The Survial of the Princes in the Tower- Book Review Monday, Oct 30 2017

The mystery of the Princes in the Tower has been a subject that I have looked at and researched and thought about, I even addressed their fate in two of my fictional blogs.

Now is the winter of our discontent,

Made glorious summer by this son of York

And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house.

In the deep ocean buried.

And therefore, – since I cannot prove a lover,

To entertain these well spoken days, –

I am determined to prove a villan,

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

William Shakespeare, Richard III

HIstory has its truth, and so has legend. Legendary truth is of another nature than historical truth. Legendary truth is invention whose result is reality. Furthermore, history and legend have the same goal; to depict eternal man beneath momentary man.

Victor Hugo

Legends die-hard. They survive as truth rarely does.

Helen Hays

When the legends die, the dreams end; there is no more greatness.

Tecumseh

Christmas is a story that has both religious and pagan origins, to ignore its power is to ignore the power of myth – those symbols and legends help us to ground our lives.

Jay Parini

History isn’t just the story of bad people doing bad things, It’s quite as much a story of people trying to do good things.  But, somehow something goes wrong.

C S Lewis

The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.

Mark Twain

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Sir John Harrington

The antiquity and general acceptance of an opinion is not assurance of its truth.

Pierre Bayle

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

From the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Matthew Lewis. The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder Mystery and Myth.  United Kingdom: The History Press. 2017.

In 1483 King Edward IV died and left his crown to his twelve-year-old son, Edward V, who soon was unseated by his uncle, the infamous Richard III.  Edward and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, were soon placed in the Tower of London were not long afterwords they disappeared into history.  This begins one of England’s most mysterious and contentious murder mystery.  A mystery that still raises passions as it did in the early Tudor period, the burning question has always been, who did away with these two young boys, aged 12 and 9.  REams of paper have been written on this subject and the main suspects are their uncle, Richard III, their brother-in-law, Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort, and Henry, Duke of Buckingham. In his book, The Survival of the Princes in the Tower,  Matthew Lewis wishes to look beyond traditional arguments and assumptions and ask a very different question: Did the young Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York,  survive?

Lewis writes of his new book, “One of the primary reasons I wanted to write a book called The Survival of the Princes of the Tower is that none of the traditional list of suspects accused of their murder has ever been entirely satisfactory to me. The disappearance of the sons of Edward IV remains one of the most controversial murder mysteries of all time and it continues to exert a strong pull, provoking passionate reaction on all sides, in no small part because there is no definitive evidence to support any version of their fate, creating a boiling pot of opinion that is frequently defended with vehemence.”  He adds that,”the guilt of Richard III and the death of the Princes in the Tower is a comfortable warm blanket. It is something we think we know, almost for certain. ” (The Princes in the Tower By Matthew Lewis. http://onthe tudor trail.com/Blog/2017/08/31/the princes-in-the-tower-by-mattew-lewis/)  In this book the author asks the reader to consider something different, maybe the boys survived.

The most famous account of this is Shakespeare’s famous tragedy, Richard III.  In this play the hunchback villain limps across the stage reveling in the evil he does, and yet many find his character to be appealing.  Much like Boris Karloff’s portrayal of the Frankenstein monster, Richard has a humanity about him that hides under his evil nature.  But was the playwriter speaking of  Elizabeth I’s great Uncle or someone else. Lewis states that, “There are strong reasons to belive that Shakespeare was writing about Robert Cecil, the son of William Cecil, Lord Burghley…” (Matthew Lewis. The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder Mystery and Myth.  United Kingdom: The History Press. 2017. 11) and may have been commenting on the politics of the late Elizabethan times and not of the end of the Plantagenets.

Over the centuries this play has gone from what could have been a quiet criticism of the late sixteen hundred’s political scene to a biography and historical account of the life and times of Richard III.  Rod Sterling’s Twilight Zone was a criticism of much of the American society and politics in the late fifties nad early sixties, disguised as science fiction.  Could Shakespeare been doing the same, cover up criticism of Robert Cecil in a historical fiction?

Many of the crimes Shakespeare accused Richard of can easily be disproven, he was too young to have participated in the killing of Edward of Westminster as it occurred when Richard was only 2 1/2, While Henry VI and his brother George, Duke of Clarence were put to death by Edward IV. Only in the deaths of the Princes can he be a major suspect in. But why would have Richard did such a deed, he had proven himself a loyal brother to Edward IV and was so trusted by the king he was appointed Lord of the North late in Edward’s reign.  He ruled the northern part of the kingdom so well that even after he was killed in the Battle of Bosworth, the was much affection and administration of him in York and many northern parts of the kingdom.

Richard suddenly, soon after coming to London, overthrew his nephew, accused his brother of adultery and had himself crowned King on 6 July 1483.  In a strange twist of fate Richard was crowned forty-two years to the day of Sir Thomas More’s execution and seventy years to the day of Edward VI’s death (Henry VIII son and the last Tudor king).  Shakespeare used Sir Thomas More’s famous account, The History of Richard the Third, as the base for his play.  Lewis says of the Princes, “It is perhaps surprising how little firm evidence remains of the fate of the Princes in the Tower.” (Ibid. 21)  He goes on to argue, “The most striking thing about the solid edifice of the story of Richard III’s guilt in the murder of his nephews is the shaky foundation on which it is built.” (Ibid. 25)

Shakespeare was writing a dramatic piece in which he needed to audience to see Richard as the villain, to hide his political commentary and make his play appeal to the audience of sixteenth century London.  Many modern films, plays, TV shows, books, and other creations of social media do the same.  The same could be said of Thomas More’s works.  More was England’s most celebrated intellectual and writer in the early part of the sixteenth century. Schooled in the classic education of the times he wrote in Latin as he saw English as being too guttural to express high intellectual ideas. He used allegory, which “allowed a writer to direct criticism and comment at the establishment of the day in an indirect way that could always be denied.” (Ibid. 26)  More’s work, Utopia, is an example of this, as is Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels.  More used this device in many of his works and thus one should be cautious about seeing them as literal history, also he never finished his history of Richard III, after completing the section on the murder of the Princes he never returned to his work. His nephew William Rastell edited the work and completed it and published it in 1557.

Could More have been using allegory to show the dangers of tyranny to the young Henry VIII, or did he find too many holes in the stories many told him as he researched his project. Lewis points out that More’s first line contains an error.  More says that Edward IV died, “after he had lived fifty and three years, seven months and six days, and therefore reigned two and twenty years, one month, and eight days, died at Westminster the ninth day of April.” (Ibid. 27) While Edward IV did die on the ninth of April, he reigned for forty-one years. The description fits Henry VII closer, as he also died in April at the age of 52 after twenty-four years on the throne.  Lewis claims that More, “offered an immediate signpost to a knowledgeable reader that what followed was not literal truth, but an allegorical, metaphorical exercise.” (Ibid. 27) Lewis goes on to cite several other examples of inconsistencies in the account that may suggest that More was not relating actual history,  but telling a story with a moral truth, much like his work Utopia.

Lewis further mentions that , “In a statement that suggest there was no official Tudor government line on the matter, Vergil also wrote that ‘It is generally reported and believed that the sons of Edward IV were still alive, having been conveyed secretly away and obscurely concealed in some distant region.'” (Ibid. 38) Other stories of this nature are cited by Lewis as well and the author argues that many have been asking the wrong question about these young prices.  Instead of who killed them, maybe one should ask if they had been killed at all. He also asserts that many of the stories of their deaths were written by those who needed them dead for political reasons. Especially those who favored the marriage of Prince Arthur with Katherine of Aragon. Also to be questioned is the French accounts as one could argue that Louise XI may have felt the need to eliminate Richard III, who was hostile to him, for the man, Henry VII, who had gotten sanctuary from him in the years before ascending the throne.

Lewis, who gives a detailed description of the political climate of the time, also cites Richard’s actions after the revolt by Buckingham. There were rumors that the Duke had done away with the children and after his execution it would have been no problem for Richard to have produced a confession, real or not, and the boys bodies to quell any suspicion that he had done the deed. Lewis asserts, “The only obvious reason that Richard would fail to seize this moment was that the boys were still alive and their murder had never even crossed their uncle’s mind.” (Ibid. 53) Lewis goes on to cite how there are tiny clues in many records that the prices were still alive and may have been expected to have attend their uncle’s coronation. He also cites that Elizabeth Woodville did allow her daughters to leave sanctuary and attend Richard’s court and that she was treated better by Richard than she was by Henry.

Lewis also argues that far from killing the princes, John Tyrrell actually cared for them and that they may have been separated at this time.  This would not have been a cruel or unusual move, as the two boys had been reared separately and most likely did not know each other very well. They may have been moved to two places, With his sister, Margaret, Dowager Duchess of Burgundy and to the North, Richard’s stronghold. Lewis also cites the actions of Henry VII, who never declared Richard guilty of their murder in any of his royal declarations upon ceasing power and consolidating his reign.  Also Lewis stats that, “At no point before her death in 1492 did Elizabeth Woodville accuse her brother-in-law of killing his nephews.” (Ibid. 72)

Lewis calls the evidence of their survival a gravitational effect, likened to that of a Black Hole, which all things go into but nothing escapes. He explains, “There are several glimpses again of what might be the gravitational effect of the survival of the Princes which in the absence of any evidence of their deaths or survival, offer the only hint at their fate.” (Ibid. 73) He cites the actions of Lord Lovell in Colchester as one of these clues that they survived.  Here he argues that Lovell may have recovered one of the princes, most likely Edward, and got him out of the country to his aunt in Burgundy. He also argues that Richard, after the death of his son, Richard of Middleton, may have been looking into the idea of restoring Edward as his heir. He also cites Henry’s actions around Colchester as intriguing.

Lewis then moves to the two great pretenders of Henry VII’s reign, Limbert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. He asserts that the word pretender does not mean imposter, but comes from the French word pretendre, which ment to claim. He details the revolts of both young men and then goes on to assert that they may have been the real thing.  He notes that Simnel is crowned King Edward, but while tradition holds it was Edward VI, Lewis says some contemporary records say it was actually Edward V. He goes on to say that the young man did not claim to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, but Edward V, son of Edward IV.  He was recognized as such by the Irish Parliament, whose records were destroyed by Henry VII on pain of treason.  This rebellion fizzled and may have given Henry a template for handling such claims in the future, by simply saying the leader was an imposter and nothing more.  It would have been easy, if the young man was Edward ,to substitute another to proclaim he had been a fraud and spend his life working in the royal kitchens. The next pretender was much more of a problem.

The young man known to history, Perkin Warbeck, was one of the most famous pretenders to land in the British Isles. He called himself Richard of York and claimed to be the youngest son of Edward IV.  His claim was recognized as true by many nobles in Europe, including his aunt, the Duchess of Burgundy, as well as the King of Scotland, the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian, and several English nobles. Lewis details the evidence that suggest that he was the second son of Edward IV and that Henry VII knew that he was who he said he was. Elizabeth of York never denounced him as a fraud either, Lewis asserts, “The continued silence on the part of the queen, a quiet she took to the grave, is suggestive that she, like her mother, never became convinced that her brothers were dead.” (Ibid. 193) Lewis asserts further that Henry did not wish his wife to perjure herself and condemn either of the pretenders.

In 1499, under pressure from Spain, both Perkin and Warwick would be executed. This was done to secure the marriage of Prince Arthur and Katherine of Aragon. The same kind of pressure on Katherine’s daughter Mary I would led to the execution of Lady Jane Gray almost 55 years later. Many reports said that Perkin had been beaten about the face, which might have been done to cover up that the man was an imposter.  In a scene similar to that in the White Queen, a substitute for Richard may have been obtained, with the promise of a simple hanging and not the gruesome spectacle that the poor received at the time. Lewis states, “Too much of Richard’s story is compelling to dismiss him as a lie as the first Tudor King hoped. It is likely that Richard, Duke of York survived beyond 1483 as it is that he was murdered that year, and there is enough to support the idea that Richard of England could have been the boy grown into a man.” (Ibid. 204)

Lewis argues that , “It is possible to interpret the small amounts of evidence that survive to creat a narrative in which the Princes of the Tower were not murdered by their uncle, but wer in fact protected by him.” (Ibid. 205)  Lewis allows that they may have died in battle, but what would have happened to them if they had been captured.  The traditional picture of the Tudors would make one assume that they would have been executed immediately without any mercy shown, but that was not the case. The marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York was purely political, used to not only get the throne for Henry, but to solidify his claim as the ruler of England. Despite what may have been a recipe for a loveless marriage , their marriage was a love match in which both Henry and Elizabeth came to love each other deeply.  The question is, could Elizabeth have influenced Henry to let the Princes live, if they promised to never challenge the Tudor dynasty? That may have been the case.

Using the same logic he uses to claim they might have survived 1483, Lewis points to who they may have become. First, is the portrait of the More family done by Hans Holbein, who was the official painter of the Tudor dynasty. He cites the theory of Jack Leslau, an amateur art historian, who believes one can find Richard of York in the More family portrait. He said, “The crux of Leslau’s Theory is that Richard, Duke of York, the younger of the Princes in the Tower, can be found, hidden in plain view amongst the members of the More family portrait as John Clement, the figure at the right-hand end of the back row of the portrait.” (Ibid. 210) He says of this theory:

The idea is not as ridiculous as many may think. All that is required is an acceptance that Richard III was not monstrous enough to murder his nephews before they reached their teens, that Henry VII was no murderous villain either and might have been in love with his wife enough to be convinced to spare her brother’s lives if they remain secrets and that Henry VIII was brash and confident in the extreme when he first came to the throne. None of these are impossible to imagine.

(Ibid. 210-11)

Lewis points out hat the early life of John Clement is obscure and his place of birth and parentage are completely unknown.  Yet he rose to become a respected scholar in England and was Greek master at Oxford and the tutor to Sir Thomas More’s children. He married Margaret Griggs, who may have been a distant relation to More.  He obtained many high academic honors both in England and abroad, he reached the pinnacle of his career in 1544, when he became the President of the Royal College of Physicians. Clement is often refered to have been of noble, even though there is no noble Clement family recorded. An interesting note of the man is that he never was recorded takeing the usual oaths or signed his name to customary documents. Maybe he did not wish to perjure himself and all most likely knew why.

Clement appears named in may court documents and seems to have wide acceptance in spite of an obscure background. Lewis argues, “Leslau’s theory is that Dr. John Clement was, in fact, Richard , Duke of York, who survived under an assumed identity that must have been known at least to Henry VIII and may have been something of an open secret at court, kept quiet by the threat of Henry’s outrage if it was ever made an issue. (Ibid. 215)  As for the assumption that either Prince would have fought to the end to assert their rights, may not be the case.  They may have seen that they tried and failed and through their sister Elizabeth found a way to live out their lives in quite secrecy.  Lewis goes on to speak of Edward V’s fate. He says that, “Jack Leslau also believed that the painting was not silent on the fate of Richard, Duke of York’s older brother Edward V, either.” (Ibid. 223) A flag iris in the painting may refer to the Standard Bearer of King Henry VIII, who by this point was Sir Edward Guildford, the identity Leslau believed was a cover for the continued existence of King Edward V. (Ibid. 223)

Guildford was traditionally said to be the oldest son of Sir Richard Guildford and held many offices in the court and was a close friend of Henry VIII.  Edward never had much of a power base and entire career depended on his friendship with Henry VIII. He did not make out a will, which Lewis said was unusual for a man in his position at that time, unless, he lived under an assumed name and it would have been impossible to make out and enforce such a document. Lewis argues, “”Part of the deal for remaining quiescent may have been that a verbal will would be properly executed.” (Ibid. 225) he left all of his property to his daughter jane, despite a nephew who might have been expected to have inherited such things.

Of Guildford Lewis remarks, “One of the most striking connections of Sir Edward Guildford was John Dudley, who later became Duke of Northumberland under Henry VIII’s son Edward VI.” (Ibid 224) He had petitions Parliament for over turn Richard Dudley’s attainer so John could marry his daughter Jane.  John Dudley intervened with Thomas Cromwell to help John Clement when he was incarcerated in Fleet Prison for his devotion to the catholic Church. Dudley who reputation was not one to intervene if he had no skin in the game may have done so to protect his father-in-law’s brother and to protect both of their secrets. Clement died in 1572  and was buried in the high altar of St Rombold’s Cathedral, in a place reserved for members of the House of Burgundy and his aunt Margaret.

Guilford’s son-in-law, John Dudley, would go on to become the major advisor to Henry’s son Edward VI after the old king died.  His downfall after Edward’s death in 1553 is quick and spectacular, but if his wife was the daughter of Edward V it would explain somethings.  In his Device for Succession Edward had named Lady Jane Gray to succeed him. It may have been a manuever to reestablish a male line to the throne and skip both of his sisters, who, by law, were illegitimate.  Eric Ives in his book, Lady Jane Grey, argues that Edward’s device was not a move to place Lady Jane on the throne, but to make female rule impossible. He argues that , “Edward was attempting an English equivalent of the Salic Law of France which ensured that the monarch was always male.” (Eric Ives. Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery. United Kingdom.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2011. loc 3452)  He  basis this on the original drafts of Edward’s device and not the final one that is used to keep Mary off the throne and the Roman Catholic Church out of England.

It would also explain why Guilford Dudley, Lady Jane’s husband, was so insistent on begin declared King. Of the Queens who ruled Britain, only Mary II insisted her husband, William III, be declared King.  Jane left it up to Parliament, but said she would make him a Duke. Maybe, if he knew his grandfather was actually Edward V, he may have been demanding his right.  It might have been interesting to see how he might have advanced his claim had Mary I not been successful in her coup that place her on the throne. Lewis states, “If we accept that Sir Edward Guildford was, in fact, Edward V and that his daughter Jane Dudley was therefore an heir of the House of York, then Guildford Dudley was a viable Yorkist heir.” (Lewis. 229) That would also place a very different spin on the relationship of Robert Dudley and Elizabeth I, who Lewis terms, “takes on the air of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.” (Ibid. 230)

Edward Guilford’s grave is not recorded, but a myth has it in the More Chapel within the Old Chelsea Church. Could be in the place were his coat of arms appears, and the tomb of Lady Jane Dudley marks her as a “High and Mighty  Princess,” despite what is traditionally seen as a lowly birth. Lewis, who admits his ideas are only theory, says ,”If it is true, at some point during the reign of Henry VII, a decision was made and an agreement reached that the sons of Edward IV should be allowed to live in peace as long as they did not threaten the Tudor monarchy.” (Ibid. 232) Lewis sums up his argument:

It is easier to belive that Richard III did not publicise the deaths of his nephews because they were alive and well and being provided for.  It is equally likely that Henry VII, while feeling their threat, did not wish to execute a 15-year-old Edward V or even a 26-year-old Richard, Duke of York, if he truly loved his wife, their sister, and agreed to keep them alive as long as they promised not to threaten his throne or his dynasty.

(Ibid. 246)

Nathan Amin in his book review for the Henry Tudor Society, says of the book and the argument, “The best compliment I can pay Matthew Lewis is whilst I can’t prove that the Princes survived, even after reading his carefully constructed and well – thought out argument, neither can I prove they were killed. And despite what you may read elsewhere, most vociferously online, neither can anyone else..” (Nathan Amin. Book Review – The Survival of the Princes in the Tower by Matthew Lewis. The Henry Tudor Society. https://henry tudorsociety.com/tag/survivail-of-the-princes-in-the-tower/)

So how is one to look upon this time period, the traditional scenarios have been written and argued since the sixteenth century,  and revisions have popped up for the entire time. A new look could be as follows, with the advent of new theories, beginning with Edward IV. His mother Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, who claimed that Edward IV was not the son of her husband, Richard of York, but the produce of an affair with a French bowmen, Blaybourne. (Micheal Jones. Bosworth 1485: The Battle that Transformed England. New York: Pegasus Books. 2015. 70-84)  While the family could support Edward ass king, he was a winner in battle, the idea of placing the son of an illegitimate son on the throne was not something that the age would tolerate. Especially when that son was a twelve-year-old boy with a greedy family that was already unpopular. (Ibid. 100) Richard then provided for his nephews and kept them safe by moving them out of London and into hiding.  Henry Tudor, seeing a chance to reclaim the throne for his Lancaster family moved in and defeated Richard in 1485.  To appease his wife, Elizabeth of York, he spared both boys , even after they led revolts against him, as long as they agreed to not challenge the Tudor dynasty. In this scenario, neither Richard or Henry are villains or evil, just good men doing what they thought was right, in a situation that may have gone terribly wrong.

But, Elizabeth of York brought another legacy to the Tudor dynasty, a genetic condition passed down from her grandmother Jocquette de Luxembourg.  This genetic condition that gave King Henry VIII a Kell positive blood type, and led to him developing McLeod syndrome.  This condition led to not only miscarriages but, victums of this tend to develop a deteriorating mental condition.  It would turn this example of a glorious Renaissance prince into the fat tyrant of legend. (Kyra Kramner. Blood Will Tell: A Medical Explanation of the Tyranny of Henry VIII. Bloomington, Indiana: Ash Wood Press. 2012) Closely related to this gene is the gene that causes non – classic cystic fibrosis, a lung condition that in the sixteenth century would cause the victim to die around their sixteenth birthday.  This occurred with Henry VII’s oldest son , Arthur, Prince of Wales, Henry VIII’s sons, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and King Edward VI (Kyra Kramner. Edward VI in a Nutshell.  MadeGlobal Publishing. 2016)

The only way to prove these theories is to exhume the bodies of all, and their tombs are well-known, and perform DNA testing, which had been done to identify Richard III, which showed that a break had occurred in the male line. Unfortunately, or maybe rightly, as to what one’s perspective one has , the Royal Family will not approve of such an effort so this route of discovery is a moot point. While this cannot be proved, it also cannot be disproved, so like many historic mysteries, it lies in the great area of argument.

 

 

Leave a Response »

 

The Last Great Debate: The Death Penalty in Pre Collapse America Saturday, Oct 21 2017

This is a story that came to me when thinking about the fact that in olden days public executions were some of the most attended events.

We all do no end of feeling and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is the public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God.

Mark Twain

A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded,  cannot be safely disregarded.

Abraham Lincoln

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.

Voltaire

              In 2041 America was beginning the centennial celebration of the Second World War, it was a time of celebrations.  The events of the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt had been celebrated over the last  ten years and the world was marking the midpoint of what is now called the Second Hundred Years War.  At that time it was called the Second World War as the wars between 1898 and 1989 were not called the Second Hundred Years War untill the esrly 2500s.  The rise of the great dictators of the time, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, were marked by celebration by a rising tide of people who believed the troubled times needed a strong had to lead the world.  The widespread disillusion with political establishments was a worldwide event, but it was especially rampant in the old United States.  The corruption of the time was widespread and it seemed to many that scandals just seemed to rain down from every institution.  On top of the scandals, a recession had griped the nation from early 2040 and it drifted into depression levels by early 2041, hitting the southern states the hardest.

         Hurricane Charlene, a category five storm that had devastated Florida in 2040 and reigned destruction into Georgia and Alabama sent the economies of those states into a tailspin.  Washington had been paralyzed by political stalemate and many northeastern politicians, led by Carl Abrams, wished to just let those state fall apart.  Abram famously said that after the fall, “We can remake those racist bastions of white supremacy into a paradise of diversity and justice.”  Needless to say the statement did nothing to move any legislation along as both Republicans and Democrats dug in and the gridlock of Congress once again prevented any action.  Unable to raise taxes because of the economic quagmire, the states desperately looked for funds.

          It was during this time Ray Alford, a national talk show host who was the darling of the extreme right-wing made a broadcast on May 16, 2041.  In it he decried the rising violence of drug gangs and the corruption of the government and called for a new look at the death penalty.  He wanted it expanded, as it had been in decline since the 1960s and many thought it may soon go extinct. He wanted the public execution of drug lords and corrupt public officials.  He exclaimed, “If the people see these rats and roaches executed they will soon come to belive that we are turning this nation back to law and order!” The call was ridiculed by many, Carl Abrams said of it,” Typical of theat hate monger, he only wants blood and death.  He is the one who needs to be silenced.” It was at the is time Abram began his crusade for more government control over public airways.  It was his famous crusade called, End All Hate Speech, that would dominate the next ten years.

          Public executions were held in the old United states untill 1936.  It was when the hanging of Raniney Bethea was botched under the supervision of Sheriff Florence Shoemaker caused such an uproar and circus that the Kentucky legislature abolished public executions in 12 March 1938.  Later Kentucky Governor Albert Chandler expressed regret in signing the law, stating the streets no longer were safe. The death penalty was in decline in the old republic, a decline that accelerated in the 1990s and by the 2030s seemed to be on the road to extinction.  Opponents of the death penalty by 2040 were looking for either a court ruling or legislative act to as John Michaels, a leading opponent of the death penalty at the time, proclaimed, “put the last nail in the coffin of that barbaric practice.”  Michaels, the Governor of Mississippi, one of the few liberal Democrats able to win election in the solid Republican state, or deep blue as it was termed at the time, refused to sign any death warrant hand had placed a moratorium on the practice in 2039.  But, he had a problem, the state was near bankrupt and a large tax increase most likely would have cost him reelection in the 2040 campaign.

Micheals needed something to get a cash flow and put off his Republican opponents who were painting him as nothing more than a pawn of what was called the liberal establishment, or Occupy Wall Street crew, another political term of the time. An aide, John Dudley, came to him with an idea.  One he felt could give Micheals the act to not only get money, but maybe kill off public execution.  In a long memo (long memos were a hallmark of the pre collapse period as bureaucrats never passed up a chance to say in 1000 words what could have been said in 10) he proposed holding a public execution of drug lord Alberto Menendez.  Dudley asserted that the state could gain money from advertising the event and he was confident the revulsion from the event would spur the end of the practice.  He pointed out that the circus around the last public execution led directly to the banning of such events and he felt confident that the public execution of this man would produce the same circus atmosphere that would led to the death penalty’s final demise.

Micheals was at first repulsed at the idea, he wrote in his diary that the idea sickened and disgusted him, but nothing could change the mind of a pre collapse politician like the prospect of losing an election. He saw the idea as bold and insightful, he could claim it was his only way out, since the Republican legislature would refuse any tax increase.  The circus, he wrote to a friend, would cause such an uproar that either the Supreme Court would rule the entire practice unconstitutional or the state would be forced to outlaw it. He announced his intention to perform the act on all streaming and broadcasting venues and scheduled it for October 9, 2043, and the furor was just as he predicted.  He instructed his Attorney General, another death penalty opponent, Raymond Sears, to defend the practice, which he did with sarcastic glee. It became the main subject on tall media outlets and the case moved quickly through state and federal courts.  In February of 2045, it reached the Supreme Court, and Micheals privately told his supporters that with his reelection  in the fall of 2044 had been the result of this crusade and he assured his people he felt the court would rule the death penalty unconstitutional, he set a date for a victory celebration.  Carl Abram had been watching and congratulated him for his actions, saying, “We are close to total victory in the political realm.”

They were wrong, in a 6-3 decision the Court ruled that a state could choose to execute in either public of private, as long it was conducted in a lawful manner and the one being executed was not subjected to humiliation. Micheals had already signed the warrant before the ruling, to show he was serious, and the event was scheduled for September 14, 2045. It was done at 10:00PM, and it brought the state more revenue than any sporting event or mainstream show.  The event grossed 1000 million dollars and it led to more.  while Micheals tried to pull back, the momentum he created swept him up and the idea took root in many states. Micheals, term limited in 2048 had tried to run for the US Senate, but he was caught up in a burgeoning reform movement, led by Lamar Marquis.  Dudley had released all of his papers in the primary as he tried to get the nomination, but Micheals had prevailed in a bitterly contested election, which typically of the period drew less than 40% of the electorate to the polls. Within a year Alabama and Georgia conducted public executions with Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Ohio joining them by 2047. The revenue from these event s was staggering, with states making 100 million to 300 million per execution. The states sold the rights to UTube and moved the events from late night to prime time in 2050, increasing revenues by 40%.  The revenue gained from the executions pulled many states out of the red. The executionswere so popular that bars had special events set up on the nights of executions and it made many of the owners millionaires.  It even gained a name that exist to today, it was the term, Execview, which came to mean a big money event, came into being. States even found that if the execution was botched, revenue increased, which led to some secretly scheduling such things.

By 2052, the entire process was under extreme criticism and assault by Abram and his groups.  Court cases were filed in every district to stop them, but the revenue from this events and their popularity had proved hard to contain. Lamar Marquis came out opposed to such events, saying that they had gone from “justice to circus.”  In May of 2053, the Supreme Court placed an injunction on all public executions and the Congress set up hearing into them.  The Court said its ruling on the practice would be made in September, while a joint committee of the House and Senate set up hearing to begin on the 7th of July.  The entire matter was never resolved as the Great Earthquake on 6 July 2053, set in motion the Great Collapse. It is interesting that the only feudal entity that did regular public executions was Abram’s San Francisco Republic, while the Kingdoms of Appalachia, and Palm Beach only held them in cases of treason.  Detroit banned all execution in 2080 and the United States did them only for a very narrow band of offenses.  The other entities followed suit.  The popularity of these events is just another proof that the society of the Pre Collapse was most like worse that of  Rome when it fell.

Opinion piece in the New York Times, June 7, 2660. Richard Davis editor.

 

Leave a Response »

 

Another Fine Mess- How Our Foreign Policy Evolved Tuesday, Oct 17 2017

Our history has gotten us in many places, not all were good. Here is a theory how modern America came to be.

We are not the makers of history. We are made by history

Martin Luther King

Many public school-children seem to know on.y two dates – 1492 and 4th of July – and as a rule they don’t know what happened on either occasion.

Mark Twain

         Today our politics seem to be more divided than anytime since maybe the Civil War. The forces of the right and left just tear at each other and many fear we are setting ourselves to have a second civil war, this time over ideas and not slavery.  The effects of the Civil War still resonate in American society as a couple of my past have detailed.  This post will look at how our foreign policy came out of the same time period and what events effected it.

In the book Brothers at Arms, Larrie Ferreiro states, “The narratives, and many which came long after that, were infused with the notion that progress toward a democratic republic was a uniquely American undertaking,derived from its exceptional nature.” (Larrie D. Ferreiro. Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the Men of France and Spain Who Saved It. New York: Alfred A. Knoff. 2016. 334)  The truth was different, as Stephen Kinzer details in his book, The True Flag,  “Instead of the myth of heroic self-sufficiency, the real story is that the American nation was born as the centerpiece of an international coalition, which worked together to defeat a common adversary.” (Stephen Kinzer. The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain and the Birth of the American Empire. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. 2017. 1)

While we were formed out of the international rivalry between Great Britain and France (and her ally Spain) we became a nation formed on an idea, unlike virtually all of the European nations whose foundation were based on tribes, such as the Franks and Saxons. We became a democratic republic that conducted a successful revolution against a foreign power and set ourselves up as an independent entity on the world stage. This status was confirmed when we fought Britain to a draw in the War of 1812.  America from the time of the Plymouth Colony and Jamestown moved west in an almost insatiable hunger for new land. Sadly, Native American tribes were seen as being in the way, and since they sided with the French in the French and Indian Wars and the British in the Revolution, they soon became the enemy. In this process America  became a continental power with the Louisiana Purchase and processed an idea of Manifest Destiny that led to a war with Mexico in the 1830s and almost another with Britain over the boundary of the Oregon territory.

During these years two statements from the premiere founders guided American foreign policy.  George Washington said in his farewell address, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” And Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” This sediment guided American foreign policy for much of the nineteenth century and was many times cited in the twentieth. Except for the Southern attempts to draw Britain into the Civil War, America steered clear of all foreign entanglements until the 1890s.  Today, Kinzer states, “When we love the idea of intervening abroad, and then hate it, we are not changing our minds.  Along with this anti interventionist sediment was a fear of standing armies, inherited from the English, as was the American view of the poor. These two sediments combined to produce an isolationist tradition in America, but along side of that was the tradition of America being the “City on the Hill” and an example to all the world of what civilized democracy could and should be. This created an urge to move into the world to teach all how the perfection that Americans felt they had achieved could be obtained by all.  Thus, America acquired both instincts, and they would coexist within us.  Americans are imperialist and also isolationist.” (Ibid. 2) To see how we got that way we must return to the 1890s and our “splendid little war,” with Spain.

Of standing armies, James Madison said, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever revolt  was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept under pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ”  George Washington argued that, “When we assume the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen,” when he spoke in favor of state militias as the primary form of defense against foreign enemies. Thomas Jefferson seconded his feelings by stating, “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state.” Both of them, like the majority of the Founding Fathers saw a professional military as a source of moral corruption and a force that inevitably would weaken the spirit of independence.

James Madison summed this up in his statement on war and standing armies:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most dreaded, because it comprises and developes the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are known instruments for brining the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequity of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and the degeneracy of manners and morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The aversion to standing armies had an important effect on American policy following the Civil War.  The South had fought to maintain slavery, the state right they were most interested in, but the North fought to perserve the Union.  For the North, the “Myth of the Lost Cause” gave the North a pathway to union and the strong aversion to standing armies discouraged the formation of a large occupational force needed to maintain Reconstruction. The combination of the yearning for Union and the rejection of standing armies, along with Lincoln’s assassination, gave the southern elite the window of opportunity to uphold the structure of their racial hierarchy for society. The aversion to standing armies and foreign intervention ran deep in the fiber of the American society in the years before the Spanish-American War.  To the Founders, the combination of foreign intervention and standing armies that produced such wars produced these forces that would weaken the spirit of democracy and independence in the people, leading inevitably to tyranny and totalitarianism. It also resembles the history of the twentieth century.

On 15 June, 1898 the congress began a debate on whether or not the United States should annex Hawaii. The American nation had been moving west since the colonial period and by the early 1840s had reach the Pacific coast.  In 1859 the Russians, fearing losing Alaska to Great Britain in any conflict offered the area to the United States.  The negotiations on the deal were delayed by the Civil War, but it was completed in 1867 By William Seward.  While some called the deal “Seward’s folly'” most saw the deal as good as it could weaken both the British and Russians as rivals in the Pacific. The Americans were also moving to the island of Hawaii, and under John Tyler the United States had recognized the nation of Hawaii.  The island had been discovery by James Cook in 1778 and called Sandwich Islands after one of Cook’s friends. In 1795, the British helped King Kamehameha I unite the island and it become a prosperous nation that had great strategic value, sitting in the mid Pacific.  Soon American missionaries came to the island along with other Americans who began farming sugar by 1835. William Hooper bought 980 acres for the first sugar fam and sugar quickly changed the island’s economy, attracting immigrants from Japan, the Philippines and China to work the fields.  European disease had decimated the native population and Tyler recognized the nation to protect these interest. Soon plantations formed and their mostly American owners demanded more say in the government of Hawaii.

Why was america interested in Hawaii?  If one looks at a map of the Pacific one will quickly see the reason, ports. As America advanced towards Asia the Pacific was a large barrier, Europe moved thru Africa, America a crossed the Pacific.  Navel ships needed a port and Hawaii offered America the first one that could assist American commerce in its quest for Asian markets. In 1873, the US had proposed that Hawaii exchange Ford Island for Americans agreeing to import sugar duty-free. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 accomplished this and the US navy began leasing Pearl Harbor on 20 January 1887.  In July of that year a revolt by plantation interest resulted in what is called the Bayonet Constitution (July 6, 1887) that stripped natives of voting rights and severely restricted the power of the monarchy. King David Kaukauna(who died in 1890) tried to overturn this but failed. Queen Liliuokalani succeed him and was overthrown by a revolt led by Lorrin Thurston and Sanford Dole, who then asked for the United States to annex the nation. The revolt had been assisted by US Marines and President Grover Cleveland reputed it and had Congress investigate the matter. Congressman James Blount’s report confirmed the American role in the revolt and he made steps to overturn the whole action. This was countermanded under President William McKinley and the investigation by expansionist Congressman John Morgan exonerated America in the actions of the rebels.

By the late 1800s the imperialism of Western nations had hit its high point, as European nations had divided up Africa, moving into Asia and Pacific. The United States led by those who felt expansion was the only way to insure outlets for American goods, began to look for colonies for the nation founded by colonist who had revolted against an imperial power. Richard Parker of New Jersey said of this, “This annexation is not a conquest or a subjugation of others, but a continuation of our established policy of opening lands to the colonial energy of the great colonizing nation of the century.” (Ibid. 8) Edwin Ridgely of Kansas supported Parker by stating, “Civilization has ever moved westward, and we have every reason to belive that it will ever so continue. We need not, nor do I belive we will, enter into conquest of force but, to the contrary our higher civilization will be carried across the Pacific by the white and peaceful wings of our rapidly increasing commerce.” (Ibid.) The argument was simple, the white European nations had a duty to carry civilization to the world (the white man’s burden) and that if America did not colonize these places, other would and thus cut American business off from these markets and raw materials.

One opponent, John F. Fitzgerald of Massachusetts (grandfather of John F. Kennedy) countered, “My colleague emphasized the pleasure that he felt in voting for annexation because of the fact that the islands had been redeemed from savagery by the devotion of American missionaries.  In thinking the matter over, I have come to the conclusion that native Hawaiian’s view of the Almighty and justice must be a little bit shaken when he sees these men, who pretend to be exemplars of Christianity and honor, take possession of these islands by force, destroy the government that had existed for years, and set up sovereignty for themselves.” (Ibid. 9)  Racial arguments were used on both sides, proponents argued it was their duty as white men to bring civilization to these barbaric and savage people, while the opponents decried bringing in such savages to union with America.  Stephen Kinzer, in his book, The True Flag, says of the proponents, “Expansionist in Congress and beyond were visionaries seized by a radically new idea of what America could and should be.” (Ibid. 10) While those who opposed this were, “Time and again these troubled congressmen returned to their central theme: the American idea prohibits colonization, annexing foreign lands, tasking protectorates, or projecting military power overseas.” (Ibid. 10-11)  The debate was over the very nature of freedom, a blessing they wished to spread around the world. In 1898, the debate was over how it was to be done.  Anti-imperialist wished to spread freedom by example, the expansionist by colonization, in a world were freedom was only ment for developed nations ruled by whites.

Theodore Roosevelt was the greatest proponent of expansionism, if one would call him an imperialist and white supremacist in 1898, his response would have been, “damn right I am.” He was the embodiment of the drive to project America’s power overseas. Opposing him was the writer Mark Twain, who believed that the fulfillment of Roosevelt’s dream would destroy America and turn it into another imperialistic European nation. Kinzer portrays them thus, “Roosevelt considered colonialism a form of “Christian charity.” Twain pictured Christendom as “a majestic matron in flowing robes drenched with blood.” (Ibid. 12-13)  While both were similar in many ways, both were strong patriots,who believed America had a sacred mission, which they defined in very different terms.

Both sides saw America as processing the greatest gift the world could have, liberty.  While anti-imperialist saw America’s light footprint as a good thing and despised the wars that came from colonization, the imperialist saw war as a purifying force that would unify the nation that could guide the world as  a virtuous force and discipline it with its military. Kinzer sums it up in the following passage:

National unity, race, the meaning of liberty, the place of the United States in the world and history – all of these grand themes shaped the debate that gripped Americans in 1898.  At stake was nothing less than what kind of nation the United States would be in the twentieth century and beyond.

(Ibid. 13)

The confrontation of Twain and Roosevelt symbolizes the debate that occurred in the nation as the nineteenth century came to a close. The background of this debate was the dying Spanish Empire in America, an empire that dated from 1492.  Spain had been in decline since the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, but the decline was accelerated when Napoleon tried to place his brother on the throne in the Peninsula Wars in 1808. Bit by bit the Spanish empire in America broke away, by 1898, the last vestiges of it were under severe distress. In Cuba three wars of independence  ( Ten Years War, 1866-1878; Little War 1879-1880; Guerre de Independence Cubana, 1895-1898) and on 15 June Emilio Aguinaldo declared the Philippines an independent nation. America was united in their fever to assist these movements and were whipped into a frenzy by William Randolph Herse’s yellow journalism.  When the battleship Maine exploded on 16 February 1898, he all the material he needed to push America into war with Spain.

Support to help rebels received universal support, while the idea of taking colonies was greeted with much opposition.  On the same day the Philippines declared independence a large group of people met in Faneuil Hall in Boston met, the first such meeting to oppose overseas expansion held in the United States.  They opposed the annexation of Hawaii and any other colonial expansion by America.  That day was also the day the United States formally annexed Hawaii, the lines were drawn for the clash of just what nation America was going to be in the next century.

On 20 June 1898 America moved to the world stage, as it declared war on Spain and moved to send troops to ports in the Caribbean and Pacific. Theodore Roosevelt had resigned his cabinet post to led a troop of volunteers to Cuba, later known as the Rough Riders.  This was a very different army from the one the nation knows today, it depended on volunteers and militia to fill the small force who job had been mainly to fight Indians in the West. Even Mark Twain was excited by the idea of America at war and he at first supported the move to free Cuba.  While united in the first days, soon he and Roosevelt became bitter enemies as Twain turned into one of the most famous and solid opponent of American expansion outside of the continental United States. While Admiral Dewey’s efforts in Manila Bay were more famous , the USS Charleston moved to an island on a secret mission. Captain Henry Glass explained to his crew they were going to move in on the Spanish island of Guam and occupy the tiny island. The island was tiny, with a population of around fifty thousand, but it laid midway between the American base at Pearl harbor and provided a short sail to either China or Japan.

After a short barrage from the ship, surprising Spanish authorities who did not know they were at war with America, Captain Glass sailed ashore and accepted their surrender and Glass became the first American officer to seize an overseas territory for the United States. Secretary of State, henry Cabot Lodge, who was the behind the scenes leader of the expansionist, said of this action, “The flag which had risen first on the distant Atlantic coast floated out before the afternoon breeze of these remote islands, which were henceforth to know new masters.  The first possession in the Pacific which Magellan had given to the Spain that dominated and frightened Europe had passed away forever from the Spain which had ceased to rule, and became part of the Western republic.” (Ibid. 52) A new era had downed for the republic, it was now in procession of an empire.

Meanwhile in Cuba, Roosevelt made his famous Charge up San Juan Hill (actually Kettle Hill, but in his defense, it was actually Breed’s Hill and not Bunker where the famous Revolutionary War battle was fought) and the weak Spanish forces in Cuba and the Philippines quickly succumbed to the American forces. The war made Roosevelt a hero, and it looked it might catapult him into the White House, but many in the Republican Party were against him. So, they made him Vice President to William McKinley in 1900 with the idea they were to bury the energetic Roosevelt in obscurity. John Hay, the new Secretary of State called the whole affair, “A splendid little war.” On 6 July, the Senate approved the annexation of Hawaii, over strong opposition, and for the first time in the nation’s history it had absorbed an overseas nation.  Former President Grover Cleveland said of the whole thing, “Hawaii is ours. As I look back on the first steps in the miserable business and as I contemplate the means used to complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair.” (Ibid. 60)  On the 16th, Spanish troops surrendered to their American opponents, Kinzer says of the event, ” Spain surrendered not to Cuban rebels but to the United States.  The message was clear: Americans, not Cubans , would replace Spain as the islands new masters.” (Ibid. 62) The same scenario would be repeated in the Philippines as rebels were excluded form any ceremonies and were not allowed to march with American troops through Manilla to celebrate the victory.  The American annexation of the Philippines drove Twain solidly into the anti – expansionist camp. The debate over the Treaty of Paris that ended the war was hotly debated in the Senate and the nation.  It also elicited passion in the Philippines as they had no interest in becoming part of the new American empire. Of the whole war Kinzer describes it this way:

In a ravenous fifty five-day spasm during the summer of 1898, the United States asserted control over five far flunged lands with a total of 11 million inhabitants: Guam, Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico.  Never in history has a nation leaped so suddenly to overseas empire.

(Ibid. 66)

By 2 February 1899 the Philippines were in revolt in a war that many feel foreshadowed American involvement in Veit Nam. Used by both sides the Philippines War split the nation with both sides claiming its outbreak vindicated their position. Supporting annexation was Rudyard Kipling who urged the United States to assume the white man’s burden and work to civilize the savage that inhabited the Islands. On 6th of February the annexation passed the Senate on a vote of 57-27, had two votes changed the treaty would have failed. Lodge may have echoed many in the Viet Nam era when he condemned those who opposed the treaty as aiding the enemy by giving him confront in feeling that America would back down. McKinley denied that Americans, because of their traditions of liberty, would ever tyrannize another nation as Europeans did, thus he felt justified in annexing his new acquisitions. Kinzer states that , “McKinley proclaimed principles that would guide American foreign policy for generations: the United States never goes abroad in search of selfish advantage; it seeks only to help less fortunate people, even if they cannot understand that they are being helped; and it always acts in accordance with noble ideals.” (Ibid. 132-133) The expansionist won because they portrayed the effort as a national project that would end the divisions of the Civil War and finally reunite the nation as one.

Kinzer sums up the whole debate, “Debate over the Treaty of Paris was about the very nature of America’s mission. To anti-imperialist, the essence of this mission was democracy – deepening it at home and encouraging it abroad. The imperialist, however, saw American history through the lens of conquest. They, too, claimed democracy as their ultimate end, but they believed that in most places it could be established only under American tutelage. Two fundamentally conflicting arguments – foreigners are better on their own verses foreigners need our help – wer already emerging.” (Ibid. 135) Both sides used race to push their arguments, expansionist said it was the white man’s duty to take care of these people, while the anti – imperialist warned against adding more non-whites to the population.  America backed off its promise to free Cuba realizing that a free Cuba would be mostly black. The expansionist believed they had totally defeated the anti – imperialist and soon the Filipinos would also concede defeat, they were wrong on both counts.

As  the war in the Philippines drug on it became more and more the target of the anti-imperialist and its popularity waned. In a foreshadowing of the Veit Nam conflict the July 4 cover of the magazine, The Anti-Imperialist,  had, “an American flag at half mast, in honor of the brave soldiers of the United States whose lives have been sacrificed in the efforts to subjugate the people of the Philippine Islands and to deprive them of their liberty.” (Ibid. 146) Along with many anti-war letters in newspapers the New York World published this poem:

We’ve taken up the white man’s burden

Of ebony and brown;

Now will you tell us, Rudyard,

How we may put it down.

(Ibid)

People such as Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, Mark Twain, Carl Schurz, and Brooker T. Washington opposed annexation and the new empire. Mark Twain had seen the colonialism around the world and realized that the ugly war in the Philippines was not an abrogation, but commonplace in the colonies of the world.  it was in line with the Boer Wars in Africa and the many battles of the famed French Foreign Legion. Roosevelt countered by calling on Americans to work to civilize the Filipino people, whom he, and many other expansionist, pictured the mas “utterly unfit for self-government and show no signs of becoming fit. (Ibid. 147) Like the abolitionist of the pre-Civil War days the native people of these nations were seen as children that the adult (white) people were given the responsiblity to care for and teach. They also fell back on the old argument that the nation needed to rally behind the troops on the battlefield, as any protest would only give encouragement to the enemy. Avery Beveridge summed up the expansionist argument in December of 1899, after a tour of the Philippines.

God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration, No! he made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarian ism and night. And of all our race, He has marked the american people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to man. We are the trustees of the world’s progress, guardians of its righteous peace.

(Ibid. 157)

This kind of sediment was not just an American one, but was the thought of the European nations in this period.  One could replace America with Great Britain, Germany, France or Russia and the speech could have been delivered in any of those nations. The European nation had divided up the African continent and were now working on the Asian one. The result of the European moves in Asia, John Hay pushed the American Open Door policy in which he got the nations to agree to preserve the Chinese Empire and protect all the outside powers interest and trade in China.  In 1899 the Boxer Rebellion (Yihetuan Movement)broke out in response to foreign domination, it was crushed by the Eight Nation Alliance (United Kingdom, United States, Russia, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary)   in an action where the Untied States participated in its first international military action. The nationalism of the time would result in the First World War within a decade of this period. Kinzer says of the event:

Never before had a President sent a large force to a country with which the Untied States was not at war, to fight an army supported by that country’s legal government. Even more remarkable, McKinley took this strep solely on his own authority, without consulting Congress.  This signaled the arrival of the United States Army as a decisive force in world affairs. It was also the birth of what came to be called “presidential war power.”

(Ibid. 162)

The Teller amendment had prevented America from annexing Cuba, and many of the expansionist wished to remove that obstacle. The Cuban revolutionaries, most black, not only wished freedom ,but wanted sweeping social reforms, much of which was an anathema to the expansionist. To remedy this, “On February 25,1901, Senator Orville Platt, chairman of the Senate Committee on Cuban Relations, introduced a bill to make Cuba a new kind of colony, not officially annexed like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, but just as fully under Washington’s control. The Cuban nation was free as long as they cooperated with American business and agreed with American aims, a template for American policy in Central and South America. Thus the Republic of Cuba ratified the Constitution written by the Americans, an independent nation, but firmly under American control.

It was the biggest debate in America since the Civil War, and more soon joined both sides. The election of 1900 was fought against the backdrop of this debate in a contest between William McKinley (with Roosevelt as VP) and the populist William Jennings Bryan (Adlai Stevenson I was his VP). Anti-imperialist saw the election of 1900 as their last chance to stem the tide of imperialism in America, never before had a campaign had a platform so passionately against expansion. . Bryan had much support, but many of the elites that backed him were against his free silver pledge and asked him if he could drop that and concentrate on an anti-imperialist program.  Paris may have been worth a mass to Henry Navarre (Henry IV of France) but repudiating his cross of gold statement was something he could not do. Trying to have both was not enough for Bryan to gain the Presidency.  Bryan carried the Old South along with Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana for a total of 17 states and 155 electoral votes.  His total vote was 6,370,932, McKinley carried 28 states for 292 electorial votes and a total vote count of 7,22,864.  Thus the man, William McKinley was able to chart and influence the foreign policy of the United States until the present day, one would think he would be more familiar to Americans than he is, his image graces the five hundred-dollar bill.  Other than that, Americans only know him as the predecessor to Theodore Roosevelt.

After the election, the Americans applied the harsh practices Lord Kitchener used to end the Boer War in South africa. The result was that by 23 March 1901 the Filipino rebel Aguinaldo struggled out of the jungle and surrender, much like the old native American tribes had  in the West. and brought the Philippine War to an end. Using the Plessy v Ferguson Supreme Court decision, which allowed the government to deny some rights from select groups of American citizens, they stripped native people of all rights and the American Empire was now a reality. On 6 September 1901, Leon Czolgasz shot McKinley in an effort to advance anarchy, a movement that was spreading across Europe. Now the expansionist had their man Theodore Roosevelt as President and the anti-imperialist party seemed to just fall apart.

It would rise again in a long and bitter battle to keep America out of the First World War, but with Roosevelt leading the charge again, they were unable to keep Woodrow Wilson from entering that conflict. (For the complete story of this movement see: Michael Kazin. War Against War: The American Fight for Peace 1914-1918. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2017)  The fallout of that bloodbath resulted in the anti-imperialist, now called isolationist, to push back into American policy, but isolationism died on 7 December  1941.  The attack would sear into American policy for the rest of the century and the Second World War and the government expansion that had already occurred in the Depression gave birth to the modern American State. The Cold War was a direct result of the psychology of  America after the Second World War. The Munich Conference failure was seen as the reason to not give into a dictator demands and Pearl Harbor left America fearing another “sneak attack” on its lands.

Viet Nam was the result of this mindset, steeped in the domino theory that stated that wars started in small steps. As the war tore the American nation apart it also created the present day political situation.  The forces set in motion in the late 1800s still affect the nation today and the conflict of the sixties is still playing out in the present political conflicts of the new century. The death of the imperialist movement was overstate, as the fear of another Pearl Harbor, in the guise of the 9/11 Attacks, drove the American War on Terror.  Martin Luther King famously said that history made us, and the results of the choices made by American political leaders in the 1900s still affect us today.  It was a change then, from a nation that steered clear from foreign engagements and had an aversion to standing armies to one that claims to lead the world and supports a large standing military that is not made up of  citizen soldiers, but highly paid professional soldiers who may be becoming the American warrior class.  The Founders would be appalled, even Eisenhower had warned against a large military industrial complex. What will the future bring, one can’t tell, the future is a black curtain that cannot be pierced until one walks through it.  The result will be for those of the next century, for they will have an advantage over us, they will know how it all turned out.

 

 

 

Leave a Response »