A Secret US Cold War Facility in Greenland: Operation Iceworm

During the Cold War both the Americans and Soviets set up secret facilities all over the world in order to give them an advantage over the other side. One of the most ambitious was Operation Iceworm (or Project Iceworm), an American attempt to set-up a major base in frozen Greenland with many nuclear missiles that could reach the USSR. K.R.T Quirion explains.

The PM-2A nuclear power plant. From 1960 until 1963, the electricity was provided by this portable nuclear reactor, known as PM-2A.

In 1959, Army surveyors began preparing for a new U.S. military station to be built on the Greenland icecap. It would come to be called Camp Century. The official statement claimed that it would be an experiment in constructing military facilities on the icecap. The Army would test various construction techniques under Arctic conditions, explore practical problems with a semi-mobile nuclear reactor, and support scientific experiments.

Publicly, Camp Century claimed to show how ordinary Americans could live and work in a remote location, and a veritable first-step in determining whether a viable moon colony could ever be maintained. Tunneling began in 1959 and went on for three years. Eventually, the underground facility would house sleeping quarters, laboratories, offices, a barbershop, laundry, library, and warm showers for 225 soldiers. The entire base was powered by a nuclear reactor that had been shipped in to provide electricity.[1]

Despite the public claim that Camp Century was nothing more than a “nuclear-powered Arctic research center,” the truth was more reminiscent of a James Bond film.[2]In 1997 the Danish Institute of International Affairs published a report titled Grønland under den kolde krig(Greenland during the Cold War), in which the contents of a newly declassified U.S. document were discussed.[3] This report outlined the existence of a top-secret plan by the U.S. Army to construct a massive nuclear missile facility under the Greenland Icecap. During the early 1960s, the Danish government had no idea that this strategic base was being constructed underneath their own sovereign soil. Plans for this base were kept secret from the Danes because at the time the Danish government supported the popular “no to nuclear weapons in Denmark” movement.[4] But, to those in the know, Camp Century was the home of “Operation Iceworm.”

Nuclear Facility Plans

In the early years of the Cold War, NATO relied almost entirely on the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to deter Warsaw Pact aggression. By the mid-1950s, the U.S. was struggling to meet the ever-escalating demands of its global war against the Soviet Union. NATO allies were demanding that the U.S. deploy nuclear forces in sufficient number and range to credibly deter a Soviet attack. In a 1960 report entitled the Strategic Value of the Greenland Icecap, the U.S. Army Engineer Studies Center described a plan to deploy 600 Mid-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) across 52,000 square miles of Greenland’s frozen ice sheet.[5]

The new two-stage “Iceman” missiles that army planners envisioned for “Operation Iceworm” had a range of 3,300 nautical miles. From its strategic location within the Arctic Circle, Camp Century and its retinue could cover 80% of all relevant Soviet targets.[6]Furthermore, because of its design and harsh climate, the base would be nearly invisible and penetrable only by ground forces or the most massive of thermonuclear assaults. Finally, as a safeguard, the missiles would be moved every few hours via a subterranean railway among 2,100 different launch sites and controlled by sixty launch control centers (LCCs) embedded in hardened bunkers.[7]

Accommodating the “Iceman” missiles and the 11,000-strong defense and support team needed to maintain them would require a massive expansion of Camp Century’s livable facilities. The Army calculated the price tag of “Operation Iceworm” as around $2.37 billion. Construction of the strategic facilities began as soon as tunneling started in 1959. 

Challenges

Despite initial success, the lynch pin of the entire facility, the subterranean railway that would transport the “Iceman” missiles, was found to be infeasible. After construction began it was found that the tunnel walls, made only of ice and snow, were in continual flux due to the natural shifting of the icecap. This constant movement caused the tunnels and trenches to narrow as their walls deformed, bulged, and settled. In some instances the tunnels collapsed entirely. These complications created a danger for Camp Century’s nuclear arsenal and made transportation on the missile train impossible.[8]Even the nuclear reactor, which provided electricity to the Camp, was in constant danger from the ice shifting. By the summer of 1962 the ceiling of the reactor room had dropped five feet and had to be lifted to avoid fatal contact with the reactor. Collapsing continued and the Army was forced to deactivate and remove the reaction chamber of the nuclear generator.[9]

Due to these complications, and a fierce inter-service rivalry for control of strategic nuclear assets, “Operation Iceworm” was abandoned in 1963 having never received any of its nuclear ordnance. Camp Century remained operational for a few more years as a summer research facility until it too was decommissioned in 1967. When the Army final left, minimal deconstruction and removal was conducted. Along with the facilities and transportation infrastructure, 200,000 liters of diesel fuel as well as other chemical, biological, and radiological wastes were left under the ice. [10]The Army abandoned Camp Century hoping that the remaining memory of “Operation Iceworm” would be “preserved for eternity” under the perpetual snowfall of the Greenland Icecap.[11]

Let us know what you think of Operation Iceworm below.

Now, you can read K.R.T Quirion’s recently published series on telegraphy in the US Civil War here.

[1]Petersen, Nikolaj, “The Iceman That Never Came,” Scandinavian Journal of History 33, No. 1 (2008): 75–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/03468750701449554, 78.

[2]Ibid., 75.

[3]Niiler, Eric, “When the Pentagon Dug Secret Cold War Ice Tunnels to Hide Nukes,” History.com, A&E Television Networks, March 27, 2019, https://www.history.com/news/project-iceworm-cold-war-nuclear-weapons-greenland.

[4]Nielsen, Kristian Hvidtfelt, and Henry Nielsen, Aarhus University, Centre for Science Studies, and Aarhus University, “How the US Built a Mysterious Military Camp under the Greenland Ice Sheet,” SNORDIC-FRONT, December 19, 2017. https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-history/how-the-us-built-a-mysterious-military-camp-under-the-greenland-ice-sheet/1451993.

[5]Petersen, “The Iceman That Never Came,” 79.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Weiss, Erick D., “Cold War Under The Ice: The Army’s Bid for a Long-Range Nuclear Role, 1959-1963,” Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, (Fall, 2001): 31-58, doi:10.1162/152039701750419501, 41.

[8]Niiler, “When the Pentagon Dug Secret Cold War Ice Tunnels to Hide Nukes.”

[9]Colgan, William, Horst Machguth, Mike Macferrin, Jeff D. Colgan, Dirk Can As, and Joseph A. Macgregor, “The Abandoned Ice Sheet Base at Camp Century, Greenland, in a Warming Climate,” Geophysical Research Letters

 43, No. 15 (April 2016): 8091-96, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016g1069688, 8091.

[10]Ibid., 8092.

[11]Ibid., 8091.

The Netherlands in South Africa: Dutch Colonization in the 17th Century

Modern day South Africa has had contact with Europeans for centuries, and the first group to settle there were the Dutch. Here, Matt Lowe looks at the history of Dutch settlement in South Africa in the 17thcentury and considers how this played a part in later South African history.

A painting depicting the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, first Commander of the Cape, to Table Bay in April 1652. Painting by Charles Davidson Bell.

At the far southern end of the Old World, the land that is now known as South Africa has been inhabited by humans for thousands of years. Nowadays, in the West, South Africa is remembered as the land of Apartheid with continued racial tensions between the black majority and white minority, the legacy of the country’s complicated colonial past. European-descended South Africans are relatively new arrivals to the region, but just how long they have been present in the country may not be evident. Permanent European settlements were first founded by the Dutch in 1652, unintentionally leading to the creation of a new ethnic group in South Africa with its own language, history, and ideology, and, perhaps most notably from a modern perspective, its own unique sins.

The Dutch East Indies Company and the Founding of Cape Colony

Beginning in the early 1400s, the Age of Discovery saw ships from several European nations set out with the explicit purpose of finding new lands and trade routes. As a small country with maritime prowess, the Portuguese were among the most prolific explorers during this period. A Portuguese expedition led by Bartolomeu Dias was the first to locate the Cape of Good Hope at the southwestern tip of South Africa. Ten years later, Vasco da Gama would follow the same route and push further on to be the first to sail from Europe to India. During this voyage, da Gama briefly landed north of the Cape and made contact with the Khoikhoi natives for the first time. For over one hundred years, no other European nations would spend any considerable amount of time or effort in the region.

Like Portugal, the Netherlands was a small country dependent on sea trade. The Dutch wanted to gain a foothold in the immensely lucrative spice trade and sent its fleets to India and the Far East. The Dutch government decided that a chartered company would be useful to profitably govern the growing colonies in India and Indonesia. Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) or Dutch East Indies Company was founded in 1602 and was given almost total political and economic authority over the Dutch possessions in the East. It soon became official protocol for outgoing and returning VOC ships to anchor at the natural harbor of Table Bay at the Cape of Good Hope as a convenient place to rest the crews on the long voyages.

In 1651, the Council made the decision to send a small fleet to the Cape to establish a permanent supply base. Jan van Riebeeck, who had been a competent and loyal employee of the VOC since 1639, was chosen to command the expedition and directly oversee the development of the colony. His orders were simple. He was to find ways to provide food and clean water to the visiting ships and to construct a fort to defend the settlement. Of course, these objectives proved rather difficult to achieve. The expedition, made up of Dutch (and some German) VOC employees and their families and soldiers, departed the Netherlands on December 24, 1651 and arrived in Table Bay on April 6, 1652. Van Riebeeck could not have known it at the time, but the arrival of his fleet would define South African history for the next three and a half centuries.

Early Development

The first priorities were to find food sources, make contact with the native population, and begin construction of the fort. All these efforts progressed simultaneously. Some settlers were put to work experimenting with growing various kinds of European crops, while others were sent to explore the coast and further inland for meat and fish. Prior to the expedition’s arrival, the region had been sparsely populated by the Khoikhoi (or Khoi) and San tribes. The Dutch made initial contact with the Khoi and began trading European goods for local cattle. This relationship benefitted both parties and continued for several decades. There were periods of conflict between the Khoi and the settlers, of course, but the Dutch tried to stay on good terms with them when possible. The San group, however, were not interested in dealing with the Dutch. With food sources established and a fort under construction, Cape Town, the first settlement, was established.

Ships began arriving at Cape Town within a year of its founding, bringing supplies to help the colony grow and consolidate. Van Riebeeck and his settlers were diligent, and the viability of the colony soon became evident. The climate at the Cape proved well suited to growing European crops and trees as well as plants from India and the Far East. Sufficient numbers of cattle were purchased from the Khoikhoi that there were eventually enough for Dutch farmers to raise their own herds. Additionally, the first wine grapes were planted, which began the long tradition of South African wine. Establishing law and order was a priority as well. Early on, Robben Island in Table Bay, where Nelson Mandela was held prisoner for 18 years, was used as a prison and place of exile. Criminal settlers, slaves that attempted to run away, and Khoikhoi and San people that tried to steal from or cheat the Dutch farmers were sent there to live in isolation from the main colony. However, similar to the contemporary European colonies in North America, disease killed many early settlers before adequate housing had been built to protect them from the elements. Population growth in the colony was slow in the early years due to these factors as well as the low numbers of new colonists that arrived from Europe. Over time, however, the colony would become more robust and fresh settlers would steadily arrive for centuries to come.

From the start, the VOC shipped slaves from India, the East Indies, and West Africa to Cape Colony. Since there were only a few hundred European settlers, the colonists alone could not make the farms and ranches functional. Life for the slaves was difficult, although the settlers were prohibited from harming them, as they were considered VOC property. Initially, there were too few settlers to keep watch of the slaves, and many were able to escape into the interior, although there was no hope for them to ever return to their homelands. The natives of the region were not enslaved, however, since the Dutch needed to do business with them in order to survive. In fact, interracial marriages between Dutch men and Khoi or slave women were condoned by the VOC under the proper circumstances. The first mixed marriage occurred between a Dutchman and a freed Indian slave girl in 1658, and the first official Protestant wedding between a European and Khoi woman in 1664. The descendants from these relationships and the colony’s slaves would, in time, create a separate ethnic community known as the ‘Cape Coloureds’ that number in the millions in modern South Africa.

Consolidation of Cape Colony

Legally and practically, the VOC had a monopoly on all the economic activity of Cape Colony. This did not mean, however, that every settler was a company employee per se. Independent citizens, or free burghers, were allowed to own their own farms, ranches, mills, and other businesses, provided, of course, that they sell most of their goods to the company for fixed prices. This arrangement allowed for the VOC to make Cape Colony profitable while, ideally, giving enough freedom to its residents to live how they wanted. Most of the burghers were former VOC employees that had already served the company abroad. The free burghers gradually developed a distinct identity as a community, one that valued individualism and distrusted formal authority. Some burghers would become “trekboers”, or semi-nomadic ranchers. The trekboer lifestyle was an early manifestation of the individualism that would become a prominent feature of Afrikaner culture in later centuries. 

Van Riebeeck was relieved of his command in 1662. The Cape Colony commanders that followed van Riebeeck would primarily continue the policies and projects that he had begun. The fort would eventually be replaced by the much larger and more complex Castle of Good Hope, which still stands today in Cape Town. It was not until Simon van der Stel assumed the governorship in 1679 that the colony began to mature economically and expand further inland. Starting with van der Stel, the role of commander was upgraded to governor, with all the civil administrative connotations it entailed. Under his leadership, new towns were founded, agricultural production increased to surplus levels, and the colony started to transform into more than just a supply station for VOC ships.

During van der Stel’s tenure, the first French Huguenots arrived in Cape Colony. While most Huguenots fleeing religious persecution in France went to England and the Netherlands, the VOC paid for around two hundred men, women, and children to emigrate to South Africa starting in 1688. France had been an enemy of the Dutch many times prior, but the Huguenots were broadly welcomed at the Cape, due mostly to their Protestant faith which they shared with the Dutch and German colonists. As the colony continued to grow, the Huguenots worked in farming and ranching and contributed greatly to the quality of South African wine. The French settlers assimilated into the Dutch culture of the region, although French surnames are still present among the modern Afrikaner population.

Simon van der Stel retired in 1699 and was succeeded by his son Willem. Unfortunately for the colonists and the VOC leadership, Willem van der Stel was deeply corrupt. For over seven years, van der Stel built a massive estate with company funds and deliberately took steps to monopolize the colony’s farms and ranches under his and his associates’ control. Company employees and free burghers viewed this with great concern and began to organize against van der Stel’s rule. With much trouble and the wrongful imprisonment of prominent burghers, a petition detailing the governor’s abuses and signed by dozens of colonists was shipped back to the Netherlands in 1706. The VOC leadership, wary of discontent in one of their most important colonies, sent orders back that called for peace to be restored at the Cape, dismissed van der Stel, and ordered him to return to Amsterdam. Willem van der Stel left the colony in 1708 and would never return. With his departure, the early period of modern South African history had ended.

Conclusion

During this first half decade of development, the southwestern point of the continent had been permanently altered. The embryonic European population had grown to around two thousand persons, while there were two to three times as many slaves. The land had been tamed and the colonists had learned to utilize the good weather of the region to grow crops, raise livestock, and make high quality wine. It had transformed into a place for permanent settlement rather than merely a VOC outpost. Notably, the fierce independent nature that Afrikaners would become known for in later centuries began to coalesce. Physical distance from the authorities and the need for self-sufficiency in a new land combined to make the colonists distrustful of outside interference in their affairs. Importantly, they began to view themselves as a separate, unique community rather than just a European oasis in Africa. The mass exodus of “Boers” from the Cape in the 1830s and their subsequent wars with the British were the direct results of this independent streak that began in the 1600s. For better or worse, the Europeans were in South Africa for the long haul, and the settlers, slaves, natives, and their descendants would have to reckon with this fact for centuries to come.

How do you think early Dutch settlement impacted later South African history? Let us know below.

References

“History of Slavery and Early Colonisation in South Africa.” South African History Online.
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa.

Hunt, John. “Dutch South Africa: Early Settlers at the Cape 1652-1708.” Leicester, United Kingdom: Troubador Publishing, 2005.

Theal, George McCall. “History of South Africa Before 1795: Foundation of the Cape Colony by the Dutch.” London, United Kingdom: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1907.

The Tower of Babel & The Hadron Collider: Civilization’s Final Attempt To Play God?

There have been many attempts by humanity to ‘play God’ over history. Here, Daniel L. Smith explains the Hadron Collider project in the context of the Tower of Babel narrative from the Bible, Genesis 11:1-9.

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

Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1594. In the Louvre Museum.

When we consider lessons being taught and learned throughout our lives, we don’t necessarily think of these lessons starting at the very beginning of time. These lessons include the ethical and moral principles in which Christianity itself is based upon. Even further though, we never pull back far enough to see how lessons affect society and humankind as a whole unit. From the beginning mankind has chosen to take the path, seemingly today more frequently traveled, in poor decision making for achieving scientific greatness—all starting with Adam and Eve—with their choice to eat the apple from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. Humanity didn’t learn its lesson from The Fall, which shows us that humanity can’t do it their own way. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. This ultimate expulsion sealed the fall of mankind.

The world was a wicked place in the days of Noah. The disgraceful, disgusting, violent, immoral and unethical societies in those days were something horrific. Dr. David Leston wrote that “archaeologists have unearthed bodies of people who lived in Mesopotamia, they have found evidence that cannibalism was practiced. In short, this was a very brutal era, in which humanity showed little to no regard for one another.”[1]He goes on to mention that in “January 1996 National Geographic did a comparison between rodeo riders and their injuries, and skeletons uncovered from the time of Noah. They found striking similarities between the injuries of the two groups, suggesting that this was a very violent society. When people reject God and the boundaries and purposes that He has created for them, they become a law unto themselves, and society becomes more weaker and dangerous.”[2]The net result? The same as always, extreme anarchy and a violent world. So, God flooded the world and spared the only honest and Godly man alive at the time. It was Noah who God gave the task of rebuilding civilization.

Man’s Rebellion

It was right after the Flood that people would repopulate the Fertile Crescent (the Middle East). This was a very fertile and agriculturally productive area which was quick to develop, and fought over heavily. One of humankind’s early technological developments was the ability to design and manipulate materials and so to make structures such as buildings. It was mankind’s obligation from God to subdue the earth. He ultimately gave mankind all the faculties necessary to create great constructions. However, in man’s rebellion against God, this gift was used in ways to honor men and not Him—such as The Tower of Babel. This attempt at building a ziggurat megastructure was humankind’s next attempt at playing God. Just a note here—it will blow your mind to look at the similarities in the Mesopotamian ziggurat of biblical days and a typical ziggurat from South America.

In Genesis 11, the tower planners said “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”[3]The planners of course were referring to making a name for mankind above God’s name. God saw this ability of man’s to centralize power effectively for the purposes of glorifying themselves. He then—in an instant—created world languages to confuse the masses and dispersed them globally. This effectively explains human migration in the ice age, world language and similarities in technology worldwide. Today, humankind over time has once again gathered to challenge God once again.

The Parallel?

On January 15, 2019, CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) unveiled plans for an even larger Large Hadron Collider, with a 100km (62-mile) circumference - about four times longer than the current machine. The Future Circular Collider (FCC) will be almost 10 times more powerful than the current machine too. CERN said the FCC, which should be in use by 2040, would "significantly expand our knowledge of matter and the universe".[4] It was built by CERN between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries.[5]The final end-game to this complex science experiment is the specific knowledge of this “God-particle” that adheres all of the atoms of physical matter together—which is where we get our physical reality from. This is arguably a tongue-in-cheek observation of humanities last parallel to the ancient Tower of Babel. 

This time, however, God is not going to come down to the Land of Shinar (the Fertile Crescent) to shake His head in humankinds disappointing direction. No. This should only serve humanity as a reminder. A sign of the times that we live in today. In the Biblical sense, humanity did not learn its lesson from The Fall. Nor did mankind learn its lesson from The Flood. Nor did mankind learn from the freedom of slavery that Moses gave the Israelites from the Pharaoh in Egypt. Nor did mankind learn from Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, mankind didn’t learn either from the Tower of Babel. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Europe’s Large Hadron Collider is civilization’s last whole combined scientific effort to become God before humanity’s final Tribulation. 

Daniel is giving a talk about his book on mid-19thcentury northern California. Find out more here.

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and how Ulysses S. Grant saved Native Peoples in 1850s California (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

[1]Dr. Leston, Stephen, and Christopher D. Hudson. "From Creation to the Tower of Babel | The Age of Noah." In The Bible in World History: How History and Scripture Intersect, 31. Uhrichsville: Barbour Pub, 2011.

[2]Ibid. p. 32.

[3]The Holy Bible (NKJV) | Genesis 11:4.

[4]"CERN Plans Even Larger Large Hadron Collider to Find More 'God Particles'." Worthy Christian News. Last modified January 16, 2019. https://www.worthynews.com/38497-cern-plans-even-larger-large-hadron-collider-to-find-more-god-particles.

[5]"Large Hadron Collider." The Telegraph. Accessed December 27, 2019. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/3351899/Large-Hadron-Collider-thirteen-ways-to-change-the-world.html.

The Creation of a Modern Tsar: How Vladimir Putin Established Political Domination in Russia

Vladimir Putin has presided over Russia for more than twenty years. Here, Brenden Woldman returns to the site (a previous article from him on why the USSR collapsed is here) and in this extensive and thought-provoking piece, considers how Vladimir Putin came to dominate Russian politics. He considers how Putin has exploited terrorism, destabilized democracy, controlled the media, and arrested and even killed opposition.

Vladimir Putin in 1998, when he was Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Director. Source: RIA Novosti archive, image #100306, http://visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/#100306 Digital / Цифра, available here.

Who decides the leaders of a country? The answer, according to those who live in the west, is simple: the people. Citizens have the inalienable right to decide who will lead their country through a fair, legal, and democratic process. This western belief in the voting process for representative government is a pillar for a successful democratic society. But what if a country falsely claims to be democratic? Who decides, then, the leaders of a country that pretends to be a country that is founded on democratic and republican principles? In the case of modern Russia, it is current President Vladimir Putin. 

In Russia, President Putin has an iron clasp grip on all aspects of Russian society, including the country’s political institutions. Director General of NTV media company Yevgeniy Kiselyev gives the most succinct way of understanding Putin’s control of Russia. Kiselyev believes that, “The president has different ideas to ours about what the state is and what its interests are. I think Putin is trying to imitate Louis XIV, who said ‘the state is me.’ Putin... made it clear that what he means by strengthening the state is strengthening his personal power.”[1]In short, Putin is the state and the state is Putin. This firm ideology that the former KGB agent has is a vital reason why he has undisputed power in Russia. However, it must be known that Putin’s current anaconda-like suffocation of Russia did not occur over night. 

When Boris Yeltsin became the first President of the Russian Federation and the face of the post-Soviet era after the fall of the U.S.S.R., he was greeted with much enthusiasm and support throughout Russia. Though beloved, the honeymoon phase between Yeltsin and the Russian people would not last. As the 1990s progressed, Yeltsin’s popularity would falter due to his inability to establish the new democratic Russian state as a major economic or political power. Also, the President’s warm, welcoming, and almost subservient attitude toward the west caused many Russians to view Yeltsin as a weak embarrassment. With Yeltsin’s influence slipping and his days numbered, a group of governors that made up nearly a quarter of the entire Russian Federation in the fall of 1999 wrote a letter to Yeltsin, pleading that to sustain power it was necessary to resign from the Presidency and transfer power over to newly appointed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.[2]Yeltsin followed up on this idea, and on December 31, 1999 Vladimir Putin became the acting President of the Russian Federation. Yet it was far from guaranteed that Putin would be able to keep power for decades to come. 

As the new millennium came into fruition and the Yeltsin-led 1990s faded into the past, the newly crowned President-Tsar of Russia needed to secure his power fast. To do this, Vladimir Putin subsequently had to achieve four goals: exploit the fears of Chechen terrorism, control the media, strip away any democratic power or institution that could curb his ambitions, and imprison or kill oligarchs, journalists, political rivals, and any person that may be a threat to his reign. Putin has achieved supremacy in Russia. However, it did not occur overnight, as these four aspects were successfully executed over the course of a decade.

Exploiting Terrorism

Before Putin was President, the conflict in Chechnya was becoming more and more prevalent. The Second Chechen War began in August of 1999 when Yeltsin was still President. Between September 4thand 16th, unidentified terrorists bombed four apartment complexes in multiple Russian cities, including Moscow. The attacks led to the deaths of 293 people and injured 1,000 more.[3]The immediate, and initially the most logical, group to blame were Chechen rebels. 

However, upon further investigation of the bombings it became increasingly plausible that Chechnya was not responsible for the attacks. In fact, Chechnya did not take claim for the attacks, something that all terrorist groups usually do after a successful attack. Even more peculiar was that there was no solid evidence that connected the Chechen rebels to the attacks.[4]Moreover, a military operation on this scale was out of the realm of possibility from a logistical or strategic point of view even if Chechen terrorists wanted to attack. What evidence that wasfound did not connect the bombings to Chechnya. Instead, the evidence connected them to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, or FSB. Only Yeltsin and his cronies, which included Putin, were able to have the FSB coordinate the bombings. But why would Yeltsin and Putin support the killing of Russians? The Yeltsin administration believed that Russia could be unified in its hatred of Chechnya and terrorism while also boosting the appeal of Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin.[5]This was not a far-fetched assumption either, as it became increasingly likely that Yeltsin, who had been in the pockets of oligarchs and gangsters, would do something so terrifyingly unethical to keep his inner circle in power.[6]   

Upon hearing the news of the bombings, newly appointed Prime Minister Putin had a firm response to the attacks stating that, “[Russia] will pursue the terrorists everywhere.”[7]Putin’s desire for violent revenge rang in the ears of the Russian citizenry. As a result, the second invasion of Chechnya was carried out more methodically and was seemingly more successful when comparing it to the first Chechen invasion on New Year’s Night in 1994-95, and Putin was given much of the credit for the initial victory. Due to this, the young Prime Minister’s popularity soared.[8]

With Yeltsin’s term coming to an end and a new President on the horizon, Putin was initially seen as a weak candidate to succeed Yeltsin. Shortly after his appointment as Prime Minister in August 1999, polls revealed that only 2 percent of the Russian populace favored Putin for the position of President.[9]However, after the “terrorist” attacks and Putin’s strong response to them coinciding with the patriotic enthusiasm that came from a new war, support for Putin rose to 21 percent in October and then 45 percent in November, which was far higher than any other candidate at that point.[10]This rise in popularity because of the attacks made Yeltsin’s decision all the easier and, on December 31, 1999, Boris Yeltsin resigned from office, allowing Putin to become President due to Russian law which permits the prime minister to become acting president, after the president resigns, for the rest of the term. 

By being one of the planners of the FSB terrorist bombings and blaming Chechnya for it, Vladimir Putin was able to manipulate the Russian populace into supporting him, as he portrayed himself as the strong, vengeful leader Russia needed in those troubling times, even though evidence shows that Putin was one of the people who helped plan and execute the attacks. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Putin was not the mastermind of the attacks. Instead, he was an important cog in the Yeltsin regime. This would not always be the case, as from this point forward everything that Putin does will come directly from him to solidify his place as supreme ruler of Russia.

With the terrorist attacks catapulting him into the spotlight and Yeltsin’s resignation, by the year 2000 Putin had become the second President of the Russian Federation and was popular for it. However, Putin never wanted to give up this power once achieving it. This leads to a major theme that will be seen throughout Russia in the twenty-first century, as Putin will begin to strip major democratic principles that are vital to a healthy democracy all for the purpose to keep him in power.

Destabilizing Democracy

Yeltsin was such a laughing stock by the time he resigned that Russians and westerners alike saw Putin with rose-colored glasses. Many began to believe that it was impossible for the new president to be any more embarrassing than Yeltsin. They were right in a way. Though Putin was not as prone to the frequent political gaffes that Yeltsin faced, the idealistic vision of Putin that many had quickly evaporated when the 2000 election saw Putin use dirty and illegal tactics to assure his victory. 

By the time of the election in March, Putin had been acting president for almost three months. A week before the election the Russian newspaper Kommersantpublished a leaked government document entitled ‘Reform of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation‘ that advocated the FSB to do Putin’s bidding, with the goal of allowing Putin to “control the political process” in Russia.[11]There was little debate against Kommersant’saccusations. Putin was using the FSB as his own “Praetorian Guard,” as the new President used the FSB to manipulate the Russian state and presidential process by making it more authoritarian. The document most damningly noted that Putin had a dream of “replacing the ‘self-regulating’ nature of a democratic, market-driven, and rule-by-law system with manual control from the top.”[12]Putin’s dream would quickly come to fruition.

Six days after he was inaugurated, Putin proposed a set of bills with aims of “strengthening vertical power”, which served as the beginning of his dismantlement of the Russian democratic government and the establishment of a Putin led autocracy.[13]By claiming that the autocratic tendencies were necessary for reinvigorating Russia as a global leader, bills were passed that replaced elected members of parliament with ones that were Putin approved, allowing elected governors to be removed from office by pseudo suspicions of misdoings without a trial, and permitting envoys that were appointed by the President to supervise elected legislatures and governors.[14]Autocratic bills like this were quickly passed through the Russian Duma without protest and the dismantlement of the Russian constitution began in an almost unrecognized fashion by the outside world. However, this would not be the only time that Putin would force through legislation that centralized his political power.

With reelection approaching in March 2004, President Putin had five opponents running to usurp him. To curb their intentions, Putin passed laws to hinder his opponent’s campaigns and break the spirit of the election process. The president passed a law that required campaigns to have a notary certify the presence and signatures of every person present at meetings where presidential candidates were nominated with a minimum of five hundred signatures needed, followed by the candidate needing two million signatures from the public a few weeks after to have the campaign be legal or risk disqualification. This was a tough enough task that was made more difficult, as signatures could be disqualified for spelling errors.[15]Those able to successfully qualify to run found it difficult to find companies to print their campaign material, air their commercials, or rent areas for campaign events, as it became increasingly clear that Putin and his inner circle had threatened any and all who would support opposition campaigns. One candidate, Sergei Glazyev, found it nearly impossible to find a printing company to take his campaign’s legal funds to print his flyers.[16]When he did find someone who was willing to let him hold a campaign event, the building where Glazyev was going to speak was suddenly raided by police due to a “bomb threat,” giving the police justification to kick everyone out of the building and evacuate the premises. Moreover, physical violence was either threatened or executed, as Glazyev’s campaign manager Yana Dubeykovskaya was once beaten, robbed, and had the brake lines to her car cut.[17]

Making the campaign process difficult for candidates was not enough for the ambitious Putin. To truly disrupt the spirit of democracy, Putin wanted to make the voting process difficult. International observers and independent Russian organizations outside of government control listed a plethora of voting violations that the Putin administration promoted. These transgressions included the deletion of over a million elderly people and others unlikely to vote from the record, effectively voiding their vote, the delivery of ballots that were prefilled to psychiatric wards, the allowance of precinct staff to go door to door in elderly homes with a mobile ballot box to collect votes for Putin and disregard ones for other candidates, and managers and school officials were blackmailing staff and parents to vote for Putin or risk termination.[18]These neo-Soviet style tactics of maintaining the “democratic” process of Putin’s Russia was like an iceberg. On the surface there was no obvious or violent form of voter suppression, but below the surface was a widespread conspiracy of democratic repression. Legal or not, the 2004 election came and went, and with 71% of the vote, Putin won the presidency.

Soon after he began his second term, Putin announced that governors and the mayor of Moscow were no longer able to be elected by the people. Instead, Putin would appoint them personally. As well, the lower house of the Duma would no longer be decided by a direct election, with Russian citizens being given the right to vote for a party and Putin filling in the vacated seats with members that were a part of that party. This ruling forced all political parties to re-register, and many would be eliminated in the process. Moreover, all legislation proposed by the lower house of the Duma would be vetted by a public chamber that was appointed by Putin. All these changes became law rather quickly, and by the end of 2004 the only federal-level public official who was directly elected was Putin himself.[19]

When his second term ended in 2008, Putin found a simple but effective way to go around the Russian Constitution to keep himself in power. Due to the Russian Constitution forbidding the President to rule for more than two consecutive terms, Putin relinquished his power to his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev (with Putin using illegal election tactics to get Medvedev elected), followed by Medvedev appointing Putin as prime minister, allowing the former president to become “the puppet master of Russia.” Following the whims of his overlord, Medvedev introduced a measure that would extend presidential terms from four to six years.[20]If executed correctly, Putin planned for Medvedev to be a “manchurian president,” all the while allowing himself to pull the strings behind the scenes like a mafia Godfather. This plan worked to perfection. After one term in office Medvedev did not seek to run for a second term, instead endorsing Putin to return to the presidency in 2012. This act subsequently established a trend that not only could legally keep Putin in power for the rest of his life, but also effectively dismantle any remnants of a democratic system that were left in Russia.

Controlling the Media

It is almost cliché to say that a free press is the most dangerous opponent to an autocratic system, as the institution can inform the public on the misdeeds of the government. However, what happens when the leader of an autocracy establishes a monopoly on media outlets? In Putin’s Russia, it allows the free press to transform into a state-run institution. 

In the days leading to the 2000 election, a key component to Putin’s ‘Reform of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation’ was for the FSB to not only “control the political process” but specifically silence opposition media by “driving them to financial crisis.”[21]Putin knew the importance of controlling media and the television market since the medium helped create the positive image that many within Russia had of him after Yeltsin resigned. Putin knew the medium could turn on him and quickly end his political career if the industry was left unchecked.

To create a state-run monopoly of media Putin used personal vendettas against those who opposed him to drive his actions. Putin summoned Boris Berezovsky, the would-be “kingmaker” of Russian politics and head of one of Russia’s largest news and television networks Channel One, and tried to persuade him to handover his majority shares to the Russian government.[22]If Berezovsky did not willingly give up his shares, Putin implied that he would blackmail Berezovsky into giving him the control of Channel One and subsequently would be imprisoned for his refusal to comply.[23]The oligarch refused, knowing that crossing Putin in this manner would lead to his arrest. Days after his meeting with the President, Berezovsky fled to Great Britain. Soon enough, a warrant was out for Berezovsky’s arrest in Russia, forcing him to surrender his shares in Channel One.[24]

This kind of “thuggish” behavior to acquire media shares was not unique to Berezovsky and Channel One. The first attack was aimed at anti-Putin media mogul and owner of news channel NTV and newspaper Sevodnya Vladimir Gusinskiy. Gusinskiy and his company had a history of producing anti-Putin rhetoric, including the airing of a documentary about the apartment building explosions two days prior in the 2000 election.[25]This negative portrayal of Putin would not go unnoticed. On May 11, 2000, Gusinsky’s Media-Most company headquarters were raided by government officials and Gusinskiy was arrested a month later.[26]From prison, Gusinskiy made the dramatic declaration that Putin had, “begun the move toward the creation of a totalitarian regime.”[27]Nonetheless, in a deal that would drop all criminal charges and let him flee the country unharmed, Gusinskiy agreed to sell his shares in NTV and renounce all statements or information that would be considered to undermine the Putin government and the Russian Federation. Though Gusinskiy was given his freedom, by April 2001 the Russian state had majority control of Gusinskiy’s media assets, as the old staff of NTV and Media-Most were replaced with Putin and state approved journalists and commentators.[28]

In quick and decisive actions, Putin was able to force two of Russia’s wealthiest men, and his biggest threats, into self-exile while also stripping any wealth and influence that Gusinskiy and Berezovsky had within Russia. This took all of three months to achieve after he was inaugurated. Alas, the Putin led government was able to gain complete control of the three largest federal television networks.[29]Without any opposition networks that could reach the masses, Putin was now able to manipulate the media to unanimously presenting him and his policies in a positive light.

Arresting and Killing Opposition

What is most famous, and heinous, of Putin’s tactics to solidify his power is his tendency to imprison or murder those who oppose him. Putin got this reputation of being a thug by his own doing, as he preferred to be portrayed as a brute above all else.[30]A part of his thuggish reputation comes from his relationship with oligarchs. However, Putin is not a crusader against oligarchs for moral reasons. For the most part, Putin continues to maintain a relatively warm relationship with oligarchs due to his plan to transform the traditional oligarchic independent system into one that is more accustomed to a corporate structure, with the oligarchs and their industries serving the state.[31]In short, the president wants the oligarchs to be under him, allowing the former laissez-faire style of capitalist industry to be under the control of Putin. However, those oligarchs who do not comply will face devastating consequences.

As previously noted, oligarchs like Gusinsky and Berezovsky were forced to flee Russia or face imprisonment. However, they were not the only ones to be treated to this fate. For example, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia in the early 2000s. Yet when he fell out of favor with Putin due to his independent and vocal spirit, he was quickly arrested on charges of tax evasion. This may have been the official reason for the arrest but, as economic advisor to Putin Andrei Illarionov believes, Khodorkovsky, “was-and remains-an independent human being. Because he refused to bend. Because he remained a free man. This state punishes people for being independent.”[32]Russians, however, saw this act as Putin breaking the oligarchic system for the good of the people. In truth, Putin did not want to break the oligarchic system, but tame it. Khodorkovsky got out of line and, as a result, was imprisoned for it. To make matters worse for Khodorkovsky, Putin froze all of his assets and the state took control of his oil company Yukos, one of the largest and most successful companies in Russia. Other oligarchs took note: if they wanted to keep their wealth and assets, they had to unabashedly follow Putin’s demands. 

However, there have been cases where threats of imprisonment were not sufficient enough. Putin’s reputation as a “mafia president” comes less from psychological intimidation but through the killing of oppositional forces. Most famous, was the case of Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko, a former FSB officer who fled to England, was one of Putin’s most vocal critics. He was considered the “most prominent and ebullient” of Putin’s critics, as his “denunciations were fierce.”[33]The culmination of his discontent toward Putin came from the publication of his book ‘Blowing Up Russia‘ which claimed that Putin was one of the planners of the 1999 apartment bombings and that Chechnya was falsely blamed.[34]Not pleased by such vocal opposition, Putin approved the assassination of Litvinenko. On November 23, 2006 Alexander Litvinenko died mysteriously from radiation poisoning in London.[35]

Litvinenko, unfortunately, was not the only one to be murdered due to their opposition to Putin. Sergei Yushenkov, a politician who identified as a liberal and who campaigned for a free market economy, democratic reforms, and higher standards of human rights in Russia, was one of Putin’s most persistent and popular objectors. On April 17, 2003, mere hours after registering his political party to participate in the December 2003 parliamentary elections, Yushenkov was shot four times in the chest and died.[36]A few years prior, Anatoly Sobchak, the first democratically elected mayor of St. Petersburg and co-author of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, was a popular critic of the president, going so far as to call him “the new Stalin.”[37]He mysteriously died in a private hotel on February 20, 2000. As recently as 2015 there was the assassination of Boris Nemstov, a liberal politician and outspoken critic of Putin’s, who was shot four times in the back and died on the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge in Moscow. Those brave politicians who were willing to oppose Putin put their life at risk, as Putin is all too willing to kill political opponents.

The only group that are at greater risk of being murdered by Putin then politicians are journalists. Publishing and producing critical material against Putin is an unwritten high crime that could lead the author to the same fate of Alexander Litvinenko. Anna Politkovskaya tragically found this to be the case. Politkovskaya, a human rights activist and writer who authored several books criticizing Putin, was shot in the elevator of her apartment building in 2006. As well, Yuri Shchekochikhin, an investigative journalist who made his name by writing and campaigning against organized crime and corruption in Russia, found the same fate three years prior. In July 2003 he mysteriously and suddenly died in Moscow, with claims (and evidence) that he was poisoned. Finally, there is Marina Litvinovich, a journalist and aid to Putin’s political rival Garry Kasparov, who regularly condemned the president. Leaving her Moscow office in March 2006, Litvinovich was savagely attacked. She was hit several times in the head with a blunt object and was left for dead. After spending several hours in intensive care, Litvinovich miraculously survived. But Putin’s strategy for state terror scared off many opposition journalists who wanted to write against Putin. It was better to play along with Putin then die.[38]

The politicians, journalists, and oligarchs that are discussed here are only some of those who were affected by Putin’s reign, as many more have been influenced in how they operate within their occupation due to the president’s use of state terror. Freedom of speech has effectively been censored unofficially, as the Sword of Damocles lays right above the heads of people of influence. Whether a person is a rich oligarch, opposition political opponent, or a critical journalist, one thing was for certain. If someone wanted to succeed in their field they had to work for Putin. If they opposed the former KGB agent, they risked imprisonment or even death.

Conclusion

When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 there was much optimism in the air. The opportunity for a better, freer Russia was on the horizon. However, these dreams would remain only that, a dream. A decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire, Vladimir Putin became president. Ever since he was granted the presidency by Yeltsin, Putin has done everything possible to keep his power from slipping from his grasp. To do this Putin had to go against the optimistic, democratic ideals that were found in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. From murdering opponents and imprisoning oligarchs to taking their assets and controlling media enterprises, dismantling any remnants of a democratic state, and going so far to commit tragedies on his people to further his gains, one thing about Putin is clear: he will stop at nothing to keep his control on Russia. Unfortunately, there is no end of the Putin regime in sight. In January 2020, Putin’s liquidation of the Russian Duma and the subsequent resignation of current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, has left the control of Russia squarely in the hands of Vladimir Putin.  By using all of these different strategies to keep power, Putin has undisputed rule over his country, and has successfully became the “neo-Tsar” of Russia.     

What do you think of Vladimir Putin? Let us know below.

You can also read Brenden’s past articles on Russian history for the site: Why did the USSR collapse? (here) and Peter the Great’s visit to England (here).

[1]Karen Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? (Simon & Schuster, 2015), 276.

[2]Masha Gessen, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2014), 26.

[3]David Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 8.

[4]Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep, 9.

[5]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 42.

[6]Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep, 19.

[7]Ibid., 8.

[8]Ibid., 19.

[9]Ibid., 20.

[10]Ibid., 20.

[11]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 273.

[12]Ibid., 324.

[13]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 181.

[14]Ibid., 181.

[15]Ibid., 183-184.

[16]Ibid., 185.

[17]Ibid., 185-186.

[18]Ibid., 184-185.

[19]Ibid., 190.

[20]Ibid., 265.

[21]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 273.

[22]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 173.

[23]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 289.

[24]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 174.

[25]Ibid., 161.

[26]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 274.

[27]Ibid., 274.

[28]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 164. 

[29]Ibid., 174.

[30]Ibid., 145.

[31]Ibid., 324.

[32]Ibid., 243.

[33]Robert Owen, The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, House of Commons, 2016, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf, 56.

[34]Ibid., 57.

[35]Ibid., 244.

[36]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 129.

[37]Ibid.,142.

[38]Ibid.,218-226. 

Bibliography

Dawisha, Karen. Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? Simon & Schuster, 2015.

Gessen, Masha. The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin. New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2014.

Owen, Robert. The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, January 2016, 

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 21 January 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf

Satter, David. The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.

Historical & Other Facts about Canada

Here are some interesting facts about Canada, a country that became independent in 1867. While we initially focus on history, we’ll also look at geography, people, and culture so unique. Here, we will discuss interesting facts for history enthusiasts, students - and for everyone who’s even mildly interested in Canada. Samantha Jones explains.

John Alexander Macdonald, first prime minister of Canada, in 1867.

History of Canada

1. Not as young as it seems

Although there are not many written records detailing the history of Canada’s aboriginal society prior to the first contact with Europeans, archaeological and other evidence gives a reasonably complete picture of the pre-European contact period. The earliest evidence of humans migrating from Asia dates back approximately 12,000-16,000 years, although there’s a possibility of the first people arriving somewhere around 60,000 years ago.

2. Policy of multiculturalism

Canada has adopted a policy of multiculturalism for some time and embraces diversity and pluralism – it tries to give a different image of itself than its southern neighbor. According to the Canadian Parliament’s report on Canadian Multiculturalism, the country has become a homeland for people with more than 250 ethnic origins.

What is also interesting is that over 20% of Canadians were born in other countries!

3. National flag design

Through history, the maple leaf symbol was found on Canadian coins, emblems, and even coats of arms. But when it came to making a decision on Canada’s flag design, there were many debates in the Canadian parliament. Can you imagine that it took 40 years to finally approve how the Canadian flag should look? The red and white flag which we know today was finally approved in 1965.

Geography & Landscape

1. Size of Canada

You’ve probably read that Canada is the second biggest country in the world after Russia. What you are less likely to find out is that the largest island within an island and the huge territory of Nunavut (over 20% of Canada’s territory) are situated in Canada too.

2. Time zones

Canada’s vast size isn’t just about square kilometers; it also means that there are six different time zones, so it is important to check the time as you move around the country!

3. Extreme temperatures

Despite the fact that Canada has four seasons, it is known worldwide for its extreme cold temperatures, sometimes reaching below -50°C. However, that is not the case everywhere. For instance, British Columbia experiences much milder winters, while in the central regions summers are usually hot and humid.

4. Largest freshwater source worldwide

There are many lakes in Canada, so there’s no surprise that the country is one of the world’s largest sources of freshwater. There are also two of the largest lakes in the world with total areas of 31,328 km² (Great Bear Lake) and 28,568 km² (Great Slave Lake).

People & Culture

1. French-speaking city

Montreal is the second-largest French-speaking city (the biggest one is Paris). Given that, if you want to get a degree in French-speaking Canada, it’s better for you to prepare assignments in French, possibly with the assistance of services providing assignment help. However, it should be easy to get help as Canada has one of the highest internet-usage rates in the world (some recent studies indicate that Canadians spend more time online than any other nation).

2. Education

According to data from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada is the most educated country in the world. These conclusions are based on post-secondary adult education. Statistics say that about 55% of high-school graduates have some kind of education afterwards.

3. Inventions galore

Canadian inventors have patented more than one million inventions. The accomplishments vary from AC radio tubes to zippers, pacemakers, Blackberries, and IMAX. They relate to the areas of sports, medicine, science, agriculture, and entertainment.

Indeed, while hockey remains Canada’s most prevalent sport, the country has become very interested in basketball as well. The game was invented by a Canadian, Dr. James Naismith. His initial aim was to invent an indoor sport to maintain his students in good physical condition during long winters in Springfield, Massachusetts.

4.  Population density

Canada is the fourth most sparsely populated country in the world and has only four people per square kilometer. This compares to the US with 35 people per square kilometer, and the UK with 278.

There are a lot of varied facts there, but it is surely the country’s history that defines the Canadian nation most of all. And since there’s no better way to comprehend Canada’s identity than to look at its past, history matters both for Canadians and those who visit Canada.

Editor’s note: The article contains external links that are not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link here for more information about external links on the site.

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne? What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two we look at the sons of George III who all found themselves suddenly in need of wives in order to continue the Hanover line.

Denise Tubbs explains.

George III in the 1770s. Painting by Johann Zoffany.

Great Britain has had its share to succession crises over the centuries. The legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and their subsequent children has been debated for over 500 years. During the reign of Elizabeth I, succession was a huge topic since she refused to marry. Even spanning back to 1066, the Battle of Hastings between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson started as a result of a succession crisis. So, what is it about this crisis that separates it from the rest? Well, no other royal house had more effect on world events for the next 100 years. 

George III had a lot of kids. A total of 15 children - nine sons and six girls. Of his daughters, two never had children, two were never married, one died in childhood, and the last had no surviving children. The continuation of the house of Hanover lied solely with his sons. His son the future George IV and Ernest Augustus both had only one child. Ernest Augustus had a son days apart from Victoria, missing the title of heir by a mere three days (Victoria was born on May 24, 1819 and George was born on May 27, 1819). The future William IV had a total of 10 children. Unfortunately, none of those 10 were legitimate. Prince Augustus Frederick had three children from his marriage; however, because he got married in secret and without the permission of his father, all were deemed illegitimate. Prince Frederick married, but had no children. Prince Adolphus has children but not until after the births of Victoria and Prince George. Lastly, Prince Edward had one child with Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (she was the sister of Prince Leopold, Charlotte’s husband) before dying at the age of 52. This child was Victoria.

The line of succession

Since George IV was the oldest son and heir apparent to his father’s throne, that made his heir Charlotte. But when she died in 1817, the new heir apparent would have been the second oldest son of George III, Prince Fredrick. He would die in 1827, so the heir became the third oldest son of George III, William. At the time of Charlotte’s death William, Edward and Adolphus were not married. Ernest Augustus had married two years prior. All three unmarried princes were pressured by the public to do away with their bachelor life, marry and have a child before the line had no one left. The three of them would get married in rapid succession of each other - all getting married in 1818.  

So, let us recap since this was a lot of information. By 1817, George lost his only child and heir in childbirth, Charlotte. At the time of her death, William, Edward, and Adolphus were not married nor had any legitimate children. Ernest Augustus was married but had no children yet. Frederick was married but with no children. Augustus had children but they were ruled illegitimate. If William became king after George IV, and none of the remaining sons got married, William’s heir would be Ernest Augustus (Edward would be dead by 1820, so he and Frederick will be out of contention). Ernest Augustus had a son in 1819, so the throne would have passed to him next. If his son had no heir and the remaining sons were still alive the succession would have passed to Augustus and Adolphus. The line would die after Adolphus. 

This meant that the first son to have a child would be the father of the future of the country. The game is set, and as mentioned above, Victoria is born three days before her first Cousin George of Hanover in 1819. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, there would have been no need for those three sons to make their rush to the altar. Victoria, as a result, would not have been born and her direct descendants who had a major effect on world history as we know it today would be drastically altered. Furthermore, even with Charlotte’s, if Victoria was born after George of Hanover she also would not have been in direct line to the throne. There are then two what if possibilities: of Victoria never being born or born after her cousin.

Next up we will look at the children of Victoria and the effect they would have on world events. 

Now, read part 3, the final part, here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

What do you think of this royal succession? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia

PBS drama Victoria

A Brief History of the Education System in America

Education in the USA has evolved over time from a privilege for a few to the mass education of today. Here, Beverly Bennett provides a brief history of education from the pre-independence era to modern times.

Ellen Plumb and Mary J. Watson, first graduating class at the Kansas State Normal School (now Emporia State University) in 1867. Normal schools are institutions that train people to be teachers.

The education system in America has come a long way from students frequently learning in informal environments to the formal and sophisticated public school system of today. The country has evolved to spend more and more on its education system over time, and while the system is far from perfect today, on many levels it was worse in the past.

Pre-Independence Era

There was often not good formal education (by which we mean schooling in state run institutions with principals and teachers) in the colonial years. This led to differing methods depending on the area. In what is now the state of Massachusetts, the Puritans encouraged informal learning - at home, with a parent or a custodian as a teacher. In such circumstances, some students had to make considerable efforts. Today, help can be found - a site such as EssayService provides a wide range of writing services to help students, but back then, you would have to mainly rely on yourself.

The larger the town, the more options there were. Some had elementary schools with three main subjects:reading, writing, and religion.

Generally, though, there was no countrywide learning requirement. The richer you were, usually the more educated your children were, while some poorer people could be apprentices.

The End of the 18th and 19th Centuries

Into the 19th century, textbooks came more frequently into use to teach students a wide array of subjects. They were used to plant the seeds of patriotism and the “correct” beliefs. Still there were not many universities, few writing papers for students, and it was still the case that the richer you were the more likely you were to have an education. Another downside and controversy was that textbooks showed some groups of immigrants and Native Americans in a bad light.

By the middle of the 19th century, the move to free, compulsory learning became stronger. The idea was that all children would become students and learn in specially equipped institutions. The main reason for the change, though, wasn’t the wellbeing of all sections of society; rather, the industrial economy needed more people who knew math, writing, and reading, unlike the former agricultural environment.

In addition, the government wanted the growing number of immigrants to believe in “true American values”. With a large population of people that was born outside of the US, it wasn’t desirable that the traditions and beliefs of the immigrants outshone American vales as disseminated in schools.

World War II and the Middle of the 20th Century

Compulsory education was still focused on the elementary and middle levels in the early decades of the 20thcentury. The quality of learning was improving, although the values in schools and purpose were still the same.

Meanwhile, until the middle of the 20th century, really only wealthy people could afford to go to college. The number of college enrolments increased dramatically after the end of World War II though. The quality of a college education was still often determined by the wealth of the student, but a lot more people got the opportunity to attend.

21st century

Today, education is provided in public, private, and at-home schools and can fit almost every student’s needs, while more students are able to attend college than ever before, even if there are still those who can’t afford it. 

In 2002, a “No Child Left Behind” Act was passed to align schools to one standard and find those that were falling behind. The goal was that all students become proficient in the English language and math by the year 2014.

Indeed, education today involves providing skills for a 21st century workforce, including the new jobs emerging as a result of rapid changes and innovation. These skills aren’t only job-specific, but also skills such as analysis, teamwork, and problem solving. 

Summary

As we can see, until at least the mid-19th century, the privilege of studying extensively was the domain of the wealthy. Girls’ study was very often informal and occurred at home, while there was widespread discrimination against African Americans. Consequently, there was little opportunity for women or people of color to get professional skills and a great career.

Besides, there remains debate on who benefitted most from changes to the education system in the past. Initially, the growth of education for less wealthy people was often in the interests of the rich. So being able to learn was more beneficial not to the workers, but to the capitalists who then made them their workforce.

The current situation in the US is improving, but there’s still a long way to go to obtain good educational outcomes across racial, gender, and wealth groups. It is difficult to change the educational system made over centuries quickly, but it is a challenge many people remain focused on solving. 

Editor’s note: The article contains an external link that is not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link here for more information about external links on the site.

Harriet Tubman: A Black US Civil War Heroine who Led a Spy RIng

The American Civil War created all manner of heroines. One such person was Harriet Tubman, a courageous African-American lady who led a spy ring and fought slavery during the US Civil War. Melissa Havran explains her courageous life.

Harriet Tubman in the 1860s.

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is feeling that fear, insecurity, and doubt, but deciding that something else is more important. It's a quality that separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. Harriet Tubman, I believe, epitomized what it meant to be courageous. She believed in what she was doing, and continued to do it, regardless of the dangers involved.  As I began to research her role as a spy, I couldn't help but to question my own courage. If faced with the same dilemma, would I have been able to make the same choices Harriet made, even if those choices were a threat to my own wellbeing? Her story continues to amaze me. 

They called her “Moses” for leading enslaved people in the South to freedom up North. But Harriet Tubman fought slavery well beyond her role as a conductor for the Underground Railroad. As a soldier and spy for the Union Army during the Civil War, Tubman became the first woman to lead an armed military operation in the United States in what is known as the Combahee Ferry Raid.

By January 1, 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, Tubman had been in South Carolina as a volunteer for the Union Army. With her family behind in Auburn, New York, and having established herself as a prominent abolitionist in Boston circles, Tubman, at the request of Massachusetts Governor John Andrew, had gone to Hilton Head, South Carolina, which had fallen to the Union Army early in the war.

Spy ring

For months, Harriet Tubman worked as a laundress, opening a washhouse, and serving as a nurse, until she was given orders to form a spy ring. Her orders came as a result of her role gathering clandestine information, forming allies and avoiding capture, as she led the Underground Railroad. In her new role, Tubman assumed leadership of a secret military mission in South Carolina’s low country.

Tubman partnered with Colonel James Montgomery, an abolitionist who commanded the Second South Carolina Volunteers, a black regiment. Together, the two planned a raid along the Combahee River, to rescue slaves, recruit freed men into the Union Army, and obliterate some of the wealthiest rice plantations in the region. 

Montgomery already had 300 men and, combined with the 8 scouts Tubman had recruited, the two were able to map the area and send word to slaves when a raid would take place.

One characteristic that made Tubman a successful spy ringleader, was that she could get black people to trust her when the Union officers knew that they were not trusted by the local people.  Perhaps the most interesting piece of this story is that Tubman was indeed, illiterate, yet she had great success as a spy leader. Since she couldn't read or write, she also couldn't write down any intelligence she gathered. Instead, she committed everything to memory, guiding the ships towards strategic points near the shore where fleeing slaves were waiting and Confederate property could be destroyed.

While it seemed Tubman, for the most part, was able to compartmentalize her role as spy, some of her missions seemed to have more of an effect on her than others.

On one particular raid, where Tubman and Montgomery were working together to bring gunboats up river, Tubman vividly recalled the horrific scene that day with running slaves, women, babies and crying children being chased down by rebels and killed.

Legacy

After researching Tubman’s life as a Union spy, what stands out most is that she was recognized a hero, but never paid - largely because she was a black woman. Often, Tubman’s brave work was documented by local newspapers. She was never referred to by name, but instead as "She Moses", because just like Moses, she led an enslaved people to freedom. Perhaps writing that a black woman was leading Montgomery’s band of 300 men was unfortunately a little too much for the 1860s.

But Tubman’s anonymity came to an end in July 1863 when Franklin Sanborn, the editor of Boston’s Commonwealthnewspaper, picked up the story and named Harriet Tubman, a friend of his, as the heroine.

In the end, Tubman petitioned the government several times to be paid for her duties as a soldier and was denied because she was a woman.

Tubman would eventually get a pension, but only as the widow of a black Union soldier she married after the war, not for her courageous service as a soldier.  To think of the lives saved because of the courage of another is truly what makes Tubman’s story stand out as one of the greatest in American history. If we all possessed this incredible characteristic of courage, I often wonder how our world would be different.

What do you think of Harriet Tubman? Let us know below.

Kobe Bryant quote source: https://www.goalcast.com/2018/12/28/kobe-bryant-quotes/

General Henry Knox in the US Revolutionary War: The Noble Train of Artillery at the Siege of Boston

General Henry Knox (1750-1806, US Secretary of State for War from 1789 to 1794) played a key role in the American Revolutionary War. During the 1776 Siege of Boston he had a brilliant idea that manifested into the perilous journey of his noble train of artillery. Elizabeth Jones explains.

A portrait of Henry Knox from the 1780s. Painting by Charles Willson Peale.

Henry Knox was larger than life. Clocking in at over six feet and weighing more than 300 pounds, he was a giant during his lifetime and remains a giant in Revolutionary War history over 200 years after his death. And not only was he big, but in November 1775, he also had big problems. He had to find a way to move over 60 tons of artillery and munitions across the frozen 300 miles between Fort Ticonderoga and the city of Boston, which was under siege by the Americans due to the occupation of Boston by British forces.

Needless to say, the outcome looked grim. Without the firepower provided by the cannons and howitzers captured at Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys in 1775, the revolutionaries stood little chance of freeing Boston from her shackles. But Henry Knox wasn’t going to stand idly by while the British Army occupied his hometown.

Henry Knox, patriot and bookseller

Henry Knox was a first-generation American born in Boston in 1750. His formal education ended at age twelve when his father abandoned the family, and to support his mother he went to work as a clerk in a bookstore. As a result of his early and constant exposure to books, he became a voracious reader and educated himself on topics ranging from military strategy to advanced forms of mathematics.

Knox continued working in the bookstore, but he also made time for mischief, running with some of Boston’s notorious street gangs. At 18, Knox joined an artillery company presciently named The Train. He served in the company for several years, and once injured himself by shooting off two of his own fingers.

Knox opened his own bookstore in 1771 at the age of 21 and operated it until tensions between the British and their unruly American colonies reached a boiling point at Lexington and Concord on April 15 and 16, 1775.

Siege of Boston

The British forces took control of the city following the “shot heard ‘round the world” and Knox and his wife Lucy were forced to flee Boston, leaving the bookstore to be looted and vandalized. Knox immediately enlisted in the militia that was laying siege to the occupied city and served as an engineer, building fortifications.

Following the Battle of Bunker Hill, Knox was recognized for his work by the new Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, General George Washington, but he still remained without a commission into the Army proper. Still, he continued to serve valiantly, even though the siege seemed to be going nowhere fast.

Besides, he had an idea. One that just might be crazy enough to work.

The noble train of artillery

On May 10, 1775, not one month after the fighting between the British and the Americans began in earnest, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys (including then-Colonel Benedict Arnold) captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York from the British, and with it an arsenal of heavy artillery. Ticonderoga was then largely managed from afar by Arnold and used intermittently by other American forces. But one man remembered.

Henry Knox, still without his commission, approached General Washington with the idea of ending the siege of Boston by using the 60-ton arsenal that remained at Fort Ticonderoga. The only problem was that the feat was a logistical nightmare, especially considering the level of sophistication of the transportation available at the time. But Washington believed in the still-green Knox and gave his plan the green light. So Knox set out from Boston with a team of men, animals, and vehicles to bring the guns of Ticonderoga to the city under siege in a convoy.

The recovery operations began in earnest on November 17, 1775, when the company left Boston. It arrived at Fort Ticonderoga on December 5th, and the team promptly began loading the nearly 60 guns and accompanying munitions and stockpiles. The easiest part completed, the company set back for Boston with the guns in tow in the midst of an 18th-century winter.

The elements were unforgiving, but the terrain was even more so. Bodies of water and mountain ranges stood between Knox and his destination, but Knox refused to be deterred. They reached the northern tip of Lake George on the cusp of it freezing, which would have made the crossing impossible. The guns were loaded onto the ships, with many of them being loaded onto a ship called a gundalow.

The challenges begin

The gundalow sank near the lake’s southern shore. Nearly 120,000 pounds of desperately-needed munitions lay on a ship near the bottom of a rapidly-freezing lake. Most people would have been disheartened and abandoned the entire endeavor, but Henry Knox wasn’t most people. The determined man worked with his team to bale out the sunken gundalow and recover the guns from Lake George.

The company reached the outpost of Fort George, and Knox found time to pen a quick letter to General Washington, stating that he hoped “to be able to present your Excellency a noble train of artillery”. The name stuck. Henceforth the expedition to bring the guns of Ticonderoga to Boston came to be known as the noble train of artillery.

Upon leaving the fort, the noble train of artillery had to cross a river, upon which sleds holding the guns were dragged. Suddenly the strong ice began to crack, and guns fell through the ice to the bottom of the river. Once again, Knox refused to abandon even a few pieces of artillery, and once again the guns were raised from the bottom of a body of water.

It would seem as if the worst was behind Knox and the noble train, but they still had to cross the Berkshires, an unforgiving mountain range that was covered in ice and snow. The crossing was difficult and the elements worked against them at every turn, but the noble train of artillery persevered, and they reached the other side of the mountain range, and on January 25, 1776, the company reached Boston, much to Washington’s relief.

Lifting the Siege

The guns gave the Americans a much-needed edge, but there was still work to be done. Artillery relentlessly pounded the city, until, in the dead of night, Washington ordered the guns to be positioned upon the twin peaks of Dorchester Heights in present-day South Boston. This strategy, along with Knox’s perseverance, led to the departure of the British from the city on March 17, 1776. To this day, March 17 is celebrated in South Boston as Evacuation Day.

Knox finally received his commission into the Continental Army and was eventually promoted to the rank of major general, becoming the youngest in the army. He served the majority of his Revolutionary War career as the American chief of artillery and was appointed by President Washington to become the first Secretary of War. Knox died on October 25, 1806.

Conclusion

General Henry Knox was more than just a trusted right-hand to General Washington and an able artillery chief for the Revolutionary Army. He was a visionary whose forward-thinking and willingness to take risks ended the Siege of Boston, ultimately moving the needle of independence forward.

What are your thoughts on General Knox? Was he brilliant or a mad-man, or both? Comment below to let us know what you think about the fabled bookseller-turned-general.

References

https://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=463&pid=15

1776 by David McCullough

Henry Knox: Visionary General of the American Revolutionby Mike Puls

The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 2 – Roger Williams and Religious Freedom

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we will explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. In the second article we look at the important and lasting influence of Roger Williams, a 17th century religious thinker who argued for religious freedom. 

Victor Gamma explains. You can read part 1 on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17th century America here.

Return of Roger Williams from England with the First Charter, 1644. From a painting by C.R. Grant.

Last time we looked at some early examples of how Baptists resisted state control of religion and some of their motives and the reasons for conflict with the established church. In this next article we will examine the impact and career of one of the most famous early colonists: Roger Williams. Not only is he credited with establishing the first Baptist church in America, he was an early champion of quintessential American liberal ideals such as separation of church and state, fairness in dealings with Native Americans and the abolition of slavery. In holding these convictions, Williams was far in advance of most contemporaries. Naturally, such sentiments did not sit well with the austere Puritans, especially when expounded by someone like Williams, who was one of those people who insist on loudly proclaiming all the vagaries of their conscience regardless of the consequence. 

Williams was not the first nonconformist to set foot in the New England wilderness. Massachusetts would be the scene of the first confrontation in the long Baptist contest for freedom of conscience. In 1620 the first dissenters from England arrived when 102 settlers came to Plymouth. Many were members of a separatist group under the leadership of John Robinson. Soon the settlement attracted a variety of those seeking religious freedom. However, in the Great Migration of the 1630s, large numbers of non-separating Puritans began settling in the colony. These Puritans believed that, for all its faults, the Church of England was still a true church. 

The early clashes with the Puritan establishment represent the first phase of the Baptist quest for liberty: the right to simply exist and gather together as a body. This goal was achieved by the end of the seventeenth century. Leading this early effort was the brilliant, idealistic and combative visionary Roger Williams. In England the harsh treatment of dissenters by Archbishop Laud, led Williams, who had become a Puritan, to immigrate to Massachusetts in 1631. Soon after arriving, Williams broke with the Church of England entirely and, after offending the authorities at Boston with his nonconformist views, moved to Salem where he worked with a separatist congregation for a time before moving to Plymouth. It did not take long for the outspoken Williams to clash with the establishment again. 

An Exile Founds a Colony

The Massachusetts government found it impossible to ignore this charismatic and persuasive man in their young colony who would not back down nor be silenced. He was also a threat due to his intelligence. A precocious youth, Sir Edward Coke had discovered him as a mere lad recording Star Chamber speeches and sermons in shorthand. For his part, Williams forced the issue by the bold and perhaps intemperate manner of his proclamation on the doctrine of tolerance and by sternly questioning the right of the king and the colonial government to appropriate lands from Native Americans without recompense. The state, Williams confidently asserted, has power only over “the Bodies and Goods, and outward state of men.” He argued that civil magistracy has no legitimate right to persecute citizens for their beliefs. He also refused to acknowledge the legality of a church-state alliance such as existed in Massachusetts. Massachusetts in turn condemned Williams, linking him with John Smyth, the founder of the Baptist Church. The official charges against Williams stated that he “hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions against the authority of magistrates, as also writ letters of defamation both of the magistrates and churches here.” The ‘letters of defamation’ consisted of an appeal to the charter Williams had written and a letter he wrote to his congregation regarding the separation of church and state. The sentence of banishment read, “It is therefore ordered that the said Mr. Williams shall depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks now next ensuing, which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the governor and two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the court.”

The ruling caused such an uproar in Salem, that the Magistrates began to reconsider their decision and extended the time of his required leaving into the spring. Williams regarded this as a sign of leniency and began to proclaim his radical views all the more loudly, to which he now added that he was an Anabaptist, denying the validity of infant baptism. This outburst ended any sympathy Williams had preserved among the majority of settlers and led Governor Haynes to resolve to remove this thorn in the side of the colony and deposit him back to England immediately. Having learned that Williams’ refused a summons to appear at court in Boston, a vessel was dispatched to Salem for his arrest. Warned by former Governor Winthrop, Williams and some followers, in the midst of a New England winter, escaped and made their way with the help of local tribes to Narraganset Bay in what is now Rhode Island.

Of his new colony Williams wrote, “I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed of conscience...” and he worked hard to make that statement a reality. In 1640 the Providence township articles of government announced: “We agree, as formerly been the liberties of the Town, so still to hold forth Liberty of Conscience.” After some years of hosting church meetings in his home, Williams established the first Baptist Church in America in 1638. Settlers and refugees of a similar mind, including Anne Hutchinson and her family, soon formed communities nearby. These settlements maintained a loose association until threats against their independence led them in 1643 to seek to become an English Colony. Accordingly Roger Williams set out for England in 1644 to secure a charter. 

The tolerant reputation of Rhode Island quickly spread and soon non-conformists such as Quakers were making Rhode Island their home. True to his word, Williams, although opposed to the Society of Friends, allowed them to live in the colony, freely holding their meetings and discussing their beliefs. Soon Rhode Island became an example to other colonies. Rhode Island’s religious pluralism also drew criticism. It led Cotton Mather to write, “There never was held such a variety of religious together on so small a spot of ground . . . Antinomians, Familists, Anabaptists, Antisabbatarians, Arminians, Socinians, Quakers, Ranters—everything in the world but Roman Catholics and real Christians.”

A "Bloudy" Controversy

Restless as ever, Williams did not remain with the Baptists for long, but nonetheless, his example and writings had a powerful influence on the future of the Baptist Church as well as the cause of religious liberty. Many of Williams’ most influential writings appeared in a series of treatises written as part of a long-standing debate with Cotton Mather, who defended the Standing Order. Mather issued statements and correspondence which argued for state support of religious uniformity. Williams first took aim at the Puritan Divine in 1644 with The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed. In this treatise, Williams attacked religious and political intolerance. Cotton Mather returned fire with The Bloudy Tenant, Washed, and Made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, in 1647. After returning from England in 1652, Williams' answered with The Bloudy Tenent, yet more Bloudy: by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to Wash it White in the Bloud of the Lambe. In these works, Williams laid out his beliefs on religious liberty, namely; that God alone can judge the conscience, the use of force by the civil authority in matters of religion is entirely ineffective and in fact an evil against God’s design and contrary to Christ’s methods, and non-Christians could be good citizens. Williams limited the role of government to non-religious matters such as maintaining order and justice. The Bloudy Tenantmade full use of the Williams skills at argumentation and was written in the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace. Williams has both Peace and Truth plead movingly against religious persecution:

Peace: Dear Truth I have two sad complaints. First, the most sober of your witnesses that dare to plead your cause, how are they charged to be mine enemies—contentions, turbulent, seditious! Secondly, your enemies, though they speak and rail against you, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill your faithful witnesses, yet how is all need over for justice against the heretics! 

The words and deeds of Roger Williams gave a powerful impulse to the cause of religious freedom. Williams’ impact went well beyond a controversy with the Massachusetts religious establishment, his writings would be cited as philosophical support for John Locke, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson on religious liberty. 

In part 3 (here), How the Baptists Ensured Religious Freedom, you can read about another heroic defender of religious liberty (there seems to be no end of them!), the early Rhode Island colony and the early Baptists in Massachusetts.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.