widowed and was denied Social Security survivor’s benefits because he was a man and he was not getting half of his support from his wife at the time of her death. Under Social Security Act 42 U.S. C. Section 402 men were required to receive at least half of their income from their spouses in order to claim this benefit, but women were excluded from this clause. The Supreme Court ruled Goldfarb’s favor on March 2, 1977.

The courts rejected the generalization that women were more likely to depend on men for support as the old notions of gender law did not apply to justify different treatment of widowers and widows.

Tried by a Representative Jury – Challenging the 6th & 14th Amendments with Duren v. Missouri

Ginsburg argued the case of Duren v. Missouri on November 1, 1978. In this case, she challenged the petitioner’s right to be tried by a fair cross section of the community (a right that is guaranteed by the 6th & 14th Amendments to the Constitution). The issue came from a Jackson County, MO rule that allowed all women to be exempted from jury duty on request. Thus, in a county where the population was 54% white women, the jury for his case was comprised of all men who were selected from a panel that included 2 women and 48 men. On January 9, 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that selection process violated Duren’s Constitutional rights.

This case proved that the underrepresentation of women was unconstitutional.

Ginsburg’s 6th Supreme Court case was Edwards v. Healy (argued on October 16, 1974 and decided on June 9, 1975) which was vacated and reprimanded after the State of Louisiana changed their state constitution to be on the right side of the law.

Serving the People – A Look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Time as a Supreme Court Justice

In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. However, before she served there, she was serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which she was appointed to in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter.

While being seated as a justice for 27 years, Ginsburg heard a number of landmark cases. It would be impossible to talk about all of the cases that she was a part of without writing a book. There are some landmark cases that she took part in whether through decisions or dissents that show her as a champion for women’s rights.

Cosmopolitan Magazine politics contributor Sara Li argues that there are five basic rights that we would not have without Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court rulings. These are: 

·       The right to equal pay and a fair wage

·       The right to have an abortion

·       The right to attend any public university regardless of if you are a man or a woman

·       The right to marry anyone whom you may fall in love with

·       The right to be a part of the community if you have a mental illness

Court Decisions

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a part of many landmark court decisions. Many of the cases that she wrote the opinion for had to do with social justice or women’s rights issues.

Ginsburg wrote the opinion that gender equality is a Constitutional right in 1996 under the U.S. v. Virginia. The case centered around the Virginia Military Institute’s gender discrimination that only allowed men to attend. As a public university, it was decided that gender discrimination would not be tolerated in higher education. This case supports that women have a place in all areas of public life even within the U.S. military.

Ginsburg also fought for those who were suffering from mental illness. She wrote the opinion for Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. This case focused on the rights of individuals who were suffering from mental illness and her opinion supported that individuals suffering from mental illness are guaranteed the same rights and protections under the law. The case revolved around two women who had finished treatment at a state hospital in Georgia and were cleared for release, but then held against their will in isolation.

She became a champion for marriage equality. When ruling on Obergefelly v. Hodges in 2015 which granted the right to marriage for same sex couples, The Guardian reported that she was asked about procreation and she argued that a couple in their 70s could not procreate but was still allowed to marry. She went on to say, “Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female that ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down… Would that be a choice that states should (still) be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was.”

In 2007 she wrote the dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear which was a case that centered around the gender wage gap. She argued that the law was biased, because it did not account for the fact that comparative pay information was not readily available for employees. She urged Congress to amend Title VII. It was not until 2009, when Obama took office, that this would be signed into law. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill that Obama signed after taking office.

Finally, in 2016 she supported the upholding of Roe v. Wade in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This case challenged the Texas abortion bill that put unnecessary restrictions on the process to obtain an abortion that made abortions inaccessible to many women. The court ruled that the bill was to be struck.

Court Dissents

Communications professor, Katie L. Gibson, argues in her book Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy of Dissent: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law that one of Ginsburg’s most powerful attributes is that she was willing to take a stand on issues of democracy through her court dissents. On page 2 she writes, “one of her great contributions to American law is that she boldly challenged the traditional boundaries of legal language to make way for a feminist jurisprudence and more democratic rule of the law.”

One of her major dissents was with the 2000 Bush v. Gore where instead of writing “respectfully” in her dissent she began “I dissent.” This case changed the course of history for voting and elections as there was a Florida Supreme Court request for a manual recount of the presential election votes. This case has paved the way that in a tight election, there is no recourse for vote recounts, even if there could be potential errors with automated voting machine readings. Her dissent is powerful because it is a dissent that protects the voting rights of all citizens.

In 2013 when she wrote her dissent on Shelby County v. Holder which was a case that resolved around minority voting suppression, she said, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory practices is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” The court’s ruling was that it was a violation of the Constitution for Congress to set election terms rather than the state.

In the 2014 case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Ginsburg wrote her dissent against the ruling that the company would not have to provide access to birth control and emergency contraceptives for their employees. Her dissent argued that it gave a disadvantage to employees who had different religious views than their employers.

Finally, in one of her last dissents in July 2020, Ginsburg argued that striking down Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate was forcing women to have to look into alternative healthcare options on their own. She argued that this was forcing workers to “fight for themselves.”

Legacy

Whether it was through the landmark court cases that she fought in front of the Supreme Court or her opinions and dissents as a Supreme Court justice, RBG paved the way for women to stand up and fight against the suppressive culture within the United States that often led women to believe that there were things that they could not do. In 2018 On the Basis of Sex was released about her career. In an article on the popular website The Daily Beast Ginsburg fact checked the film and said, “This film is part-fact, part-imaginative, but what’s wonderful about it is that the imaginative parts fit in with the story so well.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped to pave the way for social justice and gender equality. In 2017 she spoke at Stanford and said, “I wish that there was a way that I could wave a magic wand and put it back to where people were respectful of each other, when Congress worked for the people, and not just along party lines. That’s the kind of legislature that the United States should have. I hope that comes when I’m still alive.” Sadly, with the current turmoil amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and one of the most contested elections in history, Ginsburg lost her long battle with cancer on September 18, 2020 before this wish could be realized. 

What do you think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy? Let us know below.

References

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/17-powerfully-inspiring-quotes-from-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html

https://libguides.wlu.edu/c.php?g=601727&p=4166850

https://www.aclu.org/other/about-aclu-womens-rights-project

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-6067

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-699

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-759

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-78

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-rulings-to-know-about

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/772/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/rbg-supreme-court-decisions-dissents/index.html

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a34097011/ruth-bader-ginsburg-most-important-supreme-court-case-rulings/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage-arguments-supreme-court

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fact-checks-her-own-biopic-on-the-basis-of-sex

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/07/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-speaks-on-the-court-the-state-of-womens-rights-and-a-meaningful-life/

Gibson, Katie L. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy of Dissent: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 2018. 

Resnik, Judith. “Opening the Door: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Law’s Boundaries, and the Gender of Opportunities,” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 25, no. 1 (2013): 81-91.

Rurbio-Marín, Ruth. “Notorious RBG: A Conversation with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” International Journal of Constitutional Law 15, no. 3 (2017): 602. 

Siegel, Reva B. “Equality and Choice: Sex Equality Perspectives on Reproduction Rights in the Work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 25, no. 1 (2013): 63-80.

Joe Lieberman: Senatorial Maverick

Joe Lieberman (born 1942 and Senator for Connecticut from 1989 to 2013), a Democrat before becoming an Independent, had support from conservative, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists alike. He voted conservatively on some issues, but also had a liberal voting record. It was his independent conservative Democratic voting record which led to his position as Al Gore’s Jr’s. presidential running mate in 2000. It was Lieberman’s nonpartisan policies which made him a unique, memorable, long lasting, and well-respected senator. 

Daniel Boustead explains.

Joe Lieberman with President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Joe Lieberman first ran for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 1988 as an observant Modern Orthodox Jew (1). This was evident because the nominating convention was on a Saturday and he could not go (1).  He accepted the nomination in a pre-recorded announcement, and it was all over the Connecticut newspapers ([1].) The fact that Joe Lieberman would not do politics on a Sabbath won wide support from both people of Jewish and Christian faith in Connecticut while running against three-term incumbent Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (1). Early in his U.S. Senate career Joe Lieberman friend, then U.S. Senator  Al Gore Jr., would turn on certain lights for Joe Lieberman when he stayed over with him at his parents’ house out of respect of Joe’s religious practice of  refraining from work on the Sabbath(17). In 1995, Joe Lieberman co-sponsored a bill called the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, calling on the President to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city of Jerusalem([2]). This bill helped garner support with Jews and Fundamentalist Christians. In 2011 Joe Lieberman co-wrote a book with David Klinghoffer  entitled The Gift of Rest: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath(3). This book showcased his religious observance in his own life and helped inspire both Jews and fundamentalist Christians. In 1988 in a Senate debate between Lieberman and liberal Republican Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., he said he would not sign a letter that Weicker signed demanding negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians(4). The same letter also mentioned that Israelis should follow U.N. Resolution 242 in which they would withdrawal from all Arab territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War (4). To many Christians Fundamentalists and Jews in Connecticut, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., had committed an act of sin and high treason and this helped ensure Joe Lieberman’s Senate victory. 

Cuba

Liberal Republican Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr. admitted in a debate on October 20th, 1988 that during the time he went to Cuba and brought American hostages out, he talked with Fidel Castro about normalizing relations and ending the economic trade embargo. (4). This effectively ended Weicker’s career (4). Joseph Lieberman said of Weicker’s visits to Cuba “I know from public records that Mr. Castro gave him $100.00 worth of Cuban cigars to bring back with him” and in another quote “He has become the Senate’s No.1 patron and advocate for Fidel Castro”(4). Weicker countered that Joe Lieberman’s campaign was being financed by Cubans from Miami, Florida. This was divisive, and to which Joe Lieberman replied: “I have received some contributions from the Cuban American community because there are two people in the world today that they and I would like to see out office one is Fidel Castro and the other is his better advocate Lowell. P. Weicker Jr.”(4).  In another devastating blow the National Review and conservative host of Firing Line William F. Buckley Jr. as well as his brother former U.S. Senator of New York James Buckley, formed BuckPac to support Joe Lieberman over Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (5).  On September 2nd, 1988 William F. Buckley Jr. featured a story to showcase his support for Joe Lieberman in his National Review entitled “Does Lowell P.  Weicker Jr. Make You Sick”(5). The fact that Lowell P. Weicker Jr. was so pro-Castro alienated him from the predominately conservative Christian and republican leaning Cubans as well as Jews, the Republican establishment, and other Americans. This helped ensure Joe Lieberman’s victory.

On March 5th, 1996 Joe Lieberman was one of the 74 U.S. Senators that successfully passed the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, which sought international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes (6).

Violent video games

In 1993 Senator Joe Lieberman chaired a hearing on violent video games because he was disgusted by the content of many games (7). This hearing lead to the formation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) on September 16th, 1994, which gave a video game rating system that exists to this day. The ESRB rating system is enforced via the voluntary leverage of the North American video game and retail industries for physical releases; most stores require customers to present photo identification when purchasing games carrying the ESRB’s highest age ratings, and do not stock games which are not rated. Additionally, major console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings, while console manufactures and most stores will refuse to stock games that the ESRB has rated as being appropriate for adults only (8). Joe Lieberman became a hero to parents of Christian and Jewish faiths of all political persuasions who wanted to protect their children from the effects of violent video games.

Supreme Court record

On October 2nd, 1990 Joe Lieberman voted yes to confirm David H. Souter to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (9). On September 29th, 2005 Joe Lieberman voted yes for John G. Roberts Jr. to be Chief Justice for the United States Supreme Court (10). Lieberman appeased some Connecticut conservatives, Republicans, Christian Fundamentalists, and Jews by voting yes for some conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees. 

Joe Lieberman (throughout his time in the U.S. Senate) had a pro-choice stance on abortion (11). On October 15th, 1991 Joe Lieberman voted against Clarence Thomas for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. (12).

On January 31st 2006 Joe Lieberman voted against Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (13).  Lieberman was pro choice and voted against Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. for the U.S. Supreme Court – this was one of many reasons why he survived the tough 2006 re-election campaign as an independent for liberal and Democratic voters. This was especially the case when his Democratic opponent Ned Lamont made issue of Joe Lieberman voting yes for the authorization of force against Iraq which caused Lieberman to lose the Democratic Primary, but he still won as independent (14).

Gore and Lieberman

Joe Lieberman was critical of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and his voting record made Vice President Al Gore Jr. choose him as his running mate in the 2000 Presidential Election (11). Al Gore Jr. also shared his conservative democratic voting record.

In addition, Lieberman supported Gore and his wife Tipper’s efforts in the 1985 Parents Music Resource Center senate hearings to regulate explicit content on musical records (15). The Parents Music Resource Center senate hearings lead to the sticker on records to this day that state Parental Advisory Explicit Content (15).

In the 2000 presidential campaign Gore-Lieberman effort resulted winning 17% of the conservative vote (which includes conservative democrats, conservative republicans, and conservative independents) and 8% of the Republican vote (16). The fact that both men had a conservative voting record on some issues helped take away conservative and Republican voters whose votes would have gone to Bush-Cheney. Gore-Lieberman won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

Joseph Lieberman never apologized for his practice of Orthodox Judaism. Christian Fundamentalists, Jews, conservatives and Republicans admired him. His voting record also helped him reach republicans and conservative voters. Lieberman also still maintained his liberal base during his time in the Senate. Al Gore Jr’s. choice for him to run was an inspired choice. Joe Lieberman was the first Jewish candidate to be on either presidential party ticket.  Joseph Lieberman’s policies helped him stay relevant from 1989 to 2013. Throughout his 4 terms in the Senate, he was greatly admired by his colleagues on both sides.

What do you think of Joe Lieberman? Let us know below.

[1] Lieberman, Joe. “Joe Lieberman”. Interview by Rabbi Mark S. Golub.  L’Chayim. June 27th, .2019, jbstv.org>lchayim-senator-joe-Lieberman. 

17 Lieberman, Joe. Interview by Ed O’Keefe. The Washington Post, December 5th, 2012, www.washington.post>video>thefold>2012>12>05. Accessed 18th October 2020. 

[2] “Joseph Lieberman (1942-)”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibary.org/joseph-lieberman.

3 Mayefsky, Chana. “Joe Lieberman: Embracing the Sabbath. Last Modified August 31st 2011. Publishers Weekly. Accessed October 7th 2020. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/48528-joe-lieberman-embracing-the-sabbath-html.

 4 Connecticut Senatorial Candidate Debate . Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Hartford Courant. C-Span. October 20th, 1988. 

5 May, Clifford D. “Buckley’s Are Backing a Democrat”. Last Modified August 16th, 1988. The New York Times. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleys-are-backing-a -democrat.html

6 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 104th Congress=2nd Session-Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 927. United States Senate. Washington D.C., 6.https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1047session=2&vote=00022

7 “Joe Lieberman”, Gamepeida.com, October 5th, 2020, https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Joe_Lieberman.

8 Entertainment Software Rating Board-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. 

9 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 101st Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington, D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

10 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: John G. Roberts Jr., of Maryland to be Chief Justice of the United States- United States Senate-Washington, D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

11 “Joseph Lieberman”. On the Issues.org. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm  

12 United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States- United States Senate- Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220

13 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

14 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 107th Congress-2nd Session-On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)-United States Senate-Washingotn D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

15 Grow, Kory. “Tipper Gore Reflects on PMRC 30 Years Later”. Last Modified September 14th, 2015. Rolling Stone. Accessed on October 6th, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politcs/politcs-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/

16 “How Groups Voted in 2000”. Cornell University-Roper Center, October 6th, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20180213193326/https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

References

Connecticut Senatorial Candidate Debate. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Hartford Courant. C-Span.October 20th, 1988.

Entertainment Software Rating Board-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. 

Grow, Kory. “Tipper Gore Reflects on the PMRC 30 Years Later”. Last Modified September 14th, 2015. Rolling Stone. Accessed on October 6th, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politcs/politics-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/

“How Groups Voted in 2000”. Cornell University-Roper Center, October 6th, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20180213193326/https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

“Joe Lieberman”, Gamepedia.com, October 5th, 2020, https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Joe_Lieberman

“Joseph Lieberman (1942-)”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-lieberman.

Lieberman, Joe. “Joe Lieberman”. Interview by Rabbi Mark S. Golub.  L’Chayim, June 27th, 2019, jbstv.org>lchayim-senator-joe-lieberman

“Joseph Lieberman”. On the Issues.org. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Lieberman, Joe. Interview by Ed O’Keefe. The Washington Post, December 5th, 2012, www.washington.post>video>thefold>2012>12>05. Accessed 18th October 2020. 

May, Clifford D. “Buckley’s Are Backing a Democrat?”. Last Modified August 16th, 1988. The New York Times. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleyes-are-backing-a-democrat.html

Mayefsky, Chana. “Joe Lieberman: Embracing the Sabbath. Last Modified August 31st, 2011. Publishers Weekly. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/relgion/article/48528-joe-lieberman-embracing-the-sabbath-html.

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito J, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 104th Congress-2nd Session-Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 927. United States Senate. Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00022

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 107th Congress -2nd Session-On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: John G. Roberts Jr., of Maryland to be Chief Justice of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 101st Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220.

The Life of One of the 20th Century’s Great Writers: George Orwell

George Orwell, or Eric Blair as he was officially known, was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. His novels, most famous of which are 1984 and Animal Farm, still remain popular and very relevant. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about Orwell’s life and the books he wrote.

A digitally colorised picture of George Orwell, c. 1940. Source Cassowary Colorizations, available here.

There never was an English writer named George Orwell, at least a legal one. The man the world knows as George Orwell was Eric Blair. His first book, “Down and Out in Paris and London”, a mostly accurate account of his tramping days, was his first attempt at a book-length literary product. The young writer was concerned that the book would flop and reflect poorly on his nascent essay-writing career. Orwell suggested that the editor use a pen name. He offered for consideration:

George Moore

George Orwell

H. Lewis Allways

The editor, Victor Gollancz, chose the name in the middle and a literary star was born. Gollancz, in later years, would state he chose the middle option because the Orwell River flows near the Blair family home in Southwold. Orwell was 31 at the time and for the rest of his life the writer would respond to either name whether in person or in correspondence. To his early friends he would always be Eric. To those who entered his life at a later date he was George. In later years friends suggested he should have his name legally changed. His standard response – “No thanks – that means going to see a lawyer and that puts me off.”

Eric Blair was the son of a British bureaucrat who, as a retiree, would shift to a domicile in Southwold, Suffolk, England. This would be young Eric’s home until going to Eton school as a scholarship boy. Tellingly, Eric was the only Etonian of his year to eschew both Oxford and Cambridge universities. Instead, to the wild surmise of family and friends, he signed on for a five-year term with the British Imperial Police. That experience led to the fictional “Burmese Days”, clearly the work of a novice. His other early work, “Down and Out in Paris and London”, is significantly better and this is no surprise. It is almost totally autobiographical, and although written before “Burmese Days” was published later. Although both were published a decade and a half earlier than “Nineteen Eighty-Four” the early directional signposts are unmistakable. 

Orwell in Myanmar and early writing

Orwell soon became aware of the unspoken central task he was expected to perform – keep the native people of Burma (Myanmar) in line. For the recalcitrant native the brutal overseer, or the policeman himself, was waiting in the shadows. “On Shooting an Elephant”, one of Orwell’s best known essays, provides fresh insight for the sensitive man of just whom is the controller and whom the controlled:

 “And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived at this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.”

Although this gloomy episode and its companion piece, “A Hanging,” serve as early direction pointers on the Road to Barnhill, Orwell does provide a comic event in “Down and Out” worth re-telling. Orwell’s intention was to play the part of a down and outer. He could play the part consummately well but he was at a loss to voice the part. He had decided he wanted to experience some time in jail. Accordingly, he got himself good and swished and staggered down the street in full view of a policeman. But when the gendarme heard Orwell’s plumy Etonian tones he stopped up and he became immediately gentle and solicitous – “Sir, are you a gentleman?” And just like that the game was up.

Pogo

Orwell’s early prose concludes with his lightweight novel. “A Clergyman’s Daughter” which deals with none of the salient themes of his major works. These themes may be identified as politics and the English language, the increasing threat of the emergence of the police state, and the eradication of history. At this juncture it seems right to introduce Pogo. Pogo illustrates the distance Orwell is now leaving his contemporaries behind.

Pogo was the eponymous name of a comic strip produced by Al Capp decades ago. Pogo was an alligator who lived in a swamp. And Pogo was a kind of rural philosopher who ruled the denizens of the swamp with wit and wisdom. In the panel I have in mind Pogo is depicted standing on his tail and with one hand shielding his eyes. He is peering into the distance and he is saying:

I have seen the enemy. He is coming. And he is us.

On the trail of Orwell

I arrived one Monday morning at the University College, London, early, not much past 7 am. The only persons in sight were two public school boys wearing their crests and colors. I needed directions so I approached the boys, Alphonse and Dudley.

“Say, could you tell me where the Orwell Archives are at?” Dudley snorted as he surveyed me – t-shirt, jeans and sneakers, a provincial if he ever saw one … ”Around here, my good man we don’t end a sentence with a preposition.” Well, wasn’t I the chastised one? So, I asked again. “Say, could you direct me to where the Orwell Archives are at, horse’s ass?” Actually that is only an approximation of what I actually said but I have to get this by the editor.

Later on the same trip I was able to trace the bookshop where Orwell worked part-time after teaching school all day. He still found time to work on his new novel – book number four –“ Coming Up For Air”. It is with this book that Orwell begins to address his concerns about government control in its citizen’s lives. His protagonist is George Bowling, a middle-class insurance salesman. Bowling is tolerably happy with his marriage as well as his job but he resents a tightening pressure from both without and within. Then, predictably, he breaks away when opportunity presents itself.

Bowling finds his way to the racecourse and backs a long odds winner. His first thought is to share his windfall with his wife. But the road to freedom leads out of town and Bowling, almost without thought, breaks away from his standard, homogenized life. He checks his rear-view mirror anxiously half-expecting a car full of freedom police chasing him…

THERE HE GOES… AFTER HIM… STREAMLINE HIM… FASTER… GET HIM.

George Bowling speeds along until he senses freedom. He veers into a side road and pulls up at a long-lost magical spot where a country bridge shades deep pools of shadowed water. And Orwell remembers. 

Orwell spent many happy childhood hours here. They watched the great fish swirl and flash in the depths. Those great lunker trout and dace still made his heart flutter. Memories. Fishing was always magic for Orwell. George Bowling was by far the nearest to his creator. Even their names reflect the connection. They are both named George And Orwell and Bowling are not far from being anagrams of one another. Orwell was always alive to prose that was animated and syntax that was as simple as was necessary to convey the intended idea.

Orwell as journalist

Orwell was a journalist and an essayist before he was a recognized novelist. There is a hard-to-find four-volume edition of his collected essays, letters and journalism – over 2,000 pages. On my set I have scribbled marginalia everywhere but the most memorable is the essay “Politics and the English Language.” Every first year student in whichever department or faculty should be encouraged to grasp its essentials. Otherwise they may end up writing and communicating in the way of Professor Harold Laski, a contemporary of Orwell’s:

“I am not indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth century Shelly had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.” 

Tender minds should be exposed to strong, direct, and clear language. For instance Orwell would have them influenced by this famous passage in Ecclesiastes:

“I returned, and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill, but time and chance happeneth to them all”.

49 words, 60 syllables nobly expressed.

Here is the same passage written in Newspeak, the language in the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four”:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

38 words, 90 syllables, inflated language.

In total Orwell produced nine books – six novels (counting “Animal Farm”, which technically is an apologue). Also three non-fictional narratives. Yet almost everyone only identifies and names two – “Nineteen eighty-four” and “Animal Farm.” “The Spanish Civil War” is less cited, while “The Road to Wigan Pier” ennobles a poor class in England and Wales – miners.

George Orwell was a driven man with few vocations or hobbies. One was wood-working or cabinet-making. According to his friends he tackled both with more enthusiasm than skill. His other pursuit, fishing, was the one that gave him a measure of success and great enjoyment. He was dedicated to his craft, but not to his health.

The Golden Country

Orwell lived in London for a long time but as he grew older he began to forge, in the smithy of his brain, a place that is tranquil and where the living is healthful. He gives his imaginary Utopia a name – the Golden Country. Perhaps he ought to have made his plans of escape sooner. Five years earlier he had contracted tuberculosis, first in one lung, then in both. In the spring of 1946 he left London to seek the Golden Country, wherever that may be.

In time Orwell was successful, The Golden Country turned out to be Barnhill, a deserted white-washed vacated country home on the remote Island of Jura in the Western Hebrides of Scotland. By the autumn of 1947 Orwell had settled to writing the first draft of what would be his Magnum Opus – “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

The Golden Country was close to Orwell’s vision of lakes and streams where the surrounding atmosphere was pristine and the waters are heavy with great lunker fish that swirl and swish in the depths. Wish me a rainbow indeed. The thing about Barnhill is even on this remote isle it was difficult to reach. A ferry service was available intermittently at the extreme south end of Jura while Barnhill was 19 miles away in the extreme and almost uninhabited north. A traveller to reach Barnhill had to beg a bumpy ride for nine miles by jeep. How to negotiate the remaining seven miles was open to suggestions. 

Barnhill would not look special to you or me but it was Mecca for Orwell. Barnhill is a fairly spacious deserted house with a rickety porch. Inside there are four bedrooms, three down one up. Orwell chose the hilly one upstairs for his bedroom-writing room. Old Barnhill hinted at a Gothic existence. Orwell settled and wrote a first draft of 1984. Orwell sought a peaceful life but he was not a hermit. He gave detailed travelling instructions so friends could visit. They came from London by train, ferryboat, land rover, motorbike, and sometimes on foot. On the down side Orwell’s health was an increasing problem. He had developed tuberculosis in both lungs. 

Orwell’s friends thought he was mad to live through a Jura winter with Barnhill as his prime shelter, but the writer defends his choice thusly:

 “Its funny, you always think Scotland must be cold. The West part is not colder than England and the Islands I should think decidedly warmer on average.”

Sadly, after the completion of his great novel the author’s health began its final descent. Visitors still made the trek from London but by now he knew he was in a race with death. Orwell prevailed but early in the new year he left his beloved Jura. He was now coughing up copious amounts of blood, he left Scotland reluctantly and was taken to University College Hospital.

He declined rapidly with not a soul nearby. In the early hours of January 10th, 1950, George Orwell – Eric Blair - died.

There were books strewn about his bed. Leaning against a green wall, all forlorn stood his fishing rod.

What do you think of George Orwell? Let us know below.

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here, and the American heroine Abigail Adams here.

Why did France Never have a Queen as Ruler?

France had a monarchy in some form for over 1,000-years - from the days of the Frankish dynasties to the 19th century. However, there was never a Queen monarch that ruled the country. Here, Melissa Barndon considers why France never had a Queen.

Marie Antoinette, Queen Consort of France from 1774 to 1792.

For as long as there have been queens in France, there has never been a female monarch. No daughters of the King, the princesses of royal blood, have succeeded to the French crown and ruled in their own right.

But wait, you say, what about Marie Antoinette? Wasn’t she a French queen?

Yes, but she was a Queen consort. Most French kings had wives, whose sole duty really was to produce an heir (and a spare if they were lucky).

In many European kingdoms, women could inherit power on the same terms as men. This was the case in England, the kingdom of Navarre, the kingdom of Naples, Hungary, Poland, and in Scandinavian countries.  Isabella I, Queen of Castille, and Ferdinand of Aragon governed Spain together from 1479-1504. So why could women not govern in France?

Salic Law

Many people would respond to that question with ‘Because of Salic Law’. Salic Law is a legal code from the sixth and seventh centuries in which laws regarding property and penalties were compiled for the first time as a written code. It is called Salic Law because many of the laws referred to the Salian Franks, a territory in what is today largely northern France, the Netherlands and Belgium. King Clovis, who is believed to have begun compiling the Salic Laws, was the first to unite all the Frankish tribes and is considered the first king of France. 

One article of Salic Law prohibited women from laying claim to ‘familial lands’, or terra salia. It did not restrict women from inheriting property; it only stopped them from inheriting Salic land which had usually been granted to men by Frankish kings or nobles in exchange for their servitude. Women could not provide the same service as men at the time, so they were not allowed to have control of these lands.

Crises of Succession

In 1316 there was a crisis of succession for the French throne. There had not been a crisis such as this before, as the French crown had always passed from father to son. Louis X, or Louis the Stubborn, died in that year leaving behind no male heir to take the crown. He had a daughter, Joan, from his first marriage, and his current wife, Clementia, was pregnant. The maternal uncle of the 4- year old Joan entered into negotiations with Philip, the brother of Louis X.

It was agreed that if the as yet unborn child was a boy, Philip would rule as the Regent. If the baby was a girl, Philip would act as Regent for Joan until she was 12 years old, after which she would renounce her right to the throne. This is important, as it recognizes that females had the right to rule France.    

The baby was a little boy. The jubilation did not last very long, however, as he died after only 5 days (thus becoming John the Posthumous). This particular outcome had not been considered, so Philip had himself crowned as king, Philip V. There was some opposition to his usurpation of the throne in place of the rightful heir, but an official declaration made clear that women were not permitted to inherit the kingdom of France. Significantly, there was no mention of Salic Law.  

Philip V, also known as Philip the Tall, died in 1322, leaving no sons. The crown passed to his brother, Charles IV, with little opposition.  

When Charles IV passed on very shortly afterwards, in 1328, it led to another crisis of succession. There were no sons and no brothers to inherit the throne. However, there was a sister.  

Isabella of France was the sister of Philip V and Charles IV, and the wife of Edward II, King of England. She claimed the French crown belonged to her son, Edward III, who was a direct grandson of Philip IV. However, the nobles declared that women could not pass on a right to rule they did not have, citing the two previous coronations. They declared the new king to be Philip of Valois, a first cousin and therefore the next indirect male heir, who was crowned Philip VI.  

The historical records of these events make no mention whatsoever of Salic Law.

The rediscovery of Salic Law

Salic Law was ‘rediscovered’ in 1358 by a monk in the library of the Monastery of Saint-Denis. One hundred years later a treatise called La loi Salique, première loi des Français, women and their descendants were officially excluded from inheriting the French crown because of their unstable nature and their inability to make war or to hold an office.  

Prior to this convenient discovery of Salic Law, the dismissal of female rights to the throne reflected the general situation of women in medieval Europe. Women were legally dependent on their fathers, husbands or brothers, and required to submit and obey. Theirs was the domestic sphere, where they were responsible for child-bearing and child-rearing. The public sphere belonged to men – justice, government and war was their domain. While in some regions they could inherit land and wield power in the absence of a male heir, generally women could not underwrite contracts, testaments or legal articles; they had to be drafted with their husband’s or father’s consent.  

Greek philosopher Aristotle had much to say on the natural weakness of women, and his ideas were also ‘rediscovered’ in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Aristotle believed women were born with a weaker body and little wisdom; while men were naturally the opposite with a strong physique and a developed intellect. According to the bible, women had been born of Adam to be his companion and to bear his children. Eve had given in to temptation when she took the apple in the Garden of Eden, and therefore all women were never to be trusted with matters of importance as they were too easily tempted. They must remain subjugated. A twelfth-century abbot warned men that a woman’s anger makes females “poisonous animals ... [T]he poison of asps and dragons is more curable and less dangerous to men than the familiarity of women.” A popular and common theme for church sermons was the sins of females – they were liars, temptresses, gossips, lustful, proud and backstabbing. A proverb of the time stated: “Woman is an evil that man cannot avoid”. 

Females were not without their virtues. A virtuous woman was kind, gentle and compassionate. She was dedicated to her children and to managing the household. It was these virtues which ‘allowed’ women to act as Regent for her son if he were to become the heir while still a minor. It was assumed the queen regent would always act out of love by keeping at heart the interests of her late husband and her child. Charles VI wrote in an ordonnance giving his wife Isabeau of Bavaria the duty of governing his heirs, with “written reason and natural instinct, a mother has the most tender love and the most gentle heart towards her children, and is more diligent in protecting and nourishing them affectionately than any other person, even those next of kin, and for this [the mother] must be preferred to any other.”

Women as Regents

Being a queen regent was one of few opportunities for the wife of a French king to gain power. From 1350 to 1500, we see some queens ruling in the place of their husbands who had become mentally ill or were absent at war. Philip VI, whom as we saw above had gained the French throne by usurping his cousin’s daughters, trusted his wife, Joan of Burgundy, more than he did his courtiers. In 1338, faced with war against England, Philip VI designated his wife as regent during his lifetime with full powers in government, public finance, and justice if he were occupied elsewhere. According to Philip VI, his wife “was raised with him and must fall with him; who better to entrust with the dynastic heritage?”

Isabeau of Bavaria held an unprecedented position for a queen of France because of the attacks of insanity suffered by Charles VI and his subsequent descent into mental illness. In 1402, Isabeau’s powers were extended to act in place of the king when he was unfit to do so. It was confirmed she held “power, authority and special instruction to appease all debates, discords, dissensions and divisions” that existed now or erupted in the future.

There have been many great French queens – Eleanor of Aquitaine, Anne of Bretagne, Catherine de’ Medici, to name just a few. All were raised in noble families, educated, more than capable of running their kingdoms as well as they ran their households, while producing heirs at the same time. But they were constrained by the same laws and restrictions placed on almost all women throughout history. However, they found their niche, whether it be a ceremonial role in the royal court, a nurturing role as Queen mother, or a political role as regent. In the early fourteenth century, chronicler Jean le Bel wrote “The kingdom of France is so noble that it must not go to a female by succession”. The French queens may not have been allowed to officially wear the crown, but they left their legacy in a myriad of other ways.  

What do you think of the roles of Queens in French history? Let us know below.

References

Gaude-Ferragu, Murielle, Queenship in Medieval France, 1300-1500, Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016.

Morrison, Susan Signe, A Medieval Woman's Companion : Women's Lives in the European Middle Ages, Oxbow Books, Limited, 2015. 

Queenship, Gender, and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060-1600, edited by Zita Eva Rohr, and Lisa Benz, Springer International Publishing AG, 2016. 

The Incredible Story of a 14th Century French Female Pirate: The Lioness of Brittany, Jeanne de Clisson

Jeanne de Clisson’s husband was killed following a sham trial in 1343; however, this betrayal by the French nobility led Jeanne to take extraordinary action. Here, Tom Daly explains how her lust for revenge led her to become one of history’s most famous female pirates.

You can also read Tom’s article on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here.

The Lioness of Brittany, Jeanne de Clisson.

On August 2nd, 1343, a large crowd gathered at Les Halles, a market place in Paris, to witness a gruesome sight. Several men who were suspected of plotting with the English to fight against the French king were being executed, following sham trials in which the verdict was never in doubt. Among the men was the handsome and charismatic nobleman Olivier de Clisson, who had fought for years to defend the northern region of Brittany from the English and who adamantly protested his innocence until his very last moment. His protests were ignored by those who mattered, and his last glimpse of this earth was a sneering group of nobles who had gathered in the summer sun to watch his beheading. 

De Clisson was gone, but the threat from his family lived on. Within days, news of his trial and execution reached his wife, Jeanne. Theirs had been a happy marriage and the distraught Jeanne turned her anguish into rage, swearing vengeance on any allies of the French king. For the next few years, she would stalk the English channel with a small pirate fleet and ruthlessly attack any French vessels she came across, personally beheading any noblemen she caught but always leaving a handful of survivors to flee and tell their horrifying tale. Fierce, determined and skilful, Jeanne de Clisson struck fear into the very heart of the French establishment, and even managed to retire peacefully after she felt she had achieved her revenge. History has a few examples of successful female pirates but most of them came from desperately poor backgrounds and fought their way up, motivated by wealth and glamour. Jeanne de Clisson, a woman of noble birth, was motivated purely by revenge and bloodlust. It made her a very dangerous woman indeed.

Background

Jeanne was born into a wealthy noble family in northern France in around 1300. When she was 12 she married her first husband, with whom she would have two children, but it was her second marriage in which she would find most happiness. After the death of her first husband, Jeanne married Olivier de Clisson, a nobleman from Brittany, in northern France. Theirs was an arranged marriage but Jeanne and Olivier did genuinely love each other, and they had five children together. Olivier was a dashing warrior who fought bravely to repel the regular attacks from the English, who often sailed across the English Channel and attempted to gain a foothold in France. 

Olivier was loyal to the French king, Philip VI, but at the start of the 1340s a combination of panic and political manoeuvring saw his loyalty questioned. After a few French defeats fingers started to be pointed and blame started to shift around, and Charles de Bois, a powerful nobleman who had the ear of the King Philip, saw an opportunity to take control of Olivier de Clisson’s lands in Brittany. So it was that in 1343 Philip took de Bois’ advice and had de Clisson arrested for treason. A sham trial was held in Paris and de Clisson, along with a handful of other nobles who had the misfortune of being blamed for France’s recent defeats, found himself having a date with the king’s swordsman on August 2nd.

Jeanne’s revenge

News reached Jeanne a few days later, and she was devastated. However, within a week her anguish had turned to rage and she decided to channel her anger into something productive – she would have revenge on King Philip and Charles de Bois. As told by Joanna Gillan, Jeanne swiftly sold off her and her husband’s lands and used the money to purchase a small fleet of ships, manned by mercenary seaman and fighters. To add to the terror she intended to inflict on her victims, she painted her ships black and installed blood red sails, earning her fleet the title of ‘the black fleet.’ She then set off into the English Channel, and waited for her prey. 

Within weeks they had their first victims – the crew of a small French vessel sailing under the flag of the French king. The small ship stood no chance of either outrunning of outgunning Jeanne de Clisson’s fleet, and most of her crew were ruthlessly slaughtered, with Jeanne herself enthusiastically helping her men in their grim deed. As was to become her trademark, she spared the lives of a handful of the French crew and dropped them off in a small raft near the French coast, telling them to return home and tell their king who had butchered their colleagues. This they duly did, and so began Jeanne de Clisson’s reign of terror.

Before long, most of Europe knew who she was. Allying herself with the English, she pursued any French ships – even stopping ships flying under different flags to check that they were not transporting Frenchmen – and ordered the decapitation of any she found (with the exception, of course, of the lucky few she chose to allow to go home and tell the tale). She insisted that she personally behead any Frenchman of noble birth, as she perceived that it was the noble class who had abandoned her family and stitched up her husband (of course, she was mostly correct in this perception). She never did manage to get her hands on King Philip or Charles de Bois, but the carnage the ‘Lioness of Brittany’, as she became known, caused for the French government ensured that she achieved a degree of revenge. Her mission continued even after Philip’s death in 1350, as she continued to pursue French ships with unrelenting venom – her rage was fully focused on the entire French establishment rather than just the king.

Final years

Still, her vengeful marine crusade could not last forever. Maybe her rage subsided, maybe she was wary of losing the support of her men, or maybe she just fancied retiring. Whatever her reason, Jeanne decided she had done enough by 1356. Retiring initially to England, she married for a third time to an advisor to the English king, Edward III. By 1359 she was back in France, where she died peacefully that year. 

Jeanne de Clisson never did manage to kill King Philip or Charles de Bois (who died in 1364) as revenge for their role in her husband’s death. However, her pursuit of that revenge ensured that she caused untold damage to their causes and subjects, and further ensured that she earned a reputation as one of history’s most fearsome women. She was hero to some, a murderous wretch to others, perhaps somewhere in between the two for most, but ultimately as long as she was feared Jeanne de Clisson probably didn’t care what people thought about her. 

What do you think of the life of Jeanne de Clisson? Let us know below.

Now, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here. 

Do Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Handling of Issues of Race show he is not the ‘Ideal Democrat’?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the USA from 1933 to 1945. He led the country out of the Great Depression and into World War Two. But, was he the ideal Democrat? Here, Donna Catapano argues that while his economic policies suggest he is, his social policies suggest otherwise - notably on issues of race.

Franklin D. Roosevelt meeting a Japanese delegation in the White House in 1933. During World War Two, Japanese Americans would be interned under Roosevelt’s presidency. Picture source: Harris & Ewing, available here.

Franklin Roosevelt is often looked at today by people as the “ideal Democrat”; the person who shaped the present-day Democratic Party. Many of those people, including educators, discuss this turning point in history when Roosevelt “made” what the Democrat is today.  When Roosevelt won the Presidential Election in 1932 by a landslide against Republican Herbert Hoover, the Democratic Party was introduced to a new level of government involvement. Even though his economic ideologies would still be considered relevant to Democrats today, his social ideologies would not.  His dismissal of the social issues of the 1930s and 1940s caused a ripple effect that we are still feeling in 2020. Roosevelt’s social principles, including those regarding lynching, racial profiling and discrimination within his New Deal programs, contradicts his status as the “ideal Democrat.”

As the years went on, the “Democrat” as we know it today, who is one who typically is in favor of federal government spending for public programs, associated those beginnings with FDR. Therefore, people typically describe Roosevelt as the “ideal Democrat”. However, one can argue that in 2020, Roosevelt would not be deemed that way. In his 12 years as president, he took many actions that today might fall elsewhere on the political spectrum.  Although he took several actions (and inactions) that might raise further questioning, three stand out.

1.     His refusal to sign a federal anti-lynching bill 

Between the years 1882 and 1968, more than 3,500 African Americans were murdered by white mobs. At the time, almost none of them were arrested and/or convicted for their brutal crimes. What emerged was an anti-lynching movement, whose participants demanded government action to stop these hate crimes. The extent to which Roosevelt spoke out against lynching was a fireside chat on December 6, 1933, when he briefly discussed the “vile form of collective murder -- lynch law-- which has broken out in our midst anew”. He went on to very briefly condemn the issue, stating: “We know that it is murder, and a deliberate and definite disobedience of the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. We do not excuse those in high places or in low who condone lynch law.”  Twenty-eight African Americans were lynched the same year he gave this 1933 fireside chat.  However, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against lynching on several occasions, joining the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Roosevelt’s first term in 1934 and having a close professional relationship with its president at the time, Walter White. She even went so far as to set up a meeting with White and her husband to encourage Franklin to publicly support the Costigan-Wagner bill, which he refused. Roosevelt stated to White at their meeting: 

“If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take the risk.”

Roosevelt stood his ground, fearful that the Southern Democrats in Congress, representatives he relied on to get his New Deal programs passed, would turn their back on him and  the New Deal. One can ponder: If FDR was president today, would he back the #blacklivesmatter movement, or would he spend more time worrying about his own Congressional agenda?

2. Japanese Internment during World War II 

During the Second World War, the federal government saw Japanese American citizens as a threat.  However, when President Roosevelt passed Executive Order #9066 in 1942, it made it acceptable for the Secretary of War and any designated Military Commanders to:

“Whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion”.

Moreover, it made it legal for said Commanders to prescribe what they called “military areas”, or relocation camps, for any and every person they deemed necessary: in this case, Japanese Americans. This executive order essentially allowed Japanese American citizens to be removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps where they were not allowed to leave, for not committing any crime but being of Japanese descent. This was perhaps one of the largest government-run racial profiling events in American history, and Roosevelt labeled it “A-OK”. One may ponder: how does this make Roosevelt different from the present-day with the current level of racial profiling that takes place for minorities such as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Muslim Americans?

3. A New Deal for Some of the American People 

When you learn about FDR in school, you most likely associate him with the New Deal and how it helped the American people recover from the Great Depression.  As mentioned above, these federally funded programs were set out to create and give jobs to suffering citizens. However, it did not include all Americans.  For example, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) of 1933 “not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks”.  Furthermore, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) of 1934 “refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods,” and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of 1933 created to employ young men on environmental projects, maintained segregated camps.  According to author Eric Rauchway, “Roosevelt never said anything outwardly about the fact that minorities were the last to get hired for New Deal jobs”. Once again, Roosevelt appealed to the conservative southern Democrats who were influential in Congress and oversaw many committee chairmanships, in fear of them blocking his pieces of legislation if he got involved with the “race question”. One may ponder: How might Roosevelt have handled job discrimination in 2020? 

Conclusion

The aforementioned reasons why President Roosevelt may not be seen as the “ideal Democrat” of 2020 are a few of a number of examples we can consider. Segregation in the military existed and he did not speak out against it. Regarding the Nazi persecution of Jews, he did not actively intervene or welcome Jewish refugees to the United States.

Franklin Roosevelt did much for the United States as a country economically. He revolutionized certain aspects of the Democratic Party, while staying silent on the pivotal social issues of the time. The birth of the present-day Democrat can be accredited to Roosevelt when it comes to the involvement of the federal government in citizen’s livelihoods, but not the social issues of the 1930s and 1940s.

So, in 2020, would FDR be considered the ideal Democrat? Let us know what you think below.

An Early European Expedition to America: The Spanish in New Mexico

The growth of European influence in modern-day America can be traced back many centuries. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses an early such encounter - the Spanish expedition to New Mexico led by Don Juan de Oñate in the late 16th century.

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

The San Agustín de la Isleta Mission in 1925 - one of the key reasons for European colonialism was to spread Christianity. This mission has roots back to the 17th century, although the town it is in was first encountered by Europeans in the 16th century.

Some call this a spectacular historical example of God’s Providence. Others challenge it as pure luck.  North American Native Americans are vital in the grand design for the world’s history. Their history plays an equally important role in the larger story in how history continues to be laid out for humanity. Their culture takes part in the same human history that God has had for all of humankind since the Creation.

Now, Providence is not just the name of a city in Rhode Island. Providence is a word that is generally defined as God’s omnipresent and active role in the world’s history. That means at any given time He may, or may not, intervene on humanity’s behalf. Providence is also seen as historical proof through linking current events, the historical past, and Christianity.

Many people do not know that one of the first times mainland America was entered by Europeans was by way of northern Mexico and the Spanish. It wasn’t until 1598 that the Spanish would fully try to colonize New Mexico. An expedition of 400 soldiers headed north from Mexico City, led by devout Catholic explorer Don Juan de Oñate. This was the second time that any European would touch mainland North America in this period. It was also the second time they would also have experience with the Pueblo Native Americans, as one of the first Native American tribes who they came into contact with.

Early Encounter

The feelings and observations of divine authorship over the initial European discovery of New Mexico could not be truly understood without offering a final example of God’s omnipresent works. Occurring shortly after this event, historian Villagra wrote of much hardship endured by Onate’s expedition into indigenous and untraveled New Mexico:

 “After many trials and many sufferings, [we] came in sight of a splendid pueblo. We gave it the name of’ ‘San Juan,’ adding ‘de los Caballeros’ in memory of those noble sons who first raised in these barbarous regions the bloody tree upon which Christ perished for the redemption of mankind.”[1]

The task of desert exploration was no easy job. And the idea of “trials and many sufferings” shouldn’t be taken out of context either. They were literally surviving. It was also mentioned that:

“These men are forced at times to subsist on unsavory roots and unknown seeds, and even on the flesh of dogs, horses, and other animals whose flesh is most abhorrent to all civilized people. Through the snowy passes they blaze their way as a plow cuts a furrow through the soil. Often in the mountain fastnesses they escape in snowdrifts only by clinging to the tails of their horses…”

Upon making it to a Native American village:

 “The natives of this pueblo came forth and gladly shared their homes with us. Here the entire army made camp. One day, while the general was taking his meal, the savages began to raise such a frightful wail that we all thought the final day of judgment had arrived, when we would be called before the judgment seat of God to give our final accounting.

Astonished and confused, we inquired the cause of such dreadful lamentations. The people answered that for a long time they had been praying to their gods for rain; that despite their prayers not a single cloud appeared to darken the heavens, and that unless the drought were broken all their hopes would be gone, for not a single plant would yield its crop.

On hearing this, the commissary and the good Fray [Father] Cristóbal, trusting in God from whom all our needs must come, commanded the Indians to cease their wailing, for they would offer prayers to God in heaven, asking Him to look down with pity, and, though they were disobedient children, to send abundant rains that the dying plants might revive and yield plentiful crops.

The Indians were greatly pleased, and like little children who hush when they are given the things they have cried for, ceased their lamentations. Eagerly and anxiously they scanned the heavens, awaiting the promised rain. The next day at about the same hour in which they had set up their wail, the skies suddenly became dark and the clouds of heaven opened and poured forth regular torrents of rain. The barbarians stood spellbound in awe and mute gratitude at the unbounding mercy of God…”[2]

God’s omnipresence is literal. History is His story. Examples of Providence are well-documented throughout history, including American history. Humanity, in all its make-up, is part of His all perfectly written and final grand design.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (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), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Minge, Ward A., Miguel Encinias, Alfred Rodriguez, Joseph P. Sanchez, Gaspar P. De Villagra, and Larry Frank. "Historia de la Nueva Mexico, 1610: Gaspar Perez de Villagra.” The Western Historical Quarterly 25, no. 2 (1994), 237. Doi: 10.2307/971486.

[2] Ibid.

The Beginnings and Growth of Islam in Kashmir

Kashmir has been a major center of learning since ancient times. It has been a seat of religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism (particularly Brahmanism), and Islam. Kashmir today is a largely Islamic state, but what led to the beginnings and growth of Islam in Kashmir? Manan Shah explains.

The ruins of the Temple and Enclosure of Marttand or the Sun, near Bhawan, from the pre-Islamic era in Kashmir. Probable date of temple A.D. 490-555. Probable date of colonnade A.D. 693-729. Photo taken by John Burke in 1868. Available here.

The advent of Islam in Kashmir can be roughly traced from the 14th century with the conversion of Rinchan from Buddhism to Islam, who later came to be known as Sultan Sadr-Ul-Din, and therefore becoming the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir (although earlier efforts were made by Muhammad-bin-Qasim during his invasion of Sindh). Rinchen originally came as a fugitive from Tibet during the reign of Shahdeva. Interestingly, Rinchan’s genetic roots have been traced to a royal bloodline in Tibet. Shahdeva, on the other hand, had an able minister called Ramachandra, who later ascended to the throne and was assisted by his daughter Kota Rani. Rinchen soon became envious of Ramachandra due to which he executed the latter and made his way to the throne. He even ended up marrying Ramachandra’s daughter. He was later accompanied by Shah Mir of Swat, protégé of Ramachandra, who later served as a minister and then overthrew Kota Rani to ascend to the throne. 

Rinchen’s change of faith is generally thought to be due to Bul-Bul Shah who arrived in Kashmir in 1324 AD. The birth name of Bul-Bul Shah was Sayyid Abdur Rahman, although some suggest his name was Sayyid Sharaf-ud-din. Bul-Bul Shah hailed from Turkistan and belonged to the Suhrawardi school of Sufism. Bul-Bul Shah’s influence over Rinchan was immense and so Rinchan learned the teachings of Islam. Another possible reason behind his conversion is political gain. It is believed that he initially wanted to convert to Hinduism but others did not want that, which led him to convert to Islam in order to maintain a strong alliance. Rinchan’s conversion caused a great impact in the society of Kashmir as many people slowly started converting to Islam in order to follow his footsteps. Hence, a place of gathering was constructed which came to be known as Bul-Bul Langar in Shar-e-Khas, the first mosque in Kashmir. It has unfortunately been reduced to ruins. On the other hand, some rulers and ministers such as Udyandeva and Bikhsana Bhatta did not compromise their faiths. After the death of Rinchin, Kota Rani married Udyandeva who was the brother of Shahdeva.

The growth of Islam

The conversion of people in Kashmir was further encouraged with the arrival of the Sayyids, the most prominent being Mir Siyyid Ali Hamadani, who is also known as Shah-e-Hamadan and Ameer-i-Kabir and Ali-i-Sani. Shah-e-Hamdan was born on 14 of Rajab 714 AH (1312 AD) at Hamadan in Iran. He came to Kashmir in 1372 AD during the reign of Sultan Shihab-ul-Din. It is said he was accompanied by his seven hundred followers. He stayed in the Kashmir Valley for seven years and later visited the valley at least three more times. During his last visit to the valley, he had to cut his trip short on account of ill health. He took his last breath in Hazara.

The arrival of Shah-e-Hamadan in Kashmir can also be traced to the advent of Sufism in Kashmir. Some temples were converted into mosques during this time by the people who had recently converted to Islam. Stories and legends centered around the shrine of Shah-e-Hamadan, with the claim that two leading Hindu ascetics along with their followers accepted Islam in the presence of Shah-e-Hamadan after he displayed his supernatural powers in the exact same location. 

Apart from Shah-e-Hamadan, there were other Sayyids who had come to Kashmir to preach and propagate Islam before the arrival of Shah-e-Hamadan himself. Sayyid Jala-ud-Din of Bukhara, Sayyid Taj-ud-din and Sayyid Hussain Simnani played major roles. 

Moreover, Shah-e-Hamadan’s co-workers and disciples such as Mir Sayyid Haider, Sayyid Jamal-ul-din, and Sayyid Jamal-ul-din Alai carried on his work. His son Mir Mohammad Hamadan carried on his legacy too. Also trying to carry on his work, Mir Mohammad Hamadan prohibited the sale of wine in the valley and also put a ban on Sati and forbid gambling and nach (dance). On his arrival to Kashmir, he was accompanied by three hundred Sayyids.                          

Influence of the Sayyids

The Sayyids influenced many ascetics in Kashmir who then came to be known as Rishis or Babas. They further helped to spread and propagate Islam with their mystic and philosophical thoughts. Their profound knowledge of Islam, humility, and respect for other religions attracted many people towards this new faith. It was believed that they often had supernatural powers or could make predictions.

Saints and Reshis like Shaikh Nur-ud-Din, Baba Nasr-ul-din, and Sheikh Hamza Makdum practically converted the whole valley through their precepts. Many of the Reshis and their disciples constructed Ziyarat which would uphold the tradition of their saints to which people pay tribute to this day.

Another reason that influenced conversion to Islam in the Kashmir Valley was poverty. Since the economy of the state was in crisis, the Sayyids brought many crafts and activities with them which people later took as their profession in search of a better livelihood. Another possible reason could be Brahman dominance in society and a rift between Brahmanism and Buddhism. In addition the emergence of landlords, unrest and mutiny in garrisons, quick successions of kings, and a lack of intellect and humility among ministers also resulted in unrest. This eased the path for Sayyids and Reshis, leading to the current Islamic nature of Kashmir, which has not only influenced the religious character but also socio-cultural aspects of the Valley.

Therefore, the state of Kashmir, which today represents itself as a Muslim majority state, once went through large-scale religious conversion, political, economical and social changes. This eventually changed the demography of the state. However, what never changed for Kashmir and its people is its indigenous aspect, which is essentially the amalgamation of different cultures, traditions and customs.

What do you think about the history of religion in Kashmir? Let us know below.

Bibliography 

G.M.D Sufi, Kashir, From the Earliest times to our Own.

P.N.K Bamzai, Cultural and Political History of Kashmir 

W.R Lawrence, The Valley of Kashmir

The Impact of the Bubonic Plague on Italy

The Bubonic plague, or Black Death, devastated the world in the fourteenth century, resulting in anywhere from 75 to 200 million deaths. In Europe, 30% to 60% of the population died. Here, Richard Marrison considers what happened specifically in Italy/the Italian states during the Black Death and its longer-term impact there.

Boccaccio's 'The plague of Florence in 1348'. Source: Wellcome images, L0072270. Available here.

The Bubonic Plague arrived in Europe around the year 1347, spreading from modern-day Russia. It appeared again later in the century on several occasions.

Within Italy (formed of a number of states/republics in the 14th century), the Black Death made its first landfall in Sicily (1347) and then moved on to other places including Venice and Genoa.

The plague was spread by the fleas that were on the black rat which came on Genoese merchants who were fleeing a Mongol attack. They entered Europe on their ships to save their lives.

The symptoms of this plague included a swelling beneath the armpits and groin area. It was the most deadly plague of that time – and took the life of the infected person within 2 to 3 days. 

Apart from the massive effect on human lives, the plague also had a huge impact on social, economic, religious, and cultural aspects of the places it spread.

The impacts on all these aspects contributed to the emergence of the Renaissance in Italy. 

Socio-Economic Impact of the Bubonic Plague 

The socio-economic situation was already bad in Italy before the arrival of the Black Death. A large population rate led to a lack of food, grain, land, and water. The plague hit Italy when the situation was already bad. The people got harmed so much by it as they were having trouble fighting against any diseasesdue to their poor immune systems.

The Black Death took millions of livess and the ratio of death was more higher among poor than rich. However, even the rich struggled to survive or fight against the plague.

The result was a decrease in population. For example the population of Florence went from 120,000 to 50,000 within 13 years, from 1338 to 1351. It also affected the population of most every city including Venice, Parma, and Venice.

Beside the direct impact on the lives of people, the plague also hampered the economy. Trade stagnated, there was also a rise in unemplyment, and many businesses failed. One of the reasons, aside from fewer customers, for businesses to fail was the lack of labor. However, despite the economic downfall, the wages for urban workers and those who worked in the agricultural sector began to increase.

People who managed to survive the Black Death got a chance to work at a higher wage and this led to a change in their living standard.

There was drastic social mobility too. The poor became merchants and the merchants became the nobility.

Besides this, many labour-saving devices were also invented and helped drive economic growth.

The cultural impact of the Bubonic Plague 

Culturally speaking, the plague led people to be obsessed with death. It was also shown in a form of dance which was named as the ‘Dance of Death’. Despite people knowing they were going to die, they still longed for happiness and peace.

The cultural impact was written about by the renowned literary figures Boccaccio and Petrarch. Their writings included texts about religion, happiness in life, beauty in nature, and the joys of life. Getting inspired by these figures many involved themselves in fine art, writings, and painting.

Before the plague, Italy was a rigid society where the culture of following the path of family tradition was a must. However, things started moving in a new direction afterwards.

People were increasingly able to choose what they wanted to pursue as their career. Some also started believing that no one should be judged based on how they were born.

Rather, they should be acknowledged for their merits, skills, and knowledge. With this, the system of Individualism started and many artists, writers, architects, and sculpturists emerged.

The religious impact of the Bubonic Plague

The Black Death led to a revival in religion as well. People often believed that everything that happened was as per the wish of God, and that the plague was a way to punish people who had been immoral, selfish, wicked, and greedy during their lifetime.

However, the Bubonic plague-infected and killed everyone including priests and monks. Indeed, labor started to lack in the church as well.

People, such as flagellants, then started practicing severe methods to show their devition to God, but this also did not help stop the plague.

So, the government started training more people as monks and priests, resultingd in the degradation of the quality and the standard of the priests and monks. This contributed to more corruption in the Church - and some then stopped respecting the Church.

The plague also led to a change in the education system, which had been largely run by the church before. A new secular education system emerged, mainly in the cities. This transformation played a vital role in the emergence of the Italian Renaissance as importance moved away from religion.

Impact of Bubonic Plague on Authority

Alongside less regard for religion, there was the emergence of more political revolts. Revolts were done by both classes of people: rich and poor. However, one of the most famous political revolts was led by poor laborers and became known as the Ciompi Revolt. The revolt started in 1378 and lasted until 1382.

More broadly, people grew more curious and started questioning more, but especially questions related to philosophy and politics.

This certainly contributed to the emergence of the Renaissance. Indeed, many poets and scholars started questioning the authorities which led to the growth of the Renaissance Humanism, which wanted to renew Christianity.

Conclusion

The Black Death changed the world in various ways. It took the lives of millions and also left an impact on various important aspects of life.

The plague changed the salaries of many people, living standards, and the progress of ideas. It made many people in Italy and Europe wealthier than before – and it also led to the Renaissance which in turn changed the course of history.

What do you think about the impact of the Black Death on Italy? Let us know below.

References

https://www.historyten.com/renaissance/famous-renaissance-genius/

https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20180212/plague-blame-the-flea-not-the-rat

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z7r7hyc/revision/2

https://time.com/91315/the-medieval-black-death-made-you-healthier-if-you-survived/

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=hon_thesis

Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?

The Nazi V-2 rocket became infamous during the latter part of World War Two in Europe; however, there was a different weapon commonly used by Japan against the Allies. Here, Daniel Boustead explains the importance of Japanese Kamikaze suicide attacks – and compares their military impact to that of the Nazi V-2 rocket.

A Kamikaze suicide dive against the USS Essex on November 25, 1944.

During World War II the Nazi V-2 Rocket achieved fame and infamy in its operational launchings against allied targets in Europe from 1944 to 1945. The Nazi V-2 rocket also served as a predecessor for the Saturn V Rocket that brought man to the moon in 1969. The V-2 rocket also influenced the U.S. Missile program.  However, the V-2 Rocket’s impact during World War II was much less than the Japanese suicide ‘weapons’ which were made by the Japanese Kamikaze units. Japanese Kamikaze planes were more effective than the German V-2 Rocket. 

Kamikaze plane sinkings

The regular Kamikaze piston engine aircraft sunk 46 ships from October 25th, 1944 to July 29th, 1945 - and 3 out of those 46 ships sunk were aircraft carriers (the most important target the Japanese wanted to destroy) ([1]).

The Japanese Model 11 Ohka “Cherry Blossom” suicide rocket plane sunk the American destroyer Mannert L. Abele off the coast Okinawa on April 12th, 1945([2]).

The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo sunk the American fleet oiler Mississinewa (AD-39) off the coast of Ulithi on November 20th, 1944 after it was launched from Japanese submarine I-47([3]).  The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo sunk the large landing craft infantry LCI(L)-600 at Ulithi on January 12th, 1945 ([4]).  On July 24th, 1945 the American destroyer escort Underhill was sunk by a Japanese submarine which fired the Type 1 Kaiten suicide torpedo at the  vessel and made a direct hit  sinking it in the Philippine Sea area([5]). A total of 3 American ships were sunk by Japanese Kamikaze Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedoes  during World War II. 

The Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats sunk between the dates of January 9th and January 10th, 1945 the American landing craft infantry-mortar LCI (M)-974 in the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines([6]). On January 31st, 1945 Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats sunk the American sub-chaser PC-1129 in the Philippines (6). On February 16th, 1945 Japanese suicide Shinyo motorboats sunk the American Large Landing Craft Support, MK  LCS (L) 3-26, LCS (L) (3)-7,  and LCS (3)-49 in the port of Mariveles in the Philippines (6). On the dates of April 3rd to April 4th, 1945 Japanese Shinyo Suicide motorboats sunk the American landing craft infantry-gunboat  LCI (G)-82 off the coast of Okinawa([7]).  A total of six American ships were sunk by the Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats during World War II. 

A grand total of 56 American Ships were sunk by Japanese Suicide Weapons during World War II: 46 American ships sunk by regular Kamikaze piston engine aircrafts, 1 by the Japanese Okha model 11 Okha “Cherry Blossom”, 3 by the Japanese Kaiten type 1 suicide torpedoes, and 6 by the Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats).

Impact of Kamikaze suicide weapons

The Japanese Kamikaze suicide weapons not only killed people and caused valuable equipment to be lost, but also created psychological fear in the American military who faced them. This combination made the Japanese Kamikaze weapons very effective. In contrast the German V-2 Rocket was designed principally to be a terror weapon against civilians and thus had very little effect against military targets([8]).  The Kamikaze weapons, then, had some advantages which the German V-2 Rocket lacked in military terms.

The Japanese Kamikaze suicide piston engine aircraft, the Japanese Model 11 Ohka Cherry Blossom suicide rocket planes, and Shinyo suicide motorboats had increased accuracy because humans were inside them. The German V-2 rocket lacked this and was guided to its target using a combination of radio control transmitter a control receiver, and a gyroscope([9]). The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide  torpedo had a 3,400 lbs. warhead and its fuel was a kerosene and oxygen mixture, which meant that it would not leave a white trail of water behind it, making it hard to spot after it was fired ([10]).

In contrast while the V-2 rocket and the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo were invulnerable after being launched, the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo was more destructive than the German V-2 rocket. The reason is that the German V-2 rocket warhead was filled with 1,650 pounds of the explosive Amatol([11]). The fact that Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo carried a 3,400 lbs. warhead made a far more destructive weapon than the German V-2 rocket. According to the series Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WW II: Axis Weapon - The Kamikaze, historian Tosh Minhora stated: “The Kaiten was intended to sink a very large battleship - just with one shot it packed a large punch!”([12]). Also, the fact that the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo had human guidance improved its accuracy over the V-2 rocket’s complicated guidance system. The Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo was probably the strongest Kamikaze suicide weapon.

The combination of Japanese Kamikaze weapons, the fanatical and diehard Japanese refusal to surrender, (that the allies witnessed fighting the Japanese in the Pacific and Asian Theatre), and little to almost no opposition to war at home in Japan or by ethnic Japanese in their occupied territories, forced the Allies to enact three drastic measures. The Americans used atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and then again on Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. Thirdly the Soviets’ launched Operation August Storm which retook the Japanese occupied colonies of Manchuria, Kuril Islands, and Sakhalin Islands. It was only after these three events that the Japanese capitulated to the Allies on August 15th, 1945 and signed a peace treaty aboard the American Battleship U.S.S. Missouri. In contrast, “while the V-2 Rocket resulted in the Allies having to divert manpower from other necessary military operations to civil defense, aerial reconnaissance, and bombing of the flying bomb sites - England was not terrorized into surrender and the flow of military supplies to Antwerp, Belgium and Liege, Belgium was barely affected”(8).

The V-2 rocket achieved infamy and brought about destruction in Europe from 1944 to 1945, and it would serve as the model of the rocket that put a man on the moon in 1969. However, the German V-2 rocket did not have the strategic and tactical impact that the Japanese Kamikaze weapons had. These unconventional Japanese weapons were clearly superior in destructive power and military effectiveness. 

Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze weapons were more effective than the Nazi V-2 rockets? Let us know below.

[1] Gordan, Bill. “47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft”. Kamikaze Images. Accessed August 28th, 2020.https://wgordon.web/wesleyan/edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm 

[2] Grunden, Walter E. Secret Weapons & World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. Lawrence: Kansas. University Press of Kansas. 2005. 152. 

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and  World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval  Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 169. 

[4] “NavSource Online: Amphibious Photo Archive- USS LCI(L)-600”. August 28th, 2020. https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15/150600.htm

[5] Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 159. 

[6] Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based in the Philippines 1944-1945. Last Modified. 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/PhilippinesEMB.htm

[7] Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based at Okinawa  1944-1945. Last Modified 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed August 29th, 2020. 

[8]  Kennedy, Gregory P.  Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 79. 

[9] Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket.  Atlgen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 51-53. 

[10] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. BlueJacket Books Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 39 

[11] Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. 2006. 48. 

[12] Minohara, Tosh. “Axis Weapon-The Kamikaze”. Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WWII. PBS. 2014-2015. 

Bibliography

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II.  Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 

Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.  New York: New York. Random house, 1999.

Gordon, Bill. “47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft”. Last Modified 2007. Accessed August 28th, 2020. https://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm

Gruden, Walter E. Secret Weapons & World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. Lawrence: Kansas. University Press of Kansas. 2005

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based in the Philippines 1944-1945”. Last Modified 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/PhilippinesEMB.htm

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!:” Explosive Motorboats  based on Okinawa 1944-1945”. Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/OkinawaEMB.htm

Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 

Minohara, Tosh. “Axis Weapon: The Kamikaze”. Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WWII. PBS. 2014-2015. 

“USS LCI9(L)-600”. NavSource Online. Last Updated August 23rd, 2019. Accessed on August 28th, 2020.https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15/150600.htm