THE CONCORD REVIEW

I am simply one who loves the past and is diligent in investigating it. K’ung-fu-tzu (551-479 BC) The Analects

Proclamation of 1763 Samuel G. Feder Ramaz School, New York, New York Kang Youwei Jessica Li Kent Place School, Summit, New Jersey Lincoln’s Reading George C. Holderness Belmont Hill School, Belmont, Massachusetts Segregation in Berkeley Maya Tulip Lorey College Preparatory School, Oakland, California Quebec Separatism Iris Robbins-Larrivee King George Secondary School, Vancouver, British Columbia Jackie Robinson Peter Baugh Clayton High School, Clayton, Missouri Mechanical Clocks Mehitabel Glenhaber Commonwealth High School, Boston, Massachusetts Anti-German Sentiment Hendrick Townley Rye Country Day School, Rye, New York Science and Judaism Jonathan Slifkin Horace Mann School, Bronx, New York Barbie Doll Brittany Arnett Paul D. Schreiber High School, Port Washington, New York German Navy in WWI Renhua Yuan South China Normal University High School, Guangzhou

A Quarterly Review of Essays by Students of History

Volume 24, Number Two $20.00 Winter 2013 Editor and Publisher Will Fitzhugh e-mail: [email protected] website: http://www.tcr.org/blog newsletter: Click here to register for email updates.

The Winter 2013 issue of The Concord Review is Volume Twenty-Four, Number Two This is the eBook edition.

Partial funding was provided by: Subscribers, and the Consortium for Varsity Academics®

©2013, by The Concord Review, Inc., 730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776, USA. All rights reserved. This issue was typeset on an iMac, using Adobe InDesign, and fonts from Adobe.

Editorial Offices: The Concord Review, 730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 USA [1-800-331-5007]

The Concord Review (ISSN #0895-0539), founded in 1987, is published quarterly by The Concord Review, Inc., a non-profit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) Massachusetts corporation. Subscription rates: $60 + s&h ($10 US / $50 international) for four printed copies ($70/$110), or $40 for one year of ebooks (PDF). Orders for 26 or more subscrip- tions (class sets) will receive a 40% discount.

Subscription orders must be paid in advance, and change-of-address information must be sent in writing.

TCR Subscriptions: Subscribe at www.tcr.org, or by check mailed to 730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24, Sudbury, MA 01776 USA; email: [email protected]

The Editor will consider all manuscripts received, but can assume no respon- sibility regarding them. All submitted manuscripts become the property of The Concord Review for one year from the date of receipt. Essays may be on any historical topic, should generally be 4,000-6,000 words or more, with Turabian (Chicago) endnotes and bibliography, may be submitted in hard copy and in RTF format in Microsoft Word, with a submission form and a check for $40 (or through PayPal). Essays in the Review are the sole property of the Review and, as provided by Article One, Section Eight, of the Constitution of the United States, “to promote the progress of the useful arts,” may not be republished, photo- copied, or reproduced without the express written permission of The Concord Review, Inc. Authors will be notified the month before their essay is published. THE CONCORD REVIEW

Volume Twenty-Four, Number Two Winter 2013

1 Samuel G. Feder Proclamation of 1763

19 Jessica Li Kang Youwei

43 George C. Holderness Lincoln’s Reading

75 Maya Tulip Lorey Segregation in Berkeley

95 Iris Robbins-Larrivee Quebec Separatism

143 Peter Baugh Jackie Robinson

159 Mattie Glenhaber Mechanical Clocks

173 Hendrick Townley Anti-German Sentiment

191 Jonathan Slifkin Science and Judaism

219 Brittany Arnett Barbie Doll

233 Renhua Yuan German Navy in WWI

272 Notes on Contributors

VARSITY ACADEMICS®

Since 1987, The Concord Review has published 1,088 history research papers, averaging 6,000 words, on a wide variety of historical topics by high school students in thirty- nine countries. We have sent these essays to our subscribers in thirty-two countries. This quarterly, the only one in the world for the academic work of secondary students, is tax-exempt and non-profit, and relies on subscriptions to support itself.

The cost of a yearly subscription is $40. Orders for 26 or more [class sets] will receive a 40% discount. Schools in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Singapore, Thailand, Vermont, and Virginia now have class sets, and we hope you will consider ordering one. We are listed with the major subscription services, and you can also place your order for issues online through them.

Subscribe at www.tcr.org

[visit our website/blog at http://www.tcr.org/blog]

We are a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt Massachusetts corporation.

l DONATE TCR is the only journal in the world to publish the academic research papers of secondary students. A donation now in any amount will help us continue to recognize exemplary academic work. Click here to contribute. Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

the proclamation of 1763: limits on westward expansion in colonial america

Samuel G. Feder

After the Seven Years’ War, Great Britain acquired ter- ritory from France in what was known at the time as “the Ohio.” The British proceeded to issue the Proclamation of 1763 which established a line to the west of their colonies in America beyond which colonials were not permitted to settle, a line that would eventually cause unease and discontent within colonial America. Contrary to widespread belief, both then and now, the goal of the Proclamation was neither the protection of colonial settlers nor the assurance of Indian well-being, and it did not lead to a large outcry from the colonists in America. Rather, the Proclamation’s purpose was to contain the colonists on the eastern coast of America for economic reasons, which colonial speculators found intolerable. The Seven Years’ War, which began in 1754, came to an end on February 10, 1763, when the belligerents—Great Britain on one side and France and Spain on the other—signed a treaty in Paris. The British obtained Canada, Florida, the neutral islands in the West Indies, and all land east of the Mississippi River (aside from New Orleans), along with political control of Bengal.1 The British Board of Trade undertook the task of deciding what to do

Samuel G. Feder is a Senior at the Ramaz School in New York City, where he wrote this paper for Dr. Jon Jucovy’s American History course in the 2012/2013 academic year. 2 Samuel G. Feder

with the territory that the British had acquired from the French. The Board suggested encouraging colonials to settle in Nova Scotia, East Florida, and West Florida, and governing the terri- tory to the west of Great Britain’s colonies by military rule. These recommendations led to the Proclamation of 1763, which King George III issued on October 7, 1763, and which outlined a border roughly along the Appalachian Mountains to serve as a boundary for colonial settlement. A few months prior to the issuance, Na- tive American frustration had led to Pontiac’s Rebellion, which broke out on May 7, 1763 when a group of Chippewa attacked a detachment of British soldiers and sailors near Detroit.2 Fighting did not die out until the end of 1764.3 Historians differ on the significance of the West in American history and British policies at the time of the Proclamation. While L. M. Hacker says that the mercantile system the British imposed on the colonies (which prevented them from spreading out into the West) caused the American Revolution, Lawrence Henry Gipson argues that neither the Proclamation, nor the actions of those trying to acquire western land, nor British attempts to man- age western Native Americans explicitly caused the Revolution. Gipson maintains that the Revolution resulted from the British attempts to establish a more efficient administration in their colo- nies in North America and to require those colonies to support the British government directly because of the government’s new acquisitions of territory and because of the war debt. Furthermore, Gipson argues, the colonies’ demand for more autonomy after 1760—when their dependence on Britain for protection against enemies in America vanished—also contributed to the beginning of the Revolution.4 Opposing Gipson, Clarence Walworth Alvord contends that the main issue between the British and the colonies was westward expansion even though, in the end, the 11 years the British spent establishing a definitive plan for the West amounted to nothing.5 Bernhard Knollenberg makes the argument that the British positioned troops in the western lands—as part of the plan for the West that Alvord discusses—in order to keep the backwoods settlements under the control of the Empire, and not necessarily to protect colonists from Native Americans.6 THE CONCORD REVIEW 3 With the French and Indian War victory, the British ac- quired a substantial amount of territory from the 1763 Treaty of Paris, including Ohio, Canada, and Florida. Inhabiting the vast fertile area were approximately 25,000 Indians in the north, 14,000 Indians in the south, fewer than 10,000 whites in Louisiana, fewer than 90,000 whites in Canada, and a negligible white population in Florida.7 The largest of these expanses of land was what is known today as the Mid-West. When the British obtained the territory, it was known as “the Ohio Country”—300,000 square miles of land south of the Great Lakes between the Allegheny Mountains and the Mississippi River.8 The British triumph, however, was bittersweet because while the area was vast, it posed a significant problem for Britain. After years of colonial reliance on Britain for protection against France and the Indians, the need for that protection had evaporated with the removal of the threat of the French. The British worried that the disappearance of a need for protection would lead to the diminution of the colonies’ “infinite Depen- dance upon the Crown.” So strong was the alarm of the British that King George III himself headed the plans for “an Extensive Plan of Power, and Military Influence…never thought of before, in this Country.” Thus the British hit upon the idea of a large, expensive peacetime army in America. Although some, such as Joseph Galloway, endorsed the scheme because the army would be able to safeguard the colonies from Indian attacks, the primary goal of the garrison was, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “to preserve a Military Awe over [the colonials],” and thereby maintain the colonies’ dependence on the Mother Country.9 By the same token, the British wished to limit the western expansion of the colonies. The domain that many once considered hostile had suddenly become a wide expanse of land seemingly there for the taking, and colonists rejoiced in their fortune “of being compleatly delivered from that Enemy, that has so often interrupted our Tranquility and checked our Growth!” As the colonist Reverend Samuel Cooper wrote, “What Scenes of Hap- piness are we ready to figure to ourselves, from the Hope of enjoying, in this good Land, all the Blessings of an undisturbed and lasting Peace…our Settlements extending themselves with 4 Samuel G. Feder

Security on Every Side, and changing a Wilderness into a fruitful Field!”10 A hope like Reverend Cooper’s was precisely what Britain feared would result after eliminating the French occupation of the frontier, which had squeezed the colonies up against the Atlantic coast. British politicians thought that without French restraint, colonists would feel less dependent on Britain and thereby become more assertive and begin migrating west. The Indians, therefore, were very helpful, if not essential, in providing a barrier against western settlement in much the same way the French had. As a result, British politicians, such as subministers John Pownall and Maurice Morgann, called for a prohibition on western settlement by supporting Indian sovereignty, not out of sympathy or concern for the Indians or settlers, but as a way of establishing a buffer of Indian-reserved territory against colonial exploitation of the West.11 Morgann, sometime between May and June 1763, sum- marized British thoughts of what to do about preserving colonial dependence, writing that the military in the colonies should be increased and: under pretence of regulating the Indian trade, a very straight line be suddenly drawn on the back of the colonies and the country be- yond that line thrown, for the present, under the dominion of the Indians. The provinces being now surrounded by an army, a navy, and by hostile tribes of Indians.12 Up until 1768, the Privy Council and Secretary of State for the Southern Department were in charge of the administration of the colonies. But in 1763 the Secretary, Lord Egremont, was preoc- cupied with relations in Europe and so he looked to the Board of Trade for advice on the colonies.13 On May 5, 1763, Egremont sent documents pertaining to the recent acquisitions to the Board and asked a variety of questions concerning the documents. Egremont’s questioning of the Board, which Lord Shelburne led, signified the Board’s unofficial acceptance of the task of determining how to structure the government or governments of the domain. On June 8, the Board responded to Egremont, recommending a new West Indies colony and East Florida, West Florida, and Canada as three new colonies in North America. The rest of the land would “be left…to the Indian Tribes for their hunting Grounds; where THE CONCORD REVIEW 5 no Settlement by planting is intended, immediately at least, to be attempted; and consequently where no particular form of Civil Government can be established.”14 The Board recommended a military government in the Indian territory, which included free trade with the British and Americans under the protection of British soldiers. While military oversight of trade could possibly be explained by Britain’s desire to ensure Indian well-being, the military—rather than civil—oc- cupation of the Ohio exposed the larger British ambition of, and overall priority in, dealing with the Indians for “the maintenance of Your Majesty’s Sovereignty and the general defence of North America.” On July 4, Egremont relayed to the Board the King’s approval of the recommendations, and requested a method to settle the new colonies. On August 5, the Board replied that the British should encourage those in the original colonies and foreign Protestants to settle East Florida, West Florida, and Nova Scotia, and soldiers and officers should be given land for settling, pro- vided they abided by specific conditions. Additionally, the Board proposed that the King issue a proclamation to set a definitive border of Indian land. While the proposal of an announcement of a definitive boundary line was a result of the recent Pontiac’s Rebellion,15 the roots of the recommendation lay not in a British concern for Indian affairs. Rather, they lay in a desire to pacify Indians which, in turn, would serve the main goal of the British in America to contain the colonists. The boundary line that the Indians had wanted at Easton was finally acknowledged and put into effect after five years. Instead of trying to take advantage of their victory over the Indians in putting down their rebellion, the British government deftly sought a way to satisfy the Indians and thereby serve their own agenda.16 The cause of so much concern over limits on western growth of the American colonies was economic control. Throughout their empire, the British enforced an arrangement of economic controls in order to maintain a self-contained system. Beginning around the mid-17th century, the British instituted controlled economies in the colonies of North America so that the colo- 6 Samuel G. Feder

nies’ production would supplement the work of the rest of the British Empire. Similarly, producers in Britain were limited in their production so that the colonies’ economies would not be hindered, as shown by the shutting down of tobacco plantations in southwest England in the 1600s. British Parliament passed a number of Acts from the 17th century through the 18th century to control colonial business and to preserve their protectionist policy. Among these Acts were the Woolen Act of 1699, the Hat Act of 1732, the Molasses Act of 1733, the Iron Act of 1750, and the Paper Money Act of 1751. The controlled staple products of the colonies led the British to think of its American colonies as mainly a mercantile system, a system of producing specific goods and shipping them to Britain. The mercantile reliance of the colonies on Britain was strengthened even further in 1651 with the passing of the Navigation Act, which decreed that ships not owned and commanded by a British subject and not possessing a crew of which at least three fourths were British subjects could not import directly into the colonies. A few “enumerated” products from the colonies could only be shipped directly to England or to fellow colonies, and more products were added to this list in 1704, 1705, 1721, and 1764.17 Great Britain was making the colonies servile to the British policy of self-containment by which the British controlled their empire. Despite the colonies’ subordinate status in the overall imperial scheme, the mercantile system turned out to be very successful in America as well as in Britain. The Navigation Acts laid the foundation for the American ship-building industry and led to a prosperous and extensive American merchant marine. Additionally, about 3,000 ships were needed for the thriving colonial trade in 1752, and they were mostly built and owned by American colonists. Furthermore, many American products were not enumerated and could therefore be exported directly to foreign nations. John Bartram of Pennsylvania published Trav- els in 1751, in which he proclaimed that in comparison with the colonies, “In vain do we look for an equal prosperity among the plantations of other European Nations…This surprising increase of people [in British North America] is a foundation that will bear THE CONCORD REVIEW 7 a mighty superstructure…” Lastly, the system of self-containment supplied a huge economic benefit for the British. The cost of maintaining the imperial military and navy amounted to about £3,750,000 per year by 1700, £5,750,000 per year from 1715 to 1739, and £6,500,000 per year from 1750 to 1755, and the wars Britain fought from 1693 through the end of 1749 added a cost of £144,649,000. Nevertheless, Britain’s national debt in 1755 was only about £75,000,000, and this was due in large part to the suc- cess of the economic controls of the British Empire.18 According to the accounts of the Exchequer, the British debt after the French and Indian War, in 1763, was a massive £122,603,336, the following year it was about £7,000,000 larger, and by January 1766, it was £7,000,000 larger still.19 Hence, it should not come as a shock that when the threat of American expansion arose after the French and Indian War, the British reacted. Their system had been working beautifully, but now that Britain’s debt had grown significantly since 1755, it was even more essential that the containment upon which they had become so heavily reliant continue to perform smoothly. As Captain Walter Rutherford wrote to Gilbert Elliot on December 14, 1759, the British feared that without the necessity of being on the east coast of America, the colonists “would retire far into the woods…where they would raise and manufacture every thing for their own use, without consuming any thing from Britain, or being the least benefit to that country.” Morgann bluntly stated that the colonies “[are] to be regarded in no other light, but as subservient to the Com- merce of their Mother Country…[Colonists are] merely Factors for the Purposes of Trade…in all Considerations concerning the Colonies, this must be always the leading idea…[the Colonists] must be kept as near as possible to the Ocean…[The West should be] as open and Wild as possible for the Purposes of Hunting.” Thus, the Board of Trade, in its response to Lord Egremont on June 8, 1763, advanced the idea of a prohibition on westward migration by ‘preventing’ by proper and natural Boundaries, as well the Ancient French Inhabitants as others from removing and settling in remote Places, where they neither could be so conveniently made ameanable to the Jurisdiction of any Colony 8 Samuel G. Feder

nor made subservient to the Interest of the Trade and Commerce of this Kingdom by an easy Communication with and Vicinity to the great River St. Lawrence.” King George III then issued the Proclamation in October.20 As it turned out, the Proclamation did not deter settlers. As the war of Pontiac’s Rebellion receded in the West, colonists, mostly Virginians, began to settle the land past the Proclamation line. Ignoring Native American protests and British prohibitions, hunters and farmers illegally built cabins in the West, some even within sight of British forts. By June 1766, there were more than 500 families in and around the valley of the Monongahela alone. In September, General Thomas Gage instructed the Fort Pitt commander to threaten the squatters with force, but nothing happened. The illegal settlers continued to grow in numbers, intruding on Native American territory, poaching Native Ameri- can game, and killing Native Americans themselves. Meanwhile, Gage tried to justify himself to the secretary of state, writing that Virginia was irritable when it came to “the exertion of Military Power without their Authority.” In May 1767, Gage finally ordered the commander of Fort Pitt to burn down illegal settlements at Red Stone Creek and the Cheat River in an attempt to scare off the settlers rather than attempt the impossible task of locating all of them and chasing them out of the West. Nevertheless, within six months, the settlers were back, in “double the Number… that ever was before.”21 Despite the Proclamation, the British did little to actually stop settlers from migrating out west, and so the Proclamation was inconsequential to the majority of colonists. Speculators, however, were affected by the Proclamation. The elite colonists in America had recognized the value of the western territory long before the Proclamation of 1763. Prior to the French and Indian War, Colonel Henry Bouquet declared that the West was “the finest and most fertile Country of America” and that it “may prove richer than the Mines of Mexico.”22 When the Ohio Company sent Christopher Gist to scout out the western territory, he praised the “fine, rich level land, well timbered…well watered…and full of beautiful natural Meadows” which wanted THE CONCORD REVIEW 9 “nothing but Cultivation to make it a most delightful Country.” In fact, many at that time, like Pennsylvania’s provincial secretary Richard Peters, claimed that “all these affairs of the French have taken their Rise from the Imprudent and high Talk of the Vir- ginians,” claiming that the Virginian speculation in the West was causing the building tensions with the French (which would lead to the French and Indian War).23 Virginian and Carolinian plant- ers, Pennsylvanian proprietors, and speculators from New York and Connecticut began to compete fiercely to establish claims on western land. The extent to which they went in order to solidify their claims shows how high their expectations were of making significant economic gains.24 In the mid-18th century, eager speculators created land companies in order to speculate on the vast lands of the West. One of the most prominent of these businesses was the Ohio Company. Thomas Lee formed the company in 1747 for trade and land speculation, and members of the Virginia aristoc- racy, who had the political and commercial capability to finance the project, joined the corporation and helped to petition the British government to grant them western land. On March 16, 1749, the Board of Trade acquiesced and granted them 200,000 acres on the Ohio River.25 Despite the fact that the British were already beginning to fear that the western lands would disrupt their mercantile system,26 the French threat in the West was of paramount importance in America. Thus, the Earl of Halifax, George Montagu Dunk, who headed the Board of Trade at the time and wished to pursue anti-French policies, led the Board in granting land to the Ohio Company and other similar companies. His aim, and the aim of the British, was to take “a proper step towards disappointing the views and checking the incroachments of the French, by interrupting part of the communication, from their lodgements upon the great lakes to the river Mississippi.” In fact, in 1755, American geographer Lewis Evans conjectured that the western territory would “make so great an Addition to that Nation which wins it…that the Loser must inevitably sink under his Rival.” The British showed more signs of wishing to adopt the policy of disrupting the French in the West. For example, when the 10 Samuel G. Feder

French Captain Céloron de Blainville reported on his trip among western Indians on November 9,1749, he grimly described the Indian support of the British “who give them their merchandise at one-fourth the price” in comparison with French pricing, and as a result they “are very badly disposed towards the French, and are entirely devoted to the English.” The Board therefore required the Ohio Company to settle 100 families in the area within seven years and build a fort.27 The Ohio Company proceeded to build the fort at the forks of the Ohio, and settlers began trickling in. However, war from 1754 through 1761 rendered the land unsafe for any settlers.28 Competition among the speculative colonists developed before and during the French and Indian War. John Robinson formed the Loyal Land Company in 1745 and was a competitor of the Ohio Company in the same colony of Virginia. The British granted the company 100,000 acres on the Greenbrier River in what is now West Virginia, after which Robinson united with nine other Virginians and petitioned Britain for more land. In 1749, the British complied once again, and granted the company 800,000 acres in southwest Virginia. It was at this point that war prevented settlement in the Loyal Land Company’s lands as well. The Mis- sissippi Land Company was founded in 1763. It was comprised of influential Virginians and Marylanders, including members of the Ohio Company such as George Washington, Presley Thornton, and four Lee family members. The company petitioned Britain for a land grant by the Mississippi River, 20 miles north of the Ohio, and even sent Arthur Lee to London to represent the company. Ultimately, however, it received no consideration from King George III or the Board of Trade.29 The speculators were steadfastly determined to gain control of the West, and throughout the war, they pursued their goals by wresting control of western lands away from the Indians for their own purposes. Colonial efforts to gain control of the West through misleading Native Americans (despite Gist’s assertion to an Indian at Mohongaly that “We are all the King’s people and…You will have the same Privileges as the White People have”) became manifest THE CONCORD REVIEW 11 in 1735 with the notorious Walking Purchase. A paradigm of the British taking advantage of the Native Americans, the Walking Purchase was a way for the Penn family proprietors to take control of Indian land without paying for it, then resell the land in order to pay off their debt. Colonists again deceived the Indians in June and July of 1744 with the Lancaster Treaty between the Native American tribe of Iroquois and Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsyl- vania. The treaty stipulated that the Iroquois recognize the right of the British to control “all the lands within the said colony [of Virginia] as it is now or hereafter may be peopled and bounded by his said Majesty.” Little did the Iroquois know, however, that Virginia’s charter ensured that the Pacific Ocean was the western border of Virginia. Yet another example of such an occurrence took place at Logstown in 1752. A document signed by Iroquois chiefs at Logstown stated that they “do give our consent” to “a Settlement or Settlements of British Subjects on the southern or eastern Parts of the River Ohio…and that we will…assist and Pro- tect the British Subjects there inhabiting.” The problem was that it was Delaware Indian land, not Iroquois land. The Delaware had been present at the proceedings, but since they were subjects of the Iroquois, were illiterate, and the treaty was never read aloud, they had no idea what was actually in the document.30 Interactions between Colonel Henry Bouquet, commander of Fort Pitt, and the Ohio Company, beginning in 1760 demon- strated that if colonial spectators were denied access to western lands, they would become troublesome. In the summer of that year, the Company attempted to recruit Bouquet in order to ac- quire military protection for resettlement of the West after the war. Bouquet declined, warning that the 1758 Treaty of Easton, which had been approved by King George II, prevented settle- ment past the Appalachians as per the request of the Delaware Indians, even though Virginia and Maryland had not agreed to the treaty. More than a year after, on October 31, 1761, Bouquet issued a proclamation banning settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, which the Ohio Company promptly protested to Vir- ginia’s governor and House of Burgesses. Francis Fauquier, the lieutenant governor of Virginia, then protested to Bouquet, writ- 12 Samuel G. Feder

ing that “the Proclamation issued by you concerning the settling and hunting on the Lands to the Westward of the Allegenny Hills, gives Rise to…uneasiness in this Colony…as it seems to tend to obstruct the resettling the Lands by the Persons who have taken up Lands by patent under his Majesty.” When, by July 8, 1763, the Virginians received no response from Bouquet, the Company sent George Mercer to London to protest directly to the government. He resolutely remained there for six years despite making very little progress.31 The Proclamation—despite not preventing settlers from moving out west—did, in fact, succeed in preventing the mass or- ganized settlement that the land companies would have arranged had the British not restrained the companies. The Proclamation proved to be a major setback in the plans of the Ohio Company because it was issued just three months after Mercer departed for Britain. As a result, his argument against Bouquet never gained any traction in London. The Loyal Land Company ceased all op- erations after the Proclamation, and in 1766 it told settlers who had abandoned their claims on the company’s land to return to the land or forfeit it. By the summer of 1768, the Loyal Land Company had not even surveyed any land past the Proclamation’s boundary. Virginians and Marylanders founded the Mississippi Land Company the same year as the Proclamation, so their peti- tions failed to receive considerations from either King George III or the Board.32 The British, as evidenced by an anonymous report to the King, assumed that the Proclamation “in so far as it regards colonies in general will not…be controverted, and it has been fully proved in the case of the Indians.”33 Indeed, the Proclamation itself was not initially met with much of an outcry from speculators, but solely because they believed for the most part that it was “a tempo- rary expedient to quiet the Minds of the Indians and must fall of course in a few years especially when those Indians are consenting to our Occupying the Lands.”34 Even after King George III issued the Proclamation, George Washington instructed a surveyor in his employment to continue to “locate…valuable lands” in the THE CONCORD REVIEW 13 West,35 and advised a friend in debt to move out west, for it was “an opening prospect in the back Country.”36 However, instead of acting as they would have had the Proclamation been tempo- rary, the British, through the superintendents of Indian affairs, continued to negotiate with Indians to establish a more definitive boundary. Indeed, article #42 of a plan for the management of the Indians that was prepared in 1764 stated, quite contrary to what the speculators believed the British were doing, that “proper measures [will] be taken with the consent and concurrence of the Indians to ascertain and define the precise and exact boundary and limits of the land which it may be proper to reserve to them and where no settlement whatever shall be allowed.”37 It stood to reason that when the determinations of the British came to light, the speculators would be surprised and outraged. The British eventually laid the Indian management plan of 1764 aside, but Colonel John Stuart and Colonel Sir William John- son, superintendents of Indian affairs for the Southern District and Northern District respectively, continued negotiations with Indians to determine a definitive boundary line between the colonies and the Native American territories. In late 1767, the Board of Trade reported to Lord Shelburne on what was being done in terms of a boundary line, and on March 1768, the Board sent a report to the King recommending the ratification of a boundary line. The superintendents then received instructions to ratify a continuous boundary line from North to South. In the southern section of the frontier, Stuart made treaties on October 14 with the Cherokees and on November 12 with the Creeks. These treaties confirmed the line agreed upon in Stuart’s negotiations with the Southern Indians in 1766 with a few changes. In the north, Johnson negoti- ated with the Northern Indians for weeks at Fort Stanwix. In the end, they agreed on a boundary almost exactly along the lines of the boundary established in 1765 during a conference with the Six Nations. In 1769, Stuart was instructed to negotiate a new line with the Cherokees, and on October 22, 1770, with the treaty of Lochabor, the boundary in the south changed so as to accommo- date settlements west of the original line in Virginia.38 Thus for 14 Samuel G. Feder

years after the Proclamation was issued, the British slowly tried to solidify the boundary line through negotiations with Indians, clearly unbeknownst to the colonial spectators. Years later, after colonists had already initiated the protests of British legislation that foreshadowed the American Revolution, the British finally removed all doubt that the western lands would actually be out-of-bounds to the colonials. The Quebec Act, which the British Parliament passed in June 1774, extended Canadian boundaries to encompass all western territory above the Ohio River. Parliament also severely limited land grants within the 13 colonies. The leaders responded swiftly—colonial assemblies called for days of prayer and fasting, and then prepared to fight the Brit- ish by calling the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia.39 The Proclamation of 1763 shows how every decision made by any decent government is made with careful consideration. Faced with the issue of western expansion after the Ohio became open for settlement, the British were forced to decide between the two options presented to them—allowing the colonists to migrate away from the Atlantic coast and the British mercantile system, or instituting a limit on that migration. Although the decision seemed oppressive and unfair to the elite speculators in America, the British had seen it as the better way out of a dif- ficult situation. So too, even though some legislation passed today may seem oppressive, imprudent, or simply unwise, it is always important to bear in mind that governments have to take many factors into account when making decisions, some of which the public is not even aware. In the case of the Proclamation, the British either made the wrong choice or just had no way out of their predicament, because prohibiting western expansion was the pivotal moment in the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country of Great Britain. As George Washington said following the passing of the Quebec Act, “It now is and ever will be considered as the cause of America.”40 THE CONCORD REVIEW 15

Notes

1 Lawrence Henry Gipson, The Coming of the Revolution: 1763–1775 (New York: Harper & Row, 1954) p. 1 2 Bernhard Knollenberg, Origin of the American Revolution: 1759–1766 (New York: Macmillan, 1960) pp. 89–92, 103 3 Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) p. 60 4 Gipson, pp. x–xi, 25 5 Clarence W. Alvord, The Mississippi Valley in British Politics: A Study of the Trade. Land Speculation and Experiments in Imperialism Culminating in the American Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell, 1959) pp. 15–16 6 Knollenberg, p. xiv 7 Ibid., p. 88 8 Walter A. McDougall, Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History 1585–1828 (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) p. 175 9 Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, & Tribes in the Seven Years War in America (New York: Norton, 1988) pp. 459–460 10 Knollenberg, p. 89 11 Jennings, p. 460 12 R. A. Humphreys, “Lord Shelburne and the Proclamation of 1763,” The English Historical Review vol. 49, no. 194, (April 1934) p. 247 13 Middlekauff, p. 27 14 Knollenberg, pp. 89–90 15 Ibid., pp. 89–90 16 Jennings, p. 461 17 Gipson, pp. 22–26 18 Ibid., pp. 24–26 19 Middlekauff, p. 61 20 Knollenberg, pp. 92–94, 259 21 Fred Anderson, Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754–1766 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000) pp. 731–732 22 McDougall, p. 175 23 Jennings, pp. 8, 14, 17–18 24 McDougall, p. 176 16 Samuel G. Feder

25 Eugene M. Del Papa, “The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Its Effect Upon Virginia Land Companies,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography vol. 83, no. 4(October 1975) pp. 407–408 26 Emory G. Evans, “The Colonial View of the West,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908–1984) vol. 69, no. 2, (May 1976) p. 87 27 Jennings, pp. 11–13, 16 28 Del Papa, p. 408 29 Ibid., pp. 409–410 30 Jennings, pp. 10, 19, 25, 43–44 31 Del Papa, pp. 408–409 32 Ibid., pp. 409–411 33 Humphreys, pp. 259, 261 34 Del Papa, pp. 406, 409 35 Evans, p. 89 36 Anderson, Crucible, p. 739 37 Max Farrand, “The Indian Boundary Line,” The American Historical Review vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 782–791 (July 1905) p. 785 38 Ibid., pp. 786–789 39 McDougall, pp. 227–228 40 Ibid., p. 228

Bibliography

Alvord, Clarence W., The Mississippi Valley in British Politics: A Study of the Trade, Land Speculation and Experiments in Imperialism Culminating in the American Revolution New York: Russell & Russell, 1959

Anderson, Fred, Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754–1766 New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000

Anderson, Fred, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War New York: Viking, 2005

Calloway, Colin G., The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006 THE CONCORD REVIEW 17

Del Papa, Eugene M., “The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Its Effect Upon Virginia Land Companies,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography vol. 83, no. 4 (October 1975) pp. 406–411

Evans, Emory G., “The Colonial View of the West,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908–1984) vol. 69, no. 2 (May 1976) pp. 84–90

Farrand, Max, “The Indian Boundary Line,” The American Historical Review vol. 10, no. 4 (July 1905) pp. 782–791

Gipson, Lawrence Henry, The Coming of the Revolution: 1763–1775 New York: Harper & Row, 1954

Humphreys, R. A., “Lord Shelburne and the Proclamation of 1763,” The English Historical Review vol. 49, no. 194 (April 1934) pp. 241–264

Jennings, Francis, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, & Tribes in the Seven Years War in America New York: Norton, 1988

Knollenberg, Bernhard, Origin of the American Revolution: 1759–1766 New York: Macmillan, 1960

Krenkel, John H., “British Conquest of the Old Northwest,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History vol. 35, no. 1 (Autumn 1951) pp. 49–61

McDougall, Walter A., Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History 1585–1828 New York: HarperCollins, 2004

Middlekauff, Robert, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 New York: Oxford University Press, 1982

Philbrick, Francis S., The Rise of the West 1754–1830 New York: Harper & Row, 1965 18 Samuel G. Feder

Edmund Burke Reflections on the Revolution in France 1790 Oxford World Classics, 1999, p. 96-97

To avoid therefore the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice, we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of of beginning its reformation by subversion; that he should approach the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces, and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds, and wild incantations, they may regenerate the paternal constitution, and renovate their father’s life.

Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure—but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, callico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the partners. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporal and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.

Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible worlds, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and moral natures, each in their appointed place. Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

The Rise and Fall of Kang Youwei: the Illuminating Impact of a Prominent Reformer on the Modernization Of China in the Late Qing Dynasty

Jessica Li

In the late 19th century China faced a crisis unprecedented in its 3,000-year history—a crisis precipitated by a sequence of humiliating defeats by the Western powers. Realizing that change was inevitable, a group of ruling elite and intellectuals in the Qing Empire advocated the “self-strengthening movement”1 (1860– 1895) posited on the seemingly attractive but actually misleading doctrine of “Chinese learning as the fundamental structure and Western learning for practical use,” the idea being to somehow make use of Western arms, steamships, science, and technology, while preserving Confucian values.2 Kang Youwei was arguably the first who attempted to re- examine Confucian values and implement institutional reforms far beyond simple adaption of modern technology. Kang’s great contribution was to present Confucius in a new light as an institu- tional innovator and proponent of change by finding in China’s classical tradition the precedents that would justify the adapta- tion to the present.3 Kang’s chance came in 1898 when it seemed that not only the Western powers but also Japan demanded their

Jessica Li is a Junior at the Kent Place School in Summit, New Jersey, where she wrote this paper for Margaret Sabin’s History 10 course in the 2012/2013 academic year. [6,592 words] 20 Jessica Li

individual spheres of influence and intended to carve China into pieces4. As the crisis deepened, Emperor Guangxu gave Kang his full confidence and allowed him to spearhead a series of radical reforms aimed at modernizing the Chinese state, its administra- tion, education, laws, economy, technology, military, and police systems, carrying Kang closer to power, and his reform movement almost to success. Between June 11 and September 21, 1898, during about 100 days, Emperor Guangxu issued some 40 reform decrees.5 With such bold moves to assert authority and capture power, the stage was set for a final showdown. Afraid that the reforms would undermine the position of the Manchus, Empress Dowager Cixi staged a successful coup d’état, which stripped Emperor Guangxu of power and captured and executed those of the reformers she could find. Once Kang managed to flee to Japan, all the reform policies were reversed. In spite of the temporary setback with the return of the conservatives to power, Kang’s reform movement pushed China to a new stage in which the people widely concluded that the Manchus were out to protect their limited personal interest at the expense of the country as a whole. As a result, a sense of modern nationalism began to emerge. Ironically, in just three years, Em- press Cixi herself was forced to accept the reality of the situation and started to advocate institutional reforms.6 Yet those reforms were perceived as too superficial and too slow to be sincere. While Kang pursued his radical reforms for constitutional monarchy among overseas supporters, the republican revolutionaries gained momentum and eventually overthrew the Qing Empire in 1911.

National Crisis of China and Self-Strengthening Movement

China was largely separated from the Western world by a number of natural buffers, including the Gobi desert in the north and northwest, the Tibetan Plateau in the southwest, mountains and forests in the south, and the Pacific Ocean in the east. Its geographical isolation, combined with vast territory and abun- THE CONCORD REVIEW 21 dant natural resources, allowed China to develop a self-sufficient agrarian economy, independent from cross-border trade. The Chinese considered their country the center of the universe and called their emperors “the Son of Heaven.” Throughout history, Confucian teaching from China greatly influenced the culture of its neighbors. With a perceived cultural superiority, China never treated the neighboring tribes or countries as equals. Despite contact with the Europeans since the 1600s, the Qing Empire had long considered them barbarians and not been interested in goods or ideas from Europe. Yet European countries, in particular Great Britain, intended to expand their trade with China. Britain first attempted to open China diplomatically around 1787, to negotiate an acceptable framework for trade and establish some form of treaty relations.7 After total failure in achieving any of its goals, Britain decided that the only way to negotiate with the Qing Empire was the threat of military force. The Sino-British conflict led to the First Opium War (1839–1842), which marked the beginning of Western influence in China.8 After than, the Qing Empire had wars with almost every major power in the West and later with Japan, with frequent and devastating defeats. Every defeat resulted in a humiliating treaty, granting certain privileges of trade and conceding territory to the victorious nations. For example, in the Treaty of Nanjing, which ended the First Opium War, the Qing Empire gave Britain Hong Kong, paid a large indemnity, opened five ports, was forced to implement a fixed lower tariff on British goods, granted British citizens extraterritoriality rights, and promised Britain that any privilege given to other countries would also be granted to Britain.9 A short list of the major treaties that the Qing Empire signed in the late 19th century10 includes: 1842, The Treaty of Nanking signed with Britain; 1858, The Treaty of Tientsin and 1860 the Treaty of Peking signed with Britain-France allied forces; 1881, the Treaty of Hi signed with Russia, and the 1895 Sino-Japanese Treaty. The crises, and the humiliations caused by these defeats and treaties, led to the inescapable conclusion that China must make great changes. Li Hongzhang, China’s leading statesman 22 Jessica Li

from 1870s to 1901, declared in a memorial to the throne that China was faced with unprecedented changes in its history of over 3,000 years.11 The dynasty might collapse if it did not take urgent action. A group of ruling elite and intellectuals felt that the only way to save China from foreign domination was to introduce government-sponsored Westernization programs, a movement generally referred to as “self-strengthening.” The primary target was military reforms, because a widely-held belief was “barbarians are superior in three ways: firstly, warships; secondly, firearms; and thirdly, methods of military training and discipline of soldiers.”12 In the self-strengthening movement, the empire brought iron-clad naval ships from Europe, several arsenals were established, a New Army was formed, young officers were sent abroad to study, and foreign science and technology works were translated. Several secretaries and advisors of Li Hongzhang drew up a wide blueprint for change, involving government backing for the modernization of transport and communication, the adoption of Western science, and the expansion of commerce and industry.13 Although the list of enterprises looked impressive, the achievements were disappointing. Social and political institutions remained largely untouched, as the goal was to achieve military equality with the West while at the same time keeping Confucian traditions and ideals as intact as possible. In essence, the self- strengtheners operated on the basis of loyalty to a system, which was not designed to accommodate, let alone encourage, change. The necessary legal and administrative underpinnings were miss- ing. As Jonathan Spence put it, “The ‘self-strengthening’ move- ment never really took off. Indeed, it was more a succession of experiments than a movement. The various projects undertaken… remained isolated phenomena.”14 The self-strengthening move- ment only led to halfway reforms, mainly because the majority of Confucian literati still believed in their cultural superiority. For them, Western learning was only for practical use while Confucian learning remained the essence.15 Most importantly, before the reform movement could gain broad support, a philosophical sanction had to be found for THE CONCORD REVIEW 23 China’s borrowing from abroad and changing the old ways. And this sanction had to be found within Confucianism, which was still the vital faith of China’s ruling class. Only an insider could perform the intellectual task of updating this Confucian tradition. This was Kang Youwei’s great contribution.16 Of all the Confucian scholars then struggling to find justification for modernization from within China’s tradition, Kang was perhaps the most brilliant, presenting Confucius in a new light as an institutional innovator and proponent of change.17

Kang’s Ideology of Institutional Reforms and Radical Interpreta- tion of Confucianism

Kang (1858–1927) came from an intellectual background very unusual for his time. He was born into a scholar-official family. Very early in his childhood, he developed an image of himself as a Confucian sage and hence a man with a strong sense of moral mis- sion, which was reinforced by his teacher, a prominent Confucian scholar, who emphasized the centrality of moral-political purpose in Confucian learning.18 By the early 1880s, Kang was exposed to a variety of intellectual influences outside Neo-Confucianism, in- cluding non-Confucian classical Chinese philosophies, Mahayana Buddhism, and Western thought, both Christian and secular.19 Before turning 30, Kang had already decided on the two goals he wished to work toward for the rest of his life. The first goal was to solve the growing national crisis in China by borrowing ideas from secular Western learning, especially in Western forms of government. The second goal was to achieve universal peace where chaos, suffering and injustice would be replaced by moral harmony and spiritual bliss, an idea likely influenced by his study of religious literature. Kang realized that the threat of Western expansion would not be simply socio-political but also cultural and religious. Christianity and its Western culture were beginning to spread across China and not only was China’s political identity at risk; the Confucian faith was also at stake. His two main goals were to protect the state and the faith from imperialism. Even- 24 Jessica Li tually these two goals formed the core of Kang’s agenda, which consisted of a series of institutional reforms: • Political and military reforms: He aimed to establish a Bureau of Government Reorganization directly under the emperor and staffed by reform-minded officials. The bureau would be responsible for creating institutional reforms, most importantly, the establishment of a modern navy and army. The traditional military examination that tested prospective combatants on their skills in fighting with swords, bows, and arrows was obsolete and should be replaced by military training schools similar to the ones in Prussia and Japan. Exceptional graduates would go on to become the leaders of mod- ernized Chinese militaries. • Economic reforms: Six of the twelve offices that would be created under the Bureau of Government Reorganization dealt with economic development and the rationalization of public finance. Kang believed that it was the state’s responsibility to promote industry, commerce, agriculture, mining and transportation. • Cultural-educational reforms: Confucianism should be made the official religion of China to prevent all foreign religions, especially Christianity, from seeping into and tarnishing the Chinese culture. To this end, Kang proposed to form a government ministry of religion and to create a nationwide system of Confucian churches.20 He urged Japanese books containing Western knowledge to be translated and bright students from China to study abroad in the West. Radical educational reforms would start from replacing the traditional civil service examination system with tests based on specialized Western knowledge. To prepare students for the new examination, a nationwide school system would be set up. Constitutional monarchy and national wealth and power were two guiding ideas of Kang’s institutional reforms. Kang believed that constitutional monarchy would allow the common people to participate in the running of their government and have their voices heard in important decision-making, thereby building and strengthening the bonds between the ruled and the rulers. Democracy would be used as a way to achieve national and politi- cal unity. To establish democracy, Kang believed, the citizens must be educated, and thus, the aforementioned educational reforms were necessary. Increasing national wealth and power would be THE CONCORD REVIEW 25 made possible through the economic and military reforms. Kang recommended the Petrine Reforms of Russia and the Meiji Re- forms of Japan as the models for China.21 Kang’s reformism was strongly supported by his own radical interpretation for Confucianism. He wrote about and spread his interpretation in writings, which “rocked the intellectual world of the Confucian literati to its foundation,”22 because he sought to purify Confucianism and rescue it from the falsehood of “im- perial Confucianism.” He boldly declared that the teachings of Confucius had been corrupted or falsified throughout history because of their association with the imperial government. The state orthodoxy was a deliberate distortion of Confucianism by the authoritarian state to serve as its ideological tool of control. His starting point was the New Text movement, in which Qing schol- ars had attacked the authenticity of the Ancient Text versions of the classics upon which the Neo-Confucian orthodoxy had been based.23 The New Text versions came from the Earlier Han Dynasty (BC), while the Ancient Text versions became the standard in the Later Han Dynasty (AD). To repudiate the Ancient Text versions in favor of the New Text versions, which actually were older, gave one a chance to escape the Neo-Confucianism and reinterpret the tradition, because the New Text school of thought believed in adapting institutions to the times and so generally favored reform. Kang’s first major piece of radical interpretation of Con- fucianism, An inquiry into the classics forged during the Hsin period (1891), revived a long-forgotten intellectual controversy dating from the Han Dynasty and set forth the provocative thesis that the Ancient Text versions could all be proven by textual criticism to be a forgery. His second major work, Confucius as institutional reformer24 (1898), presented Confucius as, above all, a great in- novator, not only as the prophet-like founder of the Confucian religion, but also as an institution-building “king.” He claimed that Confucius was a “sage-king” or an “uncrowned king,” intent on institutional reform. 26 Jessica Li

Like other New Text advocates, Kang believed that Con- fucius was the messianic Prophet who revealed the true teachings of Heaven to mankind. Confucius saw human history as a linear development from the age of disorder, through the age of ap- proaching peace, to the final age of universal peace. Of course, in the original literature of the New Text versions, the term “institu- tional reform” was broad and vague, and dealt more with religious mystical ritual changes than with actual institutional progress. Kang’s ideal, however, had all the modern connotations: absolute monarchy for the age of disorder; constitutional monarchy for the age of approaching peace; and republican government for the age of universal peace. Through his radical interpretation of Confucianism, he sought cultural sanction for his institutional reforms. Others had published texts stating their pro-reform ideas, but what enabled Kang’s works to have such a significant impact was the incorpo- ration of his views of evolution and progress into a Confucian context at the very moment when these ideas were sweeping the international world. He was able to convince many ignorant and prejudiced gentry of the positive aspects of Western political val- ues, and while they might still believe in the overall superiority of Confucianism, at least now they saw the relevance and importance of Western learning. Kang’s radical interpretation of Confucianism, however justifiable from his own perspective, produced so much contro- versy that it inevitably set up serious resistance to his later effort at reform. Anyone who read Kang’s provocative interpretation would wonder what the true identity and character of Confucianism was. Confucianism, which had been the unquestioned center of faith, now became an ideology, the basis of which was problematic and debatable. For many, Kang’s ideas came as a shock which provided a powerful stimulus for change in the intellectual world of the Chinese gentry-literati, “like a volcanic eruption and earthquake.”25 THE CONCORD REVIEW 27 Kang’s Radical Reform Movement Prior to 1898

Kang used the success of his published works on the re- formist ideology to inspire and organize a radical reform move- ment. The foundation of this movement was laid when Kang set up a private school where he taught a small group of devoted young scholars and imbued them with his radical interpretation of Confucianism and reformist ideals. Many of these students later became dedicated supporters of Kang’s reform movement; one—Liang Qichao—became his chief assistant. In spite of his radical reformist ideology, Kang’s main strategy was a traditional one: to gain the ear of the ruler and seek changes from the top down, counting upon the determination of the central government acting with the blessing of the Imperial court to bring about such change. He felt that the experiences of Meiji Japan and Russia were pertinent as models for China. He thus repeatedly sought an audience with the Qing Emperor in the hope of convincing the ruler of the need for reform. In 1888, following China’s defeat in the Sino-French War, Kang wrote a memorial to the Emperor urging remodeling of the Qing state. A memorial was a statement of facts addressed to the Emperor often accompanied by a petition. In the memorial, Kang argued that superficial borrowing from the West without a fundamental change of the political structure would be insuf- ficient to make China wealthy and powerful. He pointed out that the self-strengthening programs, despite their praiseworthy aims, suffered from problems of abuses and corruption, which arose precisely because of the lack of an effective state apparatus.26 The memorial from such a humble source naturally never reached the Emperor.27 Kang also wrote to the dynasty’s most powerful officials to present his bold reformist plan and remind them of their re- sponsibilities. His straightforward message aroused curiosity and attention in officialdom. The opportunity for a sustained and large-scale reform movement came in 1895 when China was defeated in the Sino- Japanese War. Unlike the Western powers, Japan had traditionally 28 Jessica Li

been despised as a backward state far inferior to China in both power and culture. The defeat seemed particularly shocking and ominous after more than 20 years of loudly proclaimed self-strengthening reforms. As Liang Qichao remarked, the war awakened the Chinese people “from the dream of 4,000 years.”28 In the spring of 1895, Kang and Liang were in Beijing for the metropolitan civil service examination when the news arrived that China was forced to ac- cept the humiliating peace treaty with Japan. Understanding that crisis would make reform imperative, Kang immediately seized the opportunity and got some 1,300 fellow examination candidates to sign Memorial of the Candidates, a famous stirring memorial drafted by Kang, urging the court to reject the peace treaty and initiate reforms. Although the petition did not produce an immediate response from the court, this incident created an atmosphere of public concern and increased Kang’s popularity. To expand his campaign, Kang created new organizational and propaganda instruments.29 The first one was a study society, an organization whose function was to educate and mobilize the literati-gentry, the “upper-middle-class” of Chinese society. The second one was a newspaper, a powerfull instrument for spread- ing new knowledge and ideals and promoting an intellectual consensus among the people. In August 1895, Kang established the Society for the Study of Self-Strengthening and published a daily newspaper, The Sino-foreign Gazette, under the society’s spon- sorship.30 At first, the society was quite successful in attracting many reform-minded scholar-officials, including mostly junior officials and a number of high-ranking gentry such as governors- general in a few provinces and prominent figures in the court. The members convened regularly every 10 days and listened to public speeches on current affairs. Between 1895 and 1898, 103 study societies, 183 modern schools, and 62 publishing houses were set up to combine modernization and liberalization in a way that the self-strengtheners had not done.31 By 1897, Kang and Liang had emerged as the national leaders of the reformist campaign. The radical thinking of Kang’s reformist campaign struck at the ideological foundation of the traditional political order. THE CONCORD REVIEW 29 Ideological conflict emerged not only between the radical reform- ers and the conservatives but also between the radical and the moderate reformers. Some original supporters, though willing to endorse some elements of Kang’s reforms, had a hearty distaste for Kang’s reinterpretation of Confucianism. For example, Zhang Zhidong, an influential governor-general, urged the Chinese to be “open-minded” towards Western knowledge, but in the mean- time, urged them to combine this open-mindedness with “a sense of the fundamental importance” of Confucian teaching so as to make the two complement each other.32 Essentially, Zhang did not move beyond the ideology of the self-strengthening movement. Zhang had originally provided funds for the Society for the Study of Self-Strengthening, but later withdrew them and banned its newspaper for advocating dating China’s yearly reckoning from Confucius’s birth rather than the inception of the reign of the Qing Dynasty. In the proposed re-dating scheme, Zhang sensed an ominous implication of disloyalty to the court. In February 1896, the government shut down the Self-Strengthening Society among other societies after they were impeached when court censors thought they were encouraging the literati to participate in unruly political behavior.33 The overarching issue was whether the court could absorb change. The most important figure at the court (and the whole state) was Empress Dowager Cixi. Cixi began her career as a low- ranking Manchu concubine in the imperial palace. Although she became the Empress Dowager when her four-year-old son was made the Emperor, she gained her real political power through a brilliantly organized coup, which eliminated eight regents previ- ously appointed by her late husband Emperor Xianfeng. In 1875, the young Emperor died at the age of 19 and left no heir. Cixi appointed her sister’s three-year-old son the heir, and made him Emperor Guangxu. As adoptive mother of her nephew, Cixi became regent.34 As he grew up, the young Emperor Guangxu became interested in learning about world affairs. When he reached the age of majority in 1889, theoretically the Empress Dowager had to hand over the reins of power to him. In fact she still wielded 30 Jessica Li

enormous influence because the Emperor was her son through adoption and could not go against her wishes.35 Moreover, Cixi commanded the loyalty of the majority of high-ranking officials who owed their positions to her patronage and were personally loyal to her. As a result, the imperial court came to be split between the Emperor’s faction who wanted to strengthen the hands of the Emperor and the Empress Dowager’s faction who still relied on Cixi. The Emperor’s faction came to be associated with reform and the Empress Dowager’s with conservatism. The ideological conflict between conservatives and reformers was often intermixed with the factional rivalry between the two rulers. Most government officials, including those who advocated moderate reforms such as Li Hongzhang and Zhang Zhidong, trimmed their sails accord- ing to the changing winds in the court. They might support the reforms at times, but if the Empress Dowager’s faction was in the ascendancy, they quickly withdrew their support from the reform- ers and their activities.36

Close to Power: Hundred Days’ Reform and the Debacle of 1898

In 1897, as the Germans forcibly occupied Jiaozhou Bay and the Western powers began to scramble for concessions, it seemed that China would be carved into pieces, intensifying the consciousness of crisis in Beijing and throughout the country. Kang capitalized on this opportunity by sending memorials to the Emperor, warning that if reforms were not made, China would disappear as a nation and the Emperor might not even be able to live the life of commoners. Kang also sought out new political allies. This time, he got the very strong support of Weng Tonghe, Guangxu’s old imperial tutor. As the leader of the Emperor’s fac- tion, Weng already had many reform-minded young officials in his court and was eager to launch reform under his own leadership. Weng introduced Kang to Emperor Guangxu.37 The 27-year-old Guangxu was very interested in Kang’s writings, which recom- mended the Emperor to follow the example of Peter the Great of Russia and the Meiji Emperor of Japan to initiate reforms. THE CONCORD REVIEW 31 Guangxu decided to become another Meiji Emperor. On June 11 the Emperor issued a decree announcing reform as the national policy of the country.38 Kang’s opportunity finally came when he was summoned to the court on June 16, 1898.39 The meeting was exceptionally long, and Kang urged the Emperor to break through the barrier of conservatism surrounding him by appointing vigorous lower officials to carry out the reform programs. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Emperor requested that Kang submit ideas and information directly to him, bypassing the time consuming bureaucratic process for more efficient communication.40 The famous Hundred Days’ Reform began as a result of this faster communication with Kang acting as the Emperor’s principal adviser for reforms. Between June 11 and September 21, the Emperor issued some 40 reform decrees trying to force through reforms at an unprecedented pace across a broad spectrum: administration, education, laws, economy, technology, military, and police system:41 • The economic and military reforms represented an intensification of the self-strengthening movement, including promotion of agriculture, industry, and commerce through special- ized bureaus, government sponsorship of mining and railroads, regulations to reward science and technology developments, a nationwide network of postal offices, and new military systems to incorporate modern military weaponry and tactics, train modern armed forces, strengthen naval forces and standardize the defense industry. • The cultural and educational reforms went significantly beyond the self-strengthening movement, including the creation of modern-style schools teaching the Western disciplines such as universities and military and technical schools, the expansion of translation projects, and the encouragement of study abroad. The most important and radical reform was to replace the traditional requirements for good calligraphy and highly formulaic “eight- legged” essays with new requirements for essays on current events and for practical knowledge. This reform of the civil service ex- 32 Jessica Li

amination system challenged the gentry-literati’s right to power and thus became very contentious among the conservatives and even modest reformers. • Finally, in the last month of the Hundred Days, the Em- peror began to remodel the government structure by abolishing certain offices, redirecting the rules of the important boards and offices, and appointing new councilors. Exactly one week before the end of the Hundred Days, the Emperor stated that he was willing to open his palace for discussing changes of government structure.42 This statement opened the door to endless possibili- ties of political institution reforms, something that the majority of the court officials definitely did not want to see as they feared that their power would be soon taken away by the commoners. The real driver of the Hundred Days’ Reform was of course the Emperor himself.43 Yet Kang’s influence on the throne was profound as many planned innovations bore his imprint includ- ing such ordinary programs as those involving mining, railroads, and steamships. Most of the reform ideas originated directly or indirectly from Kang. Kang’s memorials, memoranda, books, and pamphlets reached the throne in large numbers throughout the summer. Explaining how he shaped the reformist policies, Kang humbly memorialized that:44 Some of the decrees promulgating the new policies were conceived by the Emperor himself and issued as special edicts, that is, they were not issues in the routine manner as answers to official memorials. The government officials were amazed and, not knowing the source of information of these edicts, suspected that all of the Emperor’s special edicts were prompted by me. But how could this be possible provided the rules of our dynasty? All I did was to send in my books; and the Emperor, deriving ideas from my reference notes, would then issue the edicts. The Hundred Days’ Reform began as a series of reforms similar to the self-strengthening movement, but as the summer wore on, it grew increasingly radical and threatened to culminate in a drastic recasting of the whole political structure of the Qing Empire. THE CONCORD REVIEW 33 Unfortunately, the Emperor’s reform decrees remained largely on paper. As before, officials waited to see what Empress Dowager Cixi would do. Cixi did not oppose reform at the outset, and even supported some of the programs, as she had done in the self-strengthening movement. As the Emperor and radical reformers were busy issuing decrees, Cixi quietly consolidated her power. The trend towards radicalization created an atmosphere of apprehension and insecurity in almost the whole of officialdom and polarized the whole court into a seemingly irreconcilable rivalry between the Emperor’s faction of a small group of young radical reformers and the Empress Dowager’s faction now consisting of the vast majority of officialdom including both the conservatives and the moderate reformers.45 The power struggle decidedly affected the events leading to the final showdown in which acoup d’état abruptly ended the Hundred Days’ Reform. Fearing that Cixi might detain and depose the Emperor, the Emperor’s faction desperately sought the active support of the New Army to counter this threat. Their plan was to kill the Manchu commander of all the armed forces in Beijing and Northern China, who was a trusted protégé of Cixi, surround the Summer Palace and abolish Cixi.46 The young inexperienced Emperor and his equally young idealistic advisors did not realize until it was too late that the supposedly all-powerful Emperor in fact was severely limited in his exercise of power. A much more experienced political figure, Cixi acted swiftly. At dawn on Sep- tember 21, Cixi left the Summer Palace for the Forbidden City to strip the Emperor of power and force him into solitary seclusion.47 As the Hundred Days’ Reform ended in disaster, Kang and Liang managed to escape to Japan. Six other reformers were arrested and beheaded. Many other supporters of the reform movement were imprisoned or dismissed from office. 34 Jessica Li

Final Act: a Constitutional Monarchist in the Storm of Republic Revolution

The reform decrees were mostly reversed with the return of Cixi to power. However, the work of modernization was not halted. It continued in an old, moderate manner much like the self-strengthening movement with the support of provincial lead- ers such as Zhang Zhidong. Initially supportive to the reformers, Zhang soon revealed his different viewpoint in the middle of the Hundred Days’ Reform, arguing that a revival of Confucianism, not an introduction of anti-Confucian, foreign reforms, would save the dynasty and China.48 Meanwhile the conservatives in the central government developed a strong anti-foreign sentiment,49 because the reformers were helped by foreigners including missionaries. This sentiment in the court, combined with growing anti-foreignism among the peasant masses, eventually led to the Boxer Rebellion (1898-1901), in which the Boxers burned missionary facilities and killed Chinese Christians,50 and the War of 1900, in which the Qing Empire fought with all major Western powers and was defeated dramatically.51 In 1902, Cixi and her Manchu supporters felt obligated to embrace institutional change as unavoidable, which would equal what had been promulgated in the Hundred Days’ Reform. However, their only aim of using it to strengthen the Manchu position tarnished the enterprise from the start.52 In the meantime, anti-Manchu sentiment was growing as all Chinese could see the Manchus’ inadequacies and all were unfortunately affected by them. The intellectuals used the protec- tion offered by the treaty ports to establish revolutionary societies and journals.53 Unlike the reformers who preferred to urge the Qing government to reform, the revolutionaries were even more radical, aiming to overthrow the dynasty altogether and establish a new republic. Sun Yatsen, the main leader of the republican revolution54 wanted to drive out the Manchus, restore Chinese rule, establish a republic, and equalize land rights.55 THE CONCORD REVIEW 35 Living the life of a fugitive and exile, Kang Youwei continued his political activities overseas. He traveled extensively in India, Europe, and the United States. Ironically, his stay in Europe and his study of Western history lessened his admiration for the West and increased his appreciation for the traditional culture of China.56 He now believed that the restoration of power to Emperor Guangxu would be China’s only hope of national salvation and arguing for constitutional monarchy instead of republican revolutionary. His argument was that an anti-Manchu revolution was dangerous and unnecessary. It was dangerous because it would create national chaos and disorder, and it was unnecessary because the reforms of the Qing government would eventually lead to constitutional monarchy and eliminate Manchus’ autocracy. What concerned Kang most was the government’s ability and faith in carrying out institutional reforms effectively and rapidly so as to avoid drastic revolution.57 Fearing that Guangxu’s life was in great danger, Kang founded the Society to Protect the Emperor in July 1899.58 This organization had branches in Japan, Southeast Asia, Latin America, Canada, and the United States, cutting heavily into the support for revolutionaries among the overseas Chinese. As a constitutional monarchist, Kang argued that impe- rialism was the most immediate threat to China59 and all should rally against it by supporting Qing’s reforms.60 In contrast, in Sun Yatsen’s position, anti-imperialism was muted, Western-style reforms emphasized, and anti-Manchuism intensified. Manchu weakness was obvious to everyone; however, anti-imperialism could not command such unanimous support, especially among the radical intellectuals and merchants, both of whose hostility to imperial- ism was mixed with admiration and envy. Most importantly, the Manchu ruling clan, loathe to part with power, demonstrated its incapacity to satisfy the demand for radical change. Republican revolution gradually gained much more momentum. The revolution consisted of many revolts and uprisings, with the turning point being the Wuchang Uprising on October 10, 1911, and ended with the abdication of the “Last Emperor” 36 Jessica Li

on February 12, 1912, that marked the end of the Qing dynasty and the beginning of China’s republican era.61 Throughout, Kang remained an advocate of constitutional monarchy. With this aim, he launched a failed coup d’état in 1917, and as late as 1923, was still seeking support among warlords in order to revive the Qing dynasty. By the time Kang died on March 31, 1927, he was dismissed by most Chinese intellectuals as a hopeless relic of the past. Sadly, in less than 20 years, he went from being regarded as an iconoclastic radical to an anachronistic pariah, reflecting the drastic change of the political environment during the modernization of China when late-Qing China stood at the historical crossroads. THE CONCORD REVIEW 37

Endnotes

1 Ranbir Vohra, China’s Path to Modernization: A Historical Review from 1800 to the Present (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992) pp. 73–78 2 Patricia Buckley Ebrey, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) pp. 244–246 3 Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986) p. 287 4 Jonathan Fenby, Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present (New York: HarperCollins, 2008) pp. 56–57 5 John King Fairbank and Merle Goldman, China: a New History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2006) p. 229 6 Vohra, p. 94 7 Ibid., pp. 26–29 8 Ibid., pp. 31–37 9 Ebrey, pp. 239–240 10 Dong Wang, China’s Unequal Treaties: Narrating National History (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2005) p. 5 11 Y. Chu Wang, “The Intelligentsia in Changing China,” Foreign Affairs 36, no. 2 (1958) pp. 315–329 12 Gideon Chen, The Pioneer Promoters of Modern Industrial Techniques in China Vol. I (New York: Paragon, 1968) p. 5 13 Fenby, p. 36 14 Jonathan Spence, To Change China: Western Advisers in China (Boston: Little Brown, 1969) p. 154 15 Twitchett and Fairbank, p. 171 16 Fairbank and Goldman, p. 227 17 Ebrey, p. 254 18 Wei Leong Tay, “Kang Youwei, The Martin Luther of Confucianism and his Vision of Confucian Modernity and Nation,” in Secularization, Religion and the State by Haneda Masashi (Tokyo: The University of Tokyo Center for Philosophy, 2010) 19 Richard C. Howard, “Kang Youwei: his intellectual background and his early thought,” in Confucian Personalities 38 Jessica Li

by Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett (Stanford University Press, 1962) pp. 303–305 20 Tay, pp. 97–109 21 Richard C. Howard, “Japan’s role in the reform program of Kang Youwei,” in Kang Youwei: a Biography and a Symposium by Jung-pang Lo (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1967) pp. 288–302 22 Twitchett and Fairbank, p. 287 23 Ibid., pp. 287–288 24 Vohra, p. 77 25 Twitchett and Fairbank, p. 291 26 Tang Zhijun, Kang Youwei’s Political Writings (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1981) pp. 57–59 27 Fenby, p. 69 28 Zhao Suisheng, A Nation-state by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004) p. 17 29 Twitchett and Fairbank, pp. 292–294 30 Ibid., pp. 292–294 31 Fenby, p. 62 32 Vohra, pp. 88–89 33 Twitchett and Fairbank, pp. 294–295 34 Vohra , p. 52 35 Kung-ch’uan Hsiao, “Weng Tonghe and the reform movement of 1898,” in Wu-hsu pien-fa by Po-tsan Chien (1957) pp. 111–245 36 Vohra, p. 83 37 Twitchett and Fairbank, p. 322 38 Luke S. K. Kwong, “Chinese Politics at the Crossroads: Reflections on the Hundred Days Reform of 1898,” Modern Asian Studies Cambridge University Press, 34, no. 3 (July 2000): pp. 663–695 39 Young-Tsu Wong, “Revisionism Reconsidered: Kang Youwei and the Reform Movement of 1898,” The Journal of Asian Studies 51, no. 3 (August 1992): pp. 513–544 40 Vohra, p. 85 41 Fenby, pp. 63–67 42 Chang-chien Huang, Studies on the History of the Reform Movement of 1898 (Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 1970) pp. 178–216 43 Fenby, p. 73 44 Kang Youwei, “Chronological Autobiography of Kang Youwei,” in Kang Youwei: a Biography and a Symposium by THE CONCORD REVIEW 39

Jung-pang Lo (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1967) p. 105 45 Twitchett and Fairbank, p. 327 46 Fenby, p. 73 47 Twitchett and Fairbank, p. 328 48 Vohra, p. 89 49 Ibid., p. 88 50 Fenby, pp. 79–94 51 Fairbank and Goldman, p. 231 52 Ibid., p. 242 53 Vohra, p. 98 54 Twitchett and Fairbank, pp. 465–474 55 Bernal, pp. 152–160 56 Ebrey, p. 264 57 Twitchett and Fairbank, pp. 496–498 58 Ibid., p. 471 59 Ibid., p. 496 60 Ibid., p. 481 61 Ibid., pp. 515–534 40 Jessica Li

Bibliography

Bernal, Martin, Chinese Socialism to 1907 Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976

Chen, Gideon, The Pioneer Promoters of Modern Industrial Techniques in China Vol. I, New York: Paragon, 1968

Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996

Fairbank, John King, and Merle Goldman, China: a New History Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2006

Fenby, Jonathan, Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present New York: HarperCollins, 2008

Howard, Richard C., “Japan’s role in the reform program of Kang Youwei,” in Kang Youwei: a Biography and a Symposium by Jung-pang L, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1967

Howard, Richard C., “Kang Youwei: his intellectual background and his early thought,” in Confucian Personalities by Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett, Stanford University Press, 1962

Hsiao, Kung-ch’uan, “Weng Tonghe and the reform movement of 1898,” in Wu-hsu pien-fa by Po-tsan Chien, 1957

Huang, Chang-chien, Studies on the History of the Reform Movement of 1898 Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 1970

Kwong, Luke S. K., “Chinese Politics at the Crossroads: Reflections on the Hundred Days Reform of 1898,” Modern Asian Studies Cambridge University Press, 34, no. 3, July 2000: 663–695

Spence, Jonathan, To Change China: Western Advisers in China Boston: Little Brown, 1969 THE CONCORD REVIEW 41

Suisheng, Zhao, A Nation-State by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004

Tay, Wei Leong, “Kang Youwei, The Martin Luther of Confucianism and his Vision of Confucian Modernity and Nation,” in Secularization, Religion and the State by Haneda Masashi, Tokyo: The University of Tokyo Center for Philosophy, 2010

Twitchett, Denis, and John K. Fairbank, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986

Vohra, Ranbir, China’s Path to Modernization: A Historical Review from 1800 to the Present Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992

Wang, Dong, China’s Unequal Treaties: Narrating National History Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2005

Wang, Y. Chu, “The Intelligentsia in Changing China,” Foreign Affairs 36, no. 2, 1958

Young-Tsu Wong, “Revisionism Reconsidered: Kang Youwei and the Reform Movement of 1898,” The Journal of Asian Studies 51, no. 3, August 1992: 513–544

Youwei, Kang, “Chronological Autobiography of Kang Youwei,” in Kang Youwei: a Biography and a Symposium by Jung-pang Lo, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1967

Zhijun, Tang, Kang Youwei’s Political Writings Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1981 42 Jessica Li

Charles O. Hucker, China to 1850 Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975, p. 68

In historiography the Han official Ssu-ma Ch’ien (145-87 B.C.?) was China’s first identifiable major figure, and he has won recognition as one of the greatest, most innovative, and most influential historians the world has produced. Inheriting his father’s court post as Lord Grand Astrologer, which gave him access to court archives, he carried to completion a project initiated by his father—a history of the world up to his time (the world known to him and to China, of course). The resulting work, called The Historical Records (Shih-chi) is a masterpiece of both organization and style. Its 130 chapters include, in addition to a chronology of important events from the legendary Yellow Emperor down into Emperor Wu’s reign, chronological tables for easy reference, historical treatises on topics such as music, the calendar, and waterways, and most important, hundreds of biographies of prominent or interesting people, the notorious as well as the famous. Ssu-ma Ch’ien established a pattern for organizing historical data that was used subsequently in a series of so-called dynastic histories, which preserve the history of imperial China in unsurpassed detail and uniquely systematic order. Moreover, Ssu-ma’s lively style made his work a literary monument that has been read with delight by educated classes throughout East Asia. Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

“ImmanCipate the Mind”: Literature’s Influence on Abraham Lincoln

George C. Holderness

Introduction

From boyhood, Abraham Lincoln loved reading. Den- nis Hanks, the future President’s cousin, recalled Abe’s voracious childhood reading habits: I never seen Abe after he was twelve ‘at he didn’t have a book some’ers ‘round. He’d put a book inside his shirt an’ fill his pants pockets with corn dodgers, an’ go off to plow or hoe. When noon come he’d set down under a tree, an’ read an’ eat. In the house at night, he’d tilt a cheer by the chimbly, an’ set on his backbone an’ read….Aunt Sairy never let the children pester him. She always said Abe was goin’ to be a great man some day. An’ she wasn’t goin’ to have him hendered.1 Lincoln’s rural childhood home did not contain a great number of books, but it did have several literary classics, which the boy took to heart. There were novels, including Robinson Crusoe, The Arabian Nights, and Pilgrim’s Progress, and a few works of history, among them a Life of Washington and a History of the United States.2 Nate Grigsby, a childhood friend of Lincoln’s, remarked that Lincoln also “kept the Bible and Aesop’s always within reach and read them over and over.”3

George C. Holderness is a Senior at the Belmont Hill School, where he wrote this paper for Mr. Christos Kolovos’ Advanced Placement U.S. History course in the 2012/2013 academic year. 44 George C. Holderness

Organized schooling was an on-and-off affair for Lincoln, but he nevertheless happened upon a number of formative books in rustic “blabschools.”4 Among these were classic “preceptors” of the day, including The Kentucky Preceptor, The Columbian Class Book, and principally Murray’s English Reader.5 The King James Bible was as central to a blabschool education as these textbooks; Lincoln, during his presidency, told a senator, “All our reading [aloud] was done from the Scriptures, and we stood up in a long line and read in turn from the Bible.”6 Lincoln pursued his intense study of literature throughout his career as a lawyer, politician, and president. He continued to hone his language skills through advanced textbooks, such as Kirkham’s Grammar and Lectures on Rhetoric.7 As a lawyer, Lincoln naturally studied law books. He rattled off a list of those he deemed most important in a letter of advice on “obtaining a thorough knowl- edge of the law,” suggesting, “Begin with Blackstone’s Commentaries, and after reading it carefully through, say twice, take up Chitty’s Pleading, Greenleaf’s Evidence, & Story’s Equity in succession.”8 The works of enlightenment authors Thomas Paine, David Hume, and Volney were of particular fascination to Lincoln,9 and he loved the poetry of Burns, Byron, Pope, Gibbons, and especially Shakespeare’s plays.10 Later, as president, Lincoln read books and news publications that helped him stay on top of current events. Hinton R. Helper’s An Impending Crisis of the South and James Ri- ley’s An Authentic Narrative of the Loss of the American Brig Commerce figured in this number.11 Lincoln recognized the profound influence literature could have on a man. In his 1859 “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions,” Lincoln remarked that men unable to read were “ut- terly unconscious, that their conditions, or their minds were capable of improvement.”12 But by reading, they could “immancipate the mind from this false and under estimate of itself.”13 Lincoln himself is outstanding proof of his theory. The novels and preceptors he read as a boy, along with the more sophisticated works he enjoyed as an adult, profoundly impacted Lincoln’s life. They helped him create his famous writing and oratorical style, and they also influ- THE CONCORD REVIEW 45 enced Lincoln’s views on some of the most important issues of his day: slavery, religion, and preservation of the Union. Reading helped Lincoln create a beautiful writing and speaking style that has immortalized him as a masterful author and orator as well as a landmark president.14 The crisp prose on the shelves of Lincoln’s childhood home and schools gave him critical early exposure to some of the English language’s finest writing.15 Aesop and the Bible taught Lincoln the power of argu- ment by analogy; several other works offered Lincoln phrases that he incorporated into his own writing.16 Lincoln’s reading influenced his ideals and beliefs as much as it did his style. While essays and poems from the preceptors of Lincoln’s boyhood taught him that slavery was morally wrong, the enlightenment works of his young adulthood proposed that all humans, including slaves, have certain fundamental rights.17 Contemporary works warned Lincoln that careful, compensated emancipation would be better than sudden, radical abolition.18 Literature also played a key role in shaping Lincoln’s religious beliefs. While the Bible implanted the tenets of Christianity in him, the enlightenment authors Thomas Paine, David Hume, and the Comte de Volney spurred Lincoln to think critically about organized religion.19 Finally, Lincoln derived his opinions on the importance of the Union and the use of presidential power in part from what he read. Works of history showed him that a cohesive Union was necessary in preserving sacred American values and that the power of the presidency had great potential in preserving the Union. Meanwhile, Lincoln’s favorite poets reminded him that unrestrained ambition is often disastrous.20 Abraham Lincoln’s writing style was graceful but effec- tive, his beliefs wise yet unconventional. Together, his bold ideals and style influenced his actions and consequently the course of American history. The literature he read played an important part in this story. 46 George C. Holderness

Literature’s Influence on Lincoln’s Writing and Speaking Style

Literature had a threefold influence on Lincoln’s writing and speaking. First, the high-quality prose he read in his youth helped shape his clean, flowing style. Throughout his life, he also borrowed phrases from pieces he read and adapted or quoted them in his own writing. Finally, he read aloud from books as a boy, thereby getting a jumpstart on public speaking. From the beginning, writing held a certain attraction for Abraham Lincoln. He “scrawled words with charcoal,” writes Lin- coln’s most famous biographer Carl Sandburg, “he shaped them in the dust, in sand, in snow. Writing had a fascination for him.”21 The boy pursed his writing, and today Lincoln is considered a master of American prose. Rather than writing sentimentally, he approaches writing in a modern, readable fashion. This reflects the early “plain style,” which began in Puritan New England and peaked with Hemingway.22 Lincoln’s vocabulary and style are not characteristic of any one part of America, likely because of his roots and his reading. Settlers to the Midwest, where Lincoln grew up, came from both North and South, bringing with them a wide range of dialects. Many of the American works Lincoln read were written by authors from the East, exposing him to more formal language.23 Lincoln was also a masterful orator. He knew the written word, properly-conveyed, could be powerful: “I hear what is read and I see it,” Lincoln said of a well-delivered speech, “and hence in two senses get it.”24 He was careful when reciting written content and took care to emphasize the correct parts.25 In a speech he sent to a friend to deliver, Lincoln included notes on which words to emphasize; once he even gave pointers to a Shakespearean actor on how best to recite a line.26 When Lincoln gave a speech, he read a carefully composed piece; he did not speak extemporaneously if at all possible. According to contemporaries, Lincoln was “little better than dreadful” when speaking without preparation.27 But when he read, he was spellbinding. His secretary William Stoddard described Lincoln’s speechgiving: THE CONCORD REVIEW 47

If you are indeed an audience, you believe he has forgotten you are there for a moment, but that is only while he is beginning. He is more an orator than a writer, and he is quickly warmed up to the place where his voice rises and his long right arm goes out, and he speaks to you somewhat as if you were a hundred thousand people of an audience, and as if he believes that something like fifty thousand of you do not at all agree with him. He will convince that half of you, if he can, before he has done with it.28 Writing and recitation may have seemed to come easily to Lincoln, but he did not acquire these talents without the help of many works of literature and his own effort. Those works affected Lincoln’s writing in two ways—they helped him form his style in general, and they offered phrases that he took, adapted, and used in his own writing. Other books enabled Lincoln to improve and practice his public speaking. Reading well-written prose, especially during one’s child- hood, is important in learning to write. Several of the works Lincoln read during his youth helped him develop his refined writing style. Murray’s English Reader (which Lincoln referred to as “the best schoolbook ever put into the hands of an American youth”) and John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (which, said his father, the young Abe devoured so voraciously that “that day he could not eat, and that night he could not sleep”29) provided him with examples of effective prose.30 These two works contained unabridged, high- quality writing—the type of material that one must read to become a great writer. According to historian Richard Carwardine, the excellence of this prose “effected an immeasurable but undoubted influence on Lincoln’s own prose.”31 Aesop’s Fables taught Lincoln the value of analogy and story in presenting an argument. As his friend Nate Grigsby recalled, “[Lincoln] argued much from Analogy and Explained things… by stories…he would almost always point his lesson or idea by some story that was plain and near, as that we might instantly see the force & bearing of what he said.”32 Lincoln replied to critics during the Civil War with one of his signature anecdotes: Gentlemen, suppose all the property you were worth was in gold, and you had put it in the hands of Blondin to carry across the Niagara 48 George C. Holderness

River on a rope; would you shake the cable, or keep shouting out to him—”Blondin, stand up a little straighter—Blondin, stoop a little more—go a little faster—lean a little more to the north—lean a little more to the south?” No, you would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hands off until he was safe over. The Govern- ment are carrying an immense weight. Untold treasures are in their hands. They are doing the very best they can. Don’t badger them. Keep silence, and we’ll get you safe across.33

Like Aesop, Lincoln argued by illustration.34 The King James Bible had a substantial influence on Lincoln’s literary structure and word choice; he also pulled phrases from it and sprinkled them liberally throughout his writing and speeches. Lincoln’s early Biblical exposure (he remembered that, in school, “all our reading was done from the Scriptures”)35 shone through in his own writing; according to Charles Macartney, Lincoln quoted the Bible 77 times in his speeches and writing.36 Indeed, Lincoln himself admitted that “I have a proneness for quoting scripture.”37 Lincoln cleverly employed the negative and antithesis to his advantage; the Bible also features this technique. In his Second Inaugural address, he declared “let us judge not that we be not judged.”38 Lincoln borrowed this line from Matthew 7:1, which reads “judge not, that ye be not judged.”39 When Lincoln quoted the Bible, he was seldom trying to preach religion; instead, he adapted phrases to modern day politics. For example, Hebrews 12:2 refers to Jesus as “the author and finisher of our faith.”40 Lincoln echoes this phrase by saying that if America is destroyed, “we must ourselves be its authors and finishers.”41 He takes the words from the Bible, but uses them to refer to different people and outcomes. Besides adapting verses, Lincoln often quoted them directly, This enabled him to connect to his audiences, who understood and appreciated the quotes. Matthew 16:18 states “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”42 Lincoln referenced this in an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield: “as truly has been said of the only greater institution, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”43 His audi- ence knew what this passage meant, and so he used it to highlight THE CONCORD REVIEW 49 the point he was making about America’s political institutions. Lincoln understood that Americans, in their minds, had not yet unlinked church and state.44 By quoting the Bible and conveying a Biblical tone in his speeches, he could appeal to his audiences. A few other works also provided phrases which Lincoln took and used in his writing. Theodore Parker’s sermon “The Effect of Slavery on the American People” gave Lincoln the foun- dation for a line he used in the Gettysburg Address. In the sermon, Parker includes the phrase “Democracy…of all the people…for all the people…by all the people,”45 which Lincoln turned into “government of the people, by the people, for the people” in the Gettysburg Address.46 Kirkham’s English Grammar, which Lincoln used during his lawyer years to turn himself into a “good practical grammarian in three weeks,” according to a friend,47 helped him hone his technical writing skills.48 He also borrowed phrases from the textbook, including “humblest walks of life.”49 During his boyhood, Lincoln read aloud, thereby sharpen- ing his public speaking skills. Quinn’s Jests and The Arabian Nights were two of his favorite books to read from. A friend recollected that “the boys would gather & cluster around him to hear him talk;” his cousin noted that “Abe’d lay on his stummick by the fire and read out loud to me ‘n’ Aunt Sairy, an’ we’d laugh when he did.”50 In school, when Lincoln wrote essays, he delivered them out loud, following the guidelines of William Scott’s Lessons in Elocution and Murray’s English Reader.51 Lincoln relied extensively on public speaking during his career, and some of his childhood books gave him early practice addressing an audience.

Literature’s Influence on Lincoln’s Beliefs The literature Lincoln read formed a foundation for his history-changing opinions on three issues: slavery, religion, and union. His antislavery sentiment finds a basis in stories he read as a boy that attacked slavery as a moral evil, and in legal works that supported the natural rights theory.52 The Bible endowed Lincoln with a deep understanding of the principles of Christianity. But his 50 George C. Holderness

ultimate preference for inner spirituality over organized religion parallels the arguments of enlightenment authors he read.53 Lastly, works of history taught Lincoln that an intact Union was necessary to protect the best aspects of America, and that he, as President, could use his power to help preserve the Union. At the same time, poetry warned Lincoln of the danger of unchecked ambition.54

Slavery Lincoln’s views were antislavery, but he shied away from radical abolitionism. The literature he read was an important source of these beliefs in three major ways. Several of the pieces he read during his youth, mainly stories, argued that slavery was a moral evil with no place in civilized society. Other works, especially legal texts and essays he read during his 20s, promoted the natural rights theory, which he applied to blacks. Finally, he was exposed to books that suggested careful, controlled emancipation. From these three types of antislavery literature stemmed Lincoln’s belief in and rationale for the fundamental immorality of slavery, as well as the concept of compensated emancipation. Lincoln was forthright in his opinions on slavery. He fa- mously declared in an 1864 letter to a Kentucky newspaper that “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”55 His moral objections to slavery were strong and clear. As a practical matter, however, Lincoln believed more in the theo- retical “natural rights” of blacks than in giving special aid to them beyond emancipation.56 Though he insisted the slaves be freed, he supported compensating former slaveowners for the loss of their property and had no concrete plans to help freed slaves establish themselves in society.57 Literature influenced Lincoln’s views on slavery in three main ways: he saw slavery as a moral evil, he learned the concept of the natural rights of all people, and he found a rationale for compensated emancipation. A significant number of the works Lincoln read early in his life portrayed slavery as morally wrong; this antislavery material contributed to his fundamental aversion THE CONCORD REVIEW 51 to slavery.58 Like other children of the day, the young Lincoln read “preceptors” as part of his education. Two of these collections of well-written poems and stories, Lindley Murray’s English Reader and The Kentucky Preceptor, contain antislavery pieces, as does “Aesop’s Fables.”59 English Reader, which Lincoln considered to be “the best schoolbook ever put into the hands of an American youth,” contains William Cowper’s antislavery poem The Task.60 The poem denounces slavery in the British Empire, as this excerpt shows: We have no slaves at home—Then why abroad? And they themselves once ferried o’er the wave That parts us are emancipate and loosed. Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs Receive our air, that moment they are free; They touch our country, and their shackles fall.61 The Task was one of the first poems Lincoln read, and it contrasts free soil (Britain itself) with slave territory (the British Empire), rebuking Britain for allowing slavery in its Empire while forbid- ding it on home soil. Lincoln grew up in a border state, and this comparison and criticism offered antislavery ideas for his inquisi- tive young mind. The Kentucky Preceptor and “Aesop’s Fables” also include sto- ries that convey the evils of slavery.62 In The Kentucky Preceptor, “The Desperate Negro” is a dramatic antislavery narrative, and “liberty and Slavery” helps the reader understand what being enslaved would be like.63 “Aesop’s Fables” also contributed to Lincoln’s view of slavery.64 In one fable, four white men are trying to make a black man white by scrubbing him in a pot of cold water. Before they finish, however, the black man catches cold and dies. This fable was on Lincoln’s mind when he was pondering emancipation; he wrote to the chaplain of the Senate, “As for the negroes, Doctor, and what is to become of them…it made me think of a story I read in one of my first books, ‘Aesop’s Fables’…I am afraid that by the time we get through this war the negro will catch cold and die.”65 Some of Lincoln’s earliest reading, from “Aesop’s Fables,” contained fodder for antislavery thoughts. Through these fables 52 George C. Holderness

and the preceptors, Lincoln gained exposure at a young age to material decrying slavery as a moral evil. Lincoln’s reading also provided a philosophical basis for his antislavery views in the form of the natural rights theory. Three works of literature he read, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Channing’s Slavery, and the King James Bible, support the idea that all people, including blacks, have certain basic rights.66 Blackstone’s Commentaries was Lincoln’s favorite law book—he recommended that an aspiring student “begin with Blackstone’s Commentaries, and after reading it carefully through, say twice, take up [other law books].”67 In the book Blackstone discusses laws as tools to protect rights. He declares that “the primary object of law is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals,” and explains that absolute rights are rights “such as would belong to man in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy….”68 Blackstone considers “life and liberty” to be among these rights, and notes that “no human legislature may abridge or destroy” them.69 Lincoln read about natural rights in Blackstone’s Commentaries, and saw how they applied to all people, including slaves. William Channing’s lengthy essay Slavery, published in 1835, also asserts the natural rights theory; it claims that “every human being has some rights.”70 Channing points out that because slavery violates such rights, “slavery is thus radically, essentially evil.”71 Lincoln had been referring to slavery as morally wrong for years, but it was not until around 1845, after he had read Channing, that Lincoln first used the term “natural rights.” In the first Lincoln- Douglas senatorial debate of 1858, Lincoln declared that “there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence .”72 The Bible itself supplies a basis for the natural rights theory. Genesis 3:19 reads, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground….”73 Lincoln employed this verse with force against those who tried to justify slavery: To read in the Bible, as the word of God himself, that “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” and to preach therefrom, that “In THE CONCORD REVIEW 53

the sweat of other men’s faces shalt thou eat bread,” to my mind can scarcely be reconciled with honest sincerity.74 Lincoln’s belief that all men are entitled, by natural right, to the fruits of their labor, has backing in the Bible; his intimate knowl- edge of the book enabled him to find this passage and employ it to his advantage. Finally, two works that Lincoln read provided practical suggestions for the implementation of emancipation. Hinton R. Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South showed Lincoln that uncontrolled emancipation of the slaves could be a disaster. Lin- coln referred to The Impending Crisis as a “sad and terrible book,” according to biographer Carl Sandburg, as it conveyed a plausible dangerous outcome of careless emancipation.75 In contrast, Lincoln saw compensated emancipation presented in a positive light in James Riley’s An Authentic Narrative of the Loss of the American Brig Commerce.76 In the conclusion of this tale of shipwreck, Riley praises America, “whose political and moral institutions are in themselves the very best of any that prevail in the civilized portions of the globe.”77 But Riley singles out slavery as a disgrace to the nation, noting that “my proud-spirited and free countrymen still hold a million and a half, nearly, of the human species, in the most cruel bonds of slavery.”78 To remedy this problem, Riley suggests that “a plan should be devised, founded on the firm basis and the eter- nal principles of justice and humanity…as will gradually…wither and extirpate the accursed tree of slavery….”79 Emancipation was necessary, claims Riley, and it would work best if done gradually. Lincoln mentioned the Authentic Narrative to John Scripps, who was writing his campaign biography, in 1860; this type of careful emancipation was on Lincoln’s mind at the beginning of the Civil War. 80 Through these two books, Lincoln saw that unregulated emancipation could result in disaster, while a gradual, carefully implemented plan might work smoothly. 54 George C. Holderness

Religion

Raised on a firm Biblical foundation, Lincoln made the unusual choice of shunning organized Christianity and using the Bible as a moral compass rather than a rigid set of beliefs. The enlightenment works Lincoln read during his young adulthood as a lawyer provided the food for thought he needed to acquire unorthodox religious views. These books, essays, and poems, criticized the church and advocated personal spirituality instead. They encouraged Lincoln to think critically about religion and ultimately to follow a religious path similar to that which they advocated. Lincoln’s religious views have long been a source of con- fusion and misunderstanding.81 Raised in a Christian household, Abe learned the tenets of the Bible and Christianity at a young age.82 His father was a member of the Baptist church, so the fam- ily attended services together regularly.83 As an adult, Lincoln oc- casionally went to Presbyterian services.84 Yet Lincoln was highly skeptical of organized Christianity. He was never baptized, nor was he a member of any church.85 Dennis Hanks, Lincoln’s cousin, doubted whether Lincoln really believed the Bible; moreover, during his young adulthood as a lawyer, Lincoln questioned the Bible’s authority and gained a reputation as “an infidel” among his friends.86 In fact, the young lawyer Lincoln penned an essay mak- ing fun of the idea that Jesus was God’s son.87 His friends, fearing for his political future, burned it.88 Lincoln himself mentioned to a superintendent tallying votes that “I am not a Christian—God knows I would be one—but I have carefully read the Bible, and I do not so understand this book.”89 Curiously, he added, “I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice and slavery,” and goes on to say “I know that liberty is right, for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God.”90 Lincoln was not, perhaps, Christian in a technical sense, but he was nevertheless a deeply spiritual man. He studied the King James Bible closely, and while he did not believe everything in it, he still referred to the Bible as “the best gift God has given THE CONCORD REVIEW 55 to man…for without it we could not know right from wrong…all things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.”91 Lincoln viewed the Bible and religion as a moral compass, not as a strict set of rules and beliefs. The literature Lincoln read during his young adulthood provided fodder for this interpretation of the Bible. Several en- lightenment authors, including Volney, Hume, and Paine, wrote critically about Christianity.92 Lincoln had read works of these au- thors by 1841 when he was practicing law in New Salem. His friend Abner Ellis remarked that “It was in the year 1841 [Lincoln] told me that he had been reading—Volney & Tom Paine….”93 From these authors Lincoln derived both a skepticism of organized religion and a preference for inner spirituality. The French philosophe Constantin-François Chasseboeuf, Comte de Volney (commonly known simply as Volney) poses questions about organized faith in his 1791 masterpiece Ruins; or, Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires. Lincoln’s own views of the church reflect these qualms.94 For example, Volney sharply criti- cizes organized religion in much of the second volume of Ruins.95 Lincoln himself complained in a letter decrying the Reverend Peter Cartwright that “I believe the people in this country are in some degree priest-ridden;” he even describes the church as “a priest-ridden church.”96 The Scottish essayist David Hume’s The Natural History of Religion and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion urge a similar skepticism of organized religion; Lincoln read Hume around the same time as Volney.97 Lincoln’s criticism of facets of the church and his decision not to assume church membership as an adult parallel many of Volney and Hume’s arguments. If Volney and Hume pushed Lincoln to criticism of orga- nized religion, then Thomas Paine, with his Age of Reason, spurred Lincoln to examine an even more fundamental facet of Christian- ity—the Bible.98 Age of Reason, a pamphlet published around the same time as Volney’s Ruins, encourages skepticism of the Bible and reliance on logic to discover religious truths.99 In it, Paine declares that “the most formidable weapon against errors of ev- ery kind is Reason.”100 This method of logic must have appealed 56 George C. Holderness

to the young lawyer Lincoln, as he employed reason in his own study of the Bible. In fact, most historians believe Lincoln wrote an extensive essay attacking Christianity a few years after he had read Paine and Volney.101 While the text has disappeared, his friends who read the essay noted that in it Lincoln “denied the divinity of the Scriptures” and “attacked the Bible…from the grounds of Reason,” but was nevertheless “full of natural religion.”102 More- over, Lincoln later wrote in 1862, when he was considering the Biblical basis for emancipation, that “I am not to expect a direct revelation. I must study the physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible and learn what appears to be wise and right.”103 His rational examination of religion strongly reflects Paine. Lincoln enjoyed reading the poetry of Robert Burns, much of which mocks the church.104 One friend from Illinois noted that Lincoln kept a borrowed copy of Burns’s Poems “long enough to commit to memory almost all its contents….”105 Another remarked that “[Lincoln] had acquired the Scotch accent, and could render Burns perfectly.”106 Burns’s Epistle to a Young Friend advocates following one’s own spiritual ideas: “But where ye feel your honour grip/ Let that ay [always] be your border.”107 Holy Willie’s Prayer, meanwhile, is a satire on the Presbyterian Church. Burns mockingly writes in the voice of “Holy Willie,” a disgruntled churchgoer, “Lord, hear my earnest cry and pray’r/ Against that Presbyt’ry o’ Ayr/ Thy strong right hand, Lord mak it bare/ Upo’ their heads….”108 Such anticlerical views are similar to those Lin- coln expressed in his letter complaining about the “priest-ridden” community.

Union and Presidential Power Lincoln held an unwavering belief in the necessity of pre- serving the Union, and he was willing to use his presidential power to accomplish that. Works of history taught him that a coherent Union was the best way to preserve sacred American values. Fur- ther, Lincoln realized that he could use his power as President to lead the fight to preserve the Union. But works ranging from the THE CONCORD REVIEW 57 enlightenment to poetry to Shakespeare warned Lincoln of the perils of unchecked ambition and power. Abraham Lincoln ardently believed that the Union must not disintegrate.109 He stressed in an 1861 address to the New Jersey State Senate: I am exceedingly anxious that that thing which they [Revolutionary soldiers] struggled for; that something even more than National Independence; that something that held out a great promise to all the people of the world to all time come; I am exceedingly anxious that this union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made….110 Lincoln believed that preserving the Union would protect the American system of government and American rights. In Lincoln’s mind, perpetuating the Union was related to abolishing slavery; he asserted in his 1858 acceptance speech for the Republican Senate nomination that “this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free…either the opponents of slavery will ar- rest the further spread of it…or it shall become alike lawful in all the States….”111 If slavery’s foes prevailed, Lincoln reasoned, an intact Union would serve as a conduit to the eradication of slavery. Lincoln understood that the presidency could be a valuable tool for preserving the Union. In the hands of a determined and responsible leader, political power could be a great asset, while it could be a disaster in the clutches of an ambitious and greedy tyrant.112 Lincoln went on to remark in his address to the New Jersey Senate quoted above, after explaining the importance of preserving the Union, that “I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be a humble instrument…for perpetuating the object of that great struggle….”113 He believed that he could use his presidential power to help preserve the Union, and he put this belief into practice through a series of moves many believed to be unconstitutional.114 This is what sociologist Max Weber refers to as the “legal-rational” justification for wielding power—Lincoln rationalized his manner of leadership as a defense of the Constitution and the Union, not as a subversion of the laws.115 To Lincoln, the Union was some- thing that needed to be perpetuated, and he understood that he 58 George C. Holderness

could help effect that preservation through the calculated use of presidential power. Several of the works Lincoln read shaped his views on Union, power, and leadership. Mason Locke Weems’ Life of Wash- ington had an early and lasting influence on Lincoln. It showed him not only that the Union was based on sacred values, but also that a responsible leader could help these institutions and values weather difficult times.116 Weems writes that Washington “ob- tained for his countrymen the completest victory, and for himself the most unbounded power…and then returned that power… to establish a government that should immortalize the blessings of liberty….”117 Life of Washington praises attributes that both an American leader and an American government should have. Lincoln mentioned this work in his address to the New Jersey Sen- ate: “Back in my childhood, the earliest days of my being able to read, I got hold of a small book…‘Weem’s Life of Washington.’” In particular, President Lincoln noted, he remembered its portrayal of the “struggles for the liberties of the country”—50 years after reading the book. He recalled “thinking then, boy even though I was, that there must have been something more than common that those men struggled for.”118 Weems helped Lincoln discover American values worth preserving. In Life of Washington, Lincoln also read Washington’s speeches, many of which preached the importance of national unity as a means of achieving American ideals, and saw Washington’s bold leadership in action.119 Indeed, Lincoln used Weems as a launch pad to explain how he hoped he, as President during the Civil War, could be a leader for protecting the Union and these sacred American values. Aesop’s Fables and the Bible, those two literary anchors in his life, also emphasize the importance of union. Lincoln explained in an 1843 Whig campaign circular: That “union is strength” is a truth that has been known, illustrated and declared, in various ways and forms in all ages of the world. That great fabulist and philosopher, Aesop, illustrated it by his fable of the bundle of sticks; and he whose wisdom surpasses that of all philosophers, has declared that “a house divided against itself can- not stand.”120 THE CONCORD REVIEW 59 Here Lincoln again reveals the influence of both Aesop and the Bible on him. Aesop’s Fable “The Father and His Sons” illustrates the concept of union as strength. In the fable, a father offers a bundle of sticks to his sons and challenges them to break it. As the sticks are together, none of the sons can break the bundle. According to the father, the bundle represents a people “of one mind, and [united] to assist each other.”121 Just as the bundle could not be broken, a people united will be “uninjured by… enemies.”122 Next, the father takes the bundle apart. The single sticks snap easily. The father explains that a people “divided” will be “broken as easily as these sticks.” On a similar note of union, Matthew 12:25 declares: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”123 Lincoln read these arguments for union, recalled them, and reiterated them as necessary. His reaction to a recitation of Henry Wadsworth Longfel- low’s poem The Building of the Ship likewise conveys this deep love of the Union. Longfellow paints a ship as an allegory to the Union, and President Lincoln reputedly wept upon hearing the closing lines, which describe the ship’s pushing onward through fear.124 Lincoln’s heartfelt belief that the Union must be preserved at all costs arose in part from the literature he read. Lincoln knew that the power of the presidency could be valuable for protecting the Union; two late-18th century works, Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Volney’s Ruins, enlightened Lincoln on this use of power. Historian Gibbon probes matters of power in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which Lincoln borrowed from his friend Edward Greene in the 1830s.125 Gibbon argues that internal abuse of authority is the most dangerous foe of a nation; he writes that “the fatal moment was…when some…jealous tyrant, would abuse, to the destruction, that absolute power.”126 Lincoln, too, feared internal degeneration more than external adversar- ies—he remarked “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”127 Yet in Gibbon’s History, Lincoln also saw several emperors wielding absolute power in positive, constructive 60 George C. Holderness

ways.128 The Roman people admired benevolent rulers; likewise, Lincoln confessed that he had a “peculiar ambition…of being truly esteemed of [his] fellow man.”129 Volney’s Ruins, in addition to criticizing organized religion, discusses tyranny. Volney concludes that “tyranny sprung also from cupidity,” and this abuse of power can occur when “the people… lost that spirit of personal identification with their government, which had caused their energy.”130 In 1838, shortly after reading Volney, Lincoln addressed the Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum. Historians consider this to be one of his defining speeches.131 He paralleled Volney’s points, saying that “the strongest bulwark of any Government” is “the attachment of the People.” If the “bulwark” is “broken down and destroyed…this Government cannot last.”132 While Lincoln acknowledged that most Americans did love their country, he feared that “if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights…are held by no better tenure than the caprice of the mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence.”133 Just like Volney, Lincoln knew that the people’s view of the government went hand-in-hand with the manner of rule. A positive disposition of the people towards their government would equate to benevolent rule, while a negative disposition could enable tyranny. Lincoln was a lover of poetry, and several of the poems he read portrayed the danger of unchecked ambition to people in positions of power. Oh Why Should the Spirit of Mortal Be Proud, by William Knox, was Lincoln’s favorite poem; it warns the reader about the fleeting rewards of pride and glory, noting that “Like a swift-fleeting meteor, a fast-flying cloud/ A flash of the lightning, a break of the wave/ Man passeth from life to his rest in the grave.”134 Nathaniel Parker Willis writes in Parrhasius, another Lincoln favorite, “How like a mounting devil in the heart/ Rules the unreined ambition.”135 According to Lincoln’s friend William Greene, collections of “Burns & Byron were his favorite books” during Lincoln’s lawyer years. Lord Byron’s The Corsair suggests that if passion overcomes reason, the result could be disastrous.136 Though he took these poems to heart, Lincoln nevertheless had THE CONCORD REVIEW 61 lofty goals from the beginning; his cousin Sophie Hanks pointed out that “Abe always had a natural idea that he was going to be something.”137 Indeed, although some of the poetry Lincoln read warned of unbridled ambition, it also condoned and even encour- aged having honest aspirations. Alexander Pope treats honest fame as acceptable in Temple of Fame, writing “Oh grant an honest Fame, or grant me none!”138 Poetry, in short, cautioned Lincoln to tread carefully around the two-edged sword of ambition. Lincoln was particularly intrigued by Shakespeare’s treat- ment of ambition and power in Hamlet and Macbeth. He thought “the soliloquy in Hamlet commencing ‘O, my offence is rank’ surpasses that commencing ‘To be, or not to be.’”139 The ‘O, my offence is rank’ speech, which centers on a king’s guilt about murder, gave Lincoln a vivid example of ambition’s consequence. So powerful was its effect on Lincoln that he referred to it as “the choicest part of the play,” noting that “it always struck me as one of the finest touches of Nature in the world.”140 He may have loved Hamlet and its take on ambition, but Lincoln explicitly declared that “I think nothing equals Macbeth. It is wonderful.”141 In one instance after reports of casualties in the Wilderness Campaign arrived, he was found, “ghastly pale” and with “dark rings under his caverned eyes,” reading the Macbeth soliloquy that declares “life’s but a walking shadow.”142 He explained to the man who had walked in on him that he was reading the soliloquy for consola- tion.143 In another instance, Lincoln discussed Macbeth with the Marquis de Chambrun. According to the Marquis, Lincoln focused on “especially Macbeth,” and “dramatically dwelt on…the lines after the murder of Duncan, when the new king [Macbeth] falls a prey to moral torment.”144 Like Macbeth, Lincoln had recently won a victory, and had to ward off the guilt that might plague him. Lincoln also had to avoid the tyranny of Macbeth and to handle his expanded power wisely. Shakespeare’s rulers may have appealed to Lincoln be- cause of their flaws. He dwelt on the passages, like the “O, my offence is rank” soliloquy, that highlight rulers’ weaknesses, and he complained about literature that minimizes rulers’ shortcom- 62 George C. Holderness

ings. Lincoln refused to continue a biography of Edmund Burke when he discovered that “It’s like all the others…the author… magnifies [Burke’s] perfections…and suppresses his imperfec- tions.”145 Characters who fail to deal with ambition and greed properly fascinated Lincoln more than the successful or perfect ones, because he could learn from their mistakes.

Conclusion

Few philosophical or literary geniuses drop out of the blue, and Abraham Lincoln was no exception. Although he learned quickly and independently, his writing style and many of his beliefs had a foundation in the works he read as a boy and young man. The prose he read contributed to his effective writing and speak- ing styles and phraseology. Some words and ideas he directly took from literature and adopted in their current forms; others he used indirectly. Through books and tales, Lincoln gained exposure to antislavery material at a young age. The legal texts of his young adulthood justified these principles. Religiously, enlightenment works and poetry inspired Lincoln to shun organized Christian- ity and pursue inner spiritual and moral beliefs instead. Further, he learned from Weems’ Life of Washington, the Fables, and the Bible that a coherent Union was the best way to protect American liberties; histories, poetry, and Shakespeare encouraged him to guard against ambition while using the power of the presidency to preserve the Union. Lincoln declared in his “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions” that “writing…is the great invention of the world.”146 It is simple to see why Lincoln believed that, for without writing he would have had different, simpler beliefs and would not have been able to express them effectively. In short, he would not have become one of America’s most significant presidents. The case of Abraham Lincoln highlights the power of past authors to influence current events. The works Lincoln read helped shape his beliefs and consequently his actions, which had THE CONCORD REVIEW 63 history-changing effects on America and the world. People from other times and places will similarly influence us. Lincoln had literature which had stood the test of time. Today, people have instant access to social media, blogs, and video-sharing websites. These modern forms of “literature” enable ideas to spread rapidly around the world. Yet many of these ideas have not stood the test of time. In this respect, they stand as a contrast to what influenced Abraham Lincoln. In our turbulent times, we should remember this. As Lincoln’s life and our nation’s history have shown, we are, in part, shaped by what we read. 64 George C. Holderness

1 Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years (New York, New York: Gallahad, 1993) p. 13, quoted in Marshall Meyers, “‘Rugged Grandeur’: A Study of the Influences on the Writing Style of Abraham Lincoln and a Brief Study of His Writing Habits,” Rhetoric Review 23, no. 4 (2004) p. 358 2 William E. Barton, Abraham Lincoln and His Books (Chicago, IL: Marshall Field & Company, 1920) p. 7 3 Robert Bray, Reading with Lincoln (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 2010) p. 19 4 Barton, p. 8 5 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 4 6 Barton, p. 10 7 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 46 8 Abraham Lincoln to John M. Brockman, September 25, 1860, in 1860–1861 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 4, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 121 9 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 60 10 Barton, p. 15 11 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 165 12 Abraham Lincoln, “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions,” lecture presented at Phi Alpha Society of Illinois College, Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois, February 11, 1859, in 1858–1860 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 3, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 363 13 Ibid., p. 363 14 Richard Carwardine, Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006) p. 35 15 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 4 16 Barton, p. 7 17 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 12 18 Ibid., p. 165 19 Gerald J. Prokopowicz, Did Lincoln Own Slaves? (New York: Pantheon Books, 2008), http://blogs.chicagotribune. com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/did-abraham-lin.html (accessed February 19, 2013) 20 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 60 21 William Osborn Stoddard, Inside the White House in War Times (New York: C.L. Webster & Company, 1890) p. 228, quoted in Meyers, p. 357 THE CONCORD REVIEW 65

22 Ibid., p. 353 23 Ibid., p. 354 24 Ibid., p. 363 25 Ibid., p. 363 26 Carwardine, p. 264 27 Meyers, p. 365 28 Ibid., p. 365 29 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 36 30 Ibid., p. 4 31 Carwardine, p. 35 32 Nate Grigsby, interview, in Herndon’s Informants: Letters, Interviews, and Statements about Abraham Lincoln ed. Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1998) p. 114, quoted in Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 19 33 Abraham Lincoln, “Response to War Critics,” address presented at The White House, in The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking by Dorothy Carnegie (New York: Pocket Books, 1962) pp. 200–201 34 Barton, p. 7 35 Ibid., p. 10 36 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 190 37 Abraham Lincoln, speech presented at Springfield, Illinois, IL, July 17, 1858, in 1848–1858 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 2, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 510 38 Douglas L. Wilson, “The Power of the Negative,” The Wall Street Journal (New York) January 17, 2013, Leisure & Arts 39 Matthew 7:1 (King James Version) 40 Hebrews 12:2 (King James Version) 41 Abraham Lincoln, “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” speech presented at The Young Men’s Lyceum, Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838, in 1824–1848 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 1, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 109 42 Matthew 16:18 (King James Version) 43 Lincoln, “The Perpetuation of Our Political,” speech, in 1824–1848, vol. 1, p. 115 44 Ronald C. White, “Saying What Matters in 701 Words,” The New York Times (New York) January 20, 2013, Sunday Review 66 George C. Holderness

45 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 176 46 Abraham Lincoln, “Gettysburg Address,” address presented at Dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg, Gettysburg, PA, November 19, 1863, in 1860–1861 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 7, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 22 47 Ibid., p. 42 48 Bruce E. Wheeler, “Lincoln and the Kirkham Grammar,” Hobbies—The Magazine for Collectors (February 1943) p. 9, Readers’ Guide Retrospective (accessed February 15, 2013) 49 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 47 50 Ibid., p. 18 51 Carwardine, p. 8 52 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 12 53 Prokopowicz 54 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 60 55 Wilson, “The Power of the Negative” 56 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 149 57 Carwardine, p. 202 58 Robert Bray, “What Abraham Lincoln Read—An Evaluative and Annotated List,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 28, no. 2 (2007) p. 2 59 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 4 60 Ibid., p. 7 61 Ibid., p. 7 62 Ibid., p. 12 63 Emmanuel Hertz, Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait vol. 1 (New York: Horace Liveright, 1931) pp. 897–898, quoted in Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 14 64 Bray, “What Abraham Lincoln Read,” p. 2 65 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 22 66 Ibid., p. 149 67 Lincoln to Brockman, in 1860–1861, vol. 4, p. 121 68 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765–1769 vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 1, http:// press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s3.html (accessed April 7, 2013) 69 Ibid., p. 1 70 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 173 71 Ibid., p. 174 72 Ibid., p. 174 THE CONCORD REVIEW 67

73 Genesis 3:19 (King James Version) 74 Abraham Lincoln to George B. Ide, James R. Doolittle, and A. Hubbell, May 30, 1864, in 1863–1864, ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 7, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 368 75 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 165 76 Ibid., p. 32 77 Ibid., p. 32 78 Ibid., p. 32 79 Ibid., p. 34 80 Ibid., p. 32 81 Carwardine, p. 280 82 Prokopowicz 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Carwardine, p. 35 87 Prokopowicz 88 Ibid. 89 Henry Ketcham, The Life of Abraham Lincoln (Project Gutenberg, 2004) 1460, digital file 90 Ibid. 91 “Reply to a Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible,” in 1863–1864 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 542–543, Vol. 7 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955, previously published in Daily Morning Chronicle (Washington, DC) September 8, 1864 92 Bray, “What Abraham Lincoln Read,” p. 2 93 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 57 94 Ibid., p. 59 95 Ibid., p. 59 96 Abraham Lincoln to Beardstown Chronicle, November 1, 1834, quoted in Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 66 97 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 142 98 Prokopowicz 99 Ibid. 100 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 70 101 Ibid., p. 76 102 Ibid., pp. 77–79 103 Abraham Lincoln, “Reply to Emancipation Memorial Presented by Chicago Christians of All Denominations,” 68 George C. Holderness

address presented at Bryan Hall, Chicago, IL, September 13, 1862, in 1860–1861 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 5, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 420 104 Carwardine, p. 35 105 Noah Brooks, Abraham Lincoln: His Youth and Early Manhood (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 20, quoted in Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 88 106 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 98 107 Robert Burns, “Epistle to a Young Friend,” BBC, last modified 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/ works/epistle_to_a_young_friend/ (accessed March 3, 2013) 108 Robert Burns, “Holy Willie’s Prayer,” BBC, last modified 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/works/holy_ willies_prayer/ (accessed March 3, 2013) 109 Carwardine, p. 14 110 Abraham Lincoln, address presented at New Jersey Senate, Trenton, New Jersey, February 21, 1861, in 1860–1861, vol. 4, p. 236 111 Abraham Lincoln, “A House Divided,” address presented at Republican State Convention, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858, in 1860–1861 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 2, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 461 112 Carwardine, p. 14 113 Lincoln, address, in 1860–1861, vol. 4, p. 236 114 Carwardine, p. 249 115 Ibid., p. 250 116 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 60 117 Mason Locke Weems, The Life of Washington (Mount Vernon: A. Colish, 1974) p. 4 118 Lincoln, address, in 1860–1861, vol. 4, p. 236 119 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 26 120 A. Lincoln, S. T. Logan, and A. T. Bledsoe, “Campaign Circular from Whig Committee,” in 1824–1848, vol. 1, p. 315, previously published in North Western Gazette and Galena Advertiser (March 17, 1843) 121 Aesop, “The Father and His Sons,” in Aesop’s Fables comp. Gilbert Keith Chesterton, trans. Vernon Jones (New York: Avenel Book, 1912) p. 87 122 Ibid., p. 87 THE CONCORD REVIEW 69

123 Matthew 12:15 (King James Version) 124 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 168 125 Ibid., p. 50 126 Ibid., p. 51 127 Lincoln, “The Perpetuation of Our Political,” speech, in 1824–1848, vol. 1, p. 109 128 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 54 129 Ibid., p. 57 130 Ibid., p. 61 131 Lincoln, Logan, and Bledsoe, “Campaign Circular from Whig,” in 1824–1848, vol. 1, p. 108 132 Ibid., p. 111 133 Ibid., p. 112 134 William Knox, “Oh! Why Should the Spirit of Mortal Be Proud,” in One Hundred Choice Selections ed. Phineas Garrett (Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Company, 1897), http:// www.poetry-archive.com/k/oh_why_should_the_spirit.html (accessed April 7, 2013) 135 Nathaniel Parker Willis, “173. Parrhasius,” Bartleby.com, http://www.bartleby.com/248/173.html (accessed February 9, 2013) 136 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 101 137 Carwardine, p. 4 138 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 86 139 Abraham Lincoln to James H. Hackett, August 17, 1863, in 1862–1863 ed. Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, vol. 6, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955) p. 392 140 Francis Carpenter, Six Months at the White House With Abraham Lincoln: The Story of a Picture (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1866) pp. 49–51, quoted in Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 213 141 Lincoln to Hackett, in 1862–1863, vol. 6, p. 392 142 Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 217 143 Ibid., p. 218 144 Albert de Chambrun, Impressions of Lincoln and the Civil War (New York: Random House, 1952) p. 83, quoted in Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 218 145 Barton, p. 13 146 Lincoln, “Second Lecture on Discoveries,” lecture, in 1858–1860, vol. 3, p. 360 70 George C. Holderness

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Aesop, “The Father and His Sons,” in Aesop’s Fables compiled by Gilbert Keith Chesterton, 87, translated by Vernon Jones. New York: Avenel Book, 1912

The Bible, King James Version, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 1996

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765–1769 Vol. 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, http://press-pubs. uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s3.html (accessed April 7, 2013)

Burns, Robert, “Epistle to a Young Friend,” BBC, last modified 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/ works/epistle_to_a_young_friend/ (accessed March 3, 2013)

Burns, Robert, “Holy Willie’s Prayer,” BBC, last modified 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/works/holy_ willies_prayer/ (accessed March 3, 2013)

Carpenter, Francis, Six Months at the White House With Abraham Lincoln: The Story of a Picture New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1866

de Chambrun, Albert, Impressions of Lincoln and the Civil War New York: Random House, 1952

Grigsby, Nate, interview, in Herndon’s Informants: Letters, Interviews, and Statements about Abraham Lincoln edited by Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis, 114, Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1998

Knox, William, “Oh! Why Should the Spirit of Mortal Be Proud,” in One Hundred Choice Selections edited by Phineas Garrett, Philadelphia: Penn Publishing Company, 1897, http:// www.poetry-archive.com/k/oh_why_should_the_spirit.html (accessed April 7, 2013) THE CONCORD REVIEW 71

Lincoln, A., S. T. Logan, and A. T. Bledsoe, “Campaign Circular from Whig Committee,” in 1824–1848 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 309–318, Vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955, previously published in North Western Gazette and Galena Advertiser, March 17, 1843

Lincoln, Abraham, Abraham Lincoln to Beardstown Chronicle, November 1, 1834

Lincoln, Abraham, Abraham Lincoln to George B. Ide, James R. Doolittle, and A. Hubbell, May 30, 1864, in 1863–1864 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 368, Vol. 7 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, Abraham Lincoln to James H. Hackett, August 17, 1863, in 1862–1863 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 392–393, Vol. 6 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, Abraham Lincoln to John M. Brockman, September 25, 1860, in 1860–1861 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 121, Vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, Address presented at New Jersey Senate, Trenton, NJ, February 21, 1861, in 1860–1861 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 235–236, Vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, Address presented at Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, WI, September 30, 1859, in 1858–1860 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 471–481, Vol. 3 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955 72 George C. Holderness

Lincoln, Abraham, “Gettysburg Address,” Address presented at Dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863, in 1860–1861 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 22–23, Vol. 7 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, “A House Divided,” Address presented at Republican State Convention, Springfield, IL, June 16, 1858, in 1848–1858 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 461–469, Vol. 2 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” Speech presented at The Young Men’s Lyceum, Springfield, IL, January 27, 1838, in 1824–1848 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 111–115, Vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, “Reply to Emancipation Memorial Presented by Chicago Christians of All Denominations,” Address presented at Bryan Hall, Chicago, Illinois, September 13, 1862, in 1860–1861 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 419–425, Vol. 5 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, “Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible,” in 1863–1864 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 542–543, Vol. 7 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955, previously published in Daily Morning Chronicle (Washington, DC) September 8, 1864

Lincoln, Abraham, “Response to War Critics,” Address presented at The White House, in The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking by Dorothy Carnegie, 200–201, New York: Pocket Books, 1962 THE CONCORD REVIEW 73

Lincoln, Abraham, “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions,” Lecture presented at Phi Alpha Society of Illinois College, Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois, February 11, 1859, in 1858–1860 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 356–363, Vol. 3 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, Speech presented at Springfield, Illinois, IL, July 17, 1858, in 1848–1858 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 504–521, Vol. 2 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Lincoln, Abraham, “Speech at Springfield, Illinois,” Address presented in Springfield, IL, July 17, 1858, in 1860–1861 edited by Roy Basler, Marion Dolores Pratt, and Lloyd Dunlap, 510–511, Vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955

Stoddard, William Osborn, Inside the White House in War Times New York: C.L. Webster & Company, 1890

Weems, Mason Locke, The Life of Washington Mount Vernon: A. Colish, 1974

Willis, Nathaniel Parker, “173. Parrhasius,” Bartleby.com, http://www.bartleby.com/248/173.html (accessed February 9, 2013)

Secondary Sources

Barton, William E., Abraham Lincoln and His Books Chicago: Marshall Field & Company, 1920

Bray, Robert, Reading with Lincoln Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 2010

Bray, Robert, “What Abraham Lincoln Read—An Evaluative and Annotated List,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 28, no. 2 (2007) 74 George C. Holderness

Brooks, Noah, Abraham Lincoln: His Youth and Early Manhood New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888

Carwardine, Richard, Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006

Dirck, Brian, Lincoln the Lawyer Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2007

Hertz, Emmanuel, Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait Vol. 1, New York: Horace Liveright, 1931

Houser, M.L., and Harry J. Lytle, The Education of Abraham Lincoln Peoria, Illinois: L.O. Schriver, 1938

Ketcham, Henry, The Life of Abraham Lincoln Project Gutenberg, 2004, Digital file

Meyers, Marshall, “‘Rugged Grandeur’: A Study of the Influences on the Writing Style of Abraham Lincoln and a Brief Study of His Writing Habits,” Rhetoric Review 23, no. 4 (2004): 350–367

Prokopowicz, Gerald J. Did Lincoln Own Slaves? New York: Pantheon Books, 2008, http://blogs.chicagotribune. com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/did-abraham-lin.html (accessed February 19, 2013)

Sandburg, Carl, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years New York: Gallahad, 1993

Wheeler, Bruce E., “Lincoln and the Kirkham Grammar,” Hobbies—The Magazine for Collectors February 1943, Readers’ Guide Retrospective (accessed February 15, 2013)

White, Ronald C., “Saying What Matters in 701 Words,” The New York Times (New York) January 20, 2013, Sunday Review, 6–7

Wilson, Douglas L., “The Power of the Negative,” The Wall Street Journal (New York) January 17, 2013, Leisure & Arts, D5 Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

A History of Residential Segregation in Berkeley, California, 1878–1960

Maya Tulip Lorey

At home and abroad the City of Berkeley conjures up images of the Free Speech Movement and antiwar protests, hip- pies, and today’s espresso-drinking, tie-dye-wearing, Prius-driving liberals. The city is renowned for its university, famous for the state’s first socialist mayor, and celebrated for the nostalgic peace, love, and freedom associated with Telegraph Avenue. Despite being known for progressive liberal politics and vocal political correctness, Berkeley’s history tells a much more conventional, at times conservative, and even racist story.1 The 2000 Berkeley census confirms that significant differences persist among Berke- ley neighborhoods with respect to the racial composition of the residents; 84 percent of East Berkeley’s residents are Caucasian, and the majority of Berkeley’s African American population live in the South and West.2, 3 Acknowledging and symbolically uniting Berkeley’s long-standing racially divided neighborhoods, Grove Street was renamed Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in 1984. For over half a century, this central thoroughfare had marked the line above which Asians and Blacks could not live.4 Grove Street’s history reflects the racist real estate practices and public zoning laws that developed hand in hand with the City of Berkeley. Beginning at

Maya Tulip Lorey is a Senior at the College Preparatory School in Oakland, California, where she wrote this paper for Mr. Preston Tucker’s Honors United States History course in the 2012/2013 academic year. 76 Maya Tulip Lorey

the turn of the 19th century, civic leaders and powerful real estate interests, prominently the Mason-McDuffie Company, made use of deed restrictions, private covenants, districting ordinances and zoning laws to keep those not of “pure Caucasian blood” out of East Berkeley’s residential neighborhoods.5 The enduring legacy of privately-controlled land development augmented by public policy resulted in more than half a century of residential segre- gation in Berkeley, the vestiges of which are still apparent today. Rapid population growth and economic development in the first two decades of the 20th century ushered in Berkeley’s transformation from a largely rural area to an increasingly cohesive urban city, becoming the fifth largest in California by 1910.6 After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, an influx of refugees and new permanent residents inundated Berkeley, fueling industrial devel- opment and homebuilding.7 By 1907, the West Berkeley landscape was remarkable for paved streets, electric lights, telephones, and many small factories, including soap and glass works, foundries, and manufactories of cigars, perfumes, and medicines.8 East Berkeley was home to the University of California, founded in 1868, as well as the California Theological Seminary, which had moved to Berkley in 1901, and the Greek Theater, the pinnacle of Berkeley’s increasing cultural development, which opened in 1903.9 Alongside these intellectual, spiritual and cultural attrac- tions, East Berkeley was the site of newly conceived “residential parks,” forerunners of today’s gated communities.10 Duncan McDuffie played an essential role in Berkeley’s real estate and land development, and tirelessly worked to mo- bilize the City’s first planning efforts. He was also a prominent political figure who used his influence to preserve and promote the aesthetic riches of California’s environment. A lifelong con- servationist, McDuffie helped establish the California State Parks system and was a long-term president of the Sierra Club as well as chair of the Save-the-Redwoods League.11, 12 McDuffie’s commit- ment to protecting native California beauty was also evident in his approach to landscape and garden design. In every instance he strived to integrate all developments and architecture with the natural contours of the land.13 In keeping with his high standards for THE CONCORD REVIEW 77 environmental and aesthetic sensitivity, McDuffie hired Frederick Law Olmstead, the renowned landscape designer of New York’s Central Park, to design the celebrated Claremont Hotel gardens as well as his Claremont Park project, St. Francis Wood develop- ment in San Francisco, and his own property within Claremont Park.14 Through his work McDuffie earned a reputation as one of the most idealistic community builders of the early 20th cen- tury. Nonetheless his record will always be tarnished by the racial discrimination perpetuated by the Mason-McDuffie Company. After its founding in 1905, the Mason-McDuffie real estate corporation began buying up large land tracts in Berkeley with the intent of establishing private residential developments.15 Guided by the ideal of “private residence parks,” McDuffie sought to develop high-end subdivisions featuring state-of-the-art homes and exquisite parks.16 Between 1905 and 1948, the company con- ceived, built, managed, and sold tracts throughout East Berkeley and the surrounding hills.17, 18 By 1916 McDuffie’s company was already “Northern California’s largest real estate brokerage and development corporation” and over the next 30 years 100,000 people would settle in Mason-McDuffie Co. neighborhoods.19, 20 In a 1950 corporate brochure promoting the company’s “Controlled Developments,” the advertising copy vaunts their unparalleled success: “during the more than 65 years of this company’s continu- ous activity, it has played a major role in shaping the residential character of the San Francisco Bay Area.”21 What the brochure does not mention is that the agency’s “shaping of residential character” was a product of racially-restrictive property deeds and covenants that controlled all aspects of property use and acquisi- tion within its subdivisions.22 The Mason-McDuffie Co. relied on race-restrictive covenants to protect the firm’s ongoing financial investment in the property they managed and sold. The promotional material for the Mason-McDuffie Co.’s first subdivision, Claremont Park, portrays a suburban haven se- cured by private restrictions meant to assure community sanctity. The pastoral drawings and dreamy text of the 1905 “color pamphlet and map” for prospective investors is addressed to a fictitious “San Francisco businessman.”23 The advertising copy suggests that Cla- 78 Maya Tulip Lorey

remont Park will release him from the “smothering” conditions of the city and the “advancing tide” of undesirable “flats or shops.” In contrast to such uncontrollable threats, a home in Claremont Park would offer an ideal lifestyle for the “happy healthy growth of his children—out of doors! out of doors!” and assure the crucial bottom line of ever-increasing property value.24 The corporate conditions governing Claremont Park’s pastoral promise speci- fied not only what structures could be built on the land, but set a property price that effectively established the development’s class standards. The $2,500 to $4,000 minimum on each parcel ensured the homogenous nature of the developing community, a social engineering mechanism true to what the pamphlet calls a “a pre-figured plan” of “enlightened forethought.”25 Further stipulating that only single-family dwellings were permitted, the Claremont Park Company contract with buyers cautioned that if a business or multi-family dwelling was established in violation of said policy, the property and land rights would be confiscated and returned to the Company effective immediately.26 While the deed and covenant restrictions alluded to in the Claremont Park pamphlet are cloaked in euphemisms, the Mason-McDuffie Company makes clear in its legal contracts that only higher-income Caucasian buyers are welcome. During the early 20th century it was common practice for deeds to contain clauses specifically banning minorities; the Mason-McDuffie Co.’s policies were therefore in accord with the legal and cultural con- text of the time. As articulated by professor Clement E. Vose of Wesleyan College, 1959: Racial restrictions varied in language, but their constant objective had been to make localities ‘more attractive to white people.’ The clearest phraseology devised to express this purpose was found in a restric- tion which excluded ‘any person other than of the Caucasian race.’ Such persons have been referred to as ‘of Negro descent,’ ‘of African, Chinese, or Japanese descent,’ and of the ‘Negro or African race.’27 The standard legal form of the Mason-McDuffie Co. indentures conforms to Vose’s example of the “clearest phraseology” meant to fulfill the “constant objective” of excluding all non-whites from property ownership. Drafted between 1905 and 1911, the Mason- THE CONCORD REVIEW 79 McDuffie Co. race-restrictive covenant uniformly states as its final condition: “if prior to the first day of January 1930 any person of African or Mongolian descent shall be allowed to purchase or lease said property or any part thereof, then this conveyance shall be and become void….”28 Carrying the condition forward to 1930 indicates the Company’s desire to control not only the racial composition of the insipient Claremont Park community of 1910 but to engineer and guard the social culture of the “residence park” for decades to come. The third covenant carried by the Mason-McDuffie Co.’s deeds likewise furthered racial homogeneity by prohibiting the operation of businesses in their subdivisions. The property agree- ments forbade all forms of commerce not only for the purpose of protecting residential tranquility, but also to exclude Chinese, Japanese and Irish Catholic populations whose businesses such as laundries, food production, and saloons were often conducted in or nearby their homes. As civic planning expert Marc Weiss, Ph.D. explains, in California during the late 19th and early 20th centuries “laundry regulation was a clear-cut proxy for Chinese exclusion from certain Caucasian neighborhoods.”29 The “express conditions” of the Mason-McDuffie Co.’s indenture dictate these restrictions: If prior to the said first day of January, 1930, any trade, business, or manufacturers of any kind, or anything of the nature thereof, shall be carried on or conducted upon said real property…or any saloon shall be maintained or conduced upon said premises, then this con- veyance shall be and become void and the entire estate title…shall forthwith cease and terminate and the title in and so said premises shall therefore at once revert to and vest in the Claremont Park company.30 While protecting residential neighborhoods from potentially disruptive industry or trade businesses was undoubtedly essential, such protections only existed for upper-class Caucasian residential developments such as Claremont Park.31 Legal exceptions to Mason-McDuffie Co. deed restrictions were difficult to procure, requiring written consent from the corporation, all property owners, and the Claremont Improve- ment Club. The case of the Place sisters, who petitioned in 1912 80 Maya Tulip Lorey

to change the conditions of their 1906 deed in order to found “a private school for minor children” on their property, illustrates that race restrictions were intrinsic to concerns regarding property use. Strikingly, the Place Sisters’ revised deed, signed by Duncan McDuffie, grants permission for the school but specifies: Said premises may be used for school purposes by the said Belle Place and Elisabeth Place as a private school for minor children of sound mind, on the further condition that during school hours the pupils attending said school shall be kept within the boundary lines of said premises and that no children of African, Mongolian or Asiatic descent shall be admitted to said school.32 Enforcement of racial covenants is of the uppermost concern even when the perceived threat arises from the possible trespass of “minor children.” Permission to amend property use restrictions was first and foremost contingent on affirming the intransience of the racial restrictions governing the Claremont Park develop- ment. But such tight control over property use was a product of the private agreements governing subdivisions and did not extend to the municipal jurisdiction. The possibility that the Mason- McDuffie Co.’s developments and financial interests could be negatively impacted by lax municipal control over surrounding neighborhoods led Duncan McDuffie to lobby for new land-use policies in Berkeley.33 In 1914, McDuffie organized the Berkeley City Club to initi- ate the Civic Art Commission with the purpose of influencing the quality and scope of the city’s development. In a well-documented public lecture on “The Development of Real Estate Districts,” McDuffie urges the implementation of new forms of regulation and oversight powers by city leaders in the interest of effectively governing the “subdivision of property” in Berkeley.34 McDuffie’s scope of concern in recommending the creation of city districts showed prudent foresight, as did his creation of the Civic Art Com- mission to oversee the districting process. In anticipating future contingencies that could negatively impact the quality of life for residents, McDuffie adopts a cautionary tone; he warns of incursions “which may one day be inside its [East Berkeley’s] boundaries.” McDuffie’s language relies on an antagonistic spatial metaphor THE CONCORD REVIEW 81 that presupposes a conflict between “inside” and “outside”—in other words, desirable and undesirable residents and residential cultures. The City of Berkeley, in consideration of the “interest of all its people,” should, according to McDuffie, protect the power of real property developers and current homeowners. He com- mends the superior enforcement power facilitated by a private public partnership; in his words the city “must supervise private restrictions and adopt municipal restrictions.”35, 36 Without the addition of new districting ordinances and city zoning policy, the Mason-McDuffie Co.’s subdivisions were vulnerable to changes in neighborhoods bordering their own but not subject to the deeds and covenants carried in their contracts. The Civic Art Commission’s high intentions commenced in 1915 with the hiring of world-renowned German architect Werner Hegemann to develop plans for land use in Berkeley and Oakland. Based on one of McDuffie’s survey maps of existing development in Berkeley’s residential East and industrial West, in his Report on a City Plan for the Municipalities of Oakland & Berkeley, Hegemann identifies a geographical dividing line between the opposing sides of the city. As illustrated in his 1915 proposal and map, Hegemann recommended that a contiguous chain of parks be established across Central Berkeley—in his words, a “Midway Plaisance”—to create a boundary permanently separating the City’s principal districts.37 This noteworthy aspect of Hegemann’s work with McDuffie and fellow city planning activist Charles Cheney supported the Civic Art Commission’s goal of incorporating prag- matic yet aesthetic city planning while prioritizing the protection of the East’s residential sanctity.38 As the Commission ultimately could not fund the full extent of Hegemann’s proposals, including the “Midway Plaisance,” they devoted their financial and lobbying resources towards what proved to be their most pressing concern: that of city zoning aimed to achieve the same results.39, 40 With the passage of the City Planning Enabling Act, au- thorized by the California Legislature in 1916, Duncan McDuffie concentrated his efforts on establishing the first zoning ordinances in Berkeley. In an address recorded in the March 1916 Berkeley 82 Maya Tulip Lorey

Civic Bulletin, McDuffie argues that “protection against the di- sastrous effects of uncontrolled development” with the “so-called zone system,” will prove “of vital importance to every citizen of Berkeley.” To support his view McDuffie cites the significance of landmark municipal zoning ordinances in Los Angeles. In particular, McDuffie extols Los Angeles’ success against Chinese laundries: “the fight against the Chinese wash-house laid the basis for districting laws in this State, and Los Angeles has the honor of having been the first important city in the United States to adopt a districting ordinance.”41 Indeed, as in Los Angeles, the perceived threat to residential neighborhoods in Berkeley stemmed mainly from deeply ingrained anti-Chinese sentiment.42, 43 Racial bias against Chinese residents was further justified by California Supreme Court decisions from the 1880s to the 1913 Hadachek decision that legally sanctioned anti-Chinese zoning laws employed in the state. By upholding the discriminatory Los Angeles zoning ordinances, the California Supreme Court set the precedent that marked the beginnings of widespread adoption of zoning ordi- nances as a form of public control.44 With the passage of Berkeley districting Ordinance No. 452 N.S., the efforts of McDuffie through the auspices of the Civic Art Commission became public policy enforceable by the Berkeley police department. Ordinance 452 N.S. was first applied to Elmwood Park, a subdivision bordering on McDuffie’s and thus posing a threat outside his control.45 The Elmwood district was designated for only single-family residences; the Ordinance made it “unlawful to carry on certain trades or callings,” and as it happened the legislation was expedited “to prevent a prominent negro dance hall from locating on a prominent corner.”46, 47 W.L. Pollard, of the Los Angeles Realty Board and the California Real Estate Association, stated in his “Outline of the Law of Zoning in the United States,” 1931, that in the first decades of the 20th century, racism like that evident in the application of Ordinance No. 452 N.S. was the general rule rather than the exception mo- tivating early zoning efforts: THE CONCORD REVIEW 83

It may sound foreign to our general ideas of the background of zon- ing, yet racial hatred played no small part in bringing to the front some of the early districting ordinances which were sustained by the United States Supreme Court, thus giving us our first important zoning decisions.48 Public zoning ordinances used to maintain residential segrega- tion, however, became more problematic after 1917 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Buchanan v. Wareley decision that municipalities could no longer zone for purposes of race separation. With public agency curtailed—public zoning restrictions still furthered segregation, albeit not explicitly—the real estate industry responded by strengthening private covenant restrictions.49 When in 1919 the Civic Art Commission presented its Pro- posed Comprehensive Zone Ordinance For the City of Berkeley, California to the City Council, the stated intent of the proposal was “to ensure the permanency of character of districts when once established, to stabilize and protect property values and investments.”50 Over the next decade, the Mason-McDuffie Company would fulfill the goals of the 1919 ordinance through a joint strategy of legal zoning laws and ever more explicit private racial restrictions governing their subdivisions. By 1929, the standard Mason-McDuffie Co. indenture would stipulate: No part of the said lands now owned by the said Property Owners… shall ever be used or occupied by any person or persons of other than pure Caucasian blood. In the case persons of other than pure Caucasian blood are employed upon the premises as nurses or in domestic service by a person or persons of pure Caucasian blood, this agreement shall not apply.51 The 1929 deeds carry residential segregation interminably for- ward in anticipation of the imminent expiration in 1930 of the racial covenants on the original 1905 indentures. Moreover, the Company’s racial exclusions were further distilled to include only those of “pure Caucasian blood.” The Mason-McDuffie Co.’s policy was in keeping with nationwide private planning methodol- ogy as described in Helen Monchow’s 1928 book, The Use of Deed Restrictions in Subdivision Development. Monchow’s text outlines the 84 Maya Tulip Lorey

common use of racially-restrictive covenants, specifically those “directed against those persons not of the Caucasian race” as a means of private planning created and enforced by “community builders,” home owners associations, and real estate boards such as the National Association of Real Estate Boards.52 The “enforce- ment” arm of the 1929 Mason-McDuffie Co.’s deed restrictions, what Monchow identifies as the “home owners association,” was the “Claremont Improvement Club, Incorporated, owner of the reversions, and authorized and empowered to enforce the penal- ties for breach of restrictions.”53 A 1935 pamphlet advertising the Mason-McDuffie Com- pany’s new subdivision, the Berkeley View Terrace, headlines racial “restrictions” next to “taxes” and “surroundings” in describing the essential features of the development.54 Laid out in a question-and- answer format, the promotional material incongruously juxtaposes the assertion “only persons of Caucasian race may reside in the district except in the capacity of servants,” with “electric, water, and telephone lines are already established.”55 At the opening of the Berkeley View Terrace—promoted by General Electric’s “New American Home” campaign—the 1935 Mayor of Berkeley “pledged his support” in a public letter, celebrating the develop- ment’s prominence as a model for new neighborhoods across America.56 Twenty years previously the company had genteelly chosen to use euphemisms to allude to their racially restrictive deeds in the promotional material for Claremont Park. Clearly the passage of time only heightened the social acceptability of unambiguously racist practices. Ironically, the Mayor genuinely extols “the progressive character of the people of this country” in his letter.57 After May 3, 1948, when the Supreme Court’s landmark Shelley v. Kramer decision ruled that racial covenants on real estate could not be enforced through the courts, the Mason-McDuffie Co. reacted by immediately altering the wording but not the senti- ment of their restrictive covenants. A letter found in the company archives reveals a prominent shareholder’s apprehension regard- ing the implications of the case. Written to Duncan McDuffie’s THE CONCORD REVIEW 85 successor, M.G. Reed, the letter from his secretary warns that Mr. York is “anxious to see you regarding the ‘colored clause’ in the restrictions.”58 The 1949 promotional material published in the Berkeley Gazette for Arlington Manner, the subdivision being developed at the time of the Shelley v. Kramer decision, was unlike that of Berkeley View Terrace. The pamphlets could only allude to the perpetuation of intended residential segregation as it was officially illegal yet still socially enforceable. The property brochure reassures prospective buyers that the subdivision is governed by “protective covenants that safeguard future values, and assure good neighbors.”59 The revised 1948 Declaration of Restrictions for the Mason-McDuffie Co. contract reads: …It is the purpose of Declarant by provisions hereof…to restrict the use and occupancy of said property to persons of a cultural status conducive to the creation and estimation of congenial friendship and fraternization between and among the occupants of said property, and in general to provide for and maintain well-designed and high- quality improvements upon said property and therefore to maintain and enhance the values of investments.60 What was once “Caucasians Only” became “persons of a cultural status” after the Supreme Court’s ruling; a use of euphemism demonstrated the Mason-McDuffie Company’s intent to continue shaping the demographics of its subdivisions. Although it was legal for black families to purchase homes in once racially-restricted subdivisions like Claremont Park after Shelley v. Kramer, the real estate agencies of the Bay Area found ways to discourage buyers from crossing long-established dividing lines. In 1961, Berkeley Law Students who were members of the Committee on Discrimination in Housing conducted a study to determine how active a role Berkeley real estate agencies, includ- ing the Mason-McDuffie Co., played in perpetuating residential segregation by neighborhood. They found that individual real estate agents had been scripted to dissuade and deceive buyers interested in listings from the “wrong” neighborhood.61 Realtors repeatedly warned white buyers that “investment in a negro or transitional area was risky” and that they would not want their children attending schools “overrun with negro children” with 86 Maya Tulip Lorey

whom they would have to “associate.” Conversely, realtors told “negro” couples that the listing they were interested in did not exist, and if the couples offered proof, quoted “higher prices to negroes than to whites for the same property.” They also only showed listings for houses out of the couples’ stated price range and often demonstrated “abrupt and discourteous conduct toward the applicant,” further “claiming that the owners refused to sell to negro buyers.”62 The business practices of the real estate agen- cies reflect how deeply-ingrained residential segregation was in Berkeley even more than half a century after the Mason-McDuffie Co.’s first deed was signed. Carefully divided into distinct residential developments, the “ideal” aesthetically-pleasing communities developed by the Mason-McDuffie Co. created some of Berkeley’s most beautiful neighborhoods, while simultaneously building a benighted legacy of segregation. An in-depth analysis of independent primary sources documenting practices of real-estate development, public policy, and urban planning in early 20th century Berkeley reveals the ori- gins of residential segregation, and offers insight into the divided racial demographics that persist even today. The Mason-McDuffie Company’s idyllic vision for Berkeley included the desirability of homogeneity, which was realized through racial segregation and enforced by deed restrictions and covenants. For more than 40 years, the Mason-McDuffie Company, the Berkeley Planning Commission, and many influential Berkeley community members such as McDuffie himself, together made use of key mechanisms to ensure both immediate and lasting segregation. Early private actions, most significantly the Mason-McDuffie Company’s restric- tive covenants of the early 1900s, combined with complementary public policies, such as the passage of City zoning ordinances, affect and haunt Berkeley to this day: it seems residential segrega- tion, divisions of class and race, remain so tightly-woven into the fabric of our city that it will take more than radical liberalism to unwind it. Next time you drive down MLK, take BART from the Ashby Station, or workout at the Club at the Claremont, consider Berkeley’s legacy of residential segregation, how far we have come, and how far we have yet to go. THE CONCORD REVIEW 87

Notes

1 During the Roosevelt era, for example, Berkeley was overwhelmingly conservative and Republican, and one of a tiny handful of California cities in 1932 to support Hoover. Susan Landauer, Elmer Bischoff: The Ethics of Paint (Berkeley: University Of California Press, 2011) p. 14 2 City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development, “Housing and Social Services,” City of Berkeley, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Development/ Home/West_Berkeley_Housing_Social_Services.aspx (accessed October 15, 2012) 3 City of Berkeley Housing and Community Services Department, “City of Berkeley Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice,” City of Berkeley, http://www.ci.berkeley. ca.us/uploadedFiles/Housing/Level_3_General/050610_20 10AnalysisofImpediments.pdf (accessed November 10, 2012) pp. 74, 75 4 Charles Wollenberg, Berkeley: A City in History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008) p. 82 5 Agreement Regulating Use and Occupancy of Property, 1929, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18, folder 33 6 Berkeley’s population grew steadily from 1,600 in 1878 at the founding of the city, to 13,000 in 1900, and reached 56,000 by 1910. Workers of the Writers’ Program of the Work Projects Administration in Northern California Co-Sponsors, Berkeley The First Seventy-Five Years (Berkeley: Gillick Press, 1941) p. 73 7 In the year after the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, 37 new factories were built in West Berkeley, many of San Francisco’s most prominent businesses relocated to Berkeley, and 1,238 housing permits were issued, double that of the previous year. Wollenberg, p. 49 8 Berkeley The First Seventy-Five Years, pp. 73, 82 9 Wollenberg, pp. 30, 37–40, 82 10 The railway following the modern Adeline to Shattuck demarcated East from West Berkeley, the former a residential neighborhood composed of upper class native-born Protestants with professional occupations, and the latter West Oceanview district the industrial section, an ethnically-diverse community made up of largely working-class Chinese and Irish Catholics. Wollenberg, pp. 33–37 88 Maya Tulip Lorey

11 American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, “Duncan McDuffie Cornelius Amory Pugsley Silver Medal Award, 1928,” http://www.aapra.org/Pugsley/ McDuffieDuncan.html (accessed October 6, 2011) 12 He received the prestigious Pugsley Silver Medal Award in 1928. Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Corporate History Guide to Mason-McDuffie Co Records, 1904–1933, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley 16 Claremont Park Development Promotional Pamphlet, 1905, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, Volume 4: 11 17 The most well known of these subdivisions include Claremont Park, Claremont Court, Northbrae Properties, Berkeley View Terrance, Berkeley Highlands Terrace, Arlington Manner, and its flagship San Francisco Development St. Francis Woods. Corporate History Guide to Mason McDuffie Co. Records, 1904–1983 18 Ibid. 19 Marc A. Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of Berkeley,” Berkeley Planning Journal Volume 3, Issue 1, (1986) p. 12 20 Claremont Park Development Promotional Pamphlet, 1905 21 Ibid. 22 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws,” pp. 12–13 23 In 1903 the commute to San Francisco by way of electric train and ferry cost 10 cents enabling Berkeley to become a viable suburb for those who worked in San Francisco. Berkeley The First Seventy-Five Years, p. 83 24 Mason-McDuffie Company, Claremont A Private Residence Park At Berkeley (Berkeley, 1905) 25 Ibid. 26 Claremont Park Company Indenture, 1910, index to documents recorded prior to 1969 on microfilm at County of Alameda Clerk-Recorders Office 27 Clement E. Vose, Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959) p. 6 THE CONCORD REVIEW 89

28 Claremont Park Company Indenture, 1910 29 Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987) p. 84 30 Claremont Park Company Indenture, 1910 31 As Weiss clarifies, it was not until 1935 that any protective districting regulations were extended to include middle-class families, and low-income families remained unprotected even then. Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws,” p. 11 32 Place School Indenture, 1912, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 19, folder 3 33 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws,” p. 18 34 “McDuffie Lectures on Needs of City,” Berkeley Daily Gazette (March 25, 1914) microfilm 35 That the nature of the governing body overseeing such controls should be “permanent in character” also speaks to McDuffie’s overarching plan to “permanently” protect the quality or “character” of his subdivisions according to the standards he applied in creating them. 36 “McDuffie Lectures on Needs of City” 37 Werner Hegemann, Ph.D., Report On A City Plan For The Municipalities Of Oakland and Berkeley (Berkeley: The Municipal Governments of Oakland and Berkeley, The Supervisors of Alameda County, The Chamber of Commerce and Commercial Club of Oakland, The Civic Art Commission of the City of Berkeley, The City Club of Berkeley, 1915) p. 137 38 Mel Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959) p. 164 39 San Francisco Bay Area, an encyclopedic volume published in 1959 that chronicles the region’s development corroborates that the Art Commission’s top objective was the preservation of East Berkeley’s residential neighborhoods. Ibid., p. 165 40 Ibid., p. 165 41 Duncan McDuffie, “City Planning in Berkley,” Berkeley Civic Bulletin (March 15, 1916) 42 In Forbidden Neighbors, a Study of Prejudice in Housing, author Charles Abrams describes California “literature on Chinese immigration” as “literature of abomination.” Violence against Chinese immigrants was well- 90 Maya Tulip Lorey

documented: during a 1871 Los Angeles political campaign, an “anti-Chinese outburst” not only gave rise to many burned and looted homes, but 18 innocent Chinese were tragically killed. Charles Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors A Study of Prejudice in Housing (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955) p. 31 43 Ibid., pp. 30–36 44 Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders, p. 85 45 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws,” p. 18 46 Civic Art Commission, Districting Ordinance of the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, State of California, 1916 (Berkeley, 1916) p. 1 47 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws,” p. 18 48 Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders, pp. 83, 84 49 Vose, p. 3 50 Berkeley City Planning Commission, Proposed Comprehensive Zone Ordinance For the City of Berkeley, California (Berkeley 1919) p. 5 51 Agreement Regulating Use and Occupancy of Property, 1929 52 Helen C. Monchow, The Use of Deed Restrictions in Subdivision Development (Chicago: The Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities, 1928) p. 46 53 Agreement Regulating Use and Occupancy of Property, 1929 54 Berkeley View Promotional Materials, 1935, Mason- McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18, file 22 55 Ibid. 56 Letter from Berkeley Mayor, 1935, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18 57 Ibid. 58 Letter to M.G. Reed, May 13 1948, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18 59 Arlington Manner Promotional Material, 1949, Mason- McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18 file, 14 60 Declaration of Restrictions, May 1948, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18, file 13 THE CONCORD REVIEW 91

61 The students had “negro” couples and white couples try to buy houses in neighborhoods dominated by the other race and published their findings, naming the study “Segregation: Professional Ethics of the Berkeley Realty Board.” This study can be found in the Berkeley Public Library, History Room, Real Estate Clippings Folder. 62 Committee on Discrimination in Housing, “Segregation: Professional Ethics of The Berkeley Realty Board” (Berkeley: Berkeley Law Students Democratic Club, 1961) p. 1

Bibliography

Abrams, Charles. Forbidden Neighbors A Study of Prejudice in Housing New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955 Agreement Regulating Use and Occupancy of Property, 1929, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18, folder 33 American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, “Duncan McDuffie Cornelius Amory Pugsley Silver Medal Award, 1928,” http://www.aapra.org/Pugsley/ McDuffieDuncan.html (accessed October 6, 2012) Berkeley City Planning Commission, Proposed Comprehensive Zone Ordinance For the City of Berkeley, California Berkeley 1919 Berkeley View Promotional Materials, 1935, Mason- McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18, file 22 Brooks, Richard R.W., and Carol M. Rose, “Racial Covenants and Segregation, Yesterday and Today,” The Joseph and Gwendolyn Straus Institute for the Advanced Study of Law and Justice New York: NYU School of Law, 2010 City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development, “Housing and Social Services,” City of Berkeley, http://www. ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Development/Home/West_ Berkeley_Housing_Social_Services.aspx (accessed October 15, 2012) City of Berkeley Housing and Community Services Department, “City of Berkeley Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice,” City of Berkeley, http://www.ci.berkeley. ca.us/uploadedFiles/Housing/Level_3_General/050610_2010 AnalysisofImpediments.pdf (accessed November 10, 2012) 92 Maya Tulip Lorey

Civic Art Commission, Districting Ordinance of the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, State of California, 1916 Berkeley, 1916 Claremont Park Development Promotional Pamphlet, 1905, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, volume 4: 11 Claremont Park Company Indenture, 1910, Index to documents recorded prior to 1969 at County of Alameda Clerk- Recorders Office, microfilm Committee on Discrimination in Housing, “Segregation: Professional Ethics of The Berkeley Realty Board,” Berkeley: Berkeley Law Students Democratic Club, 1961 Corporate History Guide to Mason-McDuffie Co. Records, 1904–1933, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley Declaration of Restrictions, May 1948, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18, file 13 Hegemann, Werner, Ph.D., Report On A City Plan For The Municipalities Of Oakland and Berkeley Berkeley: The Municipal Governments of Oakland and Berkeley, The Supervisors of Alameda County, The Chamber of Commerce and Commercial Club of Oakland, The Civic Art Commission of the City of Berkeley, and The City Club of Berkeley, 1915 Landauer, Susan, Elmer Bischoff: The Ethics of Paint Berkeley: University Of California Press, 2001 Letter from Berkeley Mayor, 1935, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 18 Mason McDuffie Company, Claremont: A Private Residence Park at Berkeley Berkeley, 1905 McDuffie, Duncan, “City Planning in Berkley,” Berkeley Civic Bulletin March 15, 1916 “McDuffie Lectures on Needs of City,” Berkeley Daily Gazette, March 25, 1914.microfilm Monchow, Helen C., The Use of Deed Restrictions in Subdivision Development Chicago: The Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities, 1928 Place School Indenture, 1912, Mason-McDuffie Co., Records, BANC MSS 89/12 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, container 19, folder 3 THE CONCORD REVIEW 93

Scott, Mel, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959 Weiss, Marc A., “Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of Berkeley,” Berkeley Planning Journal volume 3, issue 1, 1986 Weiss, Marc A., The Rise of the Community Builders New York: Columbia University Press, 1987 Wollenberg, Charles, Berkeley: A City in History Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008 Workers of the Writers’ Program of the Work Projects Administration in Northern California Co-Sponsors, Berkeley: The First Seventy-Five Years Berkeley: Gillick Press, 1941 Vose, Clement E., Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959

94 Maya Tulip Lorey

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CHARLES WARREN CENTER FOR STUDIES IN AMERICAN HISTORY Robinson Hall Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-6529 (617) 495-3591 4 May 1998

Will Fitzhugh Editor & Publisher The Concord Review Concord, Massachusetts 01742

Dear Will:

I often feel somewhat discouraged about the state of American education today. Signs of progress are hard to find, and many of the trends seem to be in just the wrong direction. But my gloomy mood lifts for a bit when I leaf through the pages of The Concord Review. There is excellence out there, and you are doing the nation a great service by cultivating it. I found your Winter 1996 issue, which I have just been thumbing through, outstanding, with fine essays on subjects as diverse as the Nazis’ efforts to suppress jazz, Thomas Jefferson’s views on slavery, President Eisenhower’s strategy for dealing with Senator McCarthy, and the Liberal Party in Colombia in the 1940s.

The level of thought and the quality of the writing are both very impressive indeed. It is splendid that you are providing exceptional high school students with the opportunity to publish writing on historical topics. I hope that you will be able to garner the support that you need to keep this invaluable publication going.

Sincerely yours, [signed] Stephan Thernstrom Winthrop Professor of History Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

The Roots of French Canadian Nationalism and The Quebec Separatist Movement

Iris Robbins-Larrivee

Abstract

Since Canada’s colonial era, relations between its Fran- cophones and its Anglophones have often been fraught with high tension. This tension has for the most part arisen from French discontent with what some deem a history of religious, social, and economic subjugation by the English Canadian majority. At the time of Confederation (1867), the French and the English were of almost-equal population; however, due to English dominance within the political and economic spheres, many settlers were as- similated into the English culture. Over time, the Francophones became isolated in the province of Quebec, creating a densely French mass in the midst of a burgeoning English society—this led to a Francophone passion for a distinct identity and unrelent- ing resistance to English assimilation. The path to separatism was a direct and intuitive one; it allowed French Canadians to assert their cultural identities and divergences from the ways of the Eng- lish majority. A deeper split between French and English values was visible before the country’s industrialization: agriculture, Ca-

Iris Robbins-Larrivee is a Senior at the King George Secondary School in Vancouver, British Columbia, where she wrote this as an independent study for Mr. Bruce Russell in the 2012/2013 academic year. 96 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

tholicism, and larger families were marked differences in French communities, which emphasized tradition and antimaterialism. These values were at odds with the more individualist, capitalist leanings of English Canada. Instead of fading in the face of urbanization, French Canadian nationalism grew more ardent; Francophone tradi- tion was the most threatened it had ever been. It was not until the Francophone majority began to take back the economy that separatism became prevalent in Quebec politics. The provincial Parti Québécois expressed a goal of “sovereignty-association”: es- sentially political separation with the maintenance of economic ties. The rise of separatist ideas culminated in the Quebec sovereignty referendums of 1980 and 1995—both resulted in relatively narrow victories for the anti-separatist side. In the 1995 referendum the “Non” side won by a margin of less than 1 percent.1 While recent support for Quebec independence seems to have dwindled due to increased immigration,2 the sovereigntist cause remains an important aspect of Quebec’s history and identity.

Pre-Confederation Francophone-Anglophone Relations British/French colonial tension abounded in North America for almost a century leading up to a French defeat in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759. In the years that followed, French-English relations in Canadian New France were primarily shaped by two acts passed by the British parliament: the Quebec Act of 1774 and the Constitutional Act of 1791.3 The Quebec Act guaranteed the religious freedom of Roman Catholics in Quebec and prolonged the use of the French Civil Code as the colony’s code of civil law.4 The Constitutional Act divided the colony of Quebec into two separate colonies—French Catholic Lower Canada and English Protestant Upper Canada5—and created representative assemblies in these colonies.6 This new arrangement established a British settlement within the territory and strengthened it against the threat of annexation by the United States.7 The division of Quebec sparked greater political tension between the French and the English; however, there was also an THE CONCORD REVIEW 97 acknowledged need for cooperation. Many Canadians believed that the role of the British lay in law, government and commerce, while that of the French lay in the preservation of religion, culture, and tradition. As is natural in colonial climates, however, animosity gradually eclipsed a desire for partnership, and British political dominance led Louis-Joseph Papineau and his patriote followers to express their discontent in the Rebellions of 1837.8 Papineau was of the belief that the French Canadian Catholic agricultural society was highly endangered by the commercial, Protestant ma- jority that commanded executive politics. The rebellions failed miserably, but the patriotes’ battle cry would continue to resonate wit French Canadian nationalists for a century.9 After the rebellions, the Earl of Durham was appointed Governor General and sent to investigate grievances in the colony. His main recommendations were a union of Upper and Lower Canada and a system of responsible government;10 in Durham’s system, Upper and Lower Canada would share power equally.11 Nevertheless, Durham showed a clear preference for English cul- ture, as evidenced by several excerpts from his report: I entertain no doubts as to the national character which must be given to Lower Canada; it must be that of the British Empire...There can hardly be conceived a nationality more destitute of all that can elevate and invigorate a people than that which is exhibited by the descen- dants of the French in Lower Canada, owing to their retaining their peculiar language and manners. They are a people with no history and no literature…I believe that tranquility can only be restored by subjecting the province to the vigorous rule of an English majority, and that the only efficacious government would be that formed by a legislative union…If the population of Upper Canada is rightly estimated at 400,000, the English inhabitants of Lower Canada at 150,000, and the French at 450,000, the union of the two Provinces would not only give a clear English majority, but one which would be increased every year by the influence of English emigration; and I have little doubt that the French, when once placed, by the legitimate course of events and the working of natural causes, in a minority, would abandon their vain hopes of nationality…12 The report worried Canadian leaders, igniting fear of assimila- tion by the British and causing a political deadlock that was not 98 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

broken until the creation of the province of Quebec in the 1867 Confederation.13

In 1840 the Act of Union was passed by the British Par- liament, joining Upper and Lower Canada in a single, unified Province of Canada. The new province had one government and one legislature and, in keeping with Durham’s belief in British character, Upper and Lower Canada were given an equal num- ber of seats in the new parliament—even considering the lower population of British Upper Canada. However, despite French underrepresentation, the Province’s two cultural entities remained virtually equal and separate parts of its political structure.14 Durham’s vision of responsible government was not formally enacted until 1847:15 the executive government of the Province of Canada became responsible to the elected represen- tatives in the House of Assembly.16 This system then spread to other eastern colonies—Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland—and was granted to the Western provinces as they materialized during Confederation.17 Responsible government was achieved by Francophone leaders L.H. LaFontaine and E. Parent, in cooperation with Upper Canadian reformers. Lafontaine and Parent led one of the two main political groups that emerged after the Act of Union; the group focused on the autonomy of French Canadian social, cultural and religious institutions. The other group, primarily comprised of young French Canadian nationalists, advocated the repeal of the Act of Union and the creation of a secular, autonomous and democratic Quebec nation-state. After responsible government was established, the group led by LaFontaine and Parent gradu- ally evolved into the Parti Bleu, which in turn became Canada’s Conservative Party.18 On July 1, 1867, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Province of Canada (then divided into Ontario and Quebec) united to form the Dominion of Canada; soon after joined by Manitoba, the North-West Territory, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island.19 On the day of Confederation, La Minerve, a lead- THE CONCORD REVIEW 99 ing French-language newspaper, proclaimed the distinct identity of Quebec:20 …we form a state within the state. We enjoy the full exercise of our rights and the formal recognition of our national independence as a distinct and separate nationality…21 While it is easy to assume that Confederation was a product of British interests meant to wipe out French culture, the Fathers of Confederation did not intend to create a culturally homogenous nation. The most iconic Father, John A. Macdonald, who would go on to become Canada’s first Prime Minister, believed that a stable nation could only be achieved if the French and English cultures existed in harmony. Macdonald wanted French Canada to be considered a nation within the Canadian nation, and for the rights of the Francophone minority to be protected. Lord Durham’s views were not to be institutionalized; George-Étienne Carrier, a French Canadian Father of Confederation, ensured that the new nation would be founded on basic principles of tolerance.22 In order for the new nation to achieve cultural duality, the union needed to be a federal one. Many French Canadians did not want to dispense with the secure representation they had attained after the Act of Union unless the new system would allow them effec- tive means of preserving their culture.23 During the years of the legislative union the two groups had been so tightly linked that clashes had inevitably occurred.24 The basis of Confederation, then, was that the survival of both cultures would be more readily achieved within one federal state than within a legislative union or through separate states.25 Around the time of Confederation, Quebec Francophone attitudes began to shift. With the renewal of Quebec’s culture, re- ligion and economy, and the increasing Francophone population even outside the province, came a new Quebecois confidence. This confidence, paired with widespread indignation over the struggles of Francophone minorities outside Quebec, triggered increased awareness and resentment of federal policies designed to stamp out French culture.26 100 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

The Beginnings of French-Canadian Nationalism French settlers in North America began calling themselves canadiens as early as the mid-18th century. They were not entirely French, nor were they North American—a new culture had been founded in the colony of New France. However, ties to the home- land were still strong, and as the French rose up in 1789, so did a wave of discontent among the settlers; the canadiens were not pleased with their nearly unconditional subjugation to the new British reign.27 Catholic Church leaders scrambled to retain their followers despite the Church’s having been annexed by an English Protestant empire in a process they called a providentiel conquest. The concept of this conquest and its effect of cutting the colony off from France became staples in French Canadian political thought.28 Despite their sympathetic response to the French Revolution, most canadiens better identified with the conservative, pious side of France;29 this divergence from the new values of their home- land suggests that their strict adherence to the Catholic Church was in part a method to distinguish themselves from British rule. By establishing a representative assembly in Lower Canada, the constitution of 1791—written three months before a new French constitution—erected a platform for nationalism in the colony. The French minority prevailed over the elected assembly, while the Anglophone majority dominated the executive posts and executive councils. Clashes between the two cultures were suddenly institutionalized.30 A concrete basis for nationalism was finally devised in the 1840s by Francois-Xavier Garneau. In his Histoire du Canada Gar- neau related the tale of French Canada’s past: pitted against the Amerindians and the British, the canadiens had finally prevailed to construct a new nation whose culture it was necessary to defend and preserve.31 But Garneau and many of his compatriots dif- fered on what in fact constituted the identity of this nation; while for many it was the Church, Garneau saw the Quebec character as fundamentally secular. Moreover, he disliked the clericalism that swept the land during this period—after 1840, the Church’s influence began to spread into Quebec institutions. The clergy’s THE CONCORD REVIEW 101 nationalists believed that the Church was crucial to nationalism and to the nation’s defense.32 This brand of the ideology would remain dominant up until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s: it was nationalism founded on ethnicity and religion, with little bear- ing on political or economic matters.33 The state was the Church’s instrument, the Church raised high and mighty.34

The Turn of the Twentieth Century A predominant symbol of Francophone misfortune around the time of Confederation can be found in the persecution of the Métis leader Louis Riel. The Métis (the name given to those of mixed European and Aboriginal heritage, mainly Catholic fran- cophones) settled in modern-day Manitoba during the days of the fur trade, and by the late 1860s the federal government began to resurvey this land without consideration for the settlement. Riel acted as spokesman for the grievances of the Métis people in 1869 and 1870, heading a Métis provisional government. In 1870, On- tario placed a $5,000 bounty on Riel’s head for his government’s execution of the Orangeman Thomas Scott, and Riel fled to the United States. Riel returned to the settlement in 1884, and in 1885 led a rebellion against Canadian westward expansion. Upon his defeat, Riel was sent to Regina to be tried for treason; he was found guilty and was executed by hanging.35 To this day the trial remains one of the most infamous events in Canadian history, and at the time of its occurrence it sparked great malice among Francophones who identified with the Métis’ struggles, causing increased tension between French and English Canadians. In 1896, Liberal leader Wilfrid Laurier was elected the first French-Canadian Prime Minister;36 however, this was far from a remedy for all Francophone ills. Around this time, the Manitoba Schools Question was an event that caused many French Canadians to resent federal leaders. The 1870 Manitoba Act had established a system of both Protestant and Catholic schooling, but after much Anglophone settlement in Manitoba during the 1870s and 1880s, Premier Thomas Greenway abolished funding for denominational schools in the province and replaced them with an English-language 102 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

public schooling system. In 1896, Greenway and Laurier made a compromise: denominational schooling would not be renewed, but Catholic teachers could be employed in schools with 40 or more Catholic children, and, if enough families put in requests, religious teaching could be allowed for half an hour a day. Many French Canadians were displeased with this compromise; they felt that Laurier, as a French Canadian, had failed to protect the rights of his people.37 The question of Canada’s participation in the South African Boer War, which occurred between 1899 and 1902, was certainly one of the most contentious issues of this period. English Cana- dians were largely in support of Canadian participation, wanting to support Mother Britain in her time of need; French Canadians felt no such desire, and often disliked British imperialism. Henri Bourassa, grandson of Louis-Joseph Papineau, emerged as the leader of Quebec opposition to the war.38 Prime Minister Laurier eventually made yet another compromise by sending a battalion of volunteers to take part; this contributed to his disfavor among Francophones.39 Bourassa returned to the spotlight during World War I when he headed the movement against conscription. Views re- garding WWI participation ran quite parallel to those regarding participation in the Boer War; the Anglophones’ feelings of duty to Britain far surpassed the Francophones’ feelings of duty to France.40 Bourassa originally expressed support for the war, but asserted soon after that the enemies of French Canadian culture were not the Germans but the “English-Canadian anglicisers, the Ontario intriguers, or Irish priests” who were endangering the future of French-language education in Anglophone provinces.41 Bourassa was referring to the Ontario Schools Question, another enormously polemical issue during the time period: the debate over Ontario’s Regulation 17, which limited French-language in- struction in the first two years of elementary school. This dispute added to the already fervid tension between Francophones and Anglophones that persisted during the War.42 THE CONCORD REVIEW 103 During the election of 1917, both Laurier and Conserva- tive PM Robert Borden used Bourassa as a symbol of extreme French Canadian nationalism; Borden’s government insisted that a Laurier government would truly be a Bourassa government, and because of this would withdraw all Canadian troops from the war.43 In 1918, due to inadequate manpower on the battlefront, Borden was finally forced to apply conscription.44 Henri Bourassa was in fact one of the most important figures in the development of French Canadian nationalism. He was a proponent of many classic French Catholic values, fearing industrialization and aspiring to prevent the Americanization of Canada. However, he opposed the sovereigntist ideas advocated by Lionel Groulx, preferring the concept of French autonomy under the Canadian roof.45 He expressed a dualistic vision for the country’s future, emphasizing the need for each group to respect- fully share the territory. A devout Catholic, Bourassa believed that such respect was willed by divine providence.46 However, Bourassa seemed less committed to his ideals of cohabitation when cultural groups other than French Canadians appeared to be receiving special treatment. During the controversy surrounding the Reci- procity Treaty with the U.S., he implied that Canada should not adopt the American standard of racial heterogeneity; he simply wanted a balance between the French and English populations. Bourassa called Canada’s immigration policy “criminal”: it al- lowed for “Galacians, Doukhobors, Scandinavians, Mormons, or Americans of all races” to settle in the prairies instead of French Canadians.47 Despite such beliefs, it should be noted that Henri Bourassa was not aggressive in his nationalism—his anti-imperialist views stemmed from a distaste for forced cultural assimilation, and he strove not to exemplify the intolerant principles he so disliked.48 Moreover, he firmly opposed nationalist extremism due to its similarity to imperialism.49 Despite his strong opposition to Brit- ish imperialist policies, Bourassa actually admired some aspects of the Empire: he believed that Britain was superior to the U.S. 104 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

in terms of cultural tolerance paired with political unity, pointing to the preservation of Irish culture.50 Bourassa was the founding editor of Le Devoir, a highly influential newspaper that was responsible for much dissemina- tion of nationalistic ideas among Quebec Francophones. In Le Devoir he declared his three primary aims: Canadian autonomy within the British Empire, provincial autonomy within Canada, and the equality of the nation’s French and English cultures. Early on, the journal’s overarching motives were always Catholic in nature, promoting the Church’s role in health, education, and welfare.51 Bourassa consistently placed his Catholicism before his nationalism,52 but Le Devoir would eventually come to have a stance inverse to this. Lionel Groulx is yet another crucial name to the national- ist cause. Groulx, a prominent Quebec priest and historian, was greatly angered by the Ontario Schools Question and Canada’s participation in WWI, and worried that the French language was gradually disappearing along with the rise of industry. While his views are often characterized as separatist, Groulx disliked using the word “separatism” and denied all his life that he held such an ideology; he did, however, consider the idea of an autonomous French Canadian nation-state.53 Groulx believed strongly in the upholding of French Catholic religious values, and, like Bourassa, spent his life advocating their preservation. Groulx saw religion as interwoven into the fabric of nationalism—ironically, this doctrine was integral to the eventual dilution of the ideology’s religious mission. When its traditional pious constraints were abandoned, nationalism became secular, giving rise to a new outlook that took intellectual precedence around the time of the Quiet Revolution (explained later).54 From 1920 to 1928, Groulx edited the monthly journal L’Action française, and led a nationalist group of the same name. In L’Action française, Groulx emphasized the survival of French Catholic culture in an urban, industrial, mainly Anglo-Saxon na- tion. In the 1930s, L’Action française progressed into the journal L’Action nationale—this new journal’s contributors believed that the THE CONCORD REVIEW 105 Great Depression was a direct result of excessive industry fostered by American capitalism and encouraged by an overly-generous Quebec government.55 This view found support in many young intellectuals living in the province’s cities who witnessed firsthand the Francophones’ socioeconomic subjugation—it would play an integral role in the spawning of the neo-nationalist movement.56 Indeed, WWI had created closer economic ties between Canada and the United States, and by the start of the Jazz Age Quebec was well on its way to becoming an entirely urban, indus- trial province. However, the Quebecois’ cultural identity was still rooted in agriculture, and as the province’s natural resources became more and more tightly controlled by the mainly-English Montreal business elite, the Francophones were further alienated from not only the Anglophones but also the country as a whole.57

The Duplessis Era The Great Depression hit the province hard—by 1933, 33 percent of Montreal’s population was unemployed58—and expo- nentially increased the fervor of Francophone hatred for English business domination. The Depression brought out great desire for reform in Quebec Francophones: many advocated governmental support for French-speaking entrepreneurs, the establishment of co-operatives, corporate regulation, and the nationalization of Anglophone hydroelectric companies, among other things. It was becoming very clear that the English-speaking population was calling the socioeconomic shots within the mainly-Francophone province; many Francophones believed that immediate measures were necessary to allow Quebec’s French-speaking population to reclaim its own economy and tradition.59 It was then that Maurice Duplessis took the reins, seizing the opportunity that the dismal economy allowed. Duplessis, the leader and founder of the Union Nationale, was elected Premier in 1936, making scores of spectacular promises: he would preserve the French language and the Roman Catholic Church, he would improve factory working conditions, he would find great new markets for the farmers’ products…of course one man could 106 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

not, and did not, achieve such a wide range of accomplishments. Instead, Duplessis began his incumbency by enacting the “Padlock Law,” which was created to combat “subversive groups” such as the Communist Party and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and effectively gave Duplessis the power to override any group that opposed his leadership. While many despised the Duplessis era (left-leaning groups termed it “le grand noirceur,” or “the great darkness”), his strong alliance with the Catholic Church allowed him to spend two decades in power.60 At the start of World War II, Canada’s Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, promised that he would not implement overseas conscription.61 His French Canadian lieutenant, Ernest Lapointe, made the same promise62—this won French Canadian support, however begrudging, for participation in WWII. During Quebec’s 1939 election, Lapointe made a threat to Quebec Francophones: if they failed to oust Duplessis, he and his French Canadian co-workers would resign and leave federal power in the hands of the conscriptionist Conservative Party.63 In this way, Lapointe won the 1939 provincial election, and long after his win Quebec remained a stronghold for the federal Liberals.64 By 1940, there was a pressing need for manpower—France had fallen and Canada was running low on troops. No doubt afraid of the Francophone wrath, PM King decided to hold a plebiscite in which Canadians would respond to the question of conscription. In preparation for the plebiscite, a great movement spawned within French Canadian nationalist groups; through La Ligue pour la Défense du Canada, they campaigned for a vote against conscription.65 It is interesting to note that this group was called The League for the Defense of Canada, not The League for the Defense of French Canada. They chose to avoid the temptation of citing Francophone subjugation, instead stressing the benefits of their cause for the whole country.66 The results of the 1942 plebiscite can therefore be viewed either positively, as 80 percent of Franco- phones voted “No”; or negatively, as almost an equal percentage of Anglophones voted “Yes.” Canada was yet again divided. After the country’s split decision, King famously proclaimed that there THE CONCORD REVIEW 107 would be “conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscrip- tion.” He was able to avoid employing conscription until late 1944, when numerous Cabinet ministers and military officers goaded him into consenting to send out 16,000 conscripts. French Canada was livid, and riots broke out in Quebec; many Francophones felt this was a sign of their gross underrepresentation.67 Maurice Duplessis regained power in 1944 and retained it until his death in 1959. During this time, he focused on abetting American investment in the Quebec economy and rejecting all aspects of federalism in an attempt to create a more autonomous province.68 In the postwar period, the federal government un- dertook the creation of a welfare state; the mainly-Anglophone federal politicians insisted that the government needed to entirely control taxation in order to protect economic development and provide for the cost of social programs. Quebec’s French national- ist contingent pressured Duplessis to reject such ideas, refusing to accept the federalist system of centralized wealth.69

The Citélibristes and a New Nationalism

A younger generation of French Canadian nationalists was not at all satisfied with Duplessis’ measures against the wel- fare state. These widely secular, middle-class “neo-nationalists” believed that French Canada’s natural resources needed to be developed for the benefit of French Canada itself, which would instigate the development of a sound Francophone bourgeoisie. The neo-nationalists proposed that Quebec fully revamp its edu- cation system and create its own independent social programs.70 They stressed the preservation of provincial autonomy, and, in pursuit of this, rejected the rise of federal welfare. The neo-nationalists were to find rivals in the founders of a new movement. The periodical Cité libre was established in 1950 by a group of young Francophones led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Gerard Pelletier. 71 A main point in its founders’ ideology was a rejection of clericalism, which at the time manifested itself both institutionally and culturally in Quebec. Intellectual life in the province was heavily influenced by religious dogmatism, and many 108 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

secular institutions were directly controlled by the church.72 The reason for the institutional aspect of the Church’s domination was its incredible wealth of resources, both human and monetary: it possessed much of Quebec’s real estate, as well as many universities, churches, hospitals, and other crucial establishments. Because it held such immense capital, the Catholic Church provided a great deal of the province’s social and educational welfare.73 It was in fact argued by the Citélibristes that the industrialization of the province had only augmented the clergy’s influence, as its members consti- tuted the only educated group able to provide such funding, which was increasingly necessary.74 The Citélibristes were not in opposition to the Catholic Church; rather, they sought to address its declining adherence to the religious mission and its threatening effects on social democracy. They advocated the sociological casting-off of fear- and guilt-based ecclesiastical conceptions in favor of a belief system based on that of the French Catholic personalists—a human- istic devotion to individual liberty.75 Encouraged by its historical power, the Catholic Church censored all secular commentary on the institutions it managed,76 and Catholic laymen were treated as irrelevant to its decision-making processes77—the Citélibristes rejected such behavior, believing that the province’s institutions belonged to all of its people78 and the Church belonged to all of its adherents.79 Non-Catholic French Canadians were shunned by their Catholic counterparts; the Church was such a deep-seated element of Quebec’s identity that it was also seen as fundamental to the personal identities of its people.80 This was one of the central issues that prompted the founders of Cité libre to call for greater religious freedom in the province. The periodical’s creators adamantly opposed the tra- ditional ideology of French Canadian nationalism, believing it anachronistic—a temporal rift had formed between the province’s social and cultural realities and the bourgeois, idealistic nationalist ideology that had reigned for centuries both under and within the province’s clergy.81 Contributors to Cité libre were of the opinion that French Canadian nationalism had created an image of French Canada based mainly on comparison with other cultures, and that this had caused lags in the group’s intellectual and democratic THE CONCORD REVIEW 109 development.82 The ideology placed too much emphasis on col- lective values—undermining the crucial freedoms of belief and expression—and overlooked the interests of vulnerable groups. The Duplessis government perfectly embodied the detrimental aspects of nationalistic ideas.83 While the neo-nationalists advocated an interventionist system in order to ensure the Francophones’ economic survival,84 the Citélibristes championed the same cause for the benefit of all ethnic groups.85 The Citélibristes did hold as a final goal the heightened representation of the Francophone majority, but this was out of democratic spirit, not nationalistic pride; they believed that the nationalists were gravely wrong to overlook the primacy of the individual.86 In opposition to both ideals were, of course, the traditional nationalists, who espoused the notion that new levels of economic intervention would only produce undesirable similari- ties to the secular materialism of the Anglophone provinces.87 The Duplessis government created the Tremblay Commission to assess Quebec’s role in constitutional matters; the commission’s 1956 report returned a prescription that federal welfare be limited.88

Changing Values As Quebec became more urban and industrial, Allophones (native speakers of neither French nor English) poured into the province, and along with these drastic socioeconomic changes came the Francophones’ acknowledgment that their rural, Catholic past had vanished permanently.89 Post-World War II economic growth gave way to a new elite that called for a departure from the tradi- tional Catholic values still prevalent among the populace. Many of Quebec’s citizens disparaged government involvement in social and educational issues and minimized the value of scientific and economic progress—they even continued to reject birth control. As members of the new secular elite, a group of professors at the Université de Montréal embarked on a mission of historical revi- sionism; Maurice Séguin, Guy Frégault, and Michel Brunet set out to challenge the popular conception that the Church had been integral to New France and its defense after the British conquest.90 110 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

They instead suggested that New France had been dominated by its bourgeoisie, which was destroyed in the British conquest when British merchants took over the colony’s commerce. This meant that the canadiens were forced into rural life, that they had not chosen the lifestyle in accordance with Catholic values.91 The professors argued that what protected the French Canadians’ distinction after the conquest, was not the Church, but the sei- gneurial system92 and a high birth rate. The Church had actually further contributed to British economic dominance by praising ruralism while denouncing commerce and state intervention. Séguin, Frégault, and Brunet were among the many who wanted government policy to promote the establishment of a new Fran- cophone business class. They also wanted Quebec to be granted a “special status”—this implied a desire for independence, and Séguin explicitly stated this in a book called L’idee de l’independance au Québec (1968), in which he expounded his theory of “associate states,” a precursor to sovereignty-association.93 As Canada swelled with national pride due to its achieve- ments in World War II, French Canadian society was striving for a new, yet still distinct identity marked by autonomy and self-suf- ficiency; this created a milieu in which resource- and job-related conflict flourished. In addition, new immigrants were being im- mediately assimilated into the English-speaking world instead of that of the French-speaking majority, and so the issue of language was inevitably contentious.94 In February of 1949, Duplessis sent police to break an ille- gal strike in Asbestos, Quebec, by 5,000 asbestos miners, members of the Canadian Catholic Association of Labour. When the strike spread to other mines, ultimately cutting off Quebec’s asbestos industry for four months, Duplessis and his government gave the strikers such labels as “communists” and “saboteurs”; the premier referred to the strike as “an admitted attempt, encouraged from outside, to challenge and break the State’s authority.” Opposing Duplessis was a group of intellectuals and progressive Catholics, including union leader Jean Marchand, Archbishop of Montreal Joseph Charbonneau, and a young Pierre Trudeau. In retaliation THE CONCORD REVIEW 111 against these opponents, Duplessis used his influence within the Catholic Church to have Charbonneau removed from office. Trudeau, in Cité Libre, denounced Duplessis and spoke out in sup- port of the strikers;95 this strike triggered much of the journal’s decrying of nationalist values.96 The asbestos miners went on strike demanding a 15-cent- an-hour raise, two weeks of paid holidays, paid statutory holidays, a grievance system, and the implementation of a method to suppress the mine’s asbestos dust (lung-related death and infant mortality were twice the national average). In response, the John-Mansville Company gave its employees a 5-cent-an-hour raise, two more paid holidays and a slightly-improved vacation package.97 The miners, of course, were almost all Francophones, and for many the strike came to represent the widening economic chasm between Quebec’s French and English Canadian commu- nities.98 Miriam Chapin provides a compelling description of this chasm in her 1955 book Quebec Now: About a fifth of Quebec is English-speaking…In Montreal, English Canadians live in their own towns, encysted within the great French city, diving into it each morning to earn their bread and Scotch, returning at night to the lawns and pure-bred dogs, the tree-lined streets and bridge-tables of Suburbia. French and English…have lived side by side for 300 years without knowing each other, and have now arrived at a reasonably comfortable co-existence by remaining as ignorant as possible of each other’s thoughts. …les Anglais are strangers in the land, strangers who own the industry, who hold the best jobs, who control the government, who think they are being democratic if they bestow an occasional pat on a French artist, or take a wealthy French Canadian on some committee or board of directors.99 By this time, it was clear that a dramatic shift had taken place in Quebec’s human geography; in the 1880s, 73 percent of the province’s population had resided in the countryside, and by 1951 67 percent lived in cities, with 34 percent of the total population condensed in Montreal. In 1971, the census would indicate even further industrialization, describing the province’s population as 112 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

follows: rural farm, 6 percent, rural non-farm, 16 percent, urban, 78 percent.100 Jean Drapeau, who served as mayor of Montreal from 1954 to 1957 and again from 1960 to 1986,101 said in 1959 that the areas available to Francophone workers were limited to “agriculture, small-scale manufacturing, a small portion of banking, of retail trade and of construction.” The rest of the French Canadians, he stated, were “more and more employees…of large English- Canadian, English and American companies.”102 As the 1960s approached, the tension between Quebec Francophones and Quebec Anglophones reached its boiling point—as the rise of industry caused widespread assimilation of French language and culture into those of the English, dissent grew within the Francophone population. The most common explanation for the coming of the Quiet Revolution is the emergence of a new Francophone middle class borne of the province’s modernization—members of this class dismissed the traditional French Canadian professions in medicine, law, and the Church, opting instead for careers in business, engineering, and the social sciences. The constituents of the new urban middle class, as well as many in the traditional fields, found that to climb the career ladder it was necessary to adopt Anglophone customs; the higher they climbed, the more they were forced to abandon their Frenchness. It was discontent with this phenomenon that spawned the movement for greater state intervention; the provincial government was the only entity both capable of exercising and willing to exercise Francophone control over the changing society. Members of the new middle class often believed that this control would be most easily attained through increased social welfare, new educational opportunities, and improved labor laws.103 French Canadians had traditionally viewed the state with suspicion; they associated it with English dominance and saw it as a threat to the Catholic Church. But as the Church’s role became increasingly concentrated in the secular field and the economy was annexed by the Anglophone business elite, it was no longer possible THE CONCORD REVIEW 113 to protect Francophone culture merely through the preservation of the French language and the Catholic religion—the problem was deeply entrenched in the province’s rigid socioeconomic structure. The 1960 election saw the emergence of a leader whose policies drew from the shift in Francophone attitude; the Liberal Party’s Jean Lesage came into power intending to take back the social and economic autonomy of the French-speaking majority.104

The Quiet Revolution The Lesage government made changes that echoed the neo-nationalists’ vision; it expanded the public education system as well as the public economic sector, and cleaned up corrupt policies left over from le grand noirceur. René Lévesque, Lesage’s minister of natural resources and a soon-to-be-formidable public figure in the eyes of Quebec’s citizens, oversaw one of the province’s most pivotal developments: the creation of Hydro-Québec. Hydro- Québec was created in order to nationalize the province’s electrical power; the largest privately-owned electric utility companies were bought out in order to do this, and for many the new corporation symbolized French Canada’s control of its own economy. It became one of the largest Crown corporations in North America and an immense source of pride for many French Canadians—within the new corporation, Francophones could speak entirely in French and develop their scientific and technical skills.105 In 1962, Lesage campaigned using the slogan “Maîtres chez nous” (Masters in our own house). This approach was highly successful, illustrating that while Duplessis had brought national- ism into disrepute among intellectuals, he had not killed it in the general population. Lesage appealed to Quebec’s citizens using the same ideological tactics once employed by Duplessis; the survival of French Canada was to be ensured at all costs. The difference was one of means; the end remained intact.106 In the same year an editorial entitled “Pour une Enquête sur le Bilingualisme” was published in Le Devoir. The editorial was signed by a prominent journalist named André Laurendeau, and proposed three courses of action to research a bilingualism policy 114 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

for Canada. The investigation would set out to discover policies of bilingualism in other countries, examine the prevalence of bilin- gualism in the federal public service, and determine Canadians’ take on the issue.107 This proposal appeared in a turbulent context: the province had reached new levels of unrest. Starting in 1963, bombs were set off in Montreal mail boxes by the separatist Front de la Libération du Québec, which was drawing support from university students.108 It is therefore not shocking that the federal Liberal Party seized the opportunity to appeal to the Quebec population. In 1963, a royal commission on Bilingualism and Bicul- turalism was established to encourage cultural dualism in Canada as a whole, and, in Quebec, to address the grievances of many Francophones regarding their facilities of cultural expression.109 André Laurendeau was appointed co-chairman.110 Laurendeau was an active player in Quebec’s political and intellectual scenes; in addition to his work with Le Devoir, he had also written for L’Action nationale, led La Ligue pour la Défense du Canada, and formed a nationalist party called the Bloc Populaire.111 As an editor for Le Devoir around the time of the Quiet Revolution, he had provided staunch opposition to Duplessis’ Union Nationale, underlining Quebec’s lack of political autonomy; his philosophy was often reflected in the reforms brought forward by Jean Les- age’s Liberal Party.112 The B and B Commission investigated bilingualism in the areas previously mentioned, as well as in other aspects including the existing opportunities for bilingualism in English and French and the role of public and private organizations in improving cultural relations.113 Among other things, it recommended the creation of a federal civil service and widespread French-language education throughout the country.114 Despite what seemed like a step in their preferred direction, many Francophones were dis- satisfied with the commission, believing that it was being used to brush off more pressing political issues. Anglophones all over the country were dissatisfied for a different reason: they thought that the French language was being forced on Canada’s Anglophone citizens. In spite of such protests, the commission was responsible THE CONCORD REVIEW 115 for a momentous, if only symbolic, decision regarding the preser- vation of Canadian biculturalism: in 1969 the Official Languages Act established French and English as the country’s two official languages.115 After the 1965 federal election, PM Lester Pearson invited a group of prominent federalist intellectuals, including Pierre Trudeau, to join his Liberal government; after Pearson’s resigna- tion in 1968, Trudeau was chosen as his successor.116 The Canadian population reacted rapturously to Pierre Trudeau—something in his public image prompted a general excitement that gave him great longevity as a prime minister.117 Despite Trudeau’s French Canadian heritage, he was a firm opponent of Quebec separatism, and throughout his career he strove unrelentingly to preserve Canada’s unified status.118 In the same year Trudeau was elected, René Lévesque consolidated all of the province’s non-violent separatist parties to form the Parti Québécois.119 Lévesque and Trudeau would soon be the leading figures in the conflict between separatism and federal- ism. There were some areas in which the two politicians agreed: they both acknowledged that Quebec’s future status needed to be decided through democratic means, and that the time for the decision was fast approaching. Neither leader attached much importance to the concept of Quebec’s “special status”—it was simply a question of whether the province would achieve equality within Canada or through the founding of a sovereign state.120 Pierre Trudeau envisaged a pluralistic nation in which French and English Canada would cooperate to honor and pro- tect both of their cultures.121 The Asbestos strike, as mentioned earlier, augmented his disdain for nationalism and his support for the union movement—he was known as one of the harshest critics of nationalist thinking.122 In Trudeau’s view, French Cana- dian nationalism had come as a result of an unaccommodating federal system; the answer was a federalism revamped to better sustain the Francophone minority. He opposed the nationalist ideology because it glorified ethnic homogeneity, instead prefer- ring a model in which each ethnic group remained distinct and 116 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

of equal value. This was the most fundamental area in which he and Lévesque differed.123 When Lévesque worked with the Lesage government, he was greatly dissatisfied by the overwhelming dominance of the Anglophone business elite and the stringency of the federal structure. During these years, he became convinced that Quebec would be able to govern itself more effectively than would its fed- eral representatives. Lévesque, however, chose to call himself not a nationalist or a separatist but a souveraintiste—this implies a certain level of moderation in his beliefs.124 Unlike many neo-nationalists, he granted that Francophones were not oppressed in a colonial manner,125 and in 1976 went so far as to say that “undoubtedly French Quebec was (and remains to this day) the least ill-treated of all colonies in the world.”126 Lévesque was also a supporter of the Anglophone right to use English, although he did not feel that in Quebec this right was equal to the Francophone right to use French.127 Trudeau and Lévesque were both crusaders for French Canadian rights, but they chose to go about their crusades in very different ways. Their conflicting viewpoints established a political basis for decades of conflict over the question of Quebec independence.

The 1970s–1980s By the Quebec provincial election in April of 1970, the is- sues of language and a foundering economy were at the forefront of voters’ minds. Liberal leader Robert Bourassa (no relation to Henri) won the election by promising the creation of thousands of jobs and augmenting workers’ fears of a win for the Parti Québécois. The PQ won only six of 108 seats in the National Assembly—for many, this illustrated that separatism was not feasible in the world of politics.128 On October 5, 1970, one of the gravest crises in Quebec’s history began to unfold. Members of the Front de la Libération du Québec (FLQ) kidnapped the British diplomat James Cross, issuing a manifesto and a list of demands.129 The FLQ’s central demand THE CONCORD REVIEW 117 was the creation of a sovereign Quebec; other demands included the publishing of the manifesto, the name of an informer, $500,000 in gold, the release of their previously-jailed members, and the transport of themselves (the kidnappers) and the released mem- bers to Cuba. After the kidnapping of Cross, another FLQ group kidnapped Quebec’s Labour Minister, Pierre Laporte.130 Trudeau initially responded to the crisis by summoning the army to patrol the streets of Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City. On October 16, he invoked the War Measures Act, thereby suspending the civil liberties of any and all suspicious individuals.131 Parti Québécois leaders opposed this federal intervention, wanting instead a solution decided by the province itself. In rejecting all outside interference, the PQ reintroduced the common theme of Ottawa vs. Quebec, going so far as to object to Ontario Premier John Robarts’ condemnation of the FLQ’s terrorist strategies. Though the PQ renounced all federal influence, the federal government was constitutionally obligated to play a part in judicial matters such as the release of prisoners or the invoking of the War Mea- sures Act. It could be argued that the PQ’s morphing of the crisis into an Ottawa/Quebec war only served the FLQ’s wishes—their main theme, after all, was subversion of the federal powers that be. In fact, the PQ never criticized the FLQ outright—this was likely because many of the students promoting the FLQ were PQ members or supporters. The PQ did not fully advise the FLQ to release Cross and Laporte until October 16, 11 days after Cross’s kidnapping and six days after Laporte’s.132 On October 17, Pierre Laporte’s body was discovered,133 and months later James Cross was finally released.134 The province was shocked by this sudden outburst of violent separatism; at the same time, many Quebec nationalists disliked the measures taken by the federal government, believing them too extreme.135 The FLQ was mainly composed of young, socially-margin- alized citizens seeking political acknowledgement.136 Their tactics were in many ways clumsy and juvenile, and their manifesto car- ried more shock value than real political meaning.137 The FLQ’s slogan, “L’independance ou la mort,” seemed to be thrown out the 118 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

window when its members were in real danger—instead of flee- ing to Cuba or the U.S., they remained in Montreal, and when captured they chose to be tried under the same Canadian justice system that they had previously claimed to despise.138 The FLQ did not focus on the preservation of French language or culture in the province;139 they preferred their own brand of belligerent, reckless separatism. They seemed to believe that their methods allowed them to assert their opinions to an extent that could not be achieved without violence, and these opinions often led back to a desire for assertion in itself. In many ways, the FLQ illustrates the patterns of separatist ideological development during the period, and, some may say, common patterns of separatist think- ing in general. While not all separatism has violent aspirations, the ideology does stem from a desire for recognition that is often more rooted in passion than in political logic. This, however, did not keep the secessionists from enter- ing government. The Parti Québécois was elected in 1976, still led by René Lévesque, and immediately got to work on its plans for achieving independence. The party also focused on language legislation; there was great pressure on the PQ to make French the dominant language in the workplace, but of course this was no small feat.140 In 1974 Bourassa’s Liberal government had implemented Bill 22, which designated French as the province’s official language and declared that all immigrants were to be enrolled in French- language schools. Anglophones and Allophones were angered by this impediment to their freedom of choice; at the same time, to many Francophones the bill was too replete with loopholes that allowed citizens to avoid use of the French language.141 In 1977 the PQ passed Bill 101, called the Charter of the French Language; this bill made French Quebec’s sole official language, planned the spread of French as the dominant language of work, and proclaimed that all immigrants entering Quebec from other parts of Canada would be obligated to enroll their children in French-language schools.142 The bill declared French the only visible language of Quebec—not only would French be THE CONCORD REVIEW 119 dominant in the workplace, but it would be used on all billboards, menus, and business signs. Bill 101 was one of the largest sources of Francophone-Anglophone tension in decades; in fact, after its implementation much of Quebec’s Anglophone population began to move west.143 The bill was not phased out entirely until 1988.144 The PQ had promised that any decision regarding the province’s separation would not be unilateral—a referendum would first be conducted to assess popular wishes. On May 20, 1980, a referendum was held asking Quebec’s citizens for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association with the federal government:145 The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad— in other words, sovereignty—and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?146 The concept of sovereignty-association is best illustrated by a White Paper introduced by the National Assembly in 1979. In the event of a sovereign Quebec, the paper proposed a customs union and a monetary union between Quebec and Canada—the two nations would enforce identical customs duties and Quebec would keep the Canadian dollar. The two nations would align their economic policies to meet each other’s interests; Quebecers working for Canada’s civil service would be given similar work in Quebec; and all Quebecers who were Canadian citizens would become those of Quebec, with the option to keep their Canadian citizenships if Canada allowed it.147 One issue important in deciding the province’s future was that of oil prices—in 1979 the price of crude oil doubled within weeks, and Quebec was among the provinces being subsidized to even out the prices across Canada. Therefore, during the 1980 referendum campaign it was a known fact that if Quebec separated it would be saddled with higher oil prices.148 120 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

The voting turnout was the largest for any political vote in Quebec’s history;149 emotions ran high as the province faced a crucial decision. Despite huge gains for the separatists during this period, 59.56 percent of voters were on the Non side;150 this was partly due to Prime Minister Trudeau’s statement six days before the referendum that a win for the Nons would result in a renewal of the Constitution.151 Another crucial reason for the PQ’s failure to achieve sup- port for independence was its great success in modernizing the Quebec economy. Jacques Parizeau, the PQ’s Minister of Finance, had brought enough economic stability to calm the unions and assuage the fears of the business elite—or so the party thought.152 Instead, the policies’ effectiveness backfired by making the drastic change of sovereignty seem increasingly unnecessary and destabiliz- ing. Francophones received more advanced education, went into business, and drew in larger incomes—Quebec’s French-speaking citizens had finally taken back the province’s economy.153 To maintain some control over the promised constitutional amendments, Quebec’s National Assembly passed a resolution outlining its conditions for the new provisions that would come as a result of constitutional patriation. The amending formula, in order to be accepted by the province, needed either to maintain Quebec’s right of veto or to uphold the provision in the 1981 Constitutional Accord whereby the province’s powers or rights would be diminished, but it would be entitled to “reasonable and obligatory compensation.” Because Quebec already had a Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the National Assembly wanted to limit the content of the federal Charter to the following points: democratic rights; the use of both French and English in govern- ment; gender equality and fundamental freedoms “provided the National Assembly retain[ed] the power to legislate in matters under its own jurisdiction”; and guarantees for the education of English and French minorities provided Quebec was able to comply voluntarily. The new constitution would also need to recognize the equality of Canada’s founding peoples and Quebec’s status as a “distinct society.” In addition, the National Assembly requested THE CONCORD REVIEW 121 that the provinces receive the right to equalization and greater control over their own natural resources.154 In 1982, the Trudeau government succeeded in patriat- ing the Constitution from Great Britain. The Constitution Act of 1982 was approved by all of Canada’s provinces besides Que- bec155—both the Supreme Court of Canada and Quebec’s Court of Appeal had ruled that the province had no right to a veto, and Quebec’s veto power was seen as vital to the preservation of its French Canadian culture.156 Quebec’s refusal to sign the docu- ment intensified French-English animosity within Quebec and throughout all of Canada. Robert Bourassa’s Liberal government was re-elected in 1985 with plans to discuss Quebec’s signing the Constitution Act under new conditions. Bourassa had five demands: recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society,” a veto over all constitutional amend- ments, the right to opt out of certain federal programs, input into the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and increased power over immigration. Brian Mulroney, Canada’s new Conservative Prime Minister, began to negotiate a federal accord in an attempt to reconcile with the Quebec leadership.157

The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords The Meech Lake Accord was discussed by Canada’s premiers at the Prime Minster’s official cottage residence on Meech Lake.158 Since Quebec’s proposal mentioned benefits for all provinces, all of the provinces initially agreed to this proposal, citing measures of “juridical equality.” However, as time progressed the Accord would fail to meet the country’s universal standards. The Meech Lake Accord recognized Quebec as a “distinct society” within Canada159 but, in addition, acknowledged the prov- ince’s Anglophone minority as fundamental to the country.160 The Accord also recognized as fundamental the Francophone minority outside Quebec. It declared that the provinces could opt out of social programs that fell under provincial jurisdiction, provided they established independent goals compatible with those of the whole country. This was relevant because for years the federal 122 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

government, which funded such programs, had been placing conditions on this funding, sparking provincial grievances. The Ac- cord allowed the provinces joint jurisdiction over immigration and constitutionalized annual First Minsters’ meetings (conferences among the premiers and the Prime Minister). It also established a new list of special constitutional matters for which amendments could only be made with the unanimous consent of Parliament and all provincial legislatures.161 Under the Constitution Act of 1982, in order to become law the Meech Lake Accord needed to be ratified by Parliament and the legislatures of all the provinces. Quebec’s National Assembly was the first provincial legislature to approve the Accord, passing its resolution on June 23, 1987; the Accord needed unanimous approval on or before June 23, 1990. All first minsters agreed to ratify the Accord in early June of 1990, on the promise that further discussion would occur regarding the Constitution. On the final date, the Accord’s ratification process fell apart: one member of Manitoba’s legislature, Elijah Harper, did not consent to the Ac- cord and the province never conducted a vote on the issue. To give Manitoba time, the federal minister concerned with federal- provincial relations suggested that the date be extended by three months, which would require Quebec to re-ratify. The premier of Newfoundland was unhappy with this suggestion, and did not bring the Accord to a vote in his province’s legislature—this struck the final blow to defeat the Accord.162 When the Accord was defeated, an immense crisis broke out in Quebec, with French Canadian nationalists using Canada’s Anglophone population as a scapegoat for the Accord’s demise. The tension only increased when Mulroney and Bourassa decided to use this notion of Anglophone betrayal in order to persuade Canada to accept a new version of the Accord.163 Bourassa told the Quebec Liberals’ constitutional com- mittee to create a new constitutional plan—this plan, called the Allaire Report, called for a great re-delegation of powers that would put more weight on the provinces. In addition, he estab- lished the bipartisan Bélanger-Campeau commission; however, THE CONCORD REVIEW 123 this commission was swiftly dominated by separatist forces such as the Parti Québécois. The commission recommended that a refer- endum be held immediately regarding Quebec’s possible future as a sovereign nation; Bourassa allowed the National Assembly to pass Bill 150, which set the referendum date for October 1992. The referendum would either ask the question of independence outright or propose the idea of new constitutional amendments. There was a period in which the federal government established various committees to assess public opinion and propose reform, ultimately resulting in the creation of a federal document called “A Renewed Canada.”164 In 1992 a proposal package was discussed by the provinces (not including Quebec), the federal government, the territories, and the Aboriginal leaders; afterwards, the package was sent to Quebec. Later in the year, Quebec entered negotiations at a national conference in Ottawa, and eventually all of the leaders agreed on a set of constitutional amendments known as the Charlottetown Accord. Like the Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord was constitutionally required to be ratified by Parliament and all provincial legislatures; also, in accordance with Bill 150 a national referendum was held on the subject. The referendum question was as follows: “Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?”165 To achieve approval, the Accord needed both a majority of national votes and a majority of votes in each province. During the referendum campaign, a clear split became visible: the “Yes” side was supported by the federal Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party of Canada, and the New Democratic Party, while the “No” side was supported by the Parti Québécois, Quebec separatists, the federal Bloc Québécois, and the federal West-oriented Reform Party. All provincial and territorial leaders joined the “Yes” group, as did many women’s, business, and First Nations leaders. Public opinion on the Charlottetown deal started out favorable, but as the referendum date approached, the “Yes” side began to lose ground.166 The Quebec secessionist leaders on the “No” side, Lucien 124 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau, turned the tides in their favor by contending that the Charlottetown Accord offered less benefits to citizens than did Meech Lake, and that Aboriginal groups were being allowed a type of sovereignty-association—the same system Quebec was continually denied.167 Another driving force behind “No” support may have been the fact of PM Mulroney’s general unpopularity. Moreover, many critics denounced the Accord as elitist, and Pierre Trudeau spoke out against it, saying that it would cause the disintegration of Canada’s federal powers.168 Ultimately, the requirements for the Charlottetown Ac- cord’s approval were far from reached; 54.4 percent voted “No,” as did a majority in six of the 10 provinces. After this shattering defeat, Mulroney was forced to step down and Bourassa left politics permanently. English and French Canadians were more divided than they had ever been since the WWI conscription crisis. The Bloc Québécois, led by Bouchard, won 54 of Quebec’s 75 seats, trouncing the Tories as well as the province’s Liberal past.169

The 1995 Referendum

In 1994, Parizeau’s Parti Québécois defeated the Quebec Liberals, even using the campaign promise of a new sovereignty referendum within a year. Despite this, it became evident that Quebec would not take well to a blunt question on secession, and Bouchard convinced Parizeau to instead hold a referendum on sovereignty-association. It was decided that if a majority was found to be in support of the agreement and Canada simply refused to negotiate, Quebec would unilaterally declare independence.170 The 1995 referendum campaign, though executed in Quebec, was truly a concern of the country as a whole. The “No” campaign was headed by Daniel Johnson and Jean Charest, but these leaders were under the watchful eye of Prime Minister Chrétien, and Ottawa was holding its breath. Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard led the “Yes” side; initially, Parizeau car- ried most of the campaign’s weight. As politicians and as people, opponents Parizeau and Chrétien were vastly different; Chrétien was a passionate leader with a lower-class background, while the THE CONCORD REVIEW 125 affluent Parizeau, in contrast with historical conceptions of sepa- ratism, was more strategic than he was passionate. Parizeau had no intention of remaining Premier of Quebec, and did not seem to feel any particular connection to the province itself; he simply wanted to lead the sovereign nation whose birth he believed was possible. And he was dedicated: at one point during the campaign, he cancelled a $13 billion Hydro-Québec project in order to pacify Quebec’s Cree tribe and gain popular support.171 Perhaps the thesis most commonly expounded by separat- ists was that of Quebec’s newfound economic independence due to the free trade agreement signed by Canada and the United States in 1988. Their arguments were a far cry from those of Pap- ineau’s patriotes: trade between Quebec and the United States was burgeoning, Canada’s national debt was increasing, and the new sovereign government would more effectively manage financial and administrative affairs. These statements certainly did not incite the same passion as did those of sovereignty supporters in the last referendum.172 Anglophones, on the other hand, were beginning to de- velop the idea of partition in the case of political sovereignty—this would allow predominantly-Anglophone regions of Quebec to remain in Canada. Even after the referendum two conferences were held to discuss the suggestion, and a majority of Anglophones polled was in favor.173 When the votes were finally cast, the results were truly shock- ing—the “No” side had won by less than 1 percent.174 Parizeau, in abject distress, attested that “money and the ethnic vote” were to blame for the “Yes” defeat; he then resigned as Premier and was promptly replaced by Bouchard.175 In the wake of its narrow victory, Chrétien’s government got to work on placating Quebec secessionists by passing a bill that gave all five regions of the country, including Quebec, a veto over constitutional amendments. In addition, the government passed a resolution that supported the age-old “distinct society” concept, and Chrétien incited the premiers to pass the Calgary Declaration, which would declare Quebec a unique society. Wishing to preserve 126 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

their equality, the premiers agreed but tacked on the contingency that, since all provinces are equal, whatever Quebec received from the unique society clause, the other provinces should receive as well.176 In 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would replace Quebec’s “distinct” status with that of a “nation within Canada.”177 Before the 1995 referendum, Quebec’s National Assembly had introduced Bill 1, which would have allowed the province’s government to unilaterally secede a year after the vote. A Quebec lawyer by the name of Guy Bertrand resolved to halt the referendum, calling Bill 1 a “virtual constitutional coup d’état.” In Quebec’s Su- perior Court, Bertrand argued that the bill threatened his Charter rights; the Superior Court agreed that this was true, but nonethe- less allowed the referendum out of due respect for democracy. After the referendum Bertrand returned to the Superior Court, wanting assurance that Quebec could not unilaterally secede; the Court ruled that a full hearing would take place on the issue. The Chrétien government then stepped in, referring the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada. Quebec’s government refused to take part in the hearing, proclaiming that the federal Supreme Court was biased towards the federal government. Despite this, the Court appointed André Joli-Coeur to represent the interests of Quebec separatists. As well, a diverse group of interveners participated in the case, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the territories, several First Nations groups, and Guy Bertrand himself.178 The Court asked three questions: one, is it legal in domestic law for Quebec to secede unilaterally; two, is it legal in international law for Quebec to secede unilaterally; and three, if domestic and international law conflict, which takes precedence? Regarding domestic law, the “democratic principle” was considered—this principle is not directly outlined in the Constitution, but the Court nevertheless used it to gauge the significance of the referendum results. It was declared that according to the democratic principle, the results of a referendum must be given “considerable weight” as long as there is a “clear majority” and a “clear question”; the politicians were left to determine the meaning of the word “clear.” However, Canada’s tradition lay in the system of federalism, and THE CONCORD REVIEW 127 the Court ruled that negotiation between provinces was an integral part of this system; if one province rejected secession through a referendum, this would need to be considered by the country as a whole.179 It was found that international law emphasized the need for federal determination regarding the secession of an entity within a country. In international law, there are two types of self- determination: internal and external. Internal self-determination is more common, and occurs through negotiation with the state. There are two conditions under which an entity has the right to external self-determination: when it constitutes a colonial people wishing to break free from “imperial power,” and when its con- stituents are “subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploita- tion outside a colonial context.” Since Quebec’s situation did not fall into either of these categories, the Court evaluated a third, disputable, circumstance: “when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally.” This did not apply to Quebec—the province had great influence within the federal government.180 The Court ruled that neither domestic nor international law gave Quebec the right to unilaterally secede; therefore, it did not need to consider the question of precedence between the two.181 In 1998, Bouchard set out to renew the mandate for his Parti Québécois government. The PQ, in a divided post-referendum climate, won 77 seats with 43 percent of the vote; the Liberal party, led by Jean Charest, won 47 seats with over 44 percent of the vote. Mario Dumont’s Action Démocratique party amassed 12 percent of the vote, winning only the seat of Dumont himself. Bouchard, still crestfallen, declared that a new referendum would not occur for at least two years, and focused instead on balancing the budget and funding social programs.182 He retired soon afterwards, leaving the post to Bernard Landry, who did not see a referendum any sooner. The number of Quebec’s citizens anticipating separation was in rapid decline. Months after the 1995 referendum, polls showed 62 percent expecting independence within 10 years—in 2001, only 20 percent. In 2003 the Liberals came to power in the province, 128 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

led by Jean Charest. Federally, Jean Chrétien went into retirement and was succeeded by Paul Martin, his former Minister of Finance. Martin was an Anglophone businessman from Ontario who then resided in Montreal;183 he was not opposed to allowing Quebec a measure of distinction in his policies, but much of popular opinion outside Quebec was vociferously opposed to such a concept. The Francophone community had made huge gains in socioeconomic status since the Quiet Revolution, but independence was not ap- proaching; in fact, it seemed to be speeding away.184 The “clear question, clear majority” issue raised by the Court was broached in 2000 when the House of Commons introduced Bill C-20, also known as the Clarity Act. Bill C-20 gave the House of Commons the sole power to determine the clarity of the question and the majority; however, this exclusion of the Senate seemed to override the constitutional principle of the two-chamber system. Also, Bill C-20 failed to acknowledge the constitutional right of Aboriginal peoples to participate in negotiations on division of territory—the Quebec Cree expressed intention to challenge it on this basis.185 In response to the Clarity Act, Quebec’s government es- tablished Bill 99, which states that a “clear majority” is constituted by a vote of at least 50 percent + 1.186 During the referendum cam- paign, Preston Manning, leader of the federal Reform Party, had emphasized the same principle.187 However, in 2007 Bill 99 was referred to Quebec’s Court of Appeal, and most of its preeminent sections were ruled unconstitutional.188

Present-Day Quebec With more than 3.7 million immigrants having entered Quebec since 1995, the question of sovereignty has become less prominent in the mind of the average Quebecer. The new im- migrants largely do not identify with Quebec’s tradition or past grievances, and this has caused popular support for independence to wane quickly—a 2012 poll showed that only 28 percent of resi- dents would vote yes if a referendum were held that day. Another poll from the same year reported that 49 percent of Canadians THE CONCORD REVIEW 129 outside Quebec “don’t really care” if Quebec secedes; converse to the Canada of 1995, non-Quebecers seem to be feeling increas- ingly alienated from Quebec. In general, the vision of a sovereign Quebec has lost much of its purchase among the province’s citi- zens, and as Canada becomes more and more culturally diverse, the trend seems to point further downhill.189 The Parti Québécois currently holds office in Quebec, led by Pauline Marois. Marois served as Minister of Labor under Lévesque, and was elected in 2012 as the province’s first female Premier.190 Despite campaign promises of social democratic policy and strict opposition to Ottawa, since taking office Marois has become fis- cally austere, attempting to balance the budget by cutting back on social welfare and funding for education. Language protection is seemingly not a priority, and an upcoming evaluation of the French Language Charter is likely to result in dilution of its provisions. The province’s remaining sovereigntists are beginning to perceive a decline in their cause even within the PQ leadership.191 Stephen Harper, Canada’s current Conservative Prime Minister, sees Quebec separation as a deadly threat to big business and the Canadian economy; his 2006 motion to ordain Quebec “a nation within Canada” was a strategy of placation. According to Harper, in electing Marois Quebecers were voting for “change,” not sovereignty.192

Conclusions

The Quebec separatist movement draws its roots from a conflict between two of the world’s foremost colonial powers. In Canada’s pre-Confederation dramatis personae, the industrial, self-reliant English Canadians were the perfect foils to the rural, somewhat ascetic French, and the two groups continued to war on the stage of a single state. British dominance was at its crudest around the turn of the 20th century as the newly-formed federal government attempted to take full control of the territory’s col- lective culture; however, French Canada did not lack federal rep- resentation, and this fact was cemented by the election of Prime Minister Laurier in 1896. 130 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

Despite this, it was clear that Quebec’s acceleration into industrial development was leaving its Francophone majority in the socioeconomic margins. The age of Duplessis highlighted the anachronistic culture that had been allowed to stagnate in Quebec for a century, producing an immense gap between citizens’ values and universal economic realities. It was the province’s industrial- ization that gave rise to the abrupt spike in separatist sentiment, which emerged during the Quiet Revolution, and it was the Oc- tober Crisis that made visible the dangers of such conceptions. The 1970s and 80s were the decades that truly instituted Quebec separatism; with the advent of the Parti Québécois, sover- eignty seemed closer than ever before. However, as soon as the ideology appeared in government, it was doomed to be swamped with federal legislation; the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords illustrate attempts by the federal government to win over popular opinion in the province. The 1995 referendum was what some consider Quebec’s last and best chance to gain independence; separatism was well-established in the province’s government, and for this reason seemed more feasible. Nevertheless, it had been a long time since the Quiet Revolution, and the separatist cause proved un peu too low on passion to quash national pride. The basis of early French nationalism was very different from that of modern Quebec separatism; it arose from a desire to preserve the French language and culture within an English state, often pointing to the importance of Catholic values in achieving this preservation. Quiet Revolution separatism, by contrast, had little to do with tradition and more to do with lack of opportu- nity. As the ideology was transferred into government, its rhetoric latched on to a sort of feeble grudge intermingled with popular pride and self-assertion—Quebec would secede to prove that, in spite of the past, it now could. Jacques Parizeau, for example, did not feel any strong attachment to the Francophone history of his province—he believed in Quebec sovereignty simply because he thought it was possible. The federalist-separatist split sometimes fell along socio- economic lines; Citélibristes were often educated in a manner unat- THE CONCORD REVIEW 131 tainable to most members of the Front de la Libération du Quebec. Moreover, it should be noted that people from younger age groups have, historically, approached the topic of Quebec independence in ways less related to cultural or religious preservation: even in uber-traditional 1840s Lower Canada, young nationalists were bent on a secular Quebec nation-state. They perhaps had similar motivation to many young Quiet Revolution separatists—a simple desire for political recognition in the face of their past losses. This illustrates a certain stalwart presence in the separatist ideology that remains intact even after decades of economic and political flux. Quebec federalists and Quebec separatists shared the same vision of cultural preservation; their differences often lay in the way they approached ethnicity. While the ideal sovereign Quebec was often envisaged as ethnically homogenous, the federalists saw cultural pluralism as essential if French Canada were to attain equality. In the federalist view, the two founding cultures needed to prop each other up; in the separatist view, French Canada needed to become freestanding. The very definition of a secure culture was under dispute; to many separatists, a nation needed to assert its values through an independent state, and without this state the nation remained a colony.193 Federalists, on the other hand, saw no reason why the French Canadian “nation” could not be ensconced within a larger one. From the history of the Quebec sovereigntist movement we can draw conclusions about the natural human desire for distinction and the way it manifests in different social settings—from rural to urban, religious to secular. Despite Canada’s volatile sociopolitical climate, and resulting changes in the country’s cultural values over time, Francophones will always remember the Battle of Montcalm and the weight of its long-lasting consequences. 132 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

Endnotes

1 Charles Leskun and Tim Tobin, Nationalism in French Canada (Oakville: Rubicon, 2003) p. 36 2 John Ibbitson, “Do we care if another struggle for Quebec sovereignty happens now?” The Globe and Mail (September 1, 2012), http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/ politics/elections/do-we-care-if-another-tussle-for-quebec- sovereignty-happens-now/article4513853/ 3 Leskun and Tobin, p. 6 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Quebec Act, http:// www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486697/Quebec-Act 5 University of Ottawa, Constitutional Act (1791), uOttawa, http://www.slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=leg_constitution_act_1791 6 Ramsay Cook, “The Evolution of Nationalism (1986),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 69 7 Leskun and Tobin, p. 6 8 Ibid., p. 6 9 Cook, p. 70 10 David Mills, Durham Report, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/durham-report 11 Leskun and Tobin, p. 6 12 John George Lambton, Report of Lord Durham On the Affairs of British North America (1839) in Quebec History, Marianopolis College, http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c. belanger/quebechistory/docs/durham/index.htm 13 Leskun and Tobin, p. 6 14 J.M.S. Careless, Province of Canada 1841–1867, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/province-of-canada-184167 15 Mills 16 Canada in the Making, Responsible Government, http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/specifique/responsible_e.html 17 Careless 18 M.D. Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/francophoneanglophone-relations 19 P.B. Waite, Confederation, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/ confederation; Ramsay Cook, “The Meaning of Confederation THE CONCORD REVIEW 133

(1965),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 158 20 Leskun and Tobin, p. 9 21 La Minerve, July 1, 1867, in Leskun and Tobin, p. 9 22 Ibid., p. 159 23 Ibid., p. 160 24 Ibid., p. 161 25 Ibid., p. 163 26 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 27 Cook, “The Evolution of Nationalism,” p. 69 28 Ibid., p. 70 29 Ibid., p. 70 30 Ibid., p. 69 31 Ibid., pp. 70–71 32 Ibid., p. 71 33 Ibid., p. 72 34 Ibid., p. 73 35 George F.G. Stanley, Louis Riel, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/louis-riel 36 Réal Bélanger, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/laurier-sir-wilfrid 37 Canada’s History, Controversy and Compromise over the Manitoba Schools Question http://www.canadashistory. ca/Magazine/Online-Exclusive/Articles/Controversy-and- Compromise-over-the-Manitoba-Schoo 38 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 39 CBC, The Boer War, CBC Learning, http://www.cbc.ca/ history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP11CH2PA3LE.html 40 Leskun and Tobin, p. 12 41 Desmond Morton, First World War (WWI), The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/first-world-war-wwi 42 Marilyn Barber, Ontario Schools Question, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/ontario-schools-question 43 Joseph Levitt, Henri Bourassa, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/henri-bourassa 44 Morton 45 Levitt 134 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

46 Michael Oliver, The Passionate Debate: The Social and Political Ideas of Quebec Nationalism, 1920–1945 (Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1991) p. 22 47 Ibid, p. 23 48 Ibid, p. 24 49 Ibid, p. 27 50 Ibid, p. 26 51 Ramsay Cook, “Bourassa to Bissonnette (1995),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 135 52 Ibid., p. 135 53 Susan Mann Trofimenkoff, Lionel-Adolphe Groulx, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/lioneladolphe-groulx 54 Cook, “Bourassa to Bissonnette,” p. 137 55 Trofimenkoff 56 Ramsay Cook, “ In the Bourassa Tradition: Andre Laurendeau (1965),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 119 57 Leskun and Tobin, p. 16 58 Ibid., p. 16 59 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 60 Leskun and Tobin, p. 16 61 Ibid., p. 18 62 H. Blair Neatby, Ernest Lapointe, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/ernest-lapointe 63 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 64 Neatby 65 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 66 Cook, “In the Bourassa Tradition,” p. 122 67 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 68 Leskun and Tobin, p. 18 69 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 70 Ibid. 71 Michael D. Behiels, Prelude to Quebec’s Quiet Revolution: Liberalism Versus Neo-Nationalism, 1945–1960 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1985) p. 62 72 Ibid., p. 73 73 Ibid., pp. 74–75 74 Ibid., p. 73 THE CONCORD REVIEW 135

75 Ibid., p. 80 76 Ibid., p. 75 77 Ibid., p. 76 78 Ibid., p. 75 79 Ibid., p. 76 80 Ibid., p. 74 81 Ibid., p. 86 82 Ibid., p. 87 83 Ibid., p. 96 84 Ibid., p. 97 85 Ibid., p. 98 86 Ibid., p. 120 87 Ibid., p. 98 88 Ibid., pp. 98–99 89 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 90 Cook, “The Evolution of Nationalism,” p. 74 91 Ibid., pp. 74–75 92 Jacques Mathieu, Seigneurial System, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/seigneurial-system The seigneurial system of New France was similar to the feudal system; practiced between 1627 and 1854, it was a legally- regulated system of land distribution in which tenants were dependent on seigneurs. The structure was designed to promote organized settlement, and became integral to life in the colony; until the mid-19th century, 75–80 percent of the population lived on seigneurial land. Large plots were entrusted to military officers, the nobility, and civil leaders; religious institutions received land in return for schools and hospitals. 93 Cook, “The Evolution of Nationalism,” p. 75 94 Ibid., p. 75 95 Leskun and Tobin, p. 20 96 Behiels, Prelude, p. 65 97 Leskun and Tobin, p. 20 98 Ibid., p. 20 99 Miriam Chapin, Quebec Now (1955), in Leskun and Tobin, p. 23 100 Ramsay Cook, “Au Diable avec le Goupillion et la Tuque (1986),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays, (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 18 101 Brian McKenna, Jean Drapeau, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/jean-drapeau 136 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

102 Leskun and Tobin, p. 23 103 Ramsay Cook, “Canada and the French-Canadian Question (1964),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays. (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 7 104 Ibid., p. 8 105 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 106 Cook, “Canada and the French-Canadian Question,” p. 9 107 Ramsay Cook, “The B and B Commission (2003),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 127 108 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 109 Ibid. 110 Cook, “The B and B Commission,” p. 128 111 Cook, “ In the Bourassa Tradition,” p. 117 112 Ibid., p. 124 113 G. Laing, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www. thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/royal-commission-on- bilingualism-and-biculturalism 114 Leskun and Tobin, p. 24 115 Laing 116 Leskun and Tobin, p. 24 117 Ibid., p. 27 118 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 119 Leskun and Tobin, p. 24 120 Ramsay Cook, “The Trudeau-Levesque Debate (1990),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005) p. 210 121 Ibid., p. 211 122 Ibid., p. 214 123 Ibid., p. 215 124 Ibid., pp. 212–213 125 Ibid., p. 213 126 Rene Levesque, “For An Independent Quebec,” Foreign Affairs 54 (1976), pp. 737, 742, quoted in Cook, “The Trudeau- Levesque Debate,” p. 213 127 Cook, “The Trudeau-Levesque Debate (1990),” p. 213 128 Leskun and Tobin, p. 28 129 Ibid., p. 28 130 William Tetley, The October Crisis: An Insider’s View (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007) p. 19 THE CONCORD REVIEW 137

131 Leskun and Tobin, p. 28 132 Tetley, p. 9 133 Denis Smith, October Crisis, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/october-crisis 134 Leskun and Tobin, p. 28 135 Smith 136 Tetley, p. 23 137 Ibid., p. 34 138 Ibid., p. 22 139 Ibid., p. 18 140 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Leskun and Tobin, p. 28 144 CBC News, Speaking out: Quebec’s debate over language laws (October 22, 2009), http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/bill-178 145 Leskun and Tobin, p. 32 146 Ibid., p. 32 147 Jacques Parizeau, An Independent Quebec: The Past, The Present, and The Future trans. Robin Philpot (Montreal: Baraka Books, 2010) p. 35 148 Ibid., p. 37 149 CBC, “Oui” or ”Non,” CBC Learning, http://www.cbc. ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP17CH1PA1LE.html 150 Elections Québec, Référendum du 20 mai 1980, http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/francais/tableaux/ referendum-1980-8483.php 151 Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Speech at the Paul Sauvé Arena, Montreal, Quebec (May 14, 1980) Library and Archives Canada, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/primeministers/ h4-4083-e.htrnl 152 Cook, The Evolution of Nationalism,” p. 77 153 Ibid., p. 78 154 Leskun and Tobin, p. 34 155 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 156 Mollie Dunsmuir and Brian O’Neal, Quebec’s Constitutional Veto: The Legal and Historical Context (May 1992), http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/ bp295-e.htm 157 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 158 Leskun and Tobin, p. 34 138 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

159 Jay Makarenko, Charlottetown Accord: History and Overview Mapleleafweb (February 10, 2009), http://www. mapleleafweb.com/features/charlottetown-accord-history-and- overview 160 Gerald L. Gall, Meech Lake Accord, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/meech-lake-accord 161 Makarenko 162 Ibid. 163 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 164 Ibid. 165 Makarenko 166 Ibid. 167 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 168 Makarenko 169 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 170 Ibid. 171 Breaking Point: Quebec/Canada, The 1995 Referendum DVD, directed by Jacqueline Dubé-Corkery and Pierre Béliveau (Toronto, Ontario: CBC, 2005) 172 Garth Stevenson, Parallel Paths (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press 1996) p. 316 173 Ibid., p. 317 174 Leskun and Tobin, p. 36 175 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 176 Ibid. 177 Makarenko 178 Kristen Pue, Reference re: Secession of Quebec in Context, Centre for Constitutional Studies, Alberta Law Foundation, August 17, 2012, http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ centres/ccs/rulings/Secession_of_Quebec.php 179 Ibid. 180 Ibid. 181 Ibid. 182 Behiels, Francophone-Anglophone Relations 183 Stevenson, p. 318 184 Ibid., p. 319 185 Historica-Dominion, The Clarity Act (Bill C-20), The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/bill-c20 186 Pue 187 Breaking Point 188 Pue THE CONCORD REVIEW 139

189 Ibbitson 190 Jean Chartier, Pauline Marois, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/pauline-marois 191 Rhéal Séguin, “Quebec loses faith as Marois forgoes sovereignty for austerity,” The Globe and Mail (June 7, 2013), http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-loses- faith-as-marois-focuses-on-austerity/article 12436744/ 192 Mike Blanchfield, “Quebec Separation? Harper Says No, As Parti Quebecois Victory Means Change,” Huff Post Politics Canada (September 6, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost. ca/2012/09/06/harper-quebec-separation_n_1862705.html 193 Cook, “The Meaning of Confederation,” p. 157

Bibliography

Barber, Marilyn, Ontario Schools Question, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/ontario-schools-question Behiels, M.D., Francophone-Anglophone Relations, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/francophoneanglophone-relations Behiels, Michael D., Prelude to Quebec’s Quiet Revolution Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens’s University Press, 1985 Bélanger, Réal, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/laurier-sir-wilfrid Blanchfield, Mike, “Quebec Separation? Harper Says No, As Parti Quebecois Victory Means Change,” Huff Post Politics Canada, September 6, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost. ca/2012/09/06/harper-quebec-separation_n_1862705.html Breaking Point: Quebec/Canada, The 1995 Referendum DVD, directed by Jacqueline Dubé-Corkery and Pierre Béliveau, Toronto, Ontario: CBC, 2005 Canada’s History, Controversy and Compromise over the Manitoba Schools Question, http://www.canadashistory. ca/Magazine/Online-Exclusive/Articles/Controversy-and- Compromise-over-the-Manitoba-Schoo Canada in the Making, Responsible Government, http:// www.canadiana.ca/citm/specifique/responsible_e.html 140 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

Careless, J.M.S., Province of Canada 1841–1867, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/province-of-canada-184167 CBC, “Qui” or “Non,” CBC Learning, http://www.cbc.ca/ history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP17CH1PA1LE.html CBC, The Boer War, CBC Learning, http://www.cbc.ca/ history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP11CH2PA3LE.html CBC News, Speaking out: Quebec’s debate over language laws October 22, 2009, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/bill-178 Chapin, Miriam, Quebec Now (1955), quoted in Nationalism in French Canada by Charles Leskun and Tim Tobin, Oakville: Rubicon, 2003, p. 36 Cook, Ramsay, Watching Quebec: Selected Essays Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005 Dunsmuir, Mollie, and Brian O’Neal, Quebec’s Constitutional Veto: The Legal and Historical Context May 1992, http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/ bp295-e.htm Elections Québec, Referendum du 20 mai 1980, http://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/francais/tableaux/ referendum-1980-8483.php Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Quebec Act, http://www. britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486697/Quebec-Act Gall, Gerald L., Meech Lake Accord, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/meech-lake-accord Historica-Dominion, The Clarity Act (Bill C-20), The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/bill-c20 Ibbitson, John, “Do we care if another struggle for Quebec sovereignty happens now?” The Globe and Mail September 1, 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ elections/do-we-care-if-another-tussle-for-quebec-sovereignty- happens-now/article4513853/ La Minerve July 1, 1867, in Nationalism in French Canada by Charles Leskun and Tim Tobin, Oakville: Rubicon, 2003, p. 9 Laing, G., Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www. thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/royal-commission-on- bilingualism-and-biculturalism Lambton, John George, Report of Lord Durham On the Affairs of British North America (1839), in Quebec History THE CONCORD REVIEW 141

Marianopolis College, http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c. belanger/quebechistory/docs/durham/index.htm Leskun, Charles, and Tim Tobin, Nationalism in French Canada Oakville: Rubicon, 2003 Lévesque, René, “For An Independent Quebec,” Foreign Affairs 54 (1976): 737, 742, quoted in Ramsay Cook, “The Trudeau-Lévesque Debate (1990),” in Watching Quebec: Selected Essays Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005, p. 213 Levitt, Joseph, Henri Bourassa, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/henri- bourassa Makarenko, Jay, Charlottetown Accord: History and Overview, Mapleleafweb, February 10, 2009, http://www. mapleleafweb.com/features/charlottetown-accord-history-and- overview Mathieu, Jacques, Seigneurial System, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/seigneurial-system Mills, David, Durham Report, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/durham- report Morton, Desmond, First World War (WWI), The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/first-world-war-wwi Neatby, H. Blair, Ernest Lapointe, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/ernest-lapointe Oliver, Michael, The Passionate Debate: The Social and Political Ideas of Quebec Nationalism, 1920–1945 Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1991 Parizeau, Jacques, An Independent Quebec: The Past, The Present, and The Future translated by Robin Philpot, Montreal: Baraka Books, 2010 Pue, Kristen, Reference re: Secession of Quebec, in Context Alberta Law Foundation. August 17, 2012, http://www.law. ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/rulings/Secession_of_Quebec.php Séguin, Rhéal, “Quebec loses faith as Marois forgoes sovereignty for austerity,” The Globe and Mail June 7, 2013, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-loses- faith-as-marois-focuses-on-austerity/article12436744/ 142 Iris Robbins-Larrivee

Smith, Denis, October Crisis, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/october- crisis Stanley, George F. G., Louis Riel, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ articles/louis-riel Stevenson, Garth, Parallel Paths Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006 Tetley, William, The October Crisis: An Insider’s View Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007 Trofimenkoff, Susan Mann, Lionel-Adolphe Groulx, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia. com/articles/lioneladolphe-groulx Trudeau, Pierre Elliott, Speech at the Paul Sauvé Arena, Montreal, Quebec May 14, 1980, Library and Archives Canada, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/primeministers/h4-4083-e. html University of Ottawa, Constitutional Act (1791) uOttawa, http://www.slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=leg_constitution_act_l791 Waite, P. B., Confederation, The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/ confederation Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

Breaking Barriers

Peter Baugh

When Jackie Robinson played his first Major League Baseball game in 1947, his blood was red. His teeth were white. His eyes were brown. By this description, he could have been any number of players in the league. However, one thing set Robinson apart from all of his teammates and adversaries: his skin was black. In a century full of civil rights heroes, Robinson becoming the first non-white player in Major League Baseball’s modern era stands as one of the movement’s most important events. The breaking of the baseball color barrier is a turning point in American his- tory because a black man was playing in a game that represented American culture, it gave blacks more athletic opportunities, it propelled the civil rights movement, and it led to American citizens becoming more accepting of African Americans. Brooklyn Dodger General Manager Branch Rickey had a plan. Rickey wanted to do something big, something some may have considered radical: he wanted to integrate Major League Baseball. He put his integration plan into action in 1945 when he sent a number of scouts to look at African American players in the Negro Leagues, not revealing to his employees exactly what he was doing. The Dodgers owned a baseball team designated for blacks,

Peter Baugh is a Junior at Clayton High School in Clayton, Missouri, where he wrote this paper for Mr. Paul Hoelscher’s United States in World History II course in the 2012/2013 academic year. 144 Peter Baugh

and Rickey’s scouts assumed that he was looking for players to join the Black Dodgers. Little did they know that Rickey was looking for the right man to break Major League Baseball’s color barrier. Rickey needed the perfect man for the job. He needed a man who was skilled in the field, but also able to withstand insults without retaliation. “There were just not very many such humans,”1 Rickey said. Though catcher Josh Gibson and pitcher Satchel Paige were great Negro League players, Rickey deemed them too old. Other Negro League greats, such as Monte Irvin, were serving in the military at the time. Finally, Rickey decided to look at a speedy, stubborn, Kansas City Monarchs shortstop: Jackie Robinson. Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born in Cairo, Georgia, in 1919. After his father left the family, his mother moved Jackie and his four other siblings to Pasadena, California, where segregation and racial tensions would not be nearly as harsh as in the Deep South. The Robinsons were an athletic family. In the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, Mack Robinson, Jackie’s older brother, earned a silver medal in the 200-meter dash, only finishing behind fellow American Jesse Owens.2 After spending two years in junior college, Jackie attended University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), lettering in four different sports. During World War II, Robinson was drafted by the United States Army. He trained in Fort Hood, Texas, but was court mar- tialed in 1944 for refusing to move to the back of a military bus and engaging in a dispute with the bus driver. In the case The United States v. 2nd Lieutenant Jack R. Robinson, Jackie was acquitted.3 After his departure from the Army, Robinson joined the Negro League Baseball team the Kansas City Monarchs, with whom he played during the 1945 season. Though he was not the most talented player in the league and, perhaps, not even the most talented player on his team, Robinson stood out to Rickey. Robinson was a college educated officer, and he had competed with both black and white athletes while attending UCLA. He was in a devoted relationship and had high moral standards; he was exactly the type of man Rickey was looking for. THE CONCORD REVIEW 145 On August 28, 1945, Robinson was brought into Rickey’s office for a meeting that would eventually be “passed into the folklore of American sports.”4 In his office, Rickey hurled a num- ber of racial insults at Robinson. The Dodger’s official was well prepared, performing a convincing act with his onslaught on the African American baseball player. Robinson later said, “His acting was so convincing that I found myself chain-gripping my fingers behind my back.”5 What came next would go down in baseball history as two of the most famous lines ever spoken. Robinson responded to Rickey’s cruel words, “Mr. Rickey, are you looking for a Negro who is afraid to fight back?” Rickey, prepared for this moment, exclamined, “Robinson, I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.”6 Rickey explained to Robinson that he would be the sole representative of the African American population to many white citizens. Rickey needed Robinson to be someone he could trust, someone who would not retaliate to insults and violence. Robinson had to be someone who, thrust into the public eye, would show the white population that African Americans were not inferior. Before he left Rickey’s office, Robinson had agreed to a $600-per-month contract with the Dodgers to play for the Montreal Royals, Brooklyn’s top minor league affiliate. Robinson would also receive a $3,500 signing bonus.7 In 1946, Robinson made his Roy- als debut. He excelled throughout the season despite high racial tensions, particularly when playing in Southern areas. Robinson posted a .349 batting average, stole 40 bases, and scored 113 runs.8 He even led the Royals to a Little World Series championship over the Louisville Colonels, a Boston Red Sox affiliate.9 When the spring of 1947 came, reporters, fans, players, and coaches widely speculated whether or not Robinson would make the Brooklyn roster. Some of Robinson’s potential team- mates, led by Brooklyn outfielder Dixie Walker, requested to be traded rather than play with an African American. However, with the endorsement of manager Leo Durocher and Rickey, Robinson made the Brooklyn squad, and Major League Baseball Commis- 146 Peter Baugh

sioner Happy Chandler threatened to suspend any player who refused to play due to the color of Robinson’s skin. To Dodger teammates who disagreed with the decision to promote Robinson, Durocher said, “I do not care if the guy is yellow or black, or if he has stripes like a f----’ zebra. I’m the manager of this team, and I say he plays. What’s more, I say he can make us all rich. And if any of you cannot use the money, I will see that you are all traded.”10 Rickey and Durocher, who was suspended for the 1947 season due to issues unrelated to baseball,11 were correct. Under interim manager Burt Shotton, Robinson excelled, leading the Dodgers to a National League Pennant. Robinson hit .297 with 29 stolen bases and won the Rookie of the Year Award. His first season was just the start of more excellence to come for Brooklyn fans. Throughout his career, Robinson was a dominant force in the National League. He won the Most Valuable Player Award in 1949, was a six-time All-Star, and led the Dodgers to a 1955 World Series championship over the cross-town rival New York Yankees. His excellence on the baseball diamond proved to many Americans that blacks were not inferior, making the nation as a whole more accepting of African Americans. Robinson retired after the 1956 season.12 In 1962, Robinson was elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Carl Erskine, Robinson’s teammate from 1948 to 1956 said, “There is something very significant and very fitting about Jackie being in the Hall of Fame, because all the plaques in the Hall of Fame are the same color, they are all bronze. And, symbolically, I think that says the whole story about how Jackie actually changed baseball…and started a momentum.”13 Robinson died in 1972 at the age of 53. The number 42, which Robinson wore on his back when he played for the Dodg- ers, was retired by all of Major League Baseball to honor the civil rights pioneer. He stayed active in the movement even after his retirement, continuing to build on the great impact he made during his playing days. Duke Snider, a teammate of Robinson’s and a fellow Hall of Famer, summed up Robinson’s career by saying, “He knew he had to do well. He knew that the future of THE CONCORD REVIEW 147 blacks in baseball depended on it. The pressure was enormous, overwhelming, and unbearable at times. I don’t know how he held up. I know I never could have.”14 In the late 1940s, nothing represented American culture quite like the game of baseball. Ken Burns, a notable documentary maker who produced the PBS film series “Baseball,” feels that the sport provides a consistency and a connection with the American people. Burns said, “Nothing in our daily life offers more of the comfort of continuity, the generational connection of belonging to a vast and complicated American family, the powerful sense of home, the freedom from time’s constraints, and the great gift of accumulated memory than does our National Pastime.”15 As Burns puts it, baseball was an integral part of United States life, particularly in the middle of the 20th century. Jackie Robinson’s breaking of the color barrier showed that an African American was capable of playing “America’s Game,” symbolizing the growth of a nation that was slowly beginning to become more accepting of African Americans. Donna Rogers-Beard, a history teacher at Clayton High School, grew up as an African American during the civil rights movement. She says that Robinson’s entrance into baseball was viewed as something bigger than just sports. She explained, “Base- ball was truly the all-American sport in the 1940s…it [the break- ing of the color barrier] not only had an impact on sports, but it had an impact on the civil rights movement in general because he [Robinson] ‘humanized black folks,’ and took away some of the fear that too many people had about what would happen with integration.”16 Because of baseball’s popularity, Rogers-Beard feels that Robinson put a “human face” on the African American popu- lation. Through the breaking of the color barrier in “America’s game,” the United States was beginning to see that black people were equal to whites. According to Joe Bostic, a newspaper writer and civil rights activist, Robinson’s brilliant skill set led to this realization for many citizens. Bostic wrote in the New York Times, “an unassuming, but superlative Negro boy ascended the heights of excellence to prove the rightness of the experiment. And to 148 Peter Baugh

prove it in the only correct crucible for such an experiment—the crucible of white-hot competition.”17 After the initial shock of an African American in the league, fans were able to adjust, again seeing winning as the most important objective for the team. Due to Robinson’s successes, racist Americans had no way of declaring Robinson’s pure baseball skills inferior to other players. Giants Hall of Famer Monte Irvin, who once played in the Negro Leagues, felt baseball had helped change the nation more than anything else was able to. Irvin explained, “Baseball has done more to move America in the right direction than all of the professional patriots with all their cheap words.”18 Irvin was praising baseball for its role in making American citizens more accepting. Robinson’s impact on the nation is hard to deny. By excelling in a game that was a representation of American culture, the nation became more accepting and African Americans were given new opportunities. One of the opportunities Robinson gave African Americans was a chance for black athletes to play in sports that, in the past, had been segregated. Basketball became integrated in 1950 with the signings of Chuck Cooper and Nat Clifton with the Boston Celtics and New York Knicks, respectively.19 These events happened just three years after Robinson’s first game in Major League Baseball. Happy Chandler, who was the commissioner of baseball in 1945, the year Robinson signed with the Montreal Royals, ap- proved of a more diverse league. Chandler said, “If they [African Americans] can fight and die on Okinawa, Guadalcanal (and) in the South Pacific, they can play ball in America.”20 Chandler real- ized the importance of a broken color barrier: it was leading the way for an equal game, a true “American game.” An example of an athlete for whom Robinson provided the opportunity to play is former Braves outfielder Hank Aaron. Aaron, who was the all- time career home-run leader for 33 years, feels that Robinson’s feats motivated him throughout his career. In his forward to Rob- inson’s autobiography, Aaron said, “Jackie Robinson gave me the strength to continue to do what he had done.”21 Aaron would not have been able to compete had it not been for the broken color barrier. When given the chance to play, he followed Robinson’s THE CONCORD REVIEW 149 example throughout his career. Robinson Cano, the New York Yankees starting second baseman, is another player affected by Robinson’s actions. Cano was named after the Dodger legend, and wears number 24 on his jersey, Robinson’s “42” backwards, to honor him. Cano said, “All the things that he went through…I mean, he had to go through all that stuff and played the way he played the game…he was a warrior.”22 Cano agrees that Robinson paved the way for players like him to get the chance that they deserved. The opportunity given to Aaron and Cano is shared by athletes in many different sports, though the impact was perhaps most significant in baseball. As said by Chandler, Cano and Aaron, Robinson paved the way for the sports world we have today, a sports world that is no longer confined to just one race. Agreeing, Larry Schwartz said in an ESPN article, “Robinson lit the torch and passed it on to several generations of African-American athletes. While the Brooklyn Dodgers infielder didn’t make a nation color blind, he at least made it more color friendly.”23 In a time period where racial heroes were beginning to see positive results for their actions, it is hard to believe that a simple event, such as the breaking of baseball’s color barrier, propelled the civil rights movement. However, this is exactly what happened: Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier moved the civil rights movement forward. Robinson’s wife, Rachel, feels that Jackie’s impact was undeniable. She wrote about Jackie’s life and his role as a father, husband, and hero. When she discussed his effect on the civil rights movement, Rachel Robinson said, “We all felt closely connected to the civil rights activists in the South; they were car- rying forward the historic struggle for freedom that Jack himself had been one of the heroes of for almost two decades.”24 Rachel points out that Jackie stood out as a hero to African Americans all over the Southern part of the United States. He had helped make the goal of equality seem realistic, not just an unachievable ideal. As she says, because of the breaking of the color barrier, other civil rights pioneers were able to carry on the struggle for equality. Carl Erskine agrees, saying, “Jackie Robinson started a momentum. We all understand what sports and momentum is like. We can’t always explain it, but when it happens you can see 150 Peter Baugh

a team [pick up] momentum. Jackie, by proving to the world…on that [baseball] field and…[exhibiting] exceptional self-control, [started a momentum.]”25 Along with his tremendous playing abili- ties, Robinson had an uncanny ability to tune out racial taunts or insults that were hurled at him on a daily basis. His actions while playing baseball set an example to other African Americans, fuel- ling a movement. To see Robinson’s impact on the civil rights movement, one can simply look at the facts. The color barrier was broken one year before President Harry Truman fully integrated the military by Executive Order, and seven years before the Supreme Court ruled segregation in public schools unconstitutional.26 The rest of America was following in baseball’s footsteps. As Erskine points out, “What Jackie did, ten years—a whole decade—before Martin Luther King came on the scene, Jackie Robinson was demonstrat- ing on the field of sport, of baseball, that he was a class person, that he had the dignity, that he wanted respect for that, and of course he was an outstanding player.”27 By playing on the national scene of baseball, Robinson enabled future activists to make fur- ther impacts. The Washington Times also discussed how Robinson’s actions influenced the civil rights movement. “Jackie Robinson was ahead of his time. He changed racial attitudes for eight years before Rosa Parks even became a headline,”28 they said. As the Washington Times explained, Robinson was the face of equality for many African Americans. He was at the head of the movement prior to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Though civil rights had been a long struggle throughout American history, the break- ing of baseball’s color barrier escalated the movement, leading to real changes in many different areas of the nation. As Jackie Robinson played in Major League Baseball, United States citizens became more accepting of African Americans. Teammates and coaches who initially disliked him due to his skin color grew to appreciate him as they got to know his personality. Robinson’s manager in Montreal was a Mississippi-born baseball man named Clay Hopper. Hopper initially begged Rickey to assign Robinson to another Minor League organization so that he would THE CONCORD REVIEW 151 not have to manage a black man. At one point during a Montreal game Hopper was watching with Rickey. Rickey praised Robinson’s defense, calling one of his catches a “superhuman play.” It is said that Hopper responded, “Mr. Rickey, do you really think a n----’s a human being?”29 By the end of the season, however, Hopper’s views had changed drastically. As Robinson’s year in Montreal concluded, Hopper said to him, “It’s been an honor to be your manager, Jackie.”30 Hopper’s views had evolved throughout the season. He started out not even thinking that a black man was a human being, but ended feeling that it was an honor for him to manage one. This change in opinion that Hopper felt in one season is similar to that of many Americans throughout Robinson’s career. Rogers-Beard feels that this was because of how Robinson acted throughout his time in the Major Leagues. As the first African American, Rickey needed someone who acted in a way that he was impossible to ridicule. Rogers-Beard said, “It had to be the right person [to break the color barrier]. It had to be a person who was, at that time we called, ‘a credit to his race,’ which is a racist term in the first place…there was nothing that anyone could criticize about Jackie Robinson…at school Jackie Robinson was the model for how we were to behave. At home, Jackie Robinson was a model of how we were to behave. Jackie Robinson was a very important person.”31 Robinson acted in a professional manner his entire career. He kept his promises to Rickey about not fighting back against insulting words and actions, earning him respect around not only the league, but also the nation. One person who Robinson greatly influenced was longtime Dodger announcer Red Barber. Like Hop- per, Barber came from Mississippi, the Deep South. Segregation was a way of life for him growing up. He credits Robinson as the sole most important person in making his views change. Barber said, “I know that if I have achieved any understanding and tol- erance in my life…if I have been able to follow a little better the great Second Commandment, which is to love thy neighbor, it all stems from this…I thank Jackie Robinson. He did far more for 152 Peter Baugh

me than I did for him.”32 Robinson made a tremendous number of people think about how they treated others a bit more. The breaking of the color barrier made American citizens more ac- cepting in general. People in the country did not just learn this lesson in the middle of the 20th century. The story of the break- ing of the color barrier has been passed down for generations to preach acceptance. Harriet Spilker, a Clayton resident who graduated from Clayton High School in 1954, met Robinson in a visit to the school in 1953. His impact on her was so great that she still collects books and newspaper clippings about his life and impact. She passes on the lessons she learned from Robinson to younger generations to this day. Spilker said, “I have five grandchildren, and I talk to them about it frequently…it’s not always easy to get where you want to, but you’ve got to persevere and you’ve got to work at it, you’ve got to be willing to follow the guidelines.”33 As Spilker proves, Robinson’s story has been told to children for years so that young Americans have a better understanding of acceptance than past generations. In the period after Robinson broke the color bar- rier, one can also see trends showing that America approved of a more diverse nation. During the beginning period of Robinson’s career, Harry Truman was President. After 1947, when Robinson made his Major League debut, Truman’s highest approval rating was around the time he ordered the desegregation of the mili- tary.34 This evidence shows that Americans were most approving of their President when Truman made headway in black rights. Jackie Robinson and the breaking of the color barrier impacted American society by leading the United States to becoming a more accepting nation. It is strange to think that an event in a simple game can be a turning point in American history. However, this was exactly the case when Jackie Robinson appeared with the Brooklyn Dodgers in a 1947 afternoon game. Jackie Robinson and the breaking of the baseball color barrier is a turning point in American history because an African American was playing a game that was greatly associated with American culture, it paved the way for future THE CONCORD REVIEW 153 non-white athletes, it streamlined the civil rights movement, and it made Americans more accepting of black citizens. Branch Rickey gave Robinson a huge responsibility: to act for many Afri- can Americans who never had the opportunity to play in Major League Baseball and to pave the way for future non-white players. Robinson passed Rickey’s test with flying colors. Robinson was a special player and a special man. He never hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth. He never had as high a batting average as Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby; he never stole as many bases as Rickey Henderson. Robinson, however, does have something that no other Major League player does: a number retired throughout the whole league. When he first signed Rickey’s contract offer in 1945 to play in the Minor Leagues, he was agreeing to play in a traditional game. When he retired after the 1956 season, he left behind a true “American game.” 154 Peter Baugh

1 Jules Tygiel, Baseball’s Great Experiment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) p. 58 2 New York Times “Tracing Two Lives After Losing to Jesse Owens,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/sports/ olympics/after-losing-to-jesse-owens-in-1936-two-others-took- different-paths.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed April 13, 2013) 3 Paul E. Pfeifer, “The Court-Martial of Jackie Robinson,” The Supreme Court of Ohio, November 17, 1999, http:// www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/SCO/justices/pfeifer/column/ (accessed April 16, 2013) 4 Tygiel, p. 65 5 Pittsburgh Courier (November 3, 1945); Readers’ Digest (October, 1961) 6 Larry Schwartz, “Jackie Changed Face of Sports,” ESPN, http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016431.html (accessed March 2013) 7 Tygiel, p. 67 8 “Jackie Robinson,” Baseball-Reference.com, http://www. baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinja02.shtml (accessed April 18, 2013) 9 Scott Simon, “Minor Leaguer,” in Jackie Robinson and the Integration of Baseball (Hoboken, New Jersey: J. Wiley & Sons, 2002) p. 101 10 “African American Celebrity & Civil Rights: 1946–1960,” African American Celebrity & Civil Rights: 1946–1960, Baseball, http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/8-civilrights/ celebrity/ (accessed April 21, 2013) 11 Louis Effrat, “Chandler Bars Durocher For 1947 Baseball Season,” The New York Times (New York, April 10, 1947) 12 “Jackie Robinson,” Baseball-Reference.com 13 “Carl Erskine,” interview by Peter Brewster Baugh, Globe 14 “Jackie Robinson Quotes,” Jackie Robinson Quotes, Quotes About Jackie Robinson, http://www.baseball-almanac. com/quotes/quojckr.shtml (accessed April 21, 2013) 15 Ken Burns, “Baseball Quotes,” Baseball Quotes, http:// thatsbaseball1.tripod.com/id6.htm (accessed April 22, 2013) 16 “Donna Rogers-Beard,” interview by Peter Brewster Baugh, Globe 17 Joe Bostic, New York Times (New York, NY, April 19,1946) 18 Albert Theodore Powers, “7. Deliverance,” in The Business of Baseball (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2003) p. 111 THE CONCORD REVIEW 155

19 “Digital History,” Digital History, http://www. digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2 (accessed April 28, 2013) 20 “Jackie Robinson Breaks Baseball’s Color Barrier, 1945,” Eyewitness to History, 2005, http://www.eyewitnesstohistory. com/robinson.htm (accessed April 26, 2013) 21 Hank Aaron, “Forward,” in I Never Had It Made: An Autobiography of Jackie Robinson by Jackie Robinson and Alfred Duckett (Hopewell, New Jersey: Ecco Press, 1995) 22 Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps, “Hanging up 42: Yankees Mariano Rivera and Robinson Cano Talk Jackie Robinson’s Enduring Legacy,” Yahoo! News, (April 19, 2013) http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc- news/hanging-42-yankees-mariano-rivera-robinson-cano- talk-112117643.html (accessed April 27, 2013) 23 Schwartz ESPN article 24 Rachel Robinson and Lee Daniels, Jackie Robinson: An Intimate Portrait (New York: Abrams, 1996) 25 Erskine interview 26 Schwartz ESPN article 27 Erskine interview 28 Bob Taylor, “Jackie Robinson and Political Correctness,” Washington Times Communities (April 11, 2013) http:// communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ sports-around/2013/apr/11/jackie-robinson-and-political- correctness1/ (accessed May 05, 2013) 29 Cited in Tygiel, p. 104 30 Simon, p. 101 31 Rogers-Beard interview 32 Red Barber and Robert W. Creamer, Rhubarb in the Catbird Seat (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997) p. 274 33 “Harriet Spilker,” interview by Peter Brewster Baugh, Globe 34 “Gallup Poll-Approval Rating—Harry S. Truman,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll- Approval_Rating-Harry_S_Truman.png (accessed May 5, 2013) 156 Peter Baugh

Bibliography

Aaron, Hank, “Forward.” in I Never Had It Made: An Autobiography of Jackie Robinson by Jackie Robinson and Alfred Duckett, Hopewell, New Jersey: Ecco Press, 1995 “African American Celebrity & Civil Rights: 1946–1960,” African American Celebrity & Civil Rights: 1946–1960, http:/ www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/8-civilrights/celebrity/ (accessed April 21, 2013) Barber, Red, and Robert W. Creamer, Rhubarb in the Catbird Seat Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997 Bostic, Joe, New York Times New York, April 19, 1946 Burns, Ken, “Baseball Quotes.” Baseball Quotes, http:// thatsbaseball1.tripod.com/id6.htm (accessed April 22, 2013) “Carl Erskine,” interview by Peter Brewster Baugh, Globe “Digital History,” Digital History, http://www.digitalhistory. uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2 (accessed April 28, 2013) “Donna Rogers-Beard,” interview by Peter Brewster Baugh, Globe “Gallup Poll-Approval Rating—Harry S. Truman,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll- Approval_Rating-Harry_S_Truman.png (accessed May 5, 2013) “Harriet Spilker,” interview by Peter Brewster Baugh, Globe “Jackie Robinson,” Baseball-Reference.com, http://www. baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinja02.shtml (accessed April 18, 2013) “Jackie Robinson Breaks Baseball’s Color Barrier, 1945,” EyeWitness to History, 2005, http://www.eyewitnesstohistory. com/robinson.htm (accessed April 26, 2013) “Jackie Robinson Quotes,” Jackie Robinson Quotes, http:// www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quojckr.shtml (accessed April 21, 2013) Louis Effrat, “Chandler Bars Durocher For 1947 Baseball Season,” The New York Times New York, NY, April 10, 1947 Pfeifer, Paul E., “The Court-Martial of Jackie Robinson,” The Supreme Court of Ohio, November 17, 1999, http:// www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/SCO/justices/pfeifer/column/ (accessed April 16, 2013) Phelps, Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps, “Hanging up 42: Yankees Mariano Rivera and Robinson Cano Talk About Jackie Robinson’s Enduring Legacy,” Yahoo! News, April 19, 2013, http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power- THE CONCORD REVIEW 157 players-abc-news/hanging-42-yankees-mariano-rivera-robinson- cano-talk-112117643.html (accessed April 27, 2013) Powers, Albert Theodore, “7. Deliverance,” in The Business of Baseball 111, Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2003 Robinson, Rachel, and Lee Daniels, Jackie Robinson: An Intimate Portrait New York: Abrams, 1996 Schwartz, Larry, “Jackie Changed Face of Sports,” ESPN, http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016431.html (accessed March 2013) Simon, Scott, “Minor Leaguer,” in Jackie Robinson and the Integration of Baseball Hoboken, New Jersey: J. Wiley & Sons, 2002 Taylor, Bob, “Jackie Robinson and Political Correctness,” Washington Times Communities, April 11, 2013, http:// communitics.washingtontims.com/neighborhood/ sports-around/2013/apr/11/jackie-robinson-and-political- correctness/ (accessed May 5, 2013) Tygiel, Jules, Baseball’s Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and His Legacy New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 Weintraub, Robert, “Tracing Two Lives After Losing to Jesse Owens,” New York Times July 20, 2012, http://www.nytimes. com/2012/07/21/sports/olympics/after-losing-to-jesse-owens- in-1936-two-others-took-different-paths.html?pagewanted=all&_ r=0 (accessed April 13, 2013) 158 Peter Baugh

From Robert Hines Head of History Richard Montgomery High School, Rockville, Maryland

Elmer Bendiner was a navigator in a B-17 during WW II. He tells this story of a World War II bombing run over Kassel, Germany and the unexpected result of a direct hit on their gas tanks:“Our B-17, the Tondelayo, was barraged by flak from Nazi antiaircraft guns. That was not unusual, but on this particular occasion our gas tanks were hit. Later, as I reflected on the miracle of a 20-millimeter shell piercing the fuel tank without touching off an explosion, our pilot, Bohn Fawkes, told me it was not quite that simple. On the morning following the raid, Bohn had gone down to ask our crew chief for that shell as a souvenir of unbelievable luck.

The crew chief told Bohn that not just one shell but 11 had been found in the gas tanks! Eleven unexploded shells where only one was sufficient to blast us out of the sky. It was as if the sea had been parted for us. Even after 35 years, so awesome an event leaves me shaken, especially after I heard the rest of the story from Bohn. He was told that the shells had been sent to the armorers to be defused.

The armorers told him that Intelligence had picked them up. They could not say why at the time, but Bohn eventually sought out the answer. Apparently when the armorers opened each of those shells, they found there was no explosive charge.

They were as clean as a whistle and just as harmless. Empty? Not all of them! One contained a carefully-rolled piece of paper. On it was a scrawl in Czech. The Intelligence people scoured our base for a man who could read Czech.

Eventually they found one to decipher the note. It read: This is all we can do for you now.”

...Using a conquered people (the Czechs) as slave laborers was perhaps not such a good idea. Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

The Invention of the Mechanical Clock and Perceptions of Time in the 13th–15th Centuries

Mattie Glenhaber

After the invention of the mechanical clock in Europe in the 12th century, the device spread so quickly that by the 14th century no place could be considered a proper town if it did not have a public clock in its town center.1 The first mention of a mechanical clock in medieval literature is often regarded to be in Dante’s Divine Comedy, in the early 1300s,2 and from this point on we see more and more references to clocks in literature and paintings.3 Soon, we see not just towns installing public clocks for all of their inhabitants, but also people owning their own clocks. The term “public clock” was used by Petrarch as early as 1353 to describe the first public clock in Milan, which not only displayed the time of day for everyone to see, but also rang the hours with bell signals.4 Soon, public clocks caught on in the rest of Europe, so much that cities would often compete to have the most extrava- gant clocks, complete with astronomical models and automatons. Still, despite the fact that the clock had become an essential part of everyday life, the church was initially opposed to their spread because of the way that public clocks not only changed the way that people measured time, but also people’s perception of time itself.

Mehitabel Glenhaber is a Junior at the Commonwealth School in Boston, Massachusetts, where she wrote this paper for Ms. Barbara Grant’s Medieval World History course in the 2012/2013 academic year. 160 Mattie Glenhaber

Before the 13th century, monasteries had been in charge of timekeeping, not only for themselves, but also for entire towns and villages. Since St. Benedict’s rule in 530, monks had been interested in keeping time as a way of ordering their days, which were divided up into masses, or periods of prayer, also called the canonical hours, which were used to tell monks not only when to pray, but also when to work, eat and sleep.5 The canonical hours were used not only by the monks but also by everyone else, from kings to peasants, and eventually, with the growth of cities and towns and the general urbanization of Europe, by merchants as well as laborers in cities. For most of early medieval history, monasteries were an essential part of medieval communities because of their stability in a time when most of Europe was in a state of political chaos. Later, towns were built around them and depended on them for many civic services, including signaling the hours.6 These bell signals announced the hours of prayer for religious laymen, but they were also used as the main method for telling people when to start and stop work on the fields or in the marketplace, and how to schedule their daily lives.7 Similarly, merchants in 12th century Genoa recorded the times of important business transactions, as well as times of birth and death, using the canonical hours.8 In fact, even those rich enough to afford their own sundials or water clocks would calibrate them to the canonical hours, because it had been the traditional way of telling time for so long. Unlike our modern hours, the canonical hours were actu- ally a very fluid way of measuring time, far from regular, and were hardly fixed points in time at all. Firstly, the canonical hours were tied to the events of ora et labora, and were designed to schedule a sequence of tasks, so the length of the hours was allowed to move to accommodate them.9 Similarly, the day and night were divided into hours separately because they were characterized by differ- ent activities, and they differed with the length of the day, season to season, especially in the more northern parts of Europe.10 On top of that, since the hours were signaled by manual bell ringing rather than an automatic machine, masses could drift even farther apart, since an hour was really determined by whenever a monk THE CONCORD REVIEW 161 remembered to look at the sundial and decide that it was about the right time. The devices used to measure time in monasteries, the sundial during the day, and the astrolabe to calculate the positions of the stars at night, or occasionally a temporary water clock, encouraged this fluidity of time. The sundial, for example, is perfect for measuring hours with lengths relative to the length of the day, since it tells time based on the position of the sun. Even the water clock could not run long without being reset with a sundial, and even then it was keeping time by the flow of water, a process which is by definition fluid.11 By the 12th century, different monasteries would often have completely different ideas about when an hour was supposed to take place.12 This fluid, sequen- tial division of time worked for monasteries keeping track of the masses, which may have been part of the reason that the system went uncorrected for so long, but it also meant that timekeeping in other spheres of life was not very reliable. The fluidity of monastic timekeeping was also even more largely connected to Christian philosophy about the nature of time, which was also influenced by the available devices for measuring time. Even in the 4th century, Christians were already thinking about the metaphysical question of God’s relation to time. In the Confessions, St. Augustine argues that there was no time before creation because God created the world and time as one, and that they are thus eternally linked to each other, settling a theological debate about the nature of time before Creation.13 And even apart from St. Augustine, there was a belief that time and the natural order are linked, and that the cycles of nature, the seasons, the movement of the sun, and the heavenly bodies, were given to us by God to measure time.14 This philosophy is obvious from illustrations in copies of the ‘books of hours’ from the Early and Central Middle Ages that often depict plants, ani- mals and other images of nature that belong with the time of year and day.15 Before the invention of the mechanical clock, devices for measuring time depended on observing nature. The sundial tells time by measuring the position of the sun, the astrolabe by heavenly bodies, and even the water clock can hardly be called 162 Mattie Glenhaber

independent from nature, since it has to be reset every morning with a sundial, and the fact that all of these devices really act as a way of measuring nature, promotes the idea of time as part of the natural world.16 In this philosophy there is no difference between the natural cycles and time, and timekeeping devices do not really determine the hours, they just tell you where in the fluid cycles of nature you are. This fundamental idea of time as part of nature and therefore God’s creation is the basis for the monastic hours and their non-rigidity. The escapement itself was actually invented completely independently from the realm of mechanical clocks, which may be the reason why it was so different from previous timekeeping methods. The initial 12th century search for more refined clocks, mostly led by astronomers looking for more accurate instruments to observe the planets, was looking for an entirely different sort of device: a sort of disk that would rotate along with the earth.17 This is yet another piece of evidence for the belief in time as linked to nature since even scientific researchers were seeking to model time on nature, and even after the escapement began to be widely used for the mechanical clock, most early clocks were really astronomical models with a timekeeping device added on to them. The escapement, however was invented entirely inde- pendently from the astronomer’s line of inquiry, some time in the early 1200s, in a Benedictine monastery, although there is debate as to the actual date and place. There is also debate about what the original purpose of the escapement was, but the unifying characteristic of most theories was that it was not at all intended to be a machine to change timekeeping, and it was not until a while after the invention of the escapement that people realized that this was the device for creating the regular circular motion that they had been looking for all along, but once they did, the escapement revolutionized the world of timekeeping. The escapement is a rather counterintuitive solution to the problem of creating regular circular motion, since it relies on the downward force of gravity, and oscillation rather than rotation. An escapement is the term for any machine that breaks THE CONCORD REVIEW 163 circular motion up into regular ticks, and there are a number of types, which mostly differ based on their power source, from the weight-driven verge and foliot, to the spring-powered escapement (developed much later, and useful in powering small, portable clocks and watches).19 The former is the type used in the earliest mechanical clocks, and it takes the form of a toothed wheel, or “crown wheel,” the foliot, a weighed bar suspended so it can turn, and the verge, a stick that connected to the foliot and a few paddles which rested on the teeth of the wheel. As the wheel turns, the teeth catch on the paddles, turning the verge and foliot in little “ticks” of motion that become the “ticks” of a clock.20 The escape- ment can keep very regular time, and with the development of the mechanical clock, the escapement was further refined. Even though early mechanical clocks were still unreliable by our current standards (it was considered an achievement if a clock did not lose a few minutes every day), they were much more precise than any device for keeping time that the medieval world had seen before.21 The mechanical clock did more than just change the mechanism that people used to measure time; it changed the system of time measurement. Because of the mechanical clock’s regular motion, it was ill-suited to measuring hours of unequal length, and so it needed a system of equal hours.22 Originally, pri- vate clocks were used to divide up the day at the convenience of whoever owned them with no real convention; for instance, kings commissioning clocks that rang a number of hours based on tasks that they planned to do.23 However, with the rise of public clocks in the late 1300s came the need for a universal standard of time measurement, and so the system of the 24-hour-day originated in Italy with some of the first town clocks, and eventually became the model for all town clocks in Western Europe. The 24 hours divided into 60 minutes (and eventually 60 seconds) goes back to time measuring systems that were in place before the canonical hours, such as those used by the ancient Greeks or Persians,24 although they still used unequal hours tied to natural cycles. The numbers 24 and 60 were probably chosen for their divisibility and ability to be split up evenly a number of ways.25 So, with the proliferation of the public clock came a switch from the canonical hours to what 164 Mattie Glenhaber

is known as the “equinoctial hours” or “modern hour reckoning,” i.e., measuring time in hours of equal length. The switch to modern hour reckoning was not just a technicality of the way people measured time, because of the importance of the ringing of the hours in medieval towns. As mentioned before, when monasteries signaled the hours, they were used by the townspeople for determining times of prayer, but also for the other aspects of daily life.26 But in the 1300s, people began recording times in “o’clock,” rather than canonical hours, not only in business documents,27 but also for recording times of birth and death,28 and the hours of work for certain trades also switched to the equinoctial hours. As the ringing of the canonical hours by monasteries was replaced by the ringing of the equinoctial hours by public clocks, the timing of secular life began to switch from the canonical hours to the equinoctial hours.29 Eventually, although not until much later, even the hours of prayer became tied to certain secular hours.30 In addition to public clocks making modern hour reck- oning more readily available to the public, the switch to modern hour-reckoning was also driven by the merchant class, because it was so well suited to the world of business.31 We can see that there was an obvious benefit to merchants because they were the first behind the push for public clocks, and often made large contri- butions for their installation.32 As cities like Venice and Genoa got more and more involved in trade, the lives of businessmen seemed to become more and more scheduled and ordered.33 And so, although the canonical hours were acceptable, an arbitrary, rational system for timekeeping appealed to them,34 since it was not only more geared towards the scheduling of secular life and a larger variety of activities, but also allowed merchants to be independent from the church. For example, guilds were able to schedule regular hours of work that they controlled.35 It is no coincidence that the first public clocks were all in Italy, which was famous for its trade and rich merchants.36 In some ways, the switch from canonical hours to equinoctial hours represented the power of the merchant class in the 14th and 15th century, since THE CONCORD REVIEW 165 their movement for a new system of hour reckoning was behind the change in the way all Europe measured time. The fact that modern hour reckoning took time out of the sphere of the church and into the hands of the merchant class may account for part of why the church was opposed to the clock and to modern hour reckoning, but the full scope of their objections is even more complex, and to understand them we must investigate the way that the mechanical clock not only changed the way that people measured time, but the way that they thought about it. The switch to the mechanical clock and modern hour reckoning led to an entirely new metaphysical idea about time: time as abstract and rational, completely separate from nature. Unlike previous devices for measuring hours, like the sundial and the astrolabe, which observed nature, the clock actually defines time itself as completely separate from nature.37 By removing time from nature and its cycles, the clock started to use divisions of time that were rational and arbitrary, since they were based solely on the length, not natural events or the activities of ora et labora.38 Time became something that you used to measure events and activities rather than being defined as a sequence of them, and the natural order became yet another sequence of events that fit into time and could be measured by the abstract divisions of the clock. The idea of time as abstract also led to a greater sense of the scarcity of time, since it made people start to think of their allotted time, and of using all their time well. This development is evident from the number of clocks that were marked with memento mori, or reminders of the shortness of life.39 Phrases like “wasting time,” “time is short,” and “time is money” sprung from this idea that time is a valuable resource that belongs to people, and people began to schedule their days a lot more, as we can see from the planners of merchants, who began to schedule their time down to the hour rather than the day.40 This scheduling brought with it a greater anxiety about the passage of time. For example Madame Louvigny, a noblewoman in Paris, refused to stay in a house with a clock that rang the hours because she felt that it “cut her life into too many little pieces.”41 All of this came from the idea that 166 Mattie Glenhaber

time is a resource that belongs to people and needed to be put to good use, an idea which came into conflict with the church’s beliefs about time as God’s possession and a part of nature. From the Church’s point of view, the idea of abstract time was dangerous because it challenged the idea of time as belonging to God. Recalling St. Augustine’s argument about God’s creation of time and nature, you can see how, to the medieval church, the idea of time as separate from nature was threatening to the idea of time as God’s creation. The mechanical clock and the equinoc- tial hours were seen as an attack on the idea of God’s power over time, because they suggested that a man-made mechanical device should be the absolute standard for measuring time, rather than the heavens, which God himself had placed there, and thus that an abstract division of hours decided on by humans was more important than God’s creation.42 The idea of time as a resource, especially one that can be bought and sold, was very disturbing to the church as well. A common argument against usury in an anonymous 12th century document says that usurers “sell nothing… time, they sell the day and night…they are selling eternal light and rest,”—the implication being that selling time is like selling a part of the natural order, and as God’s creation it cannot be owned, bought, or sold by anyone.43 But now, time was thought of as a resource belonging to people, that was theirs to use, or to sell if they so wished, an affront to the idea of time as God’s possession and not any mortal’s. In these ways, modern hour reckoning was not only a threat to the church because it took away their power over time through the ringing of the hours, but it also threatened to take power over time away from God. Because it was a challenge to the church, the proliferation of public clocks and modern hour reckoning became a major part in the ongoing struggle between the papacy and the kings of Europe, and royal support is part of the reason the public clocks became so widespread. While, as previously mentioned, the merchant class often provided funding and campaigned for public clocks, many town clocks were officially commissioned by a royal charter. Not only did kings support the building of clocks, but they also gave THE CONCORD REVIEW 167 towns the official right to ring the hours. In a famous edict, King Charles V of France banned the church from ringing their bells at times when they would interfere with the public clock, which rang in time with the king’s private clocks.44 Some historians pass this off as Charles V simply trying to avoid confusion about the bell signals, but still, the fact that he chose the public clock over the church shows that the French royalty was trying to take control over timekeeping from the church.45 By encouraging the building of public clocks, kings could not only forge an alliance with the rich and powerful merchant class, but could also exert power over the church by placing timekeeping in the sphere of royal powers. This explains the expansion of public clocks by royal charters in the 14th century when, in France especially, kings were trying to break away from the weak and corrupt papacy. With the push for public clocks, led by merchants look- ing for a more rational system of time, and by kings looking to get a political advantage against the Church, the canonical hours eventually gave way to the equinoctial ones, and eventually the idea of time as God’s creation and part of nature had to give way to rational and abstract timekeeping as a function of business and the government. For all that they fought against it, the Church of Rome eventually conceded on the question of modern hour reckoning, and even the canonical hours eventually became tied to the equivalent equinoctial hours.46 On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox Church held their position on the mechanical clock, and until a few centuries ago would not allow mechanical clocks in their churches.47 The reason for this difference between the East and the West, and the concession of the papacy is sometimes thought to be that the Church of Rome was on the whole more accepting towards new technology than other churches,48 or it may have simply been that the clock was too convenient, and became too widely used in the West to fight against.49 It is likely also related to the weakness of the Avignon papacy, and the papacy in general in the 14th century, when most of the adoption of mechanical clocks was taking place, and they simply did not have the political power (especially in relation to the French monarchy) to continue 168 Mattie Glenhaber

to fight it. Maybe in a world where the papacy had not been in the middle of such political troubles, or where the clock had not spread so quickly, the Church of Rome would have refused the clock for longer too, since it is evident from the Greek Orthodox Church’s reaction how serious a theological issue the mechanical clock created for the nature of time. THE CONCORD REVIEW 169

1 Lynn White Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964) p. 124 2 Dante’s Paradiso, Canto X: As clock, that calleth up the spouse of God To win her Bridegroom’s love at matin’s hour, Each part of the other fitly drawn and urged, Sends out a tinkling sound, of note so sweet, Affection springs in well-disposed breast; Thus saw I move the glorious wheel… cited in Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976) p. 154 (Also note that this passage was definitely written in the early days of the clock, during the period of transition to them because Dante references the clock, but also the canonical hour of matins.) 3 In fact, one of the ways that we know about the invention of the clock is through paintings depicting Temperantia, one of the seven virtues, and the personification of wisdom and innovation, who shows up in high medieval art. She is usually depicted holding or surrounded by inventions which were considered modern at the time, leading to some rather humorous depictions of her, such as one painting which shows her holding a pair of glasses, wearing spurs and a bridle, sitting on top of a windmill with a clock balanced on her head. Gerhard Dohrn-Van Rossum, History of the Hour: Clocks and Modern Temporal Orders (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) pp. 6–7 4 Ibid., pp. 128–129 5 Ibid., pp. 35–36 6 Ibid., p. 39 7 Carlo M. Cipolla, Clocks and Culture: 1300–1700 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1978) p. 38 8 Steven Epstein, “Business Cycles and the Sense of Time in Medieval Genoa,” The Business History Review Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer, 1988) pp. 238–260, JSTOR, 2–3 9 Dohrn-Van Rossum, pp. 29 and 37 10 Ibid., pp. 30–31 and 34–35 11 Jo Barnett, Time’s Pendulum: The Quest to Capture Time—From Sundials to Atomic Clocks (New York: Plenum Trade: 1998) pp. 46–47 12 Dohrn-Van Rossum, pp. 30–31 170 Mattie Glenhaber

13 Francis C. Haber, “The Clock as an Intellectual Artifact” in The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata 1550–1650 edited by Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr, 1–18 and 49–56 (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1980) pp. 11–12 14 Barnett, p. 52; Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 1 15 Barnett, p. 50 16 Ibid., pp. 46–47 17 Haber, pp. 11; Dohrn Van-Rossum, pp. 89–90; White p. 122; Cipolla, p. 38 Actually, rather than a disk that turned with the earth, they were looking for a disk that turned with the movement of the heavens around the earth, since the heliocentric view was not yet widely accepted, but for the purpose of timekeeping, it is actually irrelevant, since the two would have to rotate at the same speed. 18 Gimpel, pp. 149 and 154, and most of the other sources agree with this, although Dohrn-Van Rossum shares some alternate theories and cites that there is a theory that the inventor of the earliest escapement is Gerbet de Aurillac, although he does not support this theory, and I do not particularly either since I have not found anything at all to back it up (pp. 45–46). 19 In addition to the mechanical clock, the escapement and several refinements of it lead to a number of other devices. One such mechanism is the fusee, which uses a chain wound around a cone, which was used in crossbows. It was, as Lynn White Jr. puts it, “with very medieval humor” named “the virgin,” because it offered the most resistance when the bow was taut, and the least when it was slack. 20 Barnett, p. 76 and Arnold Pacey, The Maze of Ingenuity: Ideas and Idealism in the Development of Technology (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989) pp. 64–66 21 Cipolla, pp. 58–59 22 Barnett, p. 69 23 Dohrn-Van Rossum, pp. 114–115 24 Gimple, pp. 161 and 164; Barnett, p. 66 25 This seems to be the reason why most attempts to switch to decimal time fail, since 10 can only be split up into groups of 2 or 5. 26 Cipolla, p. 42 27 Ibid., p. 104; Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 220 THE CONCORD REVIEW 171

28 It is rumored, according to Gerhard Dohrn-Van Rossum, that one of the first people to have his date of death recorded with an equinoctial hour was the man who commissioned the first public clock in Milan. 29 Cipolla, p. 38 30 Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 56; Barnett, pp. 49–50 31 Dohrn-Van Rossum, pp. 227–228 32 Gimpel, p. 165; Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 127 33 Dohrn-Van Rossum, pp. 12, 126–127, 227–228 34 Gimpel, p. 170 35 This is not exactly the same as paying workers for the hours that they work, which is actually a much more advanced economic idea, and is developed much later. However, different trades did have different hours that all of the workers of that profession would work, which were marked first by the church bells and then by the town clocks. However, workers were still paid for what they produced during the time that they worked, not the hours that they put in. Still, since guilds would usually standardize these hours for economic purposes, so more control over them, and being able to link them to arbitrary hours was still useful for merchants. 36 Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 134 37 Barnett, pp. 68, 71 38 Ibid., pp. 61, 68 39 Haber, pp. 9–10 The increase in memento mori could also correspond with the increased awareness of death brought about by the Black Plague, which was happening around the same time, but even so, the fact that it is linked to clocks is still significant. 40 Dohrn-Van Rossum, pp. 2–4; Cipolla, p. 104; Barnett, p. 69 41 Franklin, Mesure du Temps, p. 139, cited in Cipolla, p. 105 42 Barnett, p. 52; Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 1 43 Tabula exemphrum (ed. J.T. Welter [1926], p. 139), as quoted in Jacques Le Goff, Time, Work and Culture in the Middle Ages (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1980) note 2, p. 290, cited in Barnett, pp. 55–56 44 Barnett, p. 88; Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 217 45 Dohrn-Van Rossum, p. 227 46 Barnett, p. 87 47 Gimpel, p. 169; Barnett, p. 88 48 Gimpel, p. 169 172 Mattie Glenhaber

49 Whereas in the East, the mechanical clock did not come into popular use until much later, and up through the 1500s the Ottoman Empire would only acquire clocks through trade, and had to import clockmakers to fix them when they broke.

Bibliography

Barnett, Jo, Time’s Pendulum: The Quest to Capture Time—From Sundials to Atomic Clocks New York: Plenum Trade: 1998

Cipolla, Carlo M., Clocks and Culture: 1300–1700 New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1978

Dohrn-Van Rossum, Gerhard, History of the Hour: Clocks and Modern Temporal Orders Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996

Epstein, Stephen A., “Business Cycles and the Sense of Time in Medieval Genoa,” The Business History Review Vol. 62, No. 2, Summer 1988: pp. 238–260, JSTOR

Gimpel, Jean, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976

Haber, Francis, ‘The Clock as an Intellectual Artifact,” The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata 1550–1650 edited by Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr, 1–18 and 49–56, New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1980

Pacey, Arnold, The Maze of Ingenuity: Ideas and Idealism in the Development of Technology Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989

White, Lynn, Medieval Technology and Social Change Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964 Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

Anti-German Sentiment During the First World War: Milwaukee Compared to the Nation at Large

Hendrick Townley

Introduction

In 1986 the U.S. census declared that “for the first time in more than 300 years the leading ancestral background of America’s residents was no longer British, but German.”1 Today, according to 2010 Census data, 45.7 million Americans (15 percent of the na- tion’s total population) claim to be of German descent, 12 million more than the next largest ethnicity group.2 Many well-established icons of modern American culture, including Christmas trees, kindergarten, and hamburgers, came directly from Germany, and German-Americans of the past, including Milton Hershey, Henry Steinway, and Albert Einstein, are celebrated for their influence and achievements. In the President’s annual German- American Day proclamation in 2003, George W. Bush spoke highly of the “contributions to the liberty and prosperity of the United States of our citizens of German descent” and encouraged other Americans to do the same.3 However, German-Americans were

Hendrick Townley is a Senior at Rye Country Day School in Rye, New York, where he wrote this paper for Mrs. Anne Sampson’s Advanced Placement U.S. History course in the 2012/2013 academic year. 174 Hendrick Townley

not always held in such high esteem as they are today. By the time the United States entered World War I in 1917, an anti-German feelings of great vigor had taken hold of the nation, leading to an ethnic “cleansing” of sorts across the United States of all things German. In Milwaukee, however, the effect of anti-German senti- ment was polarizing. Because of the city’s support for Germany at the outset of the war and its reputation as “the German Athens of America,”4 Milwaukee witnessed anti-German hostility from a vocal minority that was just as blatant and aggressive as that seen in other parts of the nation. At the same time, a quiet sympathy for German-Americans can be inferred from the city’s political support for the Socialist anti-war movement and its economic dependence on the beer industry.

Background on German-Americans

For as long as any other Europeans have been in America, Germans have been in America; indeed, German immigrants were present among the first settlers at Jamestown in 1608. In 1683 German Mennonites escaping religious persecution in Europe founded Germantown, Pennsylvania, the first German settle- ment in the 13 colonies. Throughout the 1700s German religious groups belonging to the Lutheran and Reformed churches sought religious freedom in the American middle colonies, most notably Pennsylvania.5 These immigrants, along with the 6,000 Hessian mercenaries who elected to stay in America after the Revolution- ary War,6 made up the 100,000 Germans who had immigrated to the United States by 1790. German immigration continued to increase throughout the 19th century, skyrocketing in the 1850s, after the 1848 defeat of democratic revolutions in Germany sent 1 million German political refugees fleeing to the U.S. over the next decade.7 In the 1880s German immigration peaked again as more than 1.5 million new German immigrants entered the nation. At its zenith in 1890 the number of German-born people residing in the U.S. was 2.8 million, most of whom lived within the Midwestern “German triangle” bounded by Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincinnati. By 1910 despite decreased immigration and increased assimilation there were still 2.3 million German-born THE CONCORD REVIEW 175 citizens living in the United States. As this number includes only first generation German-Americans, the number of those who iden- tified as German-Americans was most likely significantly higher.8 Anti-German Sentiment in the United States leading up to and during WWI

The millions of Germans who immigrated during this pe- riod did not arrive in a United States that harbored bad feelings against Germans in particular. In fact the intense anti-German feeling present in the United States immediately prior to WWI had coalesced slowly in the 40 years after Germany had united in 1871. During the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 the “sympathies of the United States were unquestionably with Germany,” thanks to American empathy for German unification, American respect for German academia, and German support for the Union dur- ing the Civil War.9 However, Germany’s reputation would proceed to deteriorate considerably among Americans due to increasing U.S. concern over German expansionism. German militarism in Samoa in the 1880s, in the Philippines in 1898, and in China after the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, in addition to repeated Ger- man violations of the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America “did much to arouse in the people of the United States a definite fear of…German Imperialism.”10 Kaiser Wilhelm’s “ill-considered… utterances [moreover] served to make Germany’s aggressiveness seem worse than it really was.”11 This German militarism, in addi- tion to high foreign tariffs passed in Germany between 1879 and 1905 and diminishing German influence in American academia, resulted in Americans being “definitely suspicious and fearful of Germany in July, 1914, before the opening of the World War.”12 This American prejudice towards Germany which had built up in the early 20th century set the stage for an explosion of anti-German feeling which would arise in the nation after the U.S. entered WWI. Due to their immigrant status and Americans’ rising distrust of Germany, German-Americans already faced a certain degree of discrimination before the war. “Missourian Richard Bartholdt complained that…anti-German organizations 176 Hendrick Townley

were cropping up across 1890s America ‘like mushrooms, just as if the devil had traveled over the country and sown poisoned seeds everywhere.’”13 These organizations, including the American Protective Association (founded in 1887) and the Immigration Restriction League (founded in 1894), were committed to stem- ming the influx of German and other immigrants.14 In his 1894 speech “What ‘Americanism’ Means,” future president Theodore Roosevelt challenged the loyalty of those Americans who “need hyphens in their names because only part of them has come over.”15 Whatever anti-Germanism had existed before WWI paled in comparison to that which ensued once war had begun. The sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman Telegram,16 and Ger- many’s initiation of unrestricted submarine warfare against U.S. vessels after January 1917 eroded much of the support that still remained for Germany among the American public.17 Encouraged by American Nativist groups,18 and the government’s Committee on Public Information, directed by George Creel, which sought to establish social unity among Americans by portraying the Germans as savages, anti-German hostility was seen throughout the nation beginning in 1917.19 Across America, German-Americans were scared into buying liberty bonds, forced to partake in flag-kissing ceremonies, beaten, tarred, and feathered. German-American homes and schools were vandalized and pacifist German Menno- nites were persecuted for not supporting the war. A cleansing of all German influence took place concurrently with the violence. Beethoven’s music was banned in Pittsburgh; Dr. Karl Muck, the well-known German conductor of the Boston Symphony, was ar- rested; statues of famous Germans such as Goethe and Schiller were vandalized, and German instruction and textbooks were banned in many schools. Even names of German origin were too much for angry Americans: Germantown, Nebraska became Garland, German measles became “Liberty measles,” hamburgers became “Liberty steaks.”20 Surprisingly, “the brief hysteria of 1917–1918 was over- come with remarkable speed in the 1920s.”21 Nevertheless, it had profound, long-lasting effects on German-Americans and their THE CONCORD REVIEW 177 cultural institutions. Many German-Americans chose to give up their ties to the “Vaterland” altogether in order keep anti-German hostility at bay. German-Americans anglicized their names, applied for citizenship in droves, and some stopped speaking German al- together.22 The 1920 U.S. census showed a 25.3 percent decrease in the number of German-born Americans over the last decade despite records of 170,000 new German immigrants over the same period. Historian La Vern J. Ripley suggests that this was due to the shame and reluctance German-Americans felt in divulging their heritage to census takers.23 This shame agrees with a trend of cultural amnesia observed among German-Americans after the war: German-American “[p]arents…had out of fear and humili- ation—so denied their roots that their children grew up with no sense of their German heritage.”24

German-Americans in Milwaukee

From the beginning Milwaukee stood out from other U.S. cities for its deep-rooted, distinct German culture. Milwaukee was founded in 1836 at the junction where the Milwaukee River met Lake Michigan.25 The first Germans arrived in the city less than four years later and by 1860 Germans constituted a majority of the city’s population. By then Milwaukee had become “the most German large city west of Berlin.”26 During WWI, Milwaukee boasted a “population nearly 25 percent of whom had been born in Germany or Austria.”27 Although Milwaukeean Germans lived throughout the city, they were primarily concentrated in the area of Milwaukee that was west of the Milwaukee River: North Third Street, the downtown of German-Americans in Milwaukee, was so steeped in German culture and identity that “Merchants had to put up signs in this district saying ‘English Spoken Here.’” Milwaukee’s German community was unique in its diversity; the German-Americans living in the city consisted of a broad range of economic, political, and religious groups;28 however, the Germans in Milwaukee did not isolate themselves from other Americans. In 1850 John Kerler Jr. remarked that “Milwaukee is the only place in which I found that the Americans concern themselves with 178 Hendrick Townley

learning German, and where the German language and German ways are bold enough to take a foothold.”29 Many of the German institutions and organizations in the city had been established by the liberal and highly educated “Forty-Eighters” who arrived in the city throughout the 1850s. German-Americans were also significant employers in the Milwaukee tanning, manufacturing, and brewing industries.30 By 1860 there were 19 German breweries within the city of Milwaukee alone.31 The question then remains: In the midst of such a strong German population and culture, did Milwaukee react any differently to the anti-German hysteria than the rest of the nation did?

Anti-German Sentiment in Milwaukee

When war broke out in Europe and the United States was still wedded to neutrality, Milwaukee quickly took the side of “what was for many [residents] the home team.”32 Even after the Lusitania had been sunk, killing 128 Americans in May of 1915, Milwaukeeans expressed their support for Kaiser Wilhelm and German Imperialism openly. Most notable was the “Charity War Bazaar,” which featured German concerts and theatrical produc- tions, elaborate re-creations of German icons and landmarks and thousands of donated items for sale. Of the 400,000 Milwaukee residents, 175,000 came out to show their support over the course of the week and more than $150,000 (circa $3 million today) was raised “for the benefit of German and Austrian war sufferers.”33 Even the Milwaukee Journal, which would later criticize the Ger- man community, marveled that the bazaar was “without a doubt the biggest thing ever attempted in Milwaukee, and imagination cannot begin to conjure up the tons and tons of things on sale or the amount of dollars involved.”34 Early Milwaukeean support for Germany is also evident in the city’s theater. Between 1914 and 1917 the highly regarded Pabst Theater put on “at least 10 different war-related plays…that reflected…the loyalty Milwaukee Germans felt towards the Old World.”35 As the national sentiment shifted away from neutrality and against Germany throughout 1916, Milwaukee’s support for the THE CONCORD REVIEW 179 ‘fatherland’ began to raise eyebrows. The Houston Post noted caus- tically “Germany seems to have lost all of her foreign possessions with the exception of Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincinnati.”36 Such bad press elicited an even stronger display of pro-War patriotism from ‘loyal’ Milwaukeeans attempting to compensate for their city’s disloyal reputation. Determined “to redeem the city’s good name” and to “avoid the stigma of disloyalty at all costs,” a group of Milwaukee’s most ardent patriots “mounted a campaign to search out and destroy every last vestige of support for Germany.”37 In July 1916, 30,000 Milwaukeeans marched in a pro-War “preparedness” parade. In January 1917, as the Germans resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, an American patriotic mass meeting was held in the same location as the bazaar had been held a year earlier. After the U.S. declared war in April 1917, Milwaukee even “led the nation in military enlistments for a time, and Liberty Loan drives [in the city] were routinely oversubscribed.”38 Families who failed to buy enough Liberty bonds had their houses “splashed with yellow paint” and suspect public employees were forced to sign loyalty oaths.39 The Milwaukee Journal led the charge against any support for the German cause. On October 14, 1916, the Journal published an editorial charging the local Germania-Herold with “disloyalty” and describing the German-language paper as having “fought with all its strength for the anti-American side and [having] wholeheart- edly espoused the cause of Germany.”40 The Journal went on to issue similar attacks against the German-American National Alli- ance and the teaching of German in Milwaukee schools. On May 27, 1918, the Journal published an article celebrating the end of Germanism, an “evil, cunning, sinuous…hydra-headed monster… [which uses] its language to inculcate moral treason.”41 The Pabst Theater was at the center of some of the most memorable anti-German activity. Several accounts vaguely describe an “anti-German mob [that] placed a machine gun in front of Pabst theater and demanded the cancellation of a performance of Schiller’s Wilhelm Tell in 1917.42 In any case, less than a year later the Pabst Theater was publically called upon by the Milwaukee 180 Hendrick Townley

Journal to “discontinue German-language productions” for good.43 When the Pabst Theater attempted to put on Wilhelm Tell in the original German again in 1919 immediately after the war, a group of war veterans set up a cannon, this time, across from the theater and threatened to “literally bring the house down if management even tried to raise the curtain.”44 German-Milwaukeeans shrank back in the face of such fanatic American patriotism. After the U.S. declared war in 1917 and anti-German feelings took hold of the nation, open support for Germany vanished in Milwaukee. Ethnic Germans in Milwaukee did their best to maintain a low profile by Anglicizing their names. For example, the German-English Academy renamed itself the Milwaukee University School “because of pressure from its high school students and a large number of parents”45 and the Deutscher Klub (translates as “German Club”) renamed itself the Wisconsin Club. In response to attacks from the Milwaukee Journal, George Brumder, owner of the Germania-Herold, was forced to rename the Germania Building, which he had built to honor German- American culture. Its iconic statue of the goddess Germania, which had been mounted to the facade, was also taken down.46 In Milwaukee schools, the 30,000 students previously enrolled in German classes had dropped to only 400 by the end of the war; although, this stunning drop in enrollment would have been fa- cilitated by the “weakness and indifference of German-American parents” who after years of assimilation no longer held German language classes as a top priority for their children.47

Socialism in Milwaukee

However, this anti-German movement did not completely eclipse support for Milwaukee’s German-Americans. Despite ob- vious anti-German aggression from some, a quiet sympathy for German-Americans was evident in Milwaukee’s political support for the anti-war movement, a position supported by many German- Americans.48 Milwaukee had two anti-war congressmen during the war who, along with Wisconsin Senator La Follette, consistently opposed Wilson’s hardening policy towards Germany.49 THE CONCORD REVIEW 181 More significant was Milwaukee’s political history with socialism. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s the Milwaukee city government had been plagued with severe corruption; however, this reign of corruption came to an abrupt end when Milwaukee became the first and only major U.S. city to adopt a socialist government. Long-term socialist mayor of Milwaukee, Daniel Hoan (1916–1940), upheld his legal obligations as mayor during WWI and supported the war effort; however, he confided, “I am a Socialist—my whole soul rebels at the thought of war.”50 More- over, Mayor Hoan (who was German by heritage)51 consistently “defended the rights of [antiwar] opposition voices.”52 After the socialist, antiwar paper, The Milwaukee Leader, had its mailing privileges rescinded, “Dan Hoan let it be known that any Leader correspondence addressed to the mayor’s office would find its way to the right people.”53 Hoan similarly invited the anti-war People’s Council to meet in Milwaukee during the war, although the council was said to border “very nearly on treason.”54 That he was reelected over and over again both during and after the war at the very least reveals Milwaukeeans acceptance of the anti-war movement. Victor Berger, the co-founder of the American Socialist Party and most well-known Socialist of the city, also found sup- port in Milwaukee. After Berger’s antiwar paper, The Milwaukee Leader, had its second-class mailing privileges rescinded in Autumn 1917, Milwaukeeans “produced a washtub filled with cash and jewelry worth $4,000.”55 In the special senatorial elections held in Wisconsin in 1917 following Senator Husting’s death, Berger polled a close third-place finish, despite running under a third party. The 110,487 votes he received were three times as many as the party had ever gotten in Wisconsin.56 Moreover Berger “had rolled up more than a third of his votes” in Milwaukee.57 In 1918, only a few months before the end of the war, “Milwaukeeans made it perfectly clear that they were tired of the endless German bash- ing.”58 Milwaukeeans elected Berger to be their representative in Congress in 1918 only to have the “House of Representatives [refuse] to permit him to take his seat for violating the federal Espionage Act.”59 When a subsequent special congressional election 182 Hendrick Townley

was held in 1919 to fill his vacant seat Berger was elected again by Milwaukeeans despite “bipartisan opposition and having been sentenced to 20 years in jail for violating the Espionage Act.”60 Milwaukee’s repeated support for anti-war socialists in the midst of extreme pressure for social unification reveals some extent of sympathy for German-Americans.

Breweries in Milwaukee

Further support for German-Americans can be inferred from Milwaukee’s economic support for the beer industry during and after the war. Germans and beer had always gone hand in hand in Milwaukee. In a 1910 article about Milwaukee, the New York Times described “brass bands serenading brewer workers with German tunes and a municipal brewery as large as Buckingham Palace.”61 This relationship was not lost when the anti-German hysteria over- took the city. In 1918, John Strange, a former lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, asserted “the worst of all our German enemies, the most treacherous…are Pabst, Schlitz, Blatz, and Miller” (four of the most prominent Milwaukee breweries).62 And yet any attempts to rename or restrict the beverage companies were unsuccessful in Milwaukee during the war. The number of those employed by Milwaukee breweries rose from 3,200 employees before the war to 6,000 employees by war’s end.63 Although the 2.2 million barrels of beer Milwaukee produced in 1918 was only half that produced in 1912, this discrepancy can be accounted for by the grain shortages induced by WWI. After the 18th Amendment had been ratified prohibiting alcohol in 1919, Milwaukee expressed strong support for the Muhlberger Act, which allowed beer with less than 2.5 percent alcohol to be sold in the state of Wisconsin.64 Milwaukee’s support for beer certainly implied some degree of tolerance and acceptance for Germans with whom the beverage was so strongly associated.

Conclusion

Milwaukee witnessed a strong early outburst of German ethnic pride while the war still remained confined in Europe. THE CONCORD REVIEW 183 Through the Charity War Bazaar and German theater, the city’s German-Americans expressed open and unhindered support for their “Vaterland.” However, this early freedom of expression German-Americans were afforded did not spare Milwaukee from the nationwide anti-German feeling, which manifested itself in the city once the U.S. declared war. Acts of anti-German aggres- sion, very similar to anti-German acts carried out in other parts of the nation, were committed by a group of “loyal” Milwaukeeans. Nevertheless, a quiet sympathy for German-Americans was evident throughout WWI in the city’s support for Socialist anti-war politi- cians, and for the beer industry. 184 Hendrick Townley

Endnotes

1 Anne Galicich, The German Americans (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989) p. 13 2 G. Scott Thomas, “German-Americans Are Nation’s Dominant Ethnic Group,” The Business Journals, (last modified July 30, 2012), http://www.bizjournals.com/ bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/07/german- americans-are-nations-dominant.html (accessed April 29, 2013) 3 Lisa Trumbauer, German Immigrants ed. Robert Asher (New York: Facts On File, 2005) p. 12 4 The Making of Milwaukee, (last modified 2006), http:// www.themakingofmilwaukee.com/people/stories.cfm#german (accessed April 29, 2013) 5 “The Germans in America: Chronology,” Library of Congress, (last modified September 21, 2010), http://www. loc.gov/rr/european/imde/germany.html (accessed April 29, 2013) 6 Trumbauer, p. 36 7 “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress 8 Ibid. 9 Clara Eve Schieber, “The Transformation of American Sentiment towards Germany, 1870–1914,” The Journal of International Relations 12, no. 1 (July 1921) p. 50 10 Ibid., p. 67 11 Ibid., p. 56 12 Ibid., p. 69 13 Galicich, p. 79 14 Alan Brinkley, American History: A Survey 13th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009) p. 504 15 Galicich, p. 79 16 Ibid., p. 82 17 “World War I, at Home and in the Trenches,” Wisconsin Historical Society, http://preview.wisconsinhistory.org (accessed April 29, 2013) 18 Galicich, p. 79 19 Brinkley, p. 617 20 Galicich, pp. 82–84 21 Mary Kupiec Cayton, Elliott J. Gorn, and Peter W. Williams, “German Speakers,” in Encyclopedia of American Social History (New York: Scribner, 1993) Vol. 2, p. 724 22 Galicich, p. 84 23 Trumbauer, p. 87 THE CONCORD REVIEW 185

24 Galicich, p. 85 25 Ibid., p. 62 26 The Making of Milwaukee 27 Lorin Lee Cary, “The Wisconsin Loyalty Legion, 1917– 1918,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History (Fall 1969) p. 34, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4634484 (accessed April 28, 2013) 28 The Making of Milwaukee 29 Galicich, p. 66 30 The Making of Milwaukee 31 Galicich, p. 66 32 John Gurda, The Making of Milwaukee (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Milwaukee County Historical Society, 1999) p. 222 33 Ibid., p. 222 34 “Crowds at the Bazaar Overflow the Streets,” Milwaukee Journal (March 5, 1916) 35 Steven Hoelscher, Jeffrey Zimmerman, and Timothy Bawden, “Milwaukee’s German Renaissance Twice-Told; Inventing and Recycling Landscape in America’s German Athens,” in Wisconsin Land and Life ed. Robert Clifford Ostergren and Thomas R. Vale (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1997) p. 393, http://books.google.com (accessed May 23, 2013) 36 Gurda, p. 223 37 Ibid., p. 224 38 Ibid., p. 223 39 Ibid., p. 225 40 “Disloyalty Flaunted Daily in the Face of Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal (October 14, 1916) 41 “The Beginning of the End of Deutschtum in America,” Milwaukee Journal (May 27, 1918) 42 Hoelscher, Zimmerman, and Bawden, p. 393 43 Ibid., p. 393 44 Gurda, p. 233 45 Bettina Goldberg, “The German-English Academy, the National German-American Teachers’ Seminary, and the Public School System in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” in German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917 ed. Henry Geitz, Jürgen Heideking, and Jurgen Herbst (Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 1995) p. 191, Google Books, (accessed April 29, 2013) 46 Tobias Torgerson, “The Germania Building and the anti- German mania of World War I,” Examiner.com, (last modified March 17, 2012), http://www.examiner.com/article/the- 186 Hendrick Townley

germania-building-and-the-anti-german-mania-of- world-war-i (accessed April 28, 2013) 47 Goldberg, p. 191 48 Brinkley, p. 616 49 Cary, p. 34 50 Gurda, p. 228 51 Richard H. Zeitlin, Germans in Wisconsin, revised and expanded ed. (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 2000) p. 24 52 “World War I, at Home,” Wisconsin Historical Society 53 Gurda, p. 230 54 Arthur W. Thurner, “The Mayor, the Governor, and the People’s Council: A Chapter in American Wartime Dissent,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 66, no. 2, p. 129, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40190962 (accessed May 22, 2013) 55 Gurda, p. 229 56 Herbert F. Margulies, “The Election of 1920 in Wisconsin: The Return to ‘Normalcy’ Reappraised,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History (Fall 1957) pp. 16–18, http://www.jstor. org/stable/4633186 (accessed April 29, 2013) 57 Cary, p. 46 58 Gurda, p. 230 59 “Victor Berger, Milwaukee Socialists, and Civil Liberty,” Wisconsin Historical Society, http://preview.wisconsinhistory. org (accessed April 29, 2013) 60 Margulies, p. 18 61 Gurda, p. 217 62 Ibid., p. 237 63 Michael R. Reilly, ed., “A History of Milwaukee and Wisconsin Breweries,” Sussex-Lisbon Area Historical Society, (last modified March 27, 2013), http://www.slahs.org/ brewery/breweries.htm (accessed May 22, 2013) 64 Jennifer Watson Schumacher, ed., German Milwaukee (Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Pub., 2009) p. 123 THE CONCORD REVIEW 187

Bibliography

Brinkley, Alan, American History: A Survey 13th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009 Cary, Lorin Lee, “The Wisconsin Loyalty Legion, 1917– 1918,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History Fall 1969, 33–50, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4634484 (accessed April 28, 2013) Cayton, Mary Kupiec, Elliott J. Gorn, and Peter W. Williams, “German Speakers,” in Encyclopedia of American Social History 724, Vol. 2, New York: Scribner, 1993 Conzen, Kathleen Neils, “Germans,” in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups edited by Stephan Thernstrom, 405–425, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1980 Galicich, Anne, The German Americans New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989 Goldberg, Bettina, “The German-English Academy, the National German-American Teachers’ Seminary, and the Public School System in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” in German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917 edited by Henry Geitz, Jürgen Heideking, and Jurgen Herbst, 177–194, Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 1995, Google Books (accessed April 29, 2013) Gurda, John, The Making of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Milwaukee County Historical Society, 1999 Hoelscher, Steven, Jeffrey Zimmerman, and Timothy Bawden, “Milwaukee’s German Renaissance Twice-Told; Inventing and Recycling Landscape in America’s German Athens,” in Wisconsin Land and Life, edited by Robert Clifford Ostergren and Thomas R. Vale, 376–409, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1997, http://books.google.com (accessed May 23, 2013) “Immigrants, by Country: 1820 to 1970,” table, in The Statistical History of the United States, from Colonial Times to the Present 105, New York: Basic Books, 1976 Library of Congress, “The Germans in America: Chronology,” Library of Congress, last modified September 21, 2010, http://www.loc.gov/rr/european/imde/germany.html (accessed April 29, 2013) The Making of Milwaukee, last modified 2006, http:// www.themakingofmilwaukee.com/people/stories.cfm#german (accessed April 29, 2013) 188 Hendrick Townley

Margulies, Herbert F., “The Election of 1920 in Wisconsin: The Return to ‘Normalcy’ Reappraised,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History Fall 1957, 15–22, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4633186 (accessed April 29, 2013) Milwaukee Journal (Wisconsin), “The Beginning of the End of Deutschtum in America,” May 27, 1918 Milwaukee Journal (Wisconsin), “Crowds at the Bazaar Overflow the Streets,” March 5, 1916 Milwaukee Journal (Wisconsin), “Disloyalty Flaunted Daily in the Face of Milwaukee,” October 14, 1916 Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1910 Table, Washington D.C.: U.S. Census, n.d., http://www.census. gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab14.txt (accessed April 29, 2013) Reilly, Michael R., ed., “A History of Milwaukee and Wisconsin Breweries,” Sussex-Lisbon Area Historical Society, last modified March 27, 2013, http://www.slahs.org/brewery/ breweries.htm (accessed May 22, 2013) Schieber, Clara Eve, “The Transformation of American Sentiment towards Germany, 1870–1914,” The Journal of International Relations 12, no. 1, July 1921 Schumacher, Jennifer Watson, ed., German Milwaukee Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Pub., 2009 Thomas, G. Scott, “German-Americans Are Nation’s Dominant Ethnic Group,” The Business Journals, last modified July 30, 2012 (accessed April 29, 2013) Thurner, Arthur W., “The Mayor, the Governor, and the People’s Council: A Chapter in American Wartime Dissent,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 66, no. 2: 125– 143, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40190962 (accessed May 22, 2013) Torgerson, Tobias, “The Germania Building and the anti- German mania of World War I,” Examiner.com, last modified March 17, 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/the- germania-building-and-the-anti-german-mania-of-world-war-i (accessed April 28, 2013) Trumbauer, Lisa, German Immigrants edited by Robert Asher, New York: Facts On File, 2005 Wisconsin Historical Society, “Victor Berger, Milwaukee Socialists, and Civil Liberty,” Wisconsin Historical Society, http://preview.wisconsinhistory.org (accessed April 29, 2013) THE CONCORD REVIEW 189

Wisconsin Historical Society, “World War I, at Home and in the Trenches,” Wisconsin Historical Society, http://preview. wisconsinhistory.org (accessed April 29, 2013) Wisconsin Loyalty Legion, Sedition Map/Prepared by the Wisconsin Loyalty League map, New York City: New York Sun, 1918, Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin, http:// content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/ref/collection/maps/id/49 (accessed April 29, 2013) Zeitlin, Richard H., Germans in Wisconsin revised and expanded edition, Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 2000 Ron Chernow Washington: A Life New York: Penguin, 2010, p. 198

Israel Trask remembers how soldiers from Marblehead, Massachusetts, outfitted in round jackets and fishermen’s trousers, derided the Virginians with their fringed linen shirts, leggings, and tomahawks. Months later, on a snowy day, as the Virginians toured Harvard College, the Marblehead soldiers began to taunt and toss snowballs at them, Before too long, said Trask, a fierce struggle commenced with biting and gouging on the one part, and knocking down on the other part with as much apparent fury as the most deadly enemy could create. Reinforced by their friends, in less than five minutes, more than a thousand combatants were on the field, struggling for the mastery.

At this juncture General Washington made his appearance, whether by accident or design I never knew. I only saw him and his colored servant [Billy Lee], both mounted. With the spring of a deer, he leaped from the saddle, threw the reins of his bridle into the hands of his servant, and rushed into the thickest of the melee, with an iron grip seized two tall, brawny, athletic, savage-looking riflemen by the throat, keeping them at arm’s length, alternately shaking and talking to them. In this position the eye of the belligerents caught sight of the general. Its effect on them was instantaneous flight at the top of their speed in all directions from the scene of the conflict. Less than fifteen minutes had elapsed from the commencement of the row before the general and his two criminals were the only occupants of the field of action. Here bloodshed, imprisonment, trials by court-martial were happily prevented and hostile feelings between the different corps of the army extinguished by the physical and mental energies timely exerted by one individual. Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

Science and Judaism: Theology, Zoology, and the Quest for a Rational Religion

Jonathan Slifkin

On the morning of Tuesday, September 21, 2004, ultra- orthodox rabbi Natan Slifkin received a phone call from one Rabbi Michoel Lyons in Bnei Brak, Israel, concerning three of Slifkin’s books on Jewish theology: The Science of Torah (later republished as The Challenge of Creation), Mysterious Creatures (republished as Sacred Monsters), and The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax.1 In Slifkin’s words, the polite gentleman from Bnei Brak informed me that these books had come to the attention of the Gedolim—the Torah leaders of the [C]haredi [ultra-orthodox] community—and had been deemed ut- terly heretical. He warned me that I had until the end of the day to retract my books and issue a public apology, or else I would face scandal and humiliation: the books would be publicly banned with letters of condemnation. My attempts to meet the Gedolim and work out a constructive resolution were rejected, and within a short time, Jerusalem was plastered with posters declaring that it was forbidden to read, own or distribute my books, and advising that the books should be burned instead.2 The English version of the poster placed around Jerusalem read, in part, “[T]he books written by…Slifkin present a great stumbling

Jonathan Slifkin is at Harvard. He wrote this paper at the Horace Mann School in the Bronx, New York, for Ms. Geraldine Woods’ English 11 course in the 2011/2012 academic year. 192 Jonathan Slifkin

block to the reader. They are full of heresy, twist and misrepresent the words of our sages and ridicule the foundations of our emunah [faith]. Heaven forbid!” It ended with an exhortation to Slifkin himself to “burn all of his works and publicly retract all that he has written.”3 Soon afterwards, Slifkin’s rabbi received a demand to banish him from the congregation, the Targum Publishing house and the Feldheim book distribution service suspended their deal- ings with him, and the Aish HaTorah website erased his articles. Slifkin’s books were intended to offer interpretations of Scripture that would help bridge the gap between religion and modern science. But the books’ claims that the cosmos is billions of years old and suggestions that the Sages of the Talmud may have erred in worldly and scientific matters are considered gravely heretical by ultra-orthodox Judaism.4 In an attempt to demonstrate his belief in the compatibility and even complementary nature of Judaism and science, Rabbi Slifkin placed himself in the middle of the age-old quarrel between science and religion and may have triggered just as much division as rapprochement. Natan Slifkin, also known as Nosson Slifkin, or to his acolytes as the Zoo Rabbi, was born and raised in a modern Orthodox household in Manchester, England. He moved to Israel in 1996 to study at the Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva, a school intended for foreigners “with the aim of strengthening them in their Judaism,” in the Sha’arei Hessed neighborhood of Jerusalem. Slifkin developed an interest in zoology early on. At his yeshiva, due to his animal-related hobbies, including guiding tourists in the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, wrestling with crocodiles, and eating grasshoppers (the only type of kosher insect), he was considered somewhat of a curiosity.5 Slifkin’s website, Zoo Torah, contains many sources about the controversy concerning his works, alongside photographs and videos of him interacting with elephants, cheetahs, ostriches, and lions, among other species. According to his online biography, he, his wife, Tali, and their five children live in Ramat Beit Shemesh “along with an assortment of exotic pets, from chameleons to fruit bats to hyraxes.” Slifkin’s keen interest in animals—currently, aside THE CONCORD REVIEW 193 from his prolific published and online writings, he is teaching a course on Judaism and zoology at Yeshivat Lev HaTorah, writing his dissertation for a PhD at Bar-Ilan University on “Rabbinic en- counters with zoology in the 19th century,” working to assemble a “Jewish Museum of Natural History,” and leading kosher safari tours to South Africa, Zambia and Botswana—has led him to focus on modern zoology and its relation to his faith.6 Slifkin has characterized his current religious beliefs as “actually very similar to how I was raised” but admits that he “grew up believing that evolution was probably false, which I thought was a scientific stance but was actually due to religious influence.” He reveals that “there were stages when I realized that ‘fitting’ Torah into science just didn’t work. This was very depressing, until I matured and realized that it really didn’t matter; that the goal of Judaism is to present a certain way of life, not to teach science.” He often emphasizes this distinction, calling Judaism a lifestyle rather than a set of factual principles and maintaining that “Juda- ism is principally a way of life, not a religion of dogma.”7 In The Challenge of Creation, he states that “[t]he purpose of Genesis is to teach us about the metaphysical and spiritual nature of the world, not its physical history.”8 So, in Slifkin’s mind, there is no conflict whatsoever be- tween science and Judaism, as they are simply different systems with different roles. In fact, Slifkin argues that science is derived from Judaism: “It was only through Abraham’s legacy of mono- theism, and its later offshoots of Christianity and Islam, that the thought-patterns necessary for scientific inquiry were formed.”9 Slifkin has noted that “[i]ronically, it was a change in my religious beliefs that enabled me to accept evolution—the transition came when I realized that there is a strong school of thought in Juda- ism that sees God as ideally working through natural rather than supernatural means.” With reference to his identification with the ultra-orthodox (rather than a Jewish sect more open to science), he explains that religious dedication was a greater priority. “It’s simply a matter of having found myself in an ultra-Orthodox ye- shiva and absorbing the ideology…I admired the ultra-Orthodox 194 Jonathan Slifkin

dedication and passion for spiritual ideals. The extent of its anti- scientific approach was not apparent to me at the time.”10 A basic history of clashes between scientists and theologians is widely familiar, particularly in the context of Christianity. In the 1500s, Copernican and Galilean views on astronomy, especially the heliocentric model of the universe, incurred the ire of the Catholic Church, which saw an unfixed earth as contrary to Bibli- cal teaching. “You have established the earth on its foundations; it cannot be moved,” reads one psalm. Sir Isaac Newton, whose famed three laws of motion seemed to explain the movement of objects entirely through natural, as opposed to supernatural, means, encountered similar problems. Newton’s results were interpreted in various ways by different scientists and philosophers, foreshad- owing the modern-day split over biological evolution. Renowned physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace, when asked by Napoleon why he had failed to mention God in his mechanistic account of the origin of the universe, responded provocatively, “I have no need of that hypothesis.” On the other hand, thinkers such as William Paley saw the existence of mechanical laws as proof of an intelligent design behind the universe, and this reasoning is still popular among theistic apologists.11 However, neither a heliocentric solar system nor the laws of physics contradict Scripture as directly as concepts such as an ancient earth or human evolution do. The Biblical account of creation is plainly laid out at the beginning of Genesis. On the first day, God created “heaven and earth” and Day and Night. On the second day he made the sky—“the expanse” to separate the water below from the “water” above. On the third day he separated the dry land and the Seas and then created plants and trees. On the fourth day, he set lights in the sky, “the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.” On the fifth day he created marine life and birds. Finally, on the sixth day, he created the “cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts” of the land, as well as man, in his own image, to whom he gave dominion over all other living things.12 The current age of the universe and the earth, according to the strictest Jewish interpre- THE CONCORD REVIEW 195 tation, is 5,774 years. This number, the current year according to the Jewish calendar, is calculated by adding up the ages of all the Biblical patriarchs, many of whom, such as Methuselah, were quite long-lived by modern standards. Using the same methods, traditional Christian theology also accepts an estimate of around 6,000 years for the age of the universe.13 This account of creation conflicts with physical evidence and the current scientific consensus. Scientific estimates place the age of the universe at approximately 13.77 billion years, and the solar system at 4.5 billion years.14 Modern science also holds that all organisms on Earth, including humans, evolved from a single common ancestor over millions of years, through natural selection by adaptive pressures. And not only the timescale but also the order of creation is in contest. For example, scientific evidence places the first emergence of land animals 250 million years before, not one day after, the earliest evolution of birds. It also makes very little sense, given our modern understanding of the universe, to claim that plant life, or even more bizarrely, day and night themselves, were created before the sun.15 Evidence for an ancient earth first appeared in geology, from fossils and formations such as glacial deposits. Charles Lyell, often considered Charles Darwin’s mentor, propounded a new geological theory known as uniformitarianism in his mas- terwork Principles of Geology, written over the course of three years (1830–1833). Uniformitarianism stated that past events should be explained through observable causes acting at observable intensities—consider erosion, glacial movement, plate tectonics. This principle flew in the face of the “catastrophist” consensus of the time, which taught that geological structures formed through much more recent, drastic, massive-scale events. The catastroph- ist theory had fit nicely into Christian theology not only because it allowed for a young earth but also because it provided a per- fect scientific role for Biblical events such as Noah’s flood.16 As a response to Lyell’s new theories and evidence, and in one of the earliest examples of “creation science,” Christian preacher Philip Henry Gosse developed what is known as the prochronic, 196 Jonathan Slifkin

or Omphalos hypothesis (from the Greek for “navel”) in 1857, arguing that just as Adam never had an umbilical cord yet still had a navel, a mark of a past he never possessed, so the universe and the earth are in fact only 6,000 years old, but were created with an aged appearance—thus Gosse explained Lyell’s new scientific evidence without validating it.17 In his works, Rabbi Slifkin objects to this hypothesis because, he says, it presupposes that God is deliberately attempting to fool humans, presenting theological difficulties.18 Although in the present day this prochronic idea has been extended to explain away such scientific difficulties as the starlight problem (the observation that if the universe were only 6,000 years old, light from distant objects would not yet have reached us) most modern-day Christian creationists also reject it.19 The biological observations of Charles Darwin cemented these new concepts of an ancient earth and gradual evolution in the scientific consciousness. Within 20 years of Darwin’s 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, organic evolution had been readily accepted by nearly every scien- tist. Evolution was not inherently opposed to a theistic worldview in general—Darwin initially allowed for at least one supernatural creative act at the beginning of life—but it certainly conflicted with the specific Genesitic account of creation. One contempo- rary critic lamented that while the Bible gave a special origin and position to humankind, “Darwinism casts us all down from this elevated platform, and herds us all with four-footed beasts and creeping things.” Still, by the end of the 19th century, Darwinism had infiltrated many religious sects, including those of Christian evangelicals.20 Evidence continued to amass in favor or Darwin’s basic theory, including fossil records, observations of analogous structures, analysis of geographical distribution, comparisons to artificial selection, such as in domestication by humans, and, more recently, genetic analysis and even observations of evolution in action, such as the evolution of antibiotic resistance in certain disease vectors.21 However, in the early 1900s antievolutionists began a more aggressive campaign of rollback against evolutionary science using THE CONCORD REVIEW 197 new doctrines of “creation science,” which interprets scientific evidence, often unconventionally and dubiously, in favor of Bibli- cal history. The most prominent example of creationism’s initially waning influence was the 1925 court caseThe State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, better known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” in which a Tennessee schoolteacher was convicted of violating the state’s Butler Act against the teaching of human evolution in public schools. Despite the legal victory for the state, the national prominence of the case and the rather bumbling testimony of William Jennings Bryan in favor of a creationist worldview during the trial further weakened creationism’s public popularity22— fundamentalists began to recognize the need for a more robust and unified defense against evolutionary science. Self-described geologist George McCready Price, who would later describe the trial as a “crushing defeat for fundamentalism” and blame Bryan specifically for his inept defense of creationist thought, began developing the theory of flood geology, a mainstay of modern creation science, in his 1923 textbook New Geology, in which he proclaimed a “new catastrophist” geological theory and insisted that the structure of the Earth could be explained, scientifically, through Noah’s flood.23 Creation science made creationism more palatable and easier to defend, and was instrumental in bringing creationism to a position of greater social and political strength; while creationism has certainly fallen from judicial favor since 1925, its tenets still hold wide sway over some Americans.24 The 1974 text Scientific Creationismstressed the importance of finding a scientific foundation for creationism to thrive: “If the system of flood geology can be established on a sound scientific basis…then the entire evolutionary cosmology…will collapse. This, in turn, would mean that every anti-Christian system and movement (com- munism, racism, humanism, libertinism, behaviorism, and all the rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation.”25 Although science has rarely been successful in convinc- ing religious individuals to abandon their faith, it has managed to gain acceptance to varying degrees among different religious communities. “Young Earth Creationism” (YEC) is the most Bib- lically literal form of creationism and thus is the most hostile to 198 Jonathan Slifkin

modern scientific interpretation. YEC holds the specific views that the Universe and the Earth were created 6,000 years ago, that there were six days of creation, that humans were divinely and separately created in the form of Adam and Eve, that there was a global flood some time after the initial creation, through which only a limited number of humans (Noah and his family) and ani- mals survived, etc. Creation science is a major interest of Young Earth Creationists, as they believe it will help them gain legitimacy among the public (as well as perhaps speed the aforementioned collapse of “anti-Christian” systems). The complex hypotheses of creation science include such elaborate claims as the hydroplate theory, which holds that a massive subterranean water source was released by pressure increases, rupturing the earth’s crust and breaking it into plates, and thus flooding the earth’s surface. This hypothesis is used to explain Noah’s flood, as well as the presence of ocean trenches, earthquakes, fossils, and radioactive elements on earth in the context of a young universe.26 Other creationist philosophies are grouped together under the term Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism can be attractive to religious individuals who want to accept the Bible as full truth without being quite so dismissive of the modern biological and geological consensus. The “prior-worlds approach” or “gap creationism” proposes that billions of years passed before the six-day creation of Genesis, thereby explaining scientific evidence for an ancient universe.27 However, this theory would still indicate that “the placement of the sun and moon, the emergence of dry land, and the creation of plant, animal, and human life from scratch,” took place in only six days, all of which is biologically and geologi- cally impossible and contradictory to scientific evidence.28 The somewhat better-reasoned “day-age” approach argues that the six days of creation are not true 24-hour days, but rather metaphori- cal representations of six long ages.29 This hypothesis proposes to match Biblical history to the scientific timescale. However, neither this nor the gap creationist hypothesis addresses the order of creation30—i.e., even if the six days of creation represent six indefinite ages, theBible still indicates that birds evolved before land animals, or that plant life appeared before the creation of THE CONCORD REVIEW 199 the sun, etc. Moreover, this day-age approach presents theologi- cal problems to Jews especially, as it challenges the importance of the Sabbath. As such, for his part, Rabbi Slifkin rejects both of these hypotheses. Today, one of the most popular and high-profile forms of creationism, as well as the most scientifically presented, is Intel- ligent Design (ID). Intelligent Design takes great pains to distance itself from religion and the Bible, and it assumes an approach not of attempting to validate Biblical narratives directly, but rather of pointing out perceived flaws in evolutionary science and advocat- ing for the role of a cosmic intelligence in more abstract terms. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, the prominent Intelligent Design-based biology textbook, claims that “the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source.”31 ID backers argue that a full understanding of biology requires some sort of purposeful force beyond nature; the most prominent argument in favor of ID is known as “irreducible complexity.” This idea, de- veloped by biochemist and ID spokesman Michael Behe, points out that certain biological systems, such as the bacterial flagellum or the human eye, appear to work only in their final state, and would be nonfunctional with even a single part missing. So, the argument goes, these structures could not have evolved gradually, from simpler structures, because they provide no evolutionary advantage to an organism until present in their complex final states—natural evolution must have a starting point from which to improve via intermediate stages. Thus, the only logical conclu- sion is that some sort of intelligent purpose or design must have guided the construction of these biological structures.32 Scientists and proponents of science deny that the com- plexity of any biological structure, including the flagellum and eye, is in fact irreducible, and argue furthermore that although ID cloaks itself in an air of scientific analysis, it is simply an unsci- entific vehicle for increasing the popularity of creationism among 200 Jonathan Slifkin

the general public and for inserting creationist education into schools.33 Indeed, Intelligent Design came to national and inter- national prominence through its involvement in the educational and judicial systems. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law which forbade “the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in ‘creation science,’” ruling that “the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine,” and that the law sought “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose” and thus violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitu- tion.34 ID advocates had hoped that their efforts in public educa- tion would fare more successfully, due to the less overtly religious character of Intelligent Design compared to YEC creation science. However, they were similarly disappointed by a U.S. District Court in 2005, which invalidated a local school board’s resolution that “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design” and determined that ID is simply creationism under another name and therefore “unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitu- tion.” The decision specifically criticizedOf Pandas and People, which had been proposed for use in the classroom, as containing “outdated concepts and badly flawed science.”35 From his religious perspective, Rabbi Slifkin has dismissed Intelligent Design as “wrong and dangerous,” calling it “strange” that people feel compelled to “find gaps in biology in order to give God something to do.” Slifkin elaborates that “[m]an’s physi- cal ancestry in the animal kingdom has no bearing on his unique spiritual nature. Whether our physical bodies originate from mud or monkey, our fundamental identity does not relate to either.”36 The vast majority of Jews share Rabbi Slifkin’s views on modern science. Today, all major branches of Judaism, other than the ultra-orthodox, accept evolution without a qualm. Even the Modern Orthodox rabbinical association states officially that THE CONCORD REVIEW 201 evolution is “entirely consistent with Judaism.” Indeed, the Jewish community has a great historical tradition of scientific compatibil- ity, and most modern Jews find secular science, including evolu- tion and natural selection, compatible with religious teaching.37 This tradition emerged most prominently through the writings of Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), a philosopher, jurist, and medical doctor born in Córdoba, Spain. Maimonides is cur- rently considered “a pillar of the traditional faith,” perhaps the most well-respected rabbi in Jewish history, and his creed has been made part of orthodox liturgy.38 For his part, Maimonides believed that the creation story and the Garden of Eden were al- legorical and that the Book of Job was entirely fictional. One of his most important works was his Dalalat al-ha’irin (The Guide for the Perplexed), written in Arabic over the course of 15 years, in which he attempted to reconcile the Torah and Talmud with Aristotelian philosophy, the science of his day, using figurative interpretation. The work was relatively quickly translated into Hebrew and Latin, and then into many vernacular European languages, and “it has exerted a marked influence on the history of religious thought.”39 Maimonides’ preface well explains the timeless conflict: [t]he object of this treatise is to enlighten a religious man who has been trained to believe in the truth of our holy Law, who conscientiously fulfills his moral and religious duties, and at the same time has been successful in his philosophical studies. Human reason has attracted him to abide within its sphere; and he finds it difficult to accept as correct the teaching based on the literal interpretation of the Law…. Hence he is lost in perplexity and anxiety. If he be guided solely by reason, and renounce his previous views…he would consider that he had rejected the fundamental principles of the Law; and even if… instead of following his reason, he abandon its guidance altogether, it would still appear that his religious convictions had suffered loss and injury. For he would then be left with those errors which give rise to fear and anxiety, constant grief and great perplexity.40 Maimonides recognized the inevitable “collision” between the “sound knowledge” of Aristotelian science and the “ambiguous and figurative expressions employed in the holy writings”41 and, furthermore, recognized the difficult choices this collision would pose, given both the moral and faith-based reluctance to give up 202 Jonathan Slifkin

beloved religious tenets and the rational and logical inability to discard engrained scientific views. Maimonides’ final answers lay not in opposition to or persecution of science nor in rejection of religion, but in what he saw as the acceptance of science as representative of God’s creative power. Such Maimonidean views, based on metaphorical para- digms, grew to dominate most of Judaism. Following Darwin’s publications, Jewish opposition to evolution on Scriptural grounds was marginal at most.42 Kabbalist Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh wrote in 1863 that evolution would not contradict the Torah as long as it was understood to have been guided by God. Orthodox Rabbi Naftali Levy believed that evolution enhanced Torah understand- ing, and even sent a letter of praise to Charles Darwin himself.43 Regarding the 1925 Scopes Trial, orthodox Rabbi Hirsch Cohen wrote that “as long as it is in theory, one can agree with whatever position one thinks right and still remains a believer in the divin- ity of the Bible. It is the power of the Torah that all theories can be included.”44 Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler, “the most celebrated American rabbi of the late 19th and early 20th century,” gave this endorsement of Darwinist theory: Darwinism declares…that creation is not to be explained through a miracle but through the natural law of progressive development of life under favorable circumstances….Does not this view of life… harmonize perfectly with our comprehension of religion, which we do not recognize in form, but in reform, which has its living power in the internal remodeling of Judaism and its Messianic mission as progress toward a completed humanity?45 It has been observed that an “ethos of science” and the belief in its compatibility or complementarity with theology has been nearly as prevalent among the “famously fractious” Jewish community as hatred for the Nazis.46 Rabbi Slifkin has expressed a similar mission to Mai- monides’ in his works—although the science to which Slifkin must wed his faith is considerably more complex and problematic than it was in Maimonides’ day—and he relies heavily on Maimonides in arguing for allegorical interpretations of Scripture in light of the modern scientific consensus. Indeed, a number of parallels can THE CONCORD REVIEW 203 be drawn between Slifkin’s works and The Guide for the Perplexed; for example, in 1233, Rabbi Solomon of Montpellier urged reli- gious authorities to burn Maimonides’ Guide as dangerous and heretical.47 In The Challenge of Creation, Slifkin argues essentially that the Torah need not be taken literally. Perhaps it was required to be written in a simple fashion that concealed many truths, so as to be readily understandable to as many people in as many different times and places as possible. Alternatively, it is possible that God revealed his truths in a fashion that was understand- able to his prophets given the scientific constraints at the time: in other words, that “the Torah speaks in the worldview of men.” Accordingly, according to Slifkin, Genesis should be viewed as a theological, rather than as a scientific, text.48 Slifkin’s interpretation of Genesis, which, according to him, was shared by Maimonides, is that “the six days of creation are not six actual days or even six time-periods of any duration. Instead they present a conceptual hierarchy of the natural world.”49 Genesis intends to presents five fundamental truths: “God created the universe, God is the Creator of everything in the universe, the world is good, man is the goal of the world’s creation, creation is consecrated by the day of Shabbos,” and the order and specificity given in the creation story can be explained allegorically through this conceptual history.50 The specific conceptual pattern that Slifkin believes is presented in the Genesitic creation story is a progression of “increasing separation” and actualization: light (day one) is further divided into the sea and sky (day two), which is further separated into land and plants (day three). Then, the light from day one is animated into the sun, moon, and stars (day four), the sea and sky from day two are animated into fish and birds (day five), and finally the land and plants from day three are animated into animals and humans (day six).51 To reassure religious individuals wary of an evolutionary theory that seems to take God out of the picture, so to speak, Slifkin emphasizes that the creation of something by material physical forces does not preclude a purpose or goal behind the creation. “[J]ust as our understanding of astronomy does not prevent us from saying that God makes the sun shine, so too an explanation for the develop- 204 Jonathan Slifkin

ment of life based on ‘random’ mutations and natural selection would not prevent us from saying that God designed animal life.”52 Despite Judaism’s general and historical tradition of sci- entific acceptance, in the last three decades of the 20th century a “move to the right” and the growth of ultra-orthodox groups has engendered greater resistance to secular culture and, by extension, secular science, among a conservative Jewish minor- ity, and this ultra-orthodox establishment has led the opposition to Rabbi Slifkin’s works.53 Rabbi Aharon Feldman, an American ultra-orthodox leader, has written that Slifkin’s interpretations have no basis in Torah or Talmud, and as such should be classified as “megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha (distorted interpretations of the Torah) which are forbidden to study.” According to Feld- man, while Slifkin argues that “there were no six separate acts of creation, as the Torah teaches, but a seamless evolution put into action at the first moment of Creation, a single act which expressed six Divine concepts,” and it is true that many giants of Jewish phi- losophy, most notably Maimonides, did indeed agree with Slifkin’s interpretation, “it is a minority opinion which has been rejected by most authorities since then.”54 Aside from specific theological disputes, Feldman also emphasizes the importance of religious hierarchy and obedience to dogma, writing that individual Jews are constrained by history and by majority opinion to follow given Jewish law. “Can an individual on his own decide to follow the minority opinion? No more than he is permitted to do so in any matter of Jewish law and certainly not in matters which determine our basic approach to Torah she b’al peh which is the domain of the poskim (recognized decisors of halacha) of the Jewish people.”55 The relationship between Jewish theology and modern science is further complicated in a respect not shared by Christi- anity: attempts to reconcile Judaism with science must devise new interpretations not only of Genesis, but also of the Talmud, a collec- tion of Rabbinic commentaries held as central by most Jewish sects and as authoritative by the ultra-orthodox. The Talmud contains a variety of references to mythical creatures and spontaneous generation and makes a number of other statements about zool- THE CONCORD REVIEW 205 ogy, such as that the four animals listed in the Torah as possessing one kosher sign but not the other are the only animal species that do so. Issues of Talmudic interpretation are the subject of Rabbi Slifkin’s other two banned works, The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax, and Mysterious Creatures. The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax deals with kosher sign problems in great theological detail. The issues can become quite complex. The Book of Leviticus, in laying out the Jewish dietary laws, explains that, out of the land animals, “any animal that has true hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud” is permitted to be eaten, and that those that do not possess both signs—cloven hooves and chewing of the cud—are unclean. Perhaps in order to reduce any confusion, Leviticus also lists four animals that it claims possess one of the kosher signs but not the other—the camel, the hare, the hyrax (a small African arboreal mammal), and the pig—and reiterates that these animals are not kosher, as both signs are necessary for spiritual purity.56 This sci- entific problems lies not in this explanationper se, but rather in the Talmud’s claim that these four are the only animals with one kosher sign and not the other. For example, if Leviticus’s list is deemed to be exhaustive, Slifkin argues, llamas and their relatives, which do chew their cud but do not have cloven hooves, must be classified as camels for theological purposes.57 Hyraxes do not in fact chew their cud in the traditional sense, so they must either practice merycism (regurgitation) or have some other biological characteristic to justify their classification as cud-chewing. But if merycism qualifies as cud-chewing, then marsupials such as kan- garoos and koalas, which also practice merycism, would appear to possess one kosher sign and not the other as well, rendering Leviticus’s list incomplete. Similarly, hares also do not chew their cud, so perhaps cecotrophy (eating their own feces) qualifies them as cud-chewing.58 But if so, animals such as the capybara, a huge South American rodent, would also possess one kosher sign and not the other, again leaving the Torah’s list incomplete and contradicting the Talmud’s claim.59 206 Jonathan Slifkin

Mysterious Creatures deals with other cryptozoological state- ments in the Talmud. The Talmud mentions a number of mythical beasts, including dragons, unicorns, rocs, mermaids, phoenixes, griffins, and the vaguely-defined “Behemoth,” and it also contains references to the spontaneous generation of animals, such as geese growing from trees and mice originating from mud.60 Perhaps the Talmud’s most problematic zoological statement is its assertion that one may kill lice on the Sabbath because they reproduce via spontaneous generation. According to modern zoology, of course, no animal reproduces by spontaneous generation. But if that is true, what of the Sabbath rule? Does it hold or not?61 In his two books, Slifkin manages to address most of these problems without resorting to overly controversial interpreta- tion. For example, he explains that the unicorn is most likely the giraffe, the phoenix is probably a metaphor for redemption, and mermaids are probably dolphins.62 However, in a few cases, such as the references to spontaneous generation and the list of kosher animals, Slifkin, drawing again on Maimonides, explains the discrepancy by stating that the descriptions were based on the flawed scientific knowledge of the time.63 In other words, the Talmudic Sages “did not possess better knowledge of the natural world than did other people of their era.”64 Maimonides himself argued that the Talmud was based upon scientific knowledge of the time, and that thus there is nothing “disrespectful in asserting that the scientific knowledge of antiquity available to the Sages was flawed.”65 Certainly it would seem obvious to most that the authors of the Talmud, a work compiled between the third and sixth centuries AD, would have had no knowledge of the louse reproductive system or of animals such as capybaras or kangaroos and so understandably could not have incorporated them into their theological analyses. Yet these assertions enraged the ultra-orthodox establish- ment. A central part of ultra-orthodox dogma is that the Sages of the Talmud were divinely inspired and as such were incapable of error in worldly matters. Rabbi Feldman explains that “the source of all the knowledge of the Sages is either from Sinaitic THE CONCORD REVIEW 207 tradition (received at the Giving of the Torah) or from Divine inspiration.” Geographical and observational constraints which would have limited the scientific awareness of theTalmud ’s time are no obstacles to divine revelation. Additionally, “[t]he Rivash, the Rashba and the Maharal [various theological authorities] write, as well, that it is forbidden to say that the Sages erred in matters of science.” And again, the fact that historical greats accepted views similar to Slifkin’s is not considered to be any justification; the terse ultra-orthodox line is that “[t]hey were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not.” Feldman does not go so far as to brand Rabbi Slifkin a heretic but concludes that he is at the very least extremely misguided: “The fact that we are faced with a problem does not permit us to compromise our obligation as to how to properly approach Torah. In the meantime we can be sure of one thing: the answers which Slifkin proposed are not the right ones.”66 But if Slifkin’s answers are not the right ones from a theological perspective, are they the right ones from a scientific perspective? In rejecting the viability of different creationist philoso- phies, Slifkin argues that “[i]f Genesis can only be reconciled with science via obscure theories, reference to irrelevant phenomena, drastic and very difficult textual reinterpretation, and ingenious intellectual gymnastics, then it is not a very impressive scientific account.”67 However, in many ways his interpretations, involving conjectures of conceptual history and hierarchical existence, can be seen as equally acrobatic. Any attempt to reconcile religion with science inevitably perturbs both theologians and scientists; Slifkin has clearly offended his religious establishment. Despite being accused by Rabbi Feldman of holding an “a priori belief that the theories of modern science…are indisputable fact,”68 Slifkin, in his zealous pursuit of a rational religion, has left a number of important scientific principles behind. For example, Slifkin argues that the universe is simple and “intrinsically beautiful.” Moreover, he says, all physical laws and constants are “fortuitously” calibrated to the formation of mat- ter, stars, planets, and life.69 This calibration, he claims, indicates the existence of a Creator. The “response from the multiverse,” 208 Jonathan Slifkin

his term for the scientific hypothesis that there are “an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of systems of law,” is flawed, he says, because there is no scientific evidence for such a claim. “On scientific grounds, there is no more reason to propose that there are an infinite number of possible universes with an infinite number of possible scientific laws than to propose that this universe was designed by Creator.”70 Slifkin explains that “most scientists admit that the nature of the universe is extraordinary and requires an explanation. The multiverse is one contender, but there is no evidence for it. God is an equally plausible alterna- tive.”71 However, Slifkin’s claims sorely misrepresent the nature of the multiverse hypothesis, which, while far from settled science, is derived from the mathematics of quantum mechanics and relates to inflationary models of the universe and string theory, and has even gained experimental support through observations of the cosmic microwave background—it has been observed that “numerous developments in physics, if followed sufficiently far, bump into some variation on the parallel-universe theme.”72 The hypothesis of God, on the other hand, is supported neither through mathematics nor through astronomical observations, but rather through faith; Slifkin himself has stated that the existence of God is “rationally tenable,” rather than scientifically demonstrable.73 Slifkin is certainly more willing than his fellow ultra-orthodox rab- bis to accept science that appears to conflict with religious dogma, but the multiverse hypothesis seems to go too far in its naturalistic approach even for him. Slifkin has criticized Intelligent Design advocates for trying to “find gaps in biology in order to give God something to do,”74 yet by so rigidly rejecting the multiverse he seems to be trying to poke similarly God-shaped holes in physics. In a particularly egregious scientific paralogism, Slifkin argues that light is a good example of the “fortuitous” design of our universe. Our eyes and vision are dependent upon a very select range of wavelengths which, according to Slifkin, luckily and coincidentally happen to make up the majority of the light from our sun.75 But of course, it is basic evolutionary logic (and common sense) that our eyes developed to see what we now term “visible light” precisely because our sun emits mostly visible light; THE CONCORD REVIEW 209 genes which give organisms the ability to sense visible light bestow clear selective advantages in, for example, evading predators or hunting, whereas the ability to sense, say, ultraviolet light or radio waves, which are much less prevalent on the earth’s surface, would not provide substantial advantages. So clearly the ability to sense visible light, or, as we now call it, to “see,” is strongly selected for by the evolutionary process. Slifkin’s attitudes towards science are perhaps best revealed in his criticism of the concept of “nonoverlapping magisteria” (NOMA), a term developed by evolutionary biologist and self- described Jewish agnostic Stephen Jay Gould to describe his own belief in the compatibility of science and religion. The idea is that religion and science are so fundamentally different—science addresses empirical fact and theory, while religion “extends over questions of moral meaning and value”76—that their subject matters do not overlap. Thus, there cannot be any conflict between the two. One might expect Rabbi Slifkin, who appears so intent upon reconciling science with religion without sacrificing the purity of each, and who has himself argued that “[t]he purpose of Genesis is to teach us about the metaphysical and spiritual nature of the world, not its physical history,”77 to embrace NOMA, which allows people to read the Bible and The Origin of Species with contempt for neither. However, Slifkin unequivocally rejects Gould’s idea. He writes that “some Darwinian evolutionists are being deceptive when they say that they believe” evolution to be compatible with religion, and calls out Gould as “the worst offender in this regard.” In response to NOMA, Slifkin points out that “most people who believe in God would be very horrified to be told that their be- lief has nothing to do with factual reality! Gould claims to grant equal importance to evolution and religion, but his definition of religion is deeply offensive.”78 When asked to elaborate on the distinction between Gould’s NOMA and his own non-literal religious interpretation, Slifkin responded that “[r]eligion does make some factual assertions, such as that God exists, that the universe was created, that there was revelation, etc. These might not be scientifically demonstrable, but they are still factual asser- tions.”79 In other words, Slifkin believes, unlike Gould and like 210 Jonathan Slifkin

his creationist brethren, that while science can be a useful tool, there are facts—physical truths—that it does not and cannot show and that must be derived from Scripture. While for Slifkin these truths happen not to encompass the basic concepts of biological evolution, the differences between the beliefs of moderate cre- ationists and theistic evolutionists such as Slifkin and the hardline orthodoxy of his opponents are ones of degree, not of principle. Soon after the book ban, Slifkin transferred his marketing to a small American publishing house. Perhaps intrigued by the ban, readers flocked to his books;The Challenge of Creation and The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax sold out and have become collectors’ items. The controversy received great publicity, coming to the at- tention of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.80 Slifkin now also keeps a blog, Rationalist Judaism, on which he discusses various topics related to his work and enthusiastically defends his views against detractors. The controversy over Slifkin’s books is now widely recognized as a major event in the history of Judaism and science, and it has brought the issue of evolution in the ultra- orthodox community into greater focus, forcing Jewish people to take definite stances on their own positions.81 Some believe the controversy will die down and the ban will prove brief, while oth- ers see a greater rift. Rabbi Gil Student, Slifkin’s publisher, has harshly criticized the ultra-orthodox leaders: “The [Israeli] rabbis are being self-defensive. Most of them have not read the books at all; they don’t know English.”82 Those who see religion and science as allies, from Moses Maimonides and earlier to the present day, have often managed indeed to unite the two philosophical systems: in opposition to them. They face both the derision of the scientists and the fires of the theists (though nowadays at least the fires are usually reserved for inanimate objects). By shoehorning zoology and evolution- ary science into the Book of Genesis and the Talmud, or perhaps vice-versa, Rabbi Slifkin has trampled over both Biblical and em- pirical analyses and offended many sensibilities in the process. Despite centuries of best efforts, it would seem that Maimonides’ hypothetical religious yet scientifically-capable man remains as “perplexed” as ever. THE CONCORD REVIEW 211

Notes

1 Natan Slifkin, “An Account of Events,” Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013) 2 Slifkin, “In Defense of My Opponents,” (October 5, 2008), Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013) 3 “The Opinion of the Gedolai Hador Shlita Against the Books of Nosson Slifkin,” photograph, (September 20, 2004), Zoo Torah, 4 Slifkin, “A General Response to the Charge of Heresy,” Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013) 5 Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013); and Tamar Rotem, “The Rabbi Who Wrestles With Crocodiles,” Haaretz (April 15, 2005), 6 Zoo Torah 7 Slifkin, personal communication, January 18, 2012. Full disclosure: Rabbi Natan Slifkin is my first cousin once removed (my father’s first cousin), although due to distance both of relation and of geography we have had no contact outside of the herein-cited email interview. 8 Slifkin, The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution 3rd ed. (New York: Lambda Publishers, 2010) p. 375 9 Ibid., p. 32 10 Slifkin, personal communication, January 18, 2012 11 Bradley Sickler, “Conflicts Between Science and Religion,” (February 11, 2009) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, 12 Gen. 1:1-28 (JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh) 13 Tracey R. Rich, “Jewish Calendar,” Judaism 101, ; and Michael Ruse, “Creationism,” (October 29, 2007), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Edward N. Zalta, 14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “How Old is the Universe?,” (December 21, 2012), 212 Jonathan Slifkin

15 Michael Marshall, “Timeline: the Evolution of Life,” New Scientist (July 14, 2009), 16 Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003) pp. 130–132 17 Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992) p. 141; and Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 157, 160 18 Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 167–168 19 Indeed, Gosse’s assertion that Adam and Eve surely had belly buttons has given rise to an intra-creationist debate with a scope recalling medieval angelology. Rebutting Gosse’s views, Answers in Genesis, a leading creation science institution, argues that “when God created Adam and Eve in mature form, the day they were created they might have appeared to be, say, 30 years old. But God wouldn’t want or need to create the appearance of a false history, any more than the mature trees created by God would have had growth rings initially. Those are things which would develop in their offspring as a result of processes later on.” (Gary Parker, “Did Adam Have a Belly- Button?,” [June 1, 1996], Answers in Genesis, ) 20 Numbers, pp. 3–5 ­21 Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (New York: Free Press, 2009) 22 Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (New York: Basic Books, 1997) pp. 236–237 23 Numbers, pp. xi, 81–82, 91–92; and Ibid., p. 237 24 A June 2012 Gallup poll found that a mere 15 percent of Americans held that humans evolved through natural selection without divine intervention. Thirty-two percent took the view that “[h]uman beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.” (Frank Newport, “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins,” [June 1, 2012], Gallup, ). This intermediate position, which most likely encompasses Rabbi Slifkin’s views, is technically also a form of creationism, and it is known as “progressive creationism” or “theistic evolution.” (Ruse) Fully 46 percent of Americans—a figure essentially unchanged for the 30 years in which this poll has been conducted—believed that “God created human beings THE CONCORD REVIEW 213 pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” (Newport) 25 Numbers, p. xi 26 Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (2008) Center for Scientific Creation, 27 Numbers, p. xii; and Slifkin, Challenge, p. 169 28­ Slifkin, Challenge, p. 177 29 Numbers, p. xii; and Ibid., pp. 178–179 30 Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 189–190 31 Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins ed. Charles B. Thaxton, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993) p. 161 32 Ruse; and Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 318–320 33 Ruse 34 U.S. Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard, Case #482US578, June 19, 1987; and Larson, pp. 270–271 35 U.S. District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case #04cv2688, July 27, 2005. This opinion, by Judge John E. Jones III, is a well-presented demolition of ID’s pretensions to scientific rigor; I would highly recommend the opinion itself as required reading for high school biology classes. 36 Evan R. Goldstein, “A Tradition’s Evolution: Is Darwin Kosher?,” Wall Street Journal (June 29, 2007), 37 Ibid. 38 “Maimonides, Moses,” Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM., ver. 2009, (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago) 39 Ibid.; and Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 101, 105–107, 204 40 Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed trans. M. Friedlander (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1903), Internet Sacred Text Archive, , p. 2 41 Ibid., pp. 5, 9 42 Geoffrey Cantor and Mark Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006) p. 12; and Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 255–257 ­43 Slifkin, Challenge, p. 257 44 Cantor and Swetlitz, pp. 71–72 214 Jonathan Slifkin

45 Noah J. Efron, Judaism and Science: A Historical Introduction (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007) pp. 202–203 46 Ibid., pp. 202–203 47 “Maimonides, Moses,” Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009 Deluxe Edition 48 Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 199–200, 206–207, 214–217 49 Ibid., p. 205 50 Ibid., pp. 229, 234–236 51 Ibid., p. 243 52 Ibid., pp. 313–314 53 Cantor and Swetlitz, p. 16 54 Aharon Feldman, “The Slifkin Affair: Issues and Perspectives,” June 27, 2005, Zoo Torah, , pp. 3, 4, 6 55 Ibid., pp. 8–9 56 Lev. 11:3–8 (JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh) 57 Slifkin, The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax: A Study of the Laws of Animals with One Kosher Sign in Light of Modern Zoology (Michigan: Targum Press, Inc., 2004) p. 87 58 Ibid., pp. 124–125, 136–137, 148 59 Ibid., pp. 168–169, 178–179 60 Slifkin, Mysterious Creatures: Intriguing Torah Enigmas of Natural and Unnatural History (Michigan: Targum Press, Inc., 2003) pp. 82–84, 118–119, 133–134, 149, 168, 182, 190 61 Ibid., pp. 196–199, 209, 220, 231 62 Ibid., pp. 82–84, 118–119, 133–134 63 Ibid., pp. 196–199, 209, 220, 231; and Slifkin, Camel, p. 207 64 Slifkin, Creatures, pp. 18–19 65 Feldman, p. 3 66 Ibid., pp. 6–9 67 Slifkin, Challenge, p. 190 68 Feldman, p. 4 69 Slifkin, Challenge, pp. 43, 48–50 70 Ibid., pp. 53–54 71 Slifkin, personal communication, January 18, 2012 72 Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011) pp. 6–9; and Jason Palmer, “Multiverse Theory Suggested by Microwave Background,” (August 3, 2011), BBC News, THE CONCORD REVIEW 215

The Hidden Reality provides a thorough but accessible overview of various multiverse hypotheses and evidences. 73 Slifkin, personal communication, January 18, 2012 74 Goldstein 75 Slifkin, Challenge, p. 51 76 Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106 (1997) pp. 16–22, The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive, 77 Slifkin, Challenge, p. 375 78 Ibid., pp. 326–327 79 Slifkin, personal communication, January 18, 2012 80 Rotem 81 Cantor and Swetlitz, pp. 16–17 82 Rotem

Works Cited

Bowler, Peter J., Evolution: The History of an Idea Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003 Brown, Walt, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood 2008, Center for Scientific Creation, Cantor, Geoffrey, and Mark Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006 Davis, Percival, and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins edited by Charles B. Thaxton, 2nd edition, Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993 Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution New York: Free Press, 2009 Efron, Noah J., Judaism and Science: A Historical Introduction Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM, Ver. 2009, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago Feldman, Aharon, “The Slifkin Affair: Issues and Perspectives,” June 27, 2005, Zoo Torah, Gould, Stephen Jay, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106 (1997): 16–22, The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould 216 Jonathan Slifkin

Archive, Greene, Brian, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011 Larson, Edward J., Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion New York: Basic Books, 1997 Maimonides, Moses, The Guide for the Perplexed translated by M. Friedlander, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1903, Internet Sacred Text Archive, Marshall, Michael, “Timeline: the Evolution of Life,” New Scientist July 14, 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “How Old is the Universe?” December 21, 2012, Newport, Frank, “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins,” June 1, 2012, Gallup, Numbers, Ronald L., The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992 “The Opinion of the Gedolai Hador Shlita Against the Books of Nosson Slifkin,” photograph, September 20, 2004, Zoo Torah, Palmer, Jason, “Multiverse Theory Suggested by Microwave Background,” August 3, 2011, BBC News, Parker, Gary, “Did Adam Have a Belly-Button?” June 1, 1996, Answers in Genesis, Rich, Tracey R., “Jewish Calendar,” Judaism 101, Haaretz 2005 Ruse, Michael, “Creationism,” October 29, 2007, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Edward N. Zalta, Sickler, Bradley, “Conflicts Between Science and Religion,” February 11, 2009, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, THE CONCORD REVIEW 217

Slifkin, Natan, “An Account of Events,” Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013) Slifkin, Natan, The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax: A Study of the Laws of Animals with One Kosher Sign in Light of Modern Zoology Michigan: Targum Press, Inc., 2004 Slifkin, Natan, The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution 3rd edition, New York: Lambda Publishers, 2010 Slifkin, Natan, “In Defense of My Opponents,” October 5, 2008, Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013) Slifkin, Natan, “A General Response to the Charge of Heresy,” Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013) Slifkin, Natan, Man & Beast: Our Relationships with Animals in Jewish Law and Thought New York: Yashar Books/ Lambda Publishers, 2006 Slifkin, Natan, Mysterious Creatures: Intriguing Torah Enigmas of Natural and Unnatural History Michigan: Targum Press, Inc., 2003 United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Case #04cv2688, July 27, 2005 U.S. Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard Case #482US578, June 19, 1987 Wall Street Journal, 2012 Zoo Torah, (accessed June 3, 2013)

218 Jonathan Slifkin

Brian Fagan The Little Ice Age “The Medieval Warm Period” New York: Basic Books, 2000, p. 19

The twelfth and thirteenth centuries were golden years of architects, masons, and carpenters, who moved from cathedral to cathedral, taking their evolving ideas with them. They created works of genius: Notre Dame, on the Ile de la Cité in the heart of Paris, commissioned by Bishop Maurice de Sully in 1159 and built over two centuries; the ethereal places of worship at Rheims and Sens; the choir of Canterbury Cathedral in southern England, erected in the 1170s, and Lincoln to the north, a triumph of vaulting, begun in 1192. The ultimate aesthetic effect came at the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, completed on April 25, 1248, smaller than the great cathedrals and “an edifice of exquisite delicacy and light, its tall slender windows filled with brilliant expanses of stained glass.” Cathedrals are never completed, for they are built, then rebuilt, restored, added to, and sometimes abandoned or damaged in war by later generations. But the surge in Gothic cathedral building, financed by an outpouring of surplus resources, labor, and wealth, was never emulated in later centuries. Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

An Emblem Of Femininity, an Embrace of Womanhood, and Far From Being Just a Toy: The Barbie DolL

Brittany Arnett

Throughout history, important female figures such as Susan B. Anthony, Simone de Beauvoir, and Amelia Earhart have shown that women can aspire to do great deeds regardless of what others may say. However, many do not recognize another important female figure: the Barbie Doll. At the time this doll came out in 1959, women were not noted for their abilities and achievements; rather they were expected to stay at home to care for the children and cook for their husbands. When Barbie made her debut, she was unlike any doll seen before in the United States. She has become a symbol of a well-rounded capable person. Most importantly, Barbie is the ultimate emblem of femininity, as she is the center of her world and has a career, yet still remains as feminine as possible. This 11-and-a-half-inch doll grew into an international phenomenon, the best-selling doll in the world, and one of the best-selling toys of all time. Barbie’s name has been used throughout everyday life, over and over again, for over 50 years. Barbie has changed throughout the years,—reflecting societal norms—has been denounced for her looks and figure, and has been an emblem of feminism.

Brittany Arnett is a Senior at the Paul D. Schreiber High School in Port Washington, New York, where she wrote this paper for Dr. David O’Connor’s Social Science Research course in the 2012/2013 year. 220 Brittany Arnett

What Barbie represents is all the doing of her creator, Ruth Handler. Ruth was born Ruth Mosko on November 4, 1916 in Denver, Colorado. She was the 10th and last child of Jacob and Ida Mosko, who moved to the United States from Poland in 1906 and 1908, respectively. When Ruth was six months old, her mother had to get surgery and could not properly take care of her, so she was sent to live with her older sister, Sarah Greenwald. Ruth ended up staying with the Greenwalds throughout her childhood, leading a separate life from the rest of her family. In junior high, she began working at the Greenwald’s pharmacy after school, and later worked in their shopping market and with her older brother, Al Mosko, at his law firm. Sarah was Ruth’s maternal figure, and because Sarah worked, Ruth never found it unusual for a woman to have a job, despite the fact that in that period few women worked. In fact, Ruth loved having a job, and thought, “having a job was consuming and exhilarating.”1 When she was 16, Ruth met Isadore Elliot Handler, and on June 26, 1939, after six years of on-and-off dating, the two got married. Now Ruth had a husband, but that did not stop her from working hard and being independent. Shortly after their wedding, the Handlers moved to Los Angeles, California. Ruth convinced Elliot to quit his job at a light fixture company and start his own business. Elliot followed Ruth’s advice, and created bookends, trays, furniture, jewelry and other items, while Ruth sold his designs to stores. Then Elliot joined Zachary Zembly and Matt Matson and created the company Elzac, where Elliot continued to create items and Ruth continued to help market his designs. Throughout all of this, Ruth gave birth to a daughter, on May 21, 1941 named Barbara Joyce Handler, and three years later on March 22 to a son, Kenneth Robert Handler. Despite the birth of her children, Ruth did not stop working, and continued to help out in Elzac. However, problems occurred in the company among the three men, leading Elliot to leave this business, which he soon realized was a great decision. After the problems at Elzac, Ruth and Elliot met Matt Matson, who also left the company. In 1944, the trio decided to develop their own company, fusing Matson and Elliot’s names to THE CONCORD REVIEW 221 get “Mattel Creations.” The company was based in Hawthorne, California, and in the first two years Elliot made doll furniture, a toy bank, a play makeup kit, and one of the more popular pieces, a plastic toy ukulele called a Ukedodole. Ruth was a huge part of the process, using her marketing skills to sell the products.2 In 1946, Matson wanted out of the stress, so Louis Greenwald bought him out and became a partner in Mattel. The company became more and more successful, and in 1952, they employed 700 workers in its factory, all of different race and gender, making it one of the most diverse factories at the time. Ruth and Elliot treated their workers very well, and as their sales continued to increase, Mattel was worth $500,000 in 1955. Around that same time, ABC was ready to air its new show, The Mickey Mouse Club. For the new TV show, ABC needed new advertisements, preferably for toys. Previously, toy ads were only aired on TV about two to three months before Christmas, but instead ABC wanted ads to air throughout the year. For this the television program looked to Mattel. If Mattel was going to go for this advertisement job, they would need to risk a substantial amount of their earnings, which made many at Mattel skeptical, including Ruth. Ruth met with Mattel’s controller, Yasuo Yoshida, and the two discussed the idea. Yoshida finally convinced Ruth that Mattel would not be badly damaged if they took this risk, and Ruth decided to go ahead with the advertisements. Mattel risked a significant portion of its worth on the ads for their new product, the Burp Gun, a toy gun that made a “burping” sound whenever it fired. Mattel got the advertisement company, Carson & Roberts, to help them create their new ad, which was something completely different from any advertisement before it. The ad demonstrated a young boy playing with the Burp Gun. Instead of directing their ad towards parents, they directed it towards kids, and their sales on the Burp Gun dramatically increased. Mattel finally got its name out there, but only with Ruth’s help. For the beginning years of Mattel, Ruth said, “Yes, it was Elliot’s designs. Yes, it was Elliot’s name. Yes, he was very much a part in my mind. But I actually started Mattel.”4 Ruth had always been behind the 222 Brittany Arnett

scenes at Mattel, while Elliot took the lead for his designs. However, this was all going to change. During World War II, women entered the domestic work force while men were out in combat. Rosie the Riveter then came into existence, and she was the symbol encouraging women to take on men’s roles. However, a sharp contrast from Rosie’s femi- nism soon followed after the war. In this post-war era, girls were encouraged to aspire to be mothers and housewives, rather than independent working women. Due to this, baby dolls, designed to teach young girls how to be mothers, dominated the market. But these baby dolls did not last too long as the toy of choice in girls’ lives. Ruth noticed that her daughter Barbara and her friends lost interest in their baby dolls at a young age. Barbara also did not play with the other dolls on the market called glamour dolls, meant to be young ladies to teach girls about makeup and clothes, yet had child-like features. Instead, Barbara played with paper dolls, which were adult-looking dolls made of flimsy paper. Ruth observed how Barbara and her friends would imagine themselves, as adults, through the dolls. Mattel did need a new toy aimed at girls, preferably a doll, and Ruth found these adult paper dolls a good idea. But instead of paper, Ruth wanted to make the doll out of plastic, with curves, makeup, and a high fashion wardrobe. This was shot down by the all-male Mattel team in part because it would be extremely expensive to make, as Ruth wanted it to have nail polish, makeup, and detailed clothing made with plastic. Even Elliot told his wife, “Ruth, no mother is going to buy her daughter a doll with breasts.”5 On a family trip to Europe in 1956, Ruth and Barbara were gazing at an adult-looking doll in the Franz Carl Weber toy shop in Lucerne, Switzerland. This doll was the Lilli doll, based on a popular comic strip in the German newspaper, Bild-Zeitung. Originally, the doll was meant as a pornographic doll and a gag gift for men. However, the doll slowly made its way into children’s toy stores after her success as an adult novelty.6 Lilli had narrow “v” eyebrows, eyes glancing to the side, red lips, long legs, breasts, THE CONCORD REVIEW 223 and was under a foot tall. Ruth bought several dolls for herself and Barbara, as Lilli was exactly what Ruth wanted in a doll. Once she went back to California, Ruth took the doll to Mattel and told Jack Ryan, who was head of Mattel’s research and design, to find a manufacturer while he was on a business trip in Japan. It was difficult to find a manufacturer to produce the doll because Ruth wanted to make it out of a softer plastic than Lilli’s. They finally found a manufacturer in Tokyo, but they had to learn how to mold the plastic, which was vinyl, so there would be no bubbles or breaks or defects. Ruth’s doll was coming together. All of the negativity Ruth received from the Mattel team when she first told them about her idea strengthened her resolve. The Mattel team had previously told her that parents would never buy a doll like Barbie. Also, as the Mattel team was all male, they disliked the idea of Ruth, a woman, taking the lead in design. Some of the males on the design team muttered, “Why doesn’t she just stick to management and marketing.”7 The design of the doll was completely in her hands, instead of Elliot’s or those of other male Mattel designers. Ruth wanted to create the doll as a role model for girls to imagine themselves as if they were young women. She wanted everything to be perfect and treated her doll like a child; in fact, she wanted to name her doll after her daughter Barbara. Ruth wanted the nickname of Barbara, “Babs,” to be the dolls name, but that and “Barbara” was copyrighted, so she went with the name that would soon become famous, “Barbie.” Ruth started with what she deemed were the most important factors of Barbie—her wardrobe and appearance. Ruth wanted Barbie to have immense detail, because she thought that moth- ers and daughters would appreciate the detail and quality Barbie would have.8 Therefore, Barbie needed the perfect wardrobe de- signer to accomplish Ruth’s ideal doll. After a long search, Ruth got Charlotte Johnson, an American fashion designer with her own business and a teacher at Los Angeles’s Chouinard School of Art. Johnson was almost too perfect for the job, as she looked like Barbie but also because she was independent, something Ruth wanted Barbie to be. Ruth told Johnson, “I want American 224 Brittany Arnett

clothes, and I want play situations which teenage girls would go through. I want things like prom dresses, wedding dresses, and career-office dresses. I want her to be able to dress up, and I want slacks.”9 Barbie was going to be the doll through which girls would imagine themselves as women with careers, regardless of what was expected of them at the time. Johnson got right to work and moved to Japan, where all the clothes would be made at a low cost. She met with local sup- pliers and seamstresses, and got minuscule snaps, buttons, and zippers with the right fabric. Johnson even traveled to Europe to study the high fashion to create a couture Barbie wardrobe, along with a career-friendly wardrobe, for Barbie. Ruth collaborated with Johnson the whole way through, and helped her through- out the design process. Barbie’s first outfit was a zebra black and white swimsuit with white sunglasses and open-toed black heels. Johnson designed 21 other outfits, including a wedding dress, a tennis outfit, a ballet costume, and many more. While Johnson was in Japan working on Barbie’s wardrobe, Ruth was working on Barbie’s features. Barbie retained much of the look that Lilli had; she had side-glancing eyes, makeup, nail polish, long legs, rooted hair made out of kanekalon—a fiber used for human wigs—and breasts. Although the breasts were the most controversial part of Barbie, and many of the Mattel team thought that the addition of breasts would make mothers not want to buy it, Ruth refused to get rid of Barbie’s breasts. Barbie’s breasts were not a sign of sexuality, but of womanhood and set Barbie apart from all the other baby dolls that dominated the market at the time. Ruth created Barbie for young girls to envision themselves as women, so Ruth did not want to apply anything to Barbie that would make her any less womanly. “Barbie should be used for every little girl’s personality,” Ruth said, “and through Barbie each little girl could project her own personality.”10 Although Barbie’s breasts were a symbol of what she represented, Ruth did not want mothers to think of Barbie as a sex icon. Thus, Ruth got psychologist Ernest Ditcher to help THE CONCORD REVIEW 225 her market Barbie so mothers would be willing to buy it for their daughters. Ditcher first researched girls and mothers about Bar- bie, and concluded that Mattel had to downplay Barbie’s sexuality and accentuate her look and wardrobe as a way to help teach girls how to accessorize and look good.11 For that reason, Barbie’s full name became Barbie, Teenage Fashion Model. Ruth also sought the help of Mattel’s advertisement company, Carson & Roberts, to create the appropriate ad for Barbie. The advertisement company further researched girls with Barbie, and decided they had to ad- vertise Barbie as a young woman they would want to be someday, and cast the doll as if she were a real person.12 The commercial debuted in March 1959, and cast Barbie as a teen who swims, dances, parties, and changes clothes. Emphasizing that girls see themselves as Barbie, the commercial had the phrase, “I’ll make believe that I am you.”13 After everything that went into making Barbie perfect, she was finally ready in March 1959 for her debut at the Annual American Toy Fair at the New Yorker Hotel. Ruth created an elaborate set-up for buyers to view Barbie, where the main one was Barbie in a wedding dress on a white spiral staircase (this is ironic since the doll was never married). Twenty-one other Barbie set-ups were there, all donning each outfit created for the doll, with blondes and brunettes, but blondes outsold brunettes two to one. Ruth thought that Barbie would be a huge hit, but as buyers came to see the womanly doll, they were not impressed and very few actually placed orders. Ruth especially wanted Lou Kieso from Sears to like the doll, because if he did, Barbie would be in stores nationwide and in the popular Christmas catalog, but even he left without placing an order. The toy industry was predominantly male, and these males thought Mattel was out of touch for putting breasts on a doll. Twenty thousand dolls a week had been ordered for delivery over the next six months, and Ruth had planned on selling three or four outfits per doll, but with few orders placed, Ruth panicked and cut production by 40 percent. Ruth thought all the hard work put into Barbie was for nothing, and her attempt 226 Brittany Arnett

at succeeding in a male-dominated business failed. But this was not the end for Barbie. Once school let out in June 1959 and children had more time on their hands, the demand for Barbie increased. This in- crease of demand came from the effect of television ads, free time over the summer, and the doll itself, which made girls badger their parents to buy them a Barbie. Young girls went frantic for this new womanly doll, and Barbie flew off the shelves.14 Buyers from almost every store were calling Mattel to place orders for Barbie. Ruth’s efforts had finally paid off, as she said, “The industry was going frantic with demand for Barbie.”15 In her first year, about 351,000 Barbies were sold, selling for $3 each. These were just the beginnings for Barbie: she was on her way to change with the times, get ridiculed for her figure, and become the most success- ful doll in the toy industry. Today, billions of Barbie dolls are sold each year. The reason for Barbie’s survival is because she has evolved with the changing times, especially through her look.16 Barbie’s clothing is one of the most important aspects about her. Her clothing represents the jobs she has, which makes her an independent working woman. Her clothing always resembled the popular fashions of the time. In the 1960s, Barbie acquired tailored suits and a bubble haircut, much like the popular woman figure at the time, Jackie Kennedy. In the ’70s, Barbie had mod-like clothing, with bright colors and busy prints. In the ’80s, Barbie obtained rocker style such as leather clothing and colored hair, along with exercise clothing, namely leg warmers and leggings. The change in Barbie’s clothing kept the demand for Barbie going. Not only did Barbie change her clothing over the years but also her look. This change of her look did not just reflect a change in fashion, but a change in society. In 1970, right when the second wave of feminism and women’s rights kicked off, “Liv- ing Barbie” came out with jointed ankles, which made her able to go flat foot. In 1980, Mattel launched the Barbie Dolls of the World Collection, starting off with African American Barbie and THE CONCORD REVIEW 227 Hispanic Barbie. Each Barbie of the World donned the fashion of the nation she represented, and the regular clothes the original Barbie wore. The Barbies of the World had a slightly different appearance than the original Barbie, each with the looks of their nationality. These changes made Barbie one step closer to becom- ing a world success. As Barbie became more and more successful, the changes in the Barbie concept increased. Over the years, Barbie has ac- quired a large number of family members and friends. Consumer demand after Barbie’s first release led to her boyfriend, Ken, mak- ing his way into stores in 1962. Barbie also got a best friend Midge in 1963, a little sister Skipper in 1964, and toddler twin siblings Tutti and Todd in 1966. Author Tayna Lee Stone asserted, “Never had a doll had so many family and friends like Barbie did.”17 All of these new friends and family of Barbie further contributed to her success, putting the name of “Barbie” out there in areas other than the toy industry. Ever since her debut, Barbie has received a lot of ridicule over her body. To some, Barbie has become a symbol of sexuality and eating disorders ever since her debut.18 Some mothers think the only thing Barbie teaches is the idea of tall, thin, and full breasted. Many believe that her proportions, if human, would have a 39- inch bust, 18-inch waist, and 33-inch hips­—too unrealistic—and her foot is too small to stand on. According to some, if Barbie were real, she would not be able to menstruate, and that is one of the signs of anorexia, which may lead people to accuse Barbie of promoting anorexia. Ruth Handler rejected any criticism of Barbie as harmful to young girls’ view of themselves: “[Barbie] is a very educational product: the children learn color coordination, fashion design, good grooming, hair styling, good manners, and people relationships.”19 Barbie does not instigate anorexia, but instead reflects society’s notions of beauty.20 Around the late 1950s, when Barbie was created, being pale with a small waist and looking femininely delicate was in fashion. Popular celebrities at the time, Elizabeth 228 Brittany Arnett

Taylor, who had a 21-inch waist, and Marilyn Monroe, who had a 22-inch waist, most famously demonstrated this. In fact, the media and harsh comments from adults on girls’ weight have a much larger impact than a doll plaything. The media and society make it so that Barbie’s figure is desirable, if they did not, her figure would not be such a desirable thing among women and teen-age girls. In 1991, a survey of 3,000 children commissioned by the American Association of University Women revealed that girls begin to lose their self-confidence at puberty, well after they give up Barbie. Thus Barbie is not a major factor for teen-age weight issues. However, many girls still have positive feelings towards Barbie, and as children the doll never made them feel like they had to be perfect.21 Based on her looks Barbie was a full woman, but with her actions Barbie broke into the male world. When Barbie came into existence in the 1950s, men had the upper hand, and women were supposed to be subservient housewives. Women were only considered important in nursing, teaching, and the entertain- ment industry, but in no other fields of work. Also at that time, women staying single past a certain age looked bad, and they were encouraged to marry and raise children. Barbie challenged these traditional ideas and roles. Barbie was never married and had no children, and most importantly, she had something many women in the 1950s did not have: a career. According to author Mary F. Rogers, “Barbie implies all the traditional signs of femininity, yet smoothly succeeds in male-dominated professions.”22 A hard working, successful woman created Barbie at a time when very few women had executive positions in corporations. Barbie had Ruth Handler’s work ethic, and she pursued jobs of her own. Barbie worked “dream jobs,” such as a model or astronaut, and she worked regular jobs, such as a teacher or businesswoman. Thus Barbie did not just work the stereotypical “women jobs.” She was not just a nurse, but also a doctor; not just a gymnastics coach, but also a football coach. In fact, Barbie was also a United States Army officer, Air Force jet pilot, Marine Corps officer, and Navy of- THE CONCORD REVIEW 229 ficer, all predominantly male jobs. Barbie has had over 120 careers, including a veterinarian, executive, Olympic athlete, lifeguard, architect, and hairdresser. Barbie has represented the fact that women have choices.23 Girls can envision themselves as working women with the careers that Barbie represented. Barbie let girls wonder what they wanted to be when they grew up, rather than just accept the traditional lives being housewives and mothers. In the early ’90s, Mattel came out with the Barbie Career Collection, along with the catch phrase “We Girls Can Do Anything.” Over the years, Barbie advertisements displayed Barbie in different career options, declaring that Barbie could be whatever you wanted her to be. Barbie helped set the idea for young girls and women to work hard to be able to achieve what they wanted in life. Barbie has succeeded in masculine domains, yet has remained feminine.24 No matter which profession Barbie holds, whether it be a baseball player or police officer, she looks like a woman, just as Rosie the Riveter did during her time in World War II. Thus, Barbie still implies that women can do anything, without abandoning the feminine look and beauty. Barbie has never tried to mask her femininity; for instance during one of her years as an astronaut, she had a bright pink space suit, which cinched at the waist, showing off her female figure. By doing this Barbie has demonstrated that women who care for themselves and embrace their womanly qualities can also be hard-working and smart. In addition to her multitude of careers, Barbie took on another male trait, independence. Throughout history men have always been the dominant gender, and women have lived in a male world. Barbie on the other hand is not the second sex, but the first. Barbie came into being before Ken did, basically as if Eve came before Adam, and instead of Barbie organizing her life around Ken’s, Ken schedules his life around Barbie’s. One 1980 commercial displayed Barbie driving a Ferrari convertible, a typical “male” car, with Ken in the passenger seat rather than the opposite. Barbie has her own world where everything and ev- eryone revolves around her. Even Ruth Handler refused to allow 230 Brittany Arnett

Barbie to be a wife or mother; she wanted Barbie to forever be independent and subservient to no one.25 Although one of Bar- bie’s first outfits was a wedding dress, and she does have a steady boyfriend, she has never married Ken. Barbie has never had any type of engagement ring, or indication that Barbie and Ken have tied the knot. Thus Barbie has always remained independent, as Mary F. Rogers contends, “[Barbie] does not put her dreams on hold for the sake of a marriage or motherhood.”26 Through her independence and careers, Barbie has been the emblem of feminism. When Barbie changed to a flat foot during the second wave of feminism in the ’70s, it was her way to let feminists know that she was right with them.27 Barbie has implied that women are the foremost gender, not men. Barbie’s looks represent a female, her status represents the traditional male, and she lets girls embrace their femininity yet be strong and independent. Barbie has accounted for a huge part of Mattel’s success. In her first nine years, she brought in half a billion dollars of retail sales. In 1998, Barbie accounted for $1.9 billion in sales for Mattel, about one third of Mattel’s sales income. Girls all over the world own Barbie dolls, and many own more than one. Barbie has her own fan club, magazine, books, art, TV shows, movies and even songs. However, Barbie would be nothing without her hard working creator, Ruth Handler. In 1970, Ruth became president of Mattel, and in 1975, she and Elliot resigned from Mattel due to a scandal in which Ruth was convicted of fraud regarding Mattel sales. Also in 1970, Ruth was diagnosed with breast cancer, and in June had her left breast removed. She then created her own breast company, “Ruthton,” and named her breast prostheses product “Nearly Me.” In April 2002, the Barbie creator passed away. Later that year, Barbie dipped her hands and feet in cement on Hollywood Boulevard, as she is as famous as any other celebrity out there. For more than 50 years, Barbie has put her name out there and has become a world icon. The doll had a rough start but came out to be victorious in the end. She evolved with the times, scorned for her looks, and praised for her actions. Barbie was created by THE CONCORD REVIEW 231 a woman for girls, to let their imaginations and aspirations come out into reality. Barbie is female, yet has male privileges. Barbie is a symbol of femininity, independent and strong yet her looks embrace her femininity, and is arguably the most famous doll in the world. One thing for certain, however, is that Barbie represents much more than just an 11-and-a-half-inch doll. 232 Brittany Arnett

1 Cited in Robin Gerber, Barbie and Ruth (New York; HarperCollins Publishers, 2009) p. 26 2 Ibid., p. 59 3 Tanya Lee Stone, The Good, the Bad, and the Barbie: A Doll’s History and Her Impact on Us (New York; Penguin Group. 2010) p. 19 4 Gerber, p. 59 5 Cited in Ibid., p. 7 6 Ibid., p. 9 7 Cited in Ibid., p. 7 8 Ibid., p. 16 9 Cited in Ibid, p. 15 10 Cited in Ibid, p. 132 11 Stone, p. 29 12 Gerber, p. 107 13 Barbie Commercial, 1959, Youtube.com 14 Stone, p. 31 15 Gerber, p. 107 16 Mary F. Rogers, Barbie Culture (Thousand Oaks; SAGE Publications, 1999) p. 88 17 Stone, p. 103 18 Lord, p. 226 19 Cited in Gerber, p. 150 20 Ibid. p. 150 21 Stone, p. 59 22 Rogers, p. 17 23 Lord, p. 7 24 Rogers, p. 17 25 Lord, p. 51 26 Rogers, p. 16 27 Lord, p. 89

Bibliography

Gerber, Robin, Barbie and Ruth New York: Collins Business, 2009 Lord, M. G., Forever Barbie New York: Morrow and Co., 1994 Rogers, Mary F., Barbie Culture London: SAGE Publications, 1999 Stone, Tanya Lee, The Good, the Bad, and the Barbie: A Doll’s History and Her Impact on Us New York: Penguin Group. 2010 Copyright 2013, The Concord Review, Inc., all rights reserved

An Appraisal of the Reasons for the Building of the Kaiserliche Marine, its Failure, and the Implications for War Guilt

Renhua Yuan

All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them. —Admiral Sir John Fisher Introduction

On the morning of June 21, 1919, an idyllic summer day, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter prepared himself carefully, wearing his dress uniform with all his decorations, and emerged on the deck of his flagship, the light cruiserEmden. His flagship, along with 11 battleships, five battlecruisers, seven light cruisers and 50 destroyers of the Kaiserliche Marine, had been interned at the Scapa Flow,1 the Royal Navy’s chief base during the Great War, located at the north tip of Scotland, for several months, as required by the armistice, waiting for their ultimate fate as the peace treaty was being drafted.2 To honor the standing order of the Kaiserliche Marine that no German warship was to be allowed to fall into enemy hands and to prevent the British from seizing his ships when hostilities resumed, Reuter decided to scuttle his ships on this day. At 9:00 a.m., the British battle squadrons on guard duty at Scapa Flow left

Renhua Yuan is at the University of Chicago. He wrote this paper for Mr. Stephen Lauridsen at the Affiliated High School of South China Normal University in the 2012/2013 academic year. 234 Renhua Yuan

for training exercises at sea. At 11:20 a.m., the signal for immediate scuttling—“Paragraph Eleven. Confirm”—was hoisted onEmden and repeated by semaphore and searchlights.3 At the stroke of noon, all ships hoisted the colors of the Imperial German Navy. All the internal watertight doors, hatchway covers, ventilators, port holes, valves and condenser intakes were opened and torpedo tubes submerged. Sea was admitted in all 74 German warships. The sinking continued for five hours. Fifteen of 16 German dreadnoughts in the Flow went to the bottom. Four light cruisers went down and four were beached; of 50 destroyers, 32 sank, 14 were beached, and four remained afloat.4 Admiral Reinhard Scheer, the commander-in-chief of the High Sea Fleet during the Battle of Jutland, commented that “the sinking of these ships had proved that the spirit of the fleet is not dead. This last act is true to the best traditions of the German navy.”5 The Treaty of Versailles was signed exactly one week later. Germany was found guilty of “imposing” the Great War upon the Allies by her “aggression,” which included her attempt to develop a powerful navy.6 Furthermore, according to its Naval Clauses (Articles 181–197), all German surface warships interned by Allied or neutral Powers were surrendered to the Allied and Associated Powers; the German naval forces in commission must not exceed six battleships, six light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats, and a certain number of minesweeping vessels; and the construction or acquisition of any submarine was forbid- den.7 Kaiser Wilhelm, and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, the State Secretary of the Imperial Naval Office, the shipbuilding master who fathered the German navy, were blamed for its defeat and for committing war crimes by building it in the first place, which was an important factor that had triggered the Great War. The Kaiserliche Marine was a lost cause and the British, who had been constantly haunted in the last two decades by the nightmare of its naval supremacy being compromised by the growing strength of the German navy and had struggled to win the war “imposed” on them by the belligerent Germans, were finally relieved. THE CONCORD REVIEW 235 But was Germany, a country known for her army tradition, so aggressive that less than half a century after her unification she endeavored to build a navy only to challenge the mighty Royal Navy and to provoke a war and “impose” it on the British empire? Were the Kaiser and Tirpitz “war criminals” because they launched their ambitious naval program as inferred by the Treaty of Versailles? Was the defeat of such fleet, built for “evil,” an inevitable result of the long arm of justice? Were the Kaiser and Tirpitz, who perhaps should not have had the notion of building a Kaiserliche Marine powerful enough to threaten Britain’s security in the first place, ultimately responsible for its defeat? As far as the navies and the relevant politics, diplomacy, technology and economy were con- cerned, answers to all four questions are negative. But if so, then why was the Kaiserliche Marine built? Why was it defeated? And who should be held responsible for its failure and for contributing to the outbreak of the Great War? Using historical analysis, this article tries to demonstrate that the building of the Kaiserliche Marine was motivated by and responding to economic, technological and, most importantly, political factors, all of which arose from the desire for self-defense and peace-keeping instead of war; that the defeat of it was neither inevitable nor the predetermined result of justice but was rather the combined consequence of Germany’s mistakes on both theoretical and operational levels and Britain’s conscious efforts to curb Germany’s ambition; that the Kaiser and Tirpitz were responsible for the defeat of the Kaiserliche Marine in that they made mistakes in using it—not that they built it, which was perfectly justifiable—and that Britain’s own aggressiveness to retain mastery at sea was at least as responsible as Germany for causing everything Germany, by building the Kaiserliche Marine, was judged guilty of causing.

Why was the Kaiserliche Marine built? From the second half of the 19th century to the first decade of 20th century, due to the spread of industrialization, the united Germany that emerged from the victory in the Franco-Prussian War experienced an unprecedented economic growth. Her relative share of world manufacturing output had grown from 4.9 percent 236 Renhua Yuan

in 1860 to 13.2 percent in 1900.8 The production of coal, iron and steel in the great centers of the Ruhr Valley, Lorraine and Upper Silesia had increased since the 1870s with a rapidity unparalleled elsewhere in Europe. The Reich increased its coal production by 800 percent while Britain’s had only doubled. Her production of pig iron rose from 4 million tons in 1887 to 15.5, while the same figure in Britain only rose from 7.6 to 10 million tons. The development of Germany’s steel production was unparalleled in the world: the production of steel rose by 1,335 per cent, from 0.9 million tons in 1886 to 13.6 million.9 This spectacular growth in heavy industries, combined with equally astonishing expansion in the chemical, electrical, optical, textile and financial indus- tries, brought Germany an industrialized and rapidly expanding economy, eclipsing all other European powers. However, while industrialization was absorbing the work- ers who were leaving the land and reaching adulthood, it in turn necessitated an ever-greater dependence upon selling in the markets of the world and an enormous increase in the importa- tion of foodstuffs and raw materials.10 Between 1887 and 1912, the national figures for imports and exports had risen by 244 percent and 185 percent respectively and the cost of imports of raw materials rose from 5.7 million marks in 1872 to 161.3 mil- lion in 1910.11 While these figures could be used to demonstrate the amazing extent to which German industries had grown and prospered, they could also testify to the equally amazing extent to which the vitality of the German economy depended on imports and exports. As such, the importance of keeping Germany’s mari- time trade routes open was increasingly realized, and the demands grew louder and louder, from the industries and business circles, for a strong navy to protect these vital veins of the economy and the merchant marines shipping millions of tons of raw materials and manufactures. As stressed by Professor Fritz Fischer,12 the new German navy itself was unimaginable without the backing of Germany’s economic power and without the pressure exercised by wide economic circles for a status of recognized partnership overseas, THE CONCORD REVIEW 237 and leadership in Europe.13 From an economic perspective, the rapidly-expanding Reich had to, and was also both able and will- ing to build a powerful navy. The capability was obvious in light of the comparison made above between the growth of iron and steel production in Germany and Britain. Tomas’s new processes and Siemens’ and Martin’s inventions had enhanced Germany’s steel output both quantitatively and qualitatively; both aspects were crucial in the building of large warships. The rise of an “industrial military com- plex” such as Krupp AG and Thyssen AG, due to the enormous expansion of demand of steel, brought soaring industrial potential, which in turn enabled a further increase in steel output. Long before the construction of a navy was planned, to free herself from dependence on British ships for moving the increasing volume of her merchandise, and to enable her to bring her exports to their markets abroad without British middle-men, Germany required her own merchant marine,14 whose construction was accompanied by the great expansion of ports such as Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Kiel, and Wilhelmshaven, as well as shipbuilding and docking industries, which gave rise to three Kaiserliche Werfts and made the construction of a German navy possible. Moreover, given the German lead over Britain in population, in the production of coal, iron, steel, chemicals, electrical equipment and other industries, great confidence was placed in German industrial potential. It was believed that the Royal Navy could be outbuilt and Britain could be forced to give up her attempt to retain a monopoly of sea power by the financial strain involved. Germany’s eagerness, especially among the industrialists, to build a powerful navy, was even stronger than her capability. As Professor Paul M. Kennedy15 puts it, heavy industry and the ship- building yards had the most obvious of motives.16 The creation of the Navy League (Deutscher Flottenverein) in 1898 was a clear dem- onstration of such favor for the construction of a powerful navy among the German “industrial military complex.” In its origin a purely business creation whose first reaction to a naval programme was the thought that it would provide them with safe orders for 238 Renhua Yuan

years ahead, the League developed into an effective propaganda machine for the naval program.17 Manipulated by propagandists closely related to leading industrialists, and the Imperial Naval Office, and intending to create popular pressure on the Reichstag to approve the Fleet Acts of 1898 and 1900,18 the League stirred up widespread popular enthusiasm for the navy, which, combined with pressure from the large industries such as Krupp AG, which itself was a member of the League, enabled the Imperial German Navy to expand despite rising costs and opposition. At least up to 1908, the League was thus an agency that united industry and state service in devotion to the same patriotic cause, namely the building of a powerful German navy.19 The most important economic reason, the “necessity” for the Second Reich to have a powerful navy, was the ever ex- panding maritime trading and the consequent urgency for the protection of maritime trade routes and the merchant marine. Kennedy claims that the “argument that the rapid growth of the country’s overseas commerce and merchant marine entitled her to greater naval protection…the increased force…would be of a size commensurate with German overseas interest” was a “very widespread and respectable” one which “few Britons at the time would have found it possible to deny.”20 Many German navalists simply felt that Germany just needed a powerful navy equivalent to its extensive trade routes and enormous merchant marines. Also, geography played a very significant role. As the British Isles lay between the North Sea and the Atlantic, only two openings to the outside oceans were left for Germany trapped in the North Sea: the English Channel and the gap between the Shetland Islands and Scandinavia, where storm, cold, high waves and bad weather were dominant. Moreover, the direction of her trade had under- gone a disquieting change since 1880. In that year 80 percent of her exports had gone to Britain, France and southeast Europe, and 77 percent had come from European countries. In 1913 the share of Europe in her imports and exports had gone down by 30 percent, while overseas countries, the tropics and above all South America, were supplying an increasing proportion of her raw materials.21 As the German economy was more and more THE CONCORD REVIEW 239 closely integrated into the global transportation of raw materi- als and manufactured goods, seaborne trading played a greater and greater part in keeping it prosperous. Because the Reich’s booming overseas trade was more or less totally dependent upon British goodwill as its merchant ships steamed up and down the Channel, to many German navalists, “the thought that there is a power on earth always in a position…to cut off the country in question from the sea is a cause of anxiety.” Therefore, a power- ful navy was thought to be very necessary for “fighting for access to ocean, whose entrances on that side of the North Sea are in England’s hands.”22 Economic concern were just one of the considerations for which the Reich decided to develop a powerful navy. Another crucial aspect was the technological developments, which made the previously improbable task of gaining on the Royal Navy’s number of capital ships easier to accomplish and thus made the development of a powerful navy much more feasible and tempt- ing for other countries, as they could now compete with the Royal Navy on basically the same starting point. One such crucial technological breakthrough was, ironi- cally, conceived by the British First Sea Lord at the time, John Arbuthnot “Jacky” Fisher. He intended to exempt Royal Navy from financial constraints by radically innovating technology that would restore British naval supremacy without the necessity for numerical superiority.23 In December 1904, the First Sea Lord created a commit- tee to transform his long-conceived vision of what he believed to be the capital ship of the future into reality. By that time, all the battleships carried a main armament of mixed caliber with only two to four guns of the largest caliber, and reciprocating engines, which were very prone to breaking down. In Fisher’s mind was a new model carrying uniform big-gun armaments and turbine engines. With these revolutionary changes came multiple advan- tages, first of which was that the uniform big-gun made for a much heavier and hence more effective broadside to be delivered at a much longer range. A second benefit was that when the guns 240 Renhua Yuan

were fired in salvoes, it became much easier to determine the true range by observing the pattern of slashes caused by a sufficiently large number of shells, and also to observe it without any risk of interference and confusion on account of the slashes from smaller guns. A third one was that the replacement of reciprocating en- gines by turbine engines not only resulted in a higher speed and a substantial decrease of both weight and vibration but also allowed this higher speed to be maintained easily for extended periods of time.24 The result, the HMS Dreadnought, the first battleship in history equipped with uniform big guns—10 12-inch guns in five turrets—and turbine engines, which enabled it to steam at an unprecedented 21 knots, was launched in 1906. It was at that time the most powerful warship in history, a ship “easily equal in battle worthiness to any two, probably to three, of most of the ships now afloat.”25 Fisher went more radical to combine the turbine engine and all-big guns armaments with light armor in order to obtain an even higher speed, as he claimed that “speed is armor.”26 The result was an entirely new type of ship: the battle cruiser, equipped with guns as big as battleships, covered with armor as thin as cruisers and could steam as far as destroyers—a type of ship that was capable of destroying any vessel fast enough to catch it and fast enough to escape any vessel capable of destroying it.27 As was proven later in battles, such a combination was almost as deadly to the ship itself, as to the enemy.28 Nevertheless, all-big-gun battleships and battlecruisers—both of them were named after “dreadnought,” the first of its kind—were ranked as capital ships and made up the backbone of a nation’s naval force: the number of these two kinds of ships in service determined the strength of a nation’s navy. As Fisher had estimated, the launch of Dreadnought in- deed established significant advantage for the Royal Navy, but this advantage would disappear as soon as other navies provided themselves with similar vessels, which could be made by other industrialized countries after a short time lost in realizing the advantages of this new model. A much more profound influence was that, by enormous effort and at vast expense over many years, Britain had built an overwhelming supremacy in pre-dreadnought THE CONCORD REVIEW 241 battleships; by introducing a new class of ships so powerful that all previous battleships were instantly obsolete, Fisher had doomed the long line of 40 battleships of three classes in total and by do- ing so, shot his navy in the foot. Germany, on the other hand, was given a chance to compete on equal terms with Britain in a new round for acquiring naval supremacy with the gray, massive hulls of newly-invented dreadnoughts. Fisher’s intention to secure the Royal Navy’s supremacy by inventing the concept of dreadnought was, as commented by John C. Lambelet,29 calculated so this achievement would astonish the world, and prove to her rivals not only that Britannia was prepared to derate the whole of her battle fleet and start afresh with new super-battleships, but also that she had the wealth and means to do so while her rivals were still recovering from the shock of Dreadnought’s appearance. It was a gesture of splendid arrogance and contempt for the lesser trading nations of the world.30 Indeed, despite the 12 months lost in appreciating the fatal power carried on board the all-big-gun model which was publicized by the launching of Dreadnought, and in enlarging the Kiel Canal connecting the North Sea and the Baltic so that it could accommodate bigger warships, the keel of Germany’s first all-big-gun battleship was already laid down in July 1906, when Dreadnought was still in sea trials. In July and August of 1907, three more dreadnoughts’ keels were laid. For the German navalists, Tirpitz as well as the Kaiser, all of whom were only too eager to catch up with the Royal Navy, Britain’s voluntary abandonment of her overwhelming numerical superiority in pre-dreadnought battleships was very tempting, for the giant gap between the strength of the Kaiserliche Marine and that of the Royal Navy caused by the belated birth of the Reich, was instantly narrowed from some 30 to 40 ships to some three or four. Introducing the Dreadnought- type battleships weakened the Royal Navy’s supremacy in number of capital ships and invited competition, which was played out in the ensuing naval rivalry between Britain and Germany. “We might have been better off in relative strength to-day if we had not built this vessel. But that is done,” said the British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906 after the Dreadnought was 242 Renhua Yuan

launched.31 Certainly, the Germans were much closer to their aim of building a navy able to withstand British might after the disappearance of the unsurpassable numerical advantage the Royal Navy used to enjoy. There was, however, another important technological factor to be considered in order to understand Germany’s motiva- tion, or confidence, in challenging the most powerful navy in the world. While the British dreadnoughts, especially battle cruisers, embodied Fisher’s belief that “speed is armor,” their German counterparts had evolved from Tirpitz’s conviction that a ship’s primary mission is to remain afloat. Thus, Germany’s ships were more lightly armed and not greatly deficient in speed, but they were shielded by superior armor.32 Such a difference in design was presumed by Tirpitz to favor the Kaiserliche Marine because German ships were much harder to sink under the better protec- tion of their thicker armor. Tirpitz was also confident in German gunnery crews’ marksmanship, another superiority he believed the Kaiserliche Marine enjoyed over their counterparts in the Royal Navy due to the better training they received. Thus, combining his belief that German’s ships were harder to sink and could fire more accurately, Tirpitz was confident thatindividually, the dreadnoughts in the Kaiserliche Marine possessed a qualitative ad- vantage over their counterparts in the Royal Navy—a conclusion ridiculed as impossible by Fisher but worried about by Admiral John Jellicoe, the commander of the British Grand Fleet during most of the Great War and an expert in gunnery, and positively confirmed during the battles of Dogger Bank and Jutland where in many cases German ships could manage to limp home even after suffering several devastating hits, while a few British ships simply blew up and sank. Not foreknowing such outcome but confident in his presumption, Tirpitz was ever more determined to challenge the long-established supremacy of the Royal Navy. Moreover, as technology developed, threats to a floating warship could come not only from the visible gunfire on the sur- face, but also explosives carried by torpedoes and mines below the waterline. Laid by minelayers or fired by submarines, a single THE CONCORD REVIEW 243 cheap mine or a torpedo made in several days could easily doom a mighty, expensive dreadnought with biggest guns and fastest speed built in more than a year in an uttermost sudden, terrible and demoralizing way: they were invisible. These new weapons, if effectively deployed, could easily alter or even reverse the relative strength of opposing sides in Germany’s favor. Sending a submarine into Scapa Flow at night or laying a minefield at its entrance might sink an entire squadron of Royal Navy’s most formidable dread- noughts more easily than by the traditional way of dreadnought duels at open seas. As far as technology was concerned, these three factors—the obsolescence of pre-dreadnought battleships, Ger- man ship’s advantage in quality rendered by a better compromise among speed, armor and firepower and by better training, and the invention of “asymmetrical” weapons like submarines and mines—had together significantly enhanced the feasibility of the German naval program. Beside the economic and technological catalysts, it is important to stress that the most important motivation for the Second Reich to develop a strong navy lay in politics. In several events, Britons demonstrated to Germans how effectively the national interest could be advanced by wielding the power of a powerful navy and through these lessons Germany realized how necessary it was for her to have one. From these vivid experiences of inferiority and even humiliation emerged the strong desire to obtain the “world-political freedom,” which Germany hoped to achieve based on their Risk Theory. One of the British lessons was taught on the African coast. In the middle of January 1900 during the Boer War, three Ger- man steamers, Bundesrat, Herzog and General, suspected of carrying rifles and cannon to the Boers, were stopped by British warships off the coast of Africa. After a quick search at sea, two of the ships were released, but the Bundesrat was taken into Durban for a more thorough examination. No arms were found.33 The entire Reich’s indignation at such humiliation was used by Tirpitz and the Navy League to convince the outraged Reichstag that only a powerful fleet could prevent such national humiliation. As a result, the 244 Renhua Yuan

Reichstag ratified the Fleet Act of 1900, which doubled the ship- building plan in the Fleet Act of 1898. Another British lesson was taught in Morocco in 1905. In 1904, France had concluded a secret treaty with Spain partition- ing Morocco and had also agreed not to oppose Britain’s moves in Egypt in exchange for a free hand in Morocco.34 France’s ne- glect of the necessity of informing her before any action taken in Morocco infuriated Germany, who determined to use the crisis to upset the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain, which had just been concluded in 1904. Kaiser Wilhelm II even landed in Morocco himself in 1905 to reassure the Moroccans of their independence, and Germany summoned the Algeciras Conference in 1906 to settle the problem, in which Germany demanded the independence of Morocco, the removal from office of Théoph- eli Delcassé, the eminent French foreign minister who played a crucial role in forming the German-containing alliances among France, Britain and Russia, and the retention of an Open Door in Morocco with the threat of war. With her demand of the Open Door policy, Germany counted on the wide support of other pow- ers like Italy and the United States. Also, given the recent defeat of Russia, France’s principal ally, in the Russo-Japanese War, Ger- many was confident that France had no options but to concede to her demand and Britain would be blamed for not providing France with enough support. The British, however, recognized Germany’s attempt and decided to uphold the Entente and sup- port the French. During the conference, the combined armada of the British Atlantic and Mediterranean Fleets appeared in the harbor: 20 battleships, with dozens of cruisers and destroyers, an immense display of naval power.35 The French, well reinforced, refused to make further concessions beyond the removal of their eminent foreign minister. Other countries, among them Italy and the United States, reacting to the British exhibition of their mighty fleet, abandoned Germany’s proposal, which was only supported by Austria-Hungary. Although Germany possessed military superiority over France—Schlieffen claimed that “if the necessity of war with France THE CONCORD REVIEW 245 should arise for us, the present moment would doubtless be favor- able”36—and the Kaiser had journeyed to Morocco to inspire the locals, she nonetheless suffered a diplomatic setback, owing much to a powerful Royal Navy, whose presence helped a lot to uphold the Britain-Franco Entente, and to impose on Germany the op- posite of what she intended to achieve: instead of sabotaging the Entente, the French pacifists who had worked for better relations with Germany were silenced, while fuel was added to the flame of French nationalism; in Paris, where the Entente with England had at first been received unwillingly and with pessimism, it was now regarded as a salvation.37 The lessons in both South Africa and Algeciras were profound. A powerful navy could not only command the sea and secure victory in war, but also, more importantly, support allies, frustrate enemies and secure support from waffling countries in peacetime diplomacy. Convinced of the deterrence embodied in a powerful navy and the effectiveness with which it could advance national interest, Germany’s desire for a powerful navy grew pro- gressively urgent. Thus the most important motivation for the Reich to de- velop a powerful navy was its desire to achieve that “world-political freedom.” What the Kaiser wanted most was international rec- ognition of Germany’s importance and, above all, its power. He wanted to conduct what he and his entourage called Weltpolitik, or global policy,38 without regard to the existing political order and the restraints imposed by other powers, especially after he was repeatedly frustrated by Britain’s ability to dominate interna- tional affairs almost at will, which he believed was the result of her powerful navy. To obtain this ultimate freedom to conduct its Weltpolitik and achieve the worldwide influence commensurate with the Reich’s economic strength, Tirpitz devised the brilliant Risikoflotte,or Risk Fleet, strategy. He asserted that Germany must possess a battle fleet of such strength that to attack it would constitute such a risk even for the most powerful opponent at sea, namely the Royal Navy, that the attacker’s own power position will be at stake, a calcula- 246 Renhua Yuan

tion reinforced by the dispersal of the Royal Navy’s Squadrons in many parts of the globe.39 But even if Britain were to succeed in sending far superior forces against Germany, the defeat of a strong German fleet would weaken the Royal Navy to such an extent that despite the victory it had won, its own power position would for the moment not be secured by a sufficiently strong navy,40 and its empire and even its very survival would be at stake. At the center of Tirpitz’s theory was the capability of an inferior fleet standing on the strategicdefensive to deter a superior enemy41 because the cost of eliminating such a fleet would be too heavy to bear. Tirpitz intended to provide Germany with a fleet “strong enough to cause even Britain to consider the danger of carrying out such an attack,”42 a fleet which would cause Britain to lose “every inclination to attack us and as a result concede to Your Majesty such a measure of naval influence, and enable Your Majesty to carry out a great overseas policy.”43 The essence of this evaluation of strength was based on an old axiom of naval warfare that the attacking fleet must possess a numerical superiority of at least 33 percentage over the defender.44 That is to say, to prevent Britain from attacking, the Kaiserliche Marine needed two battleships for every three of Britain’s. The closer the ratio came to 2:3, the more cautious the British would become about declaring war.45 The larger the risk fleet grew, the more important the motive would have to be to make it worth the risk of destroying it. Once the ratio was achieved, or the fleet has emerged from the “dan- ger zone,” Tirpitz’s believed that Britain would avoid any conflict with Germany or perhaps even form an alliance with Germany in order to prevent such a conflict from erupting, for such a conflict might have led to the destruction of her fleet and the consequent collapse of her empire and world power status. Thus, presuming Tirpitz’s calculations were correct, the British would soon see that they could no longer oppose Germany’s expansion, embar- rass her by seizing her merchant ships or frustrate her designs in an international conference because they could not guarantee a clean victory against a Kaiserliche Marine only inferior by one third when they met a German navy in a war. Instead, they would have to concede to her the “world-political freedom:”46 freedom THE CONCORD REVIEW 247 to dominate the continent, to expand colonies, to conduct her diplomacy, and to ascend to the status of a world power. Hence Germany needed to build herself a “completely insufficient” fleet which would, however, present the superior enemy with a certain measure of risk due to its willingness to face destruction by meeting the enemy offensive in a decisive battle.47 Britain, facing the risk of a devastating attenuation of the Royal Navy, would thus be deterred from launching a war. According to Tirpitz, It is the backbone of Your Majesty’s naval policy that the German fleet must be so strong that a British attack becomes a very risky undertak- ing. The position of the German Empire as a world power rests on this risk, as does the effect our fleet has in maintaining the peace.48 And this was the paramount reason why the Reich, a traditionally continental power, was so urgent to develop a powerful navy: to prevent a war with Britain by making it too risky and thus to secure her world-political freedom from British restraint. There is another, though less significant, political reason for Germany to launch a massive shipbuilding project for the Kaiserliche Marine. The rapid industrialization in Germany had transformed a large amount of the rural population into an urban working-class. In view of Marxism and the political radicalization of the workers, Tirpitz saw Germany’s industrialization in no way as fortunate—but he also accepted that the only feasible solution to the “social problem” was an overall expansion of industry, foreign trade, colonies, and the navy.49 Although as the most prominent navalist in the Second Reich, Tirpitz may have intentionally em- phasized, or even exaggerated the threat of the “radicalization of the mass” to the regime and the effect of naval expansion in curbing such potential risk, the concern itself was certainly legiti- mate. Moreover, once the project had been started, to abandon it would mean a severe blow to the prestige of the monarchy, with alarming internal repercussions.50 In conclusion, economic prosperity brought the Reich the capability of building a strong navy and also demanded such a navy to protect its extensive seaborne trade; the technological 248 Renhua Yuan

developments tempted the Reich to grasp the seeming godsend of catching up with the previously unreachable Royal Navy; and most importantly, the dazzling strategy of Risk Theory provided the Reich with a promising route through which her long-desired world-political freedom and world power status could be reached. Together, these economic, technological and political factors constituted the most important motivations for the Second Reich to launch the mighty Kaiserliche Marine.

Why did the Kaiserliche Marine fail?

Instead of winning the world-political freedom and world power status as predicted by Tirpitz, the Kaiserliche Marine did not prevent Britain from joining World War I against Germany. More- over, it only engaged with the Royal Navy a very limited number of times, inflicted on the British fleet only tactical damages com- pletely disproportionate with its might, and met its doom during the ignominious internment at the Scapa Flow. But why did it fail? First of all, the assumptions upon which Risk Theory and its success depended failed to materialize in reality. When Tirpitz proposed his Risk Theory, one of the most important presumptions was that “on account of her foreign policy commitments [England] can only utilize a very small part of [her] ships in the North Sea.”51 But in reality, the Royal Navy did manage to concentrate its fleet from all over the world to reinforce the home fleet precisely in response to the increasing threat from the Kaiserliche Marine. The reason was that to the British Sea Lords, it is a fundamental principle of Admiralty policy that sufficient force shall at all times be maintained in home waters to ensure command of these seas…Germany keeps her whole fleet always concentrated within a few hours of England. We must therefore keep a fleet twice as powerful as that of Germany always concentrated within a few hours of Germany.52 In 1901, Britain signed the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty with the United States, yielding the right of constructing and controlling the Panama Canal as long as the freedom of access was guaranteed, signifying the end of the Royal Navy’s role in the Caribbean, and the return THE CONCORD REVIEW 249 of the Caribbean Fleet back from the western hemisphere. In 1902, Britain “stunned Europe” by forging an alliance with Japan, the first time since Richelieu’s dealings with the Ottoman Turks that any European country had gone for help outside the Concert of Europe.53 By doing so Britain had relieved herself of the burden of containing Russia’s expansion in the Far East and improved the security of her Far East colonies including Hong Kong and Singapore, which allowed some ships in three Far East squadrons to rejoin the Home Fleet. More significant was theEntente Cordiale with France in 1904, which led to the naval cooperation between the two countries: France was given the responsibility to guard the Mediterranean, which enabled the Royal Navy to pull its Mediter- ranean Fleet back to the North Sea in order to deal with Germany. The British response to the rise of the Kaiserliche Marine was that ...the more the German fleet expanded, the more the Royal Navy was concentrated to contain it, which was assisted by the fortuitous solution of differences with the USA, France and Japan. By 1906, apprehensions about the German fleet increases were such that ves- sels were being pulled back from “imperial police duties” in tropical waters even when the Foreign and Colonial Offices wanted them kept overseas for political reasons.54 Thus, the presumption upon which Risk Theory was based—that Britain would not be able to concentrate its fleets from around the globe and thus the Kaiserliche Marine would only have to deal with a part instead of the majority of the Royal Navy—was rendered unsound by British conscious efforts to counter the risk theory. Tirpitz’s other assumption was also rendered invalid by the shift in British strategy when the war actually erupted. According to Risk Theory, Germany’s rise to world power status could only be secured if the enemy’s fleet would face such a risk of devastation in a confrontation, or a decisive battle, that its naval supremacy and even its empire would be at stake. Tirpitz and many German navalists had every reason to and did, in fact, believe that given the Royal Navy’s glorious “Nelsonic” tradition, the only way in which such a decisive battle could take place was the Royal Navy’s active provocation, or in this case, a close blockade inside the Heligoland Bight in an attempt to annihilate the entire High Seas Fleet55 in 250 Renhua Yuan

another Trafalgar. “Before the war,” wrote Captain Otto Groos, the official German naval historian, The whole training of our fleet and to some extent even our ship- building policy and even certain constructional details (for instance a small radius of action of a large number of destroyers) was based on the assumption that the British would organize a blockade of the Heligoland Bight with their superior fleet.56 Only if such a close blockade happened could the Kaiserliche Ma- rine neutralize the Royal Navy’s numerical advantage by mines and torpedoes launched by submarines and destroyers, and the High Seas Fleet transform the theoretic risk into the enemy’s ac- tual loss. But when the British substituted for the close blockade, the so-called distant blockade, by simply sealing off the North Sea from the Atlantic and actively sought to avoid such a decisive battle, given the slightest hint of the possibility of her superiority in numbers being compromised, the risk the Royal Navy might run greatly diminished Risk Theory, and the Germans were at a loss. As early as 1913, British Admiralty had realized that if a close blockade were to be instituted, Royal Navy’s valuable dread- noughts would be exposed to the constant harassment and danger of German submarines, destroyers and minefields—”a steady and serious wastage of valuable ships.”57 To allow the already insecure numerical advantage of the new dreadnoughts to be thus neutral- ized would be equivalent to committing suicide. Therefore, the Royal Navy adopted the alternative of a distant blockade. Here again, geography played a significant role in Britain’s favor. The High Sea Fleet would be locked in the North Sea as long as the two exits to the Atlantic left by the British Isles was securely sealed off: the Strait of Dover by minefields, submarines and destroyers patrols, and the northern exit between Scotland and Scandina- via by cruisers patrols and the entire might of the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow. In fact, the very concept of the Risk Fleet made a wide blockade more likely as Kennedy pointed out that “for the more Tirpitz believed in Risk Theory and the deterring of a British at- tack, the less convincing was his assumption that the Royal Navy would immediately rush into the Bight.”58 Thus it was that when the expected British onslaught into the Bight failed to material- THE CONCORD REVIEW 251 ize, the premise on which the Germans had based their strategy was overturned.59 Also, the ultimate triumph of Risk Theory counted on a third naval power that was both able and willing to take over the command of the waves when the Royal Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine consumed each other in a decisive battle. The thought was that by sacrificing itself in battle, the High Seas Fleet would so weaken the victor that it would not be able to maintain its power position against third parties.60 The loss of their navy would be far less strategically significant for Germany, which was a traditional terrestrial power, than for Britain, an island country whose survival completely depended on the status of her navy. Under this estima- tion, a desperate battle aiming to decimate the British navy could force Britain to reconsider the price of being involved in a war in which her naval supremacy, her possession of colonies and even the security of the home isles could be threatened by a third party and therefore may deter Britain from engaging against Germany, effectively controlling the escalation of war in favor of Germany. However, the calculation of the risk posed by the German fleet to Britain’s predominance depended on the relationship between the other powers within the maritime balance. Germany needed friends, or it needed Britain to have other enemies; otherwise it would have to base its calculations on there being a shared resent- ment of British pretensions among leading secondary maritime powers.61 But when World War I actually erupted, there were no other significant naval powers in hostility with Britain due to her astonishing success in diplomacy. Her Entente with France and Russia, improved relations with the United States and alliance with Japan had basically left the Second Reich with only one ally— the Austro-Hungarian Empire whose naval force was negligible. Therefore, alone and encircled, the Reich had no other powers to count on to materialize the theoretical risk. And lastly, Risk Theory would only work if the 2:3 ratio between Germany’s and Britain’s dreadnoughts were obtained, or, in other words, the Kaiserliche Marine could emerge from the 252 Renhua Yuan

“danger zone.” But to build such a large fleet without detection was hardly possible, if only because the sheer proximity of Wil- helmshaven to the English coast: If the British press pays more attention to the increase of Germany’s naval power than to a similar movement in Brazil—which the Emperor appears to think unfair—this is due no doubt to the proximity of the German coasts and the remoteness of Brazil.62 In conclusion, the best circumstances under which Risk Theory could maximize its utility included the following prerequisites: that the Kaiserliche Marine would only have to deal with a portion instead of the bulk of the Royal Navy, given the latter’s global commitment; that the Royal Navy would follow its long-admired “Nelsonic” tradition and institute a close blockade as soon as hostility commenced; that a third naval power was always ready for subverting the Royal Navy’s naval supremacy; and that the Kai- serliche Marine itself could emerge from the danger zone without enemy’s detection. Unfortunately, none of these prerequisites was met due to various reasons, including British success in diplomacy, her flexibility in adapting strategy and Germany’s simple naivety. If the failure of the presumptions outlined above could be ascribed to a large extent to objective reasons—the conscious and successful British effort to curb the implementation of Risk Theory—then that was the fatal flaw of miscalculating Britain’s reaction to Germany’s challenge of her naval supremacy in an otherwise perfect strategy. Lord Selborne, first lord of Admiralty from 1900 to 1905, once argued that Our stakes are out of all proportion to those of any other Power. To us, defeat in a maritime war would mean a disaster of almost unparalleled magnitude in history. It might mean the destruction of our mercantile marine, the stoppage of our manufactures, scarcity of food, invasion, disruption of Empire. No other country runs the same risks in a war with us.63 When Tirpitz proposed his Risk Theory and built the Kaiserliche Marine in the hope that such a fleet would guarantee the Reich’s possession of world-political freedom and the rise to world power THE CONCORD REVIEW 253 status, his rationale was based on the same judgment of the im- portance of Royal Navy to British empire as stated by Selborne: since Britain’s politics, diplomacy, economy, defense and there- fore her very survival, was ultimately based on the Royal Navy’s ability to command the sea, the British would avoid anything that would risk their precious fleet at any price. In other words, the Royal Navy would not attack if it could not absolutely outgun its opponent, or, be superior by 33 percent. Thus, if Germany possessed such an ability to compromise their precious fleet, to put at risk the supremacy of the Royal Navy upon which the entire British empire depended, or in this case, when the critical dreadnought ratio of 2:3 was reached, Tirpitz believed that the British would back off, avoid conflict with Germany, concede to her the world-political freedom and leave her alone on her rise to the world power status in exchange for the preservation of her navy and continued existence of her empire. In this case the Royal Navy would still be the strongest in the world, but Germany could conduct her international affairs without interference by Britain, and a delicate balance could be reached. Therefore, by challenging the core interest of Britain and thus threatening the very sustenance of British empire, Germany hoped to secure British respect, concessions or even an alliance by “teaching the British the advantages of a friendly Germany by showing them just how prickly an adversary it could be.”64 The Kaiser, convinced that he could intimidate England into a formal alliance, boasted that “I have shown the English that, when they touch our armaments, they bite on granite. Perhaps by this I have increased their hatred but won their respect…”65 But what the British drew from Selborne’s argument and what actually happened were the exact opposites: precisely because everything the British had was ultimately based on the Royal Navy’s mastery at sea, Britain would do everything to retain and secure her naval supremacy instead of backing off from the potential risk as predicted by the Germans. The British would strive to prevent Germany from possessing such fleet able to inflict such risk, in other words, from reaching the critical ratio of 2:3 by building more ships than Germany for herself. The history of British policy 254 Renhua Yuan

in maritime affairs over the preceding three centuries revealed how much the preservation of naval supremacy had been ingrained into the national consciousness as Sir Edward Grey, British foreign secretary from 1905 to 1916, insisted that “the Navy is our one and only means of defence and our life depends upon it and on it alone.”66 Tirpitz was right about how determined the British were that their naval supremacy would not be compromised, but instead of asking for truce and peace at the price of concession as he hoped, the British responded to the rise of the Kaiserliche Marine by strengthening the Royal Navy more so that the Germans could still be absolutely outgunned. The British were as determined to secure a numerical advantage greater than 3:2 over the Kaiserliche Marine as the Germans were to narrow their inferiority within 2:3. What started out as a form of harassment to demonstrate the value of German alliance gradually turned into a genuine strategic challenge: no issue was as likely to turn Great Britain into an implacable adversary as a threat to its command of the sea.67 Therefore, to every new dreadnought Germany built, the British respond with two or even three in order to maintain its numerical superiority, to which Germany could respond only by building more dreadnoughts in order to narrow the gap and thus started the vicious cycle of the fierce Naval Race of 190468 from which point both countries regarded each other as its enemy all the way to the end of World War I. As demonstrated by the analysis above, the most fatal flaw in Risk Theory, which to a large extent predetermined its failure, was that German navalists misjudged the way by which Britain would preserve their naval supremacy and their fleet: not evading the enemy but confornting it so that her supremacy would not be threatened: the fact that Germans bet wrong may be ascribed to their ignorance of history as Kissinger suggested that: that approach belied the historical record, which offered no example of a British susceptibility to being bullied…for there was no question that England would resist once a Continental country already in pos- session of the strongest army in Europe began aiming for parity with Great Britain on the seas.69 THE CONCORD REVIEW 255 Also, the Admiralty always felt that the two-power standard, ac- cording to which the Royal Navy should be sufficiently powerful to deal with the combined force of the next two strongest navies, should operate against whichever those two powers were, friends or foes.70 Having misjudged Britain’s reaction, Tirpitz uninten- tionally provoked the Anglo-German antagonism, triggered the naval rivalry, and contributed to the eruption of the Great War by building the Risk Fleet with procuring an Anglo-German alliance in mind. He devised a brilliant strategy, but failed accurately to assess its applicability. He gave birth to the High Seas Fleet almost singlehandedly in order to obtain peace with Britain, whose refusal to relinquish her power to destroy any navy at will—an ability the British considered as indispensable to their “security”—rendered his strategy inapplicable. Despite the existence of such fatal flaws and the invalidity of almost every prerequisite of Risk Theory, had it been strictly adhered to as Tirpitz had proposed immediately before and dur- ing the Great War, the Kaiserliche Marine might at least prevent the British blockade from starving German people by weakening its strength, if not severely damage it in a decisive battle and thus changed the course of war in Germany’s favor. But sadly for the Germans, it was not. By 1914, on the eve of war, Britain possessed 42 capital ships including dreadnought battleships and battlecruisers, while Germany possessed 26; the ratio between Germany’s and Britain’s capital ships was 0.619, less than Tirpitz’s demand of 2:3. But if Germany waited another year, based on the temporary “four- tempo” established by the Novelle of 1908, which meant the build- ing of four battleships per year, Tirpitz was confident that Britain could either accept the ratio of 2:3 as the basis of an agreement, or Germany could reach it anyway by means of an arms race as a matter of time;71 Tirpitz predicted that in 1915 the risk of a Brit- ish attack, however motivated, would be over.72 That’s the exact reason why Tirpitz opposed the declaration of war on Russia: he was clear that once Germany declared war on Russia, a war with France would be inevitable. The Schlieffen Plan designed to attack 256 Renhua Yuan

the right wing of France involved the invasion of Belgium, whose neutrality Britain was committed to defend. According to Risk Theory, violation of Belgian neutrality in 1914 would drive Britain into war against Germany but that would be much less likely later when the ratio of 2:3 was reached and the Kaiserliche Marine was strong enough to deter British from doing so. Only a ratio of at least 2:3 would ensure that the risk existed and without it Germany would not be able to deter Britain and its naval policy would be a failure.73 Unfortunately, the Kaiser refused to listen to Tirpitz and insisted on declaring war on Russia. World War I erupted in August 1914. Risk Theory was not followed and British declared war on Germany on August 4 for violating Belgium’s neutrality when Germany carried out the Schlieffen Plan. Unfortunate for the Germans, this time Tirpitz was right. After the war, Tirpitz even argued that by 1914 the fleet already deterred the British from entering any kind of war against Germany—except one in which Germany threatened the balance of power, or in other words, attacked France, which was precisely the specter that Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg’s inept Balkan policy had raised.74 If the risk embodied in the fleet had not deterred the en- emy from declaring war, the first and only thing such a fleet ought to do in such a war was to transform the theoretic risk into actual enemy losses and by doing so, or demonstrating its determination to do so, force its enemy to reconsider its involvement in the war. But as early as Britain’s declaration of war on Germany, the Kaiser had been more or less disappointed because the establishment of a powerful navy did not prevent Britain from doing so, as Tirpitz had wanted, and accordingly he hesitated about whether Risk Theory should continue to be implemented. But what the Kaiser seemed to ignore was that the prerequisite of Tirpitz’s promise—2:3 ratio between the German and British capital ships—was ruined by his insistence on a premature declaration of war on Russia. In the first naval battle in the Great War—the Battle of Heligoland Bight in late August 1914, the Royal Navy sunk three light cruisers, and one destroyer and heavily damaged one light cruiser and three destroyers of the German Navy at the price of THE CONCORD REVIEW 257 just one British light cruiser and three destroyers heavily damaged. The frustrating result should be mainly attributed to the German Naval Staffs’ fatally mistaken assumption about the enemy forces.75 Although Tirpitz’s confidence in German sailors’ quality was jus- tified—according to British sailors, German’s gunfire was rapid and accurate and all ships Germany lost sank with their colors flying—the Kaiser, blinded by the material losses and shocked by the British ability to grab such a victory at a place so close to Germany’s shore, thought his fear and even admiration of the Royal Navy’s power was reasonable, and that it was necessary to deploy his precious fleet with much more care so that it could be well preserved. Therefore, the Kaiser instructed that the fleet must “hold itself back and avoid actions which can lead to greater losses;” must not “fight outside the Bight, and nor even inside the Bight against superior forces” and the commander-in-chief of the High Seas Fleet must “wire for his consent before entering a decisive action.”76 Risk Theory was, for the second time in two months, abandoned. The High Seas Fleet was thus paralyzed due to the incon- sequential loss of three light cruisers and one destroyer,77 deprived of the right to engage, rusting in the harbor, wasting its morale, and surrendering its ability to threaten the British Isles volun- tarily. Thanks to the Kaiser, the British Isles were as tranquil and unperturbed as in peacetime: according to Churchill, except for the “furtive movements” of German submarines and minelayers, “not a dog stirred from August till November.”78 To the Kaiser, locking his fleet in harbor was nothing different from Britain’s redeploying the Grand Fleet to the remote Scapa Flow to avoid torpedo attacks. But a fleet in being79 was useful for maintaining established sea power, which British enjoyed, because the mere existence of such fleet was enough to demonstrate its might. But to the challenger seeking to acquire sea power, such as Germany, a fleet in being was completely useless because new sea power could only be established if the old one was destroyed, and the High Sea Fleet could destroy nothing if it was contained in the harbor. But tragically for the Kaiserliche Marine, such containment was not imposed by the enemy, but by the Kaiser. 258 Renhua Yuan

There was also the fact that, except for Tirpitz and a few others, the bulk of Germany’s naval establishment were in awe of England’s sea might and lacked confidence in the strength of their own ships vis-à-vis England’s.80 After Heligoland, the Kaiserli- che Marine, with all its might, could only use its battle cruisers to launch against Britain some minor coast raids in order to avoid “greater losses.” Moreover, after the Battle of Dogger Bank—in which the Kaiserliche Marine lost a large armored cruiser and a battle cruiser suffered critical damage, but Tirpitz’s compromise between armor and firepower and confidence in the German warship’s exceptional quality was justified for the first time81—the Kaiser even expanded his ban on outside-Bight battles to the bat- tlecruisers. The dreadnoughts of the High Sea Fleet were never put to sea for battle again until in Jutland, where Tirpitz’s confi- dence was again justified but commander Scheer, acting on the Kaiser’s order to avoid losses, turned for home at the first sight of the Grand Fleet despite the tactical victory of his battlecruisers. It was in fact only after Jutland that there was a general realization in Germany’s naval circles of how right Tirpitz had been about Germany’s decisive qualitative edge.82 But it was already too late. After the battle, the Kaiser seemed to lose all faith in High Seas Fleet’s dreadnoughts and turned again to the desperate unlimited submarine warfare. In October 1918, with the German Empire in its death throes, Scheer and German Naval Staff decided to use the sur- face ships in one last offensive thrust—“an honorable battle by the fleet—even if it should be a fight to the death—will sow the seed for a new German fleet of the future.” They did not care whether the High Seas Fleet won or lost; they cared only that it inflict heavy damage on the Grand Fleet.83 Had such dauntless spirit and determination been demonstrated at the beginning of the war, or even after the Battle of Jutland, when the morale of the High Seas Fleet was at its pinnacle, as proposed by Risk Theory, the Kaiserliche Marine might have been more likely to change the course of the war in favor of Germany by showing other countries that the Royal Navy were not invincible, to severely damage the Royal Navy and thus fatally affect the British Empire and even THE CONCORD REVIEW 259 force Britain to quit the war, or at the very least, to prevent the German people from starving from the British blockade. But by this time, German seamen had no intention of being sacrificed for honor’s sake and they also regarded the operation as a deliberate attempt to sabotage negotiations to end a war already lost.84 They committed mutiny, and then surrendered and were arrested. The operation, aimed to bring “an honorable death for the glory of the fleet,”85 was cancelled, and Scapa Flow became the ultimate graveyard. Due to its unsound presumptions, major miscalculations, and the Kaiser’s premature action, Risk Theory and the Risk Fleet of the Kaiserliche Marine failed to realize its first aim—to prevent Britain from entering into a war against Germany. The Kaiser, thus disappointed, refused to carry out its second aim—to inflict actual losses on the enemy—but sought to preserve and thereby wasted his precious ships instead. The Kaiser’s zeal had made the Kaiserliche Marine possible, but the very same zeal had rendered him unwilling to consume his ships in battle and doomed the Kai- serliche Marine, for his zeal was not for the navy, but for the mere impressive outline of a ship. He did not understand that the only purpose for which the Kaiserliche Marine should exist was to fight at sea, not to please its Emperor.

Conclusion: who was to be blamed? The Kaiserliche Marine was a lost cause. As the Treaty of Versailles was signed, all the remaining valuable ships were shared among the Allies and the German navy in future was to be limited to the strength of a second-rate country’s. The scuttling in Scapa Flow seemed to have sunk Germany’s dream for a strong navy al- together. But who was to be blamed for starting the war in the first place and leading the Kaiserliche Marine to such a disastrous end? Is Tirpitz, by devising Risk Theory and launching the Risk Fleet of the Kaiserliche Marine, the one who should be held responsible for the “aggression of Germany” and the “imposing” of the Great War upon the Allies? Not at all. Again, Tirpitz built the Kaiserliche Marine for defensive purpose. Based on the same 260 Renhua Yuan

calculation from which the 2:3 ratio was derived, the claim that Germany intended to build an offensive fleet against England—and thereby tried to break the peace, and impose a war on Britain dur- ing which the Royal Navy could be destroyed as inferred by the term “war guilt”—was “absurd” because such an intent, as pointed out by Tirpitz, would require the construction of a fleet “…that much [one-third] stronger than the British fleet, whereas we are aiming for the reverse in regard to fleet strength.”86 What Tirpitz hoped to achieve was the following situation: when the 2:3 ratio was agreed to by Germany or Britain or actually realized, Germany could obtain her world-political freedom since Britain would be deterred from declaring a war, while Britain could ensure her own security would not be threatened since the Royal Navy could easily defeat an attacking fleet one-third weaker.87 But what Tirpitz did not perceive was that Britain wanted more than simply securing the Isles: she wanted to retain her ability to impose her demands and advance her interests at will, based on the unchallenged supremacy of Royal Navy, which would be attenuated if there existed a German Navy too strong to be eliminated. The key dif- ference between Tirpitz and the British was their interpretations of “strong”: Tirpitz believed that his fleet, one-third inferior, would not be strong enough to provoke the British because a navy with such strength could not threaten the security of British Isles, while the British believe that a navy two-thirds of the size of her own was too strong to be tolerated because such a strength could prevent her from threatening Germany at will. To this extent, Britain’s ag- gressive imperialism should at least be held as much responsible as Tirpitz’s naivety for the start of the fierce naval rivalry, the rise of Anglo-German antagonism and the eruption of World War I. Tirpitz did not “impose” the war on Britain, and such a disastrous doom for the Kaiserliche Marine was not his fault. Despite his miscalculation of Britain’s policy, Tirpitz had done a great job in serving his country by building the second largest navy in the world based on the brilliant strategy of Risk Theory, whose great perspective for success and its devastating effect despite flaws in its presumptions, had it been adhered to thoroughly, was ironically testified by his enemy: the decision of moving the dreadnoughts of THE CONCORD REVIEW 261 the Grand Fleet to as far north as Scapa Flow was, to some extent, an evasion of the ominous potential of active German provocation in an unfavorable situation. Admiral John Jellicoe, the commander of the British Grand Fleet from the start of the war till Jutland, in order to prevent himself from “losing the war in one afternoon,” always insisted on keeping the entire Grand Fleet concentrated, and firmly opposed the separation of even destroyers and cruisers from guarding Grand Fleet’s dreadnoughts for any reason, so that the Germans could not compromise the Grand Fleet’s numerical superiority in dreadnoughts by surrounding and eliminating a detached squadron. Admiral David Beatty, known for his reckless courage and bellicosity, realized after he succeeded Jellicoe as the commander in chief of the Grand Fleet that “the correct strategy of the Grand Fleet is no longer to endeavor to bring the enemy to action at any cost, but rather to contain him in his bases until the general situation becomes more favourable to us.”88 As Secretary of the Naval Office, Tirpitz had no authority on the operational maneuvering of the High Sea Fleet. But as shown by the analysis above, his strategy of Risk Theory was ultimately correct except that it was not followed, which was beyond his control. Admiral Tirpitz served his country greatly as a master in shipbuilding as well as strategy. He was not to be blamed. Compared to Tirpitz, the Kaiser should be held much more responsible for the ultimate defeat of the Kaiserliche Marine. He insisted on declaring war on Russia when the 2:3 ratio had not been achieved, and more fatally, lost his faith in his fleet due to minor material losses after the very first battle and from then on limited the action of his fleet as if a boy, hoping not to dam- age his toy, decided to lock it up in a safe and thus giving up all the joy he could get from it, the joy which motivated him to buy such a toy in the first place. The Kaiser seemed to miss that the point of obtaining a fleet was to use it in battledespite the possible damage, not to lock it in harbors in order to keep it intact—just as the point for having a toy is to play with it, not to keep it in a safe—not to mention that the rationale of Risk Theory had always included the factor of sacrifice. 262 Renhua Yuan

But the Kaiser’s affection for his navy, and his determina- tion to build a powerful one were certainly legitimate and did not constitute war guilt. As nicely summarized by Kennedy, To German navalists, Britain’s disapproval did not justify the surren- der of their aims. Germany was a vigorous young nation, entitled as all her predecessors had been to claim an ever greater share in the world’s wealth and territories commensurate with her own growing power and population. In Wilhelm’s word, “The Greeks and Romans each had their time; the Spaniards had theirs and the French also.” Now it was the turn of the rising powers. No one had asked that the Spanish fleets under Phillip II, or Cromwell’s “new model navy,” be restricted to a certain size; why should Germany have to do so now? It was, in any case, a limitation upon the absolute sovereignty of the state—an objection which…had great weight in German politics.89 It was only his defeat that judged him guilty for starting the war. The Kaiser was ambitious, but lacked the ultimate determination to use his fleet for the right purpose. He built his fleet for peace, and for securing his Reich, not for starting a war. As far as the Kai- serliche Marine and the naval rivalry with Britain were concerned, the Kaiser was only judged guilty of starting the war because he had been defeated. “All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them.” The ultimate key point in evaluating Germany’s desire to develop a powerful Kaiserliche Marine, its roles in Anglo-German relations and the its eventual failure was the “absolute incompat- ibility” of British and German naval aims and therefore the peace they wanted: what the Germans supporting Tirpitz desired, whether the vaguer “world political freedom” or the more specific security for German commerce in the event of war, they could not have without affecting Britain’s existing naval supremacy. What the latter in turn wished to preserve, command of those waters vital for her own safety as a maritime nation, would be impossible if Germany’s goal was reached. What one power wanted, the other would never voluntarily concede; security for one meant danger to the other. Each side claimed that it should possess “manifest strength, showing all likely enemies that war is unprofitable for them owing to the difficulty which your enemy has in defending himself.” In mutually striving for that “manifest strength,” the Germans and British each contributed to the arms THE CONCORD REVIEW 263

spiral, with Germany never improving its strategic position but so alarming her rival that many Britons increasingly identified the new Reich as their most formidable and single foe.90 With the intention to obtain a navy commensurate with its eco- nomic power, to defend its increasing prosperous seaborne trade and to prevent war with Britain, the Second Reich embarked on the building of a Kaiserliche Marine second only to the Royal Navy, guided by the Kaiser’s affection for warships and naval power and Tirpitz’s strategy of Risk Theory. But due to the miscalculation of Britain’s reaction, the opposite was achieved: Anglo-German an- tagonism instead of entente was produced, World War I erupted, and the Kaiserliche Marine, too much cherished by the Kaiser, did not obtain the chance of testing its strength against its enemy. Again, Britain’s imperialism—her insistence on the absolute supe- riority of the Royal Navy, and her reluctance to share her naval dominance with others, or even to tolerate Germany’s possession of a sufficient naval defense—should be held as much, if not more, responsible for “imposing the war” as Germany was accused of by the Treaty of Versailles. Besides, as questioned by Professor Kennedy, Had not the British response to the Kruger Telegram been the cre- ation of a special “Flying Squadron,” designed to overawe potential foes? Had not the Anglo-American naval forces used their superiority to interfere against the German-backed candidate in the Samoan civil war of 1898–1899? Was it not the Royal Navy’s blockade ships, which, on learning that Germany intended to send an imposing squadron to Lisbon in May 1899, directed a far larger fleet to arrive there earlier and occupy all the nearest anchorage berth? Was it not the Royal Navy’s blockade ships which, in seizing the Bundesrat and other German steamers on suspicion of carrying contraband to the Boers, had irritated almost the entire nation?91 Tirpitz asserted that if war erupted before 2:3 was achieved, the Kaiserliche Marine would be a historic fiasco and a historic fiasco was exactly what happened. Had the 2:3 ratio been achieved when the Reich violated Belgium’s neutrality, had the Kaiser not limited the freedom of action of the High Seas Fleet, but instead encour- aged it to fulfill its destiny, had the High Seas Fleet been able to provoke a decisive battle at a suitable moment as constantly urged by Tirpitz, history might have been written such that a worthy 264 Renhua Yuan

challenge to the dominant Royal Navy had changed the course of World War I and ultimately led to German’s victory and a new Pax Germanica. But even if it had not, Admiral Tirpitz and his Kaiserliche Marine will still be commemorated by German people as their Don Quixote who challenged the “windmill” of British naval superiority, destined to failure but nevertheless respectable and heroic.

THE CONCORD REVIEW 265

1 Reuter was originally the commander of the Fourth Reconnaissance Group and was ordered to take command of the interned ships of the High Seas Fleet because its commander-in-chief, Admiral Franz von Hipper, refused to lead his ships into internment. 2 Robert K. Massie, Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea (New York, New York: Random House, 2003) p. 786 3 Ibid., pp. 785–786 4 Ibid., pp. 785–787 5 Ibid., p. 788 6 The text of Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, which was known as the “war guilt clause,” is as follows: “The Allied and Associated Governments and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Government and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.” Treaty of Versailles (last modified February 3, 2013), http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ Versailles/Part_VIII#Article_231 (accessed June 11, 2013), Article 231 7 Treaty of Versailles, (last modified February 3, 2013), http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles/Part_V (accessed May 26, 2013), Article 181, 184, 191 8 Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988) p. 149 9 Fritz Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War (New York, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1967) p.13 10 Paul M. Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 (Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 1980) pp. 310–311 11 Fischer, pp. 12–14 12 Professor Fritz Fischer is Professor of History at the University of Hamburg. His book, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, is considered as “possibly the most important book of any sort, probably the most important historical book…that come out of Germany since the war.” 13 Ibid., p. 18 14 Ibid., p. 15 266 Renhua Yuan

15 Paul M. Kennedy is J. Richardson Dilworth Professor of History at Yale University, whose book, The Rise of the Anglo- German Antagonism, 1860–1914 was praised as a “masterly account” that has “established itself as the definitive work on the subject.” 16 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 416 17 Fischer, p. 18 18 The Reichstag was the main legislature of the Second Reich and the Fleet Act of 1898 and 1900 were both designed by Tirpitz to legally fix in advance the number of ships that would be built in the future years in order to prevent his ship building schedule from being interfered or interrupted by the Reichstag’s annual defense budget. 19 Fischer, p. 18 20 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 416 21 Fischer, p. 12 22 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, pp. 419, 421 23 Rolf Hobson, Imperialism At Sea: Naval Strategic Thought, the Ideology of Sea Power and The Tirpitz Plan, 1875–1914 (Boston, Massachusetts: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2002) p. 35 24 John C. Lambelet, The Anglo-German Dreadnought Race, 1905–1914 The Papers of the Peace Science Society (International), Vol. 22, 1974, http://www.hec.unil.ch/ jlambelet/JPS3.PDF (accessed June 20, 2012) p. 3 25 Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of The Great War (New York, New York: Random House, 1991) p. 485 26 Arthur J. Marder, From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow: The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904–1919 5 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1961–65) vol. I, p. 59 27 Massie, Dreadnought, p. 493 28 The battle cruisers could both outgun and outrun— and thus were very deadly to—all kinds of destroyers and cruisers. But when they were exposed to heavy guns carried by both battle cruisers and battleships, their thin armor could be easily pierced and catastrophic explosion often resulted, demonstrated by both the Battle of Dogger Bank and the Battle of Jutland. (Consult endnotes 81 and 82) 29 John C. Lambelet is a Professor of Economics at the University of Lausanne. 30 Lambelet, p. 4 THE CONCORD REVIEW 267

31 Thomas Hoerber, ‘Prevail or Perish’: Anglo-German Naval Competition at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, European Security, March 2011, p. 73 32 Massie, Castles of Steel, p. 485 33 Massie, Dreadnought, p. 273 34 “Moroccan crises” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011) 35 Massie, Dreadnought, p. 366 36 E. L. Woodward, Great Britain and the German Navy (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1935) p. 82 37 Luigi Albertini, The Origins of the War of 1914 trans. and ed. Isabella M. Massey (New York, New York: Enigma Books, 2005) p. 174 38 Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks) p. 171 39 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 417 40 Hobson, pp. 243–244 41 Ibid., p. 260 42 Ibid., p. 256 43 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 417 44 Hobson, p. 257 45 Ibid., p. 259 46 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 417 47 Hobson, p. 257 48 Ibid., p. 258 49 Fischer, p. 13 50 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 419 51 Ibid., p. 420 52 Ibid., p. 420 53 Kissinger, p. 187 54 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 420 55 The High Seas Fleet is not to be confused with the Kaiserliche Marine and likewise the Grand Fleet mentioned later with the Royal Navy: the High Seas Fleet included all German dreadnoughts, battleships and battlecruisers and a necessary amount of cruisers and destroyers to screen them but did not include other forces like submarines. The Grand Fleet referred to the British fleet anchored at the Scapa Flow, whose composition, like its German counterpart, included all the British dreadnought battleships and some cruisers and destroyers, but did not include other ships that were anchored elsewhere like battlecruisers in Rosyth, destroyers and 268 Renhua Yuan

submarines in Harwich. Both fleets were only a portion of the operation part of two navies, which also includes other parts like training, intelligence, staff, etc. 56 Massie, Castles of Steel, p. 76 57 Ibid., p. 73 58 Hobson, p. 270 59 Massie, Castles of Steel, p. 76 60 Hobson, p. 267 61 Ibid., p. 267 62 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 421 63 Ibid., p. 416 64 Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 184 65 Ibid., p. l88 66 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 416 67 Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 185 68 In 1908, when Germany introduced the Novelle of 1908 and started to build four ships per year, the British responded with the building of eight ships in 1909, seven in 1910, and five each year from 1911 to 1914. Such a fierce rivalry inspired Churchill with his famous comment for the “curious and characteristic solution”: “the Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight.” (Lambelet, table 1 Naval Programs; Winston S. Churchill, The World Crisis, 1911–1918 (New York, New York: Free Press, 2005) p. 23) 69 Ibid., p. 185 70 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 420 71 Tirpitz made this conclusion based on the assumption that the tempo of building four ships each year established by the Novelle of 1908 could be maintained: in 1911, Britain could only launch five instead of six new dreadnoughts in response to Germany’s four, which means that the gap between the current ratio and 2:3 was narrowing. Thus if the “four-tempo” could be maintained, Germany would achieve 2:3 sooner or later. But in fact, starting on 1912, Germany could not sustain the four-tempo because her army also needed to expand to deal with the increased tension. In fact, Germany only built two new dreadnought in 1912, three each in 1913 and 1914 while Britain built five in each of three years and succeeded in securing its numerical superiority. 72 Hobson, p. 259 (as shown by the analysis in the endnote above, Tirpitz’s prediction was wrong and Germany could not achieve the 2:3 ratio in 1915, which made the THE CONCORD REVIEW 269

Kaiser’s declaration of war in 1914 even more premature and unreasonable than was suggested by Tirpitz’s previous assumption. Nevertheless, the point Tirpitz made was still valid: when he opposed declaring war in 1914, his reason was that the ratio was not achieved, not that it was one year earlier than 1915. His standpoint would not change until the ratio was obtained, no matter how long the process would take.) 73 Ibid., p. 259 74 Ibid., p. 260 75 The German Naval Staff assumed that “British light forces would attack in German home waters without the support of heavy ships.” According to this estimation, German light cruisers did not expect the presence of British battle cruisers and they confronted the British fleet one after another, instead of joining together to form a coordinated attack which “would have inflicted much greater damage on the British” and saved those sunken ones. The direct consequence of such unorganized attack was the inefficiency and severe casualties which could have been avoided: “on a number of occasions, British destroyers were able to repel the attack of a single German light cruiser.” (Massie, Castles of Steel, pp. 118, 119) 76 Ibid., p. 120 77 The ratio of 2:3 counts only the capital ships of two sides: battleships and battle cruisers. All kinds of cruisers and destroyers were excluded from the evaluation of naval strength because first, they were much lighter in tonnage, firepower and protection and had almost no hope against a capital ship at the time when the range of torpedoes was shorter than the range of guns, and second, while both Britain and Germany could only afford some tens of capital ships, they could both have hundreds of cruisers and destroyers, which was precisely why the loss of four of them in total was inconsequential. 78 Churchill, I, p. 309 79 A “fleet in being” is a naval force that extends a controlling influence without ever leaving port. A “fleet in being” can be part of a sea denial doctrine, but not one of sea control. During World War I, the fact that the Grand Fleet had substituted the close blockade with a distant one—which could be implemented without leaving its port at Scapa Flow— suggested that the Grand Fleet had used the established sea power of Britain and the might of a fleet in being to achieve what appeared to be two mutually exclusive aims: to avoid a 270 Renhua Yuan

war in unfavorable situations—which could be best achieved if remained under the protection of a port, and to deny the enemy to sea, which usually required the institution of a close blockade, but geography played a great part in this case. 80 Lambelet, p. 35 81 In the Battle of Dogger Bank, January 24, 1915, five British battle cruisers engaged in a long pursuit of three German battle cruisers and a large armored cruiser, during which the German battle cruiser SMS Seydlitz was struck on the after deck and a massive explosion and fire destroyed two of her five turrets. Despite the severe damages, she not only survived but continued in action and maintained her speed, which, Massie remarked, was “an extraordinary demonstration of the excellence of German warship design.” Later in the battle, the British flagship HMSLion was hit in the first of her four turrets, which led to a series of severe consequence: she listed 10 degrees to port; rising water short-circuited her last dynamo and deprived her of all electric lights and wireless radio. A few minutes later, her port engine failed and her speed dropped to 15 knots. These damages directly contributed to the escape of German battle cruisers due to the chaos in command after the flagship had dropped out of the line. (Massie, Castles of Steel, pp. 394, 401) The effect of different ship designs on ships’ quality to survive was reflected: Germany’s ship was able to maintain her speed even though her damage was more severe than Britain’s ship, while the latter was rendered out of action and needed to be towed back to port. Also, the German ships’ slight inferiority in caliber compared with their British counterparts was compensated by German gunnery crews’ superiority in their marksmanship. 82 At Jutland, rather than using speed to stay out of range of a battleship’s heavy guns, five British battle cruisers were deployed in battle line and exposed to the big guns of German battleships. Three of five British battle cruisers were blown up while Germany only lost one. (Lambelet, p. 35; Massie, Castles of Steel, p. 381) 83 Massie, Castles of Steel, p. 773 84 Ibid., p. 775 85 Ibid., p. 775 86 Hobson, p. 257 87 Ibid., p. 266 88 Massie. Castles of Steel, p. 747 89 Kennedy, Rise of Anglo-German Antagonism, p. 419 THE CONCORD REVIEW 271

90 Ibid., pp. 422–423 91 Ibid., p. 417

Bibliography

Albertini, Luigi, The Origins of the War of 1914 3 volumes translated and edited by Isabella M. Massey, New York: Enigma Books, 2005 Churchill, Winston S., The World Crisis. 1911–1918 New York: Free Press, 2005 Fischer, Fritz, Germany’s Aims in the First World War New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1967 Hobson, Rolf, Imperialism At Sea: Naval Strategic Thought, the Ideology of Sea Power and The Tirpitz Plan, 1875–1914 Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002 Hoerber, Thomas, ‘Prevail or Perish’: Anglo-German Naval Competition at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, European Security March 2011 Kennedy, Paul M., The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 Amherst: Humanity Books, 1980 Kennedy, Paul M., The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 London: Unwin Hyman, 1988 Kissinger, Henry, Diplomacy New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1995 Lambelet, John C., The Anglo-German Dreadnought Race, 1905–1914 the Papers of the Peace Science Society (International), volume 22, 1974, http://www.hec.unil.ch/ jlambelet/JPS3.PDF (accessed June 20, 2012) Marder, Arthur J., From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow: The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904–1919 5 volumes, London, Oxford University Press, 1961–65 Massie, Robert K., Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea New York: Random House, 2003 Massie, Robert K., Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War New York: Random House, 1991 Woodward, E. L., Great Britain and the German Navy New York: Oxford University Press, 1935 Wikisource, Treaty of Versailles last modified February 3, 2013, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles/Part V#Article_181 (accessed May 26, 2013) Notes on Contributors

Samuel G. Feder (Proclamation of 1763) is a Senior at Ramaz School in New York City, where he is a member of the math team and plays varsity soccer. He studied a semester in Bali, Indonesia his freshman year and he still studies Indonesian. He is co-editor- in-chief of Ramifications, his school yearbook.

Jessica Li (Kang Youwei) is a Junior at the Kent Place School, in Summit, New Jersey, where she is the founder of their math research program and is doing an independent study in abstract algebra. She has done research on microbial fuel cells at Stevens Institute of Technology, and she has done math research in probabalistic number theory, Hamiltonian circuits, 4-D geometry, and the Mandelbrot Set.

George C. Holderness (Lincoln’s Reading) is a Senior at the Belmont Hill School in Belmont, Massachusetts, where he won the American History Prize and the Brown Book Award. He has five summa cum laude scores on the National Latin Exam, and is on the varsity crew and cross country teams. He is editor of The Panel, his school newspaper.

Maya Tulip Lorey (Segregation in Berkeley) is a Senior at the College Preparatory School in Oakland, California, where she is the editor of The Radar, the school newspaper, and a member of the varsity swim team. She won the Markel Prize for this paper. She won a summa cum laude from the National Classical League, and she is on the debate team and in the Cum Laude Society. She went on two National Geographic Student Expeditions for photography. Before junior year, she traveled to Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands, and before senior year she traveled to London.

Iris Robbins-Larrivee (Quebec Separatism) is a Senior at King George Secondary School in Vancouver, British Columbia, where she moved from Portland, Maine. She is an editor for the school literary magazine, Polyphony HS, and she plans to study French literature, and attend a French-immersion program in Quebec.

Peter Baugh (Jackie Robinson) is a Junior at Clayton High School in Clayton, Missouri. He plays baseball and swims, along THE CONCORD REVIEW 253 with writing for his school newsmagazine, The Clayton High School Globe. He is interested in pursuing journalism as a career.

Mehitabel Glenhaber (Mechanical Clocks) is a Senior at the Commonwealth School in Boston, Massachusetts, where she has been a member of the saber team for two years, and she is co- captain of the school debate team.

Hendrick Townley (Anti-German Sentiment) is a Senior at Rye Country Day School, in Rye, New York, where he enjoys studying calculus, music theory, history, and theoretical physics. He acts in school theater productions, volunteers as a guitar teacher, and is a member of the a cappella group, The Wildscats.

Jonathan Slifkin (Science and Judaism) is at Harvard College. While at the Horace Mann School in the Bronx, New York, his primary interests were classics, history and economics.

Brittany Arnett (Barbie Doll) is a Junior at the Paul D. Schreiber High School in Port Washington, New York, where she takes honors chemistry, math, and French, and Advanced Placement European History. She takes several dance classes, and is part of the kickline team at school, The Portettes. She is also a member of the Social Science Research course and is the secretary of the Social Studies Honor Society in her school. She enjoys dancing and is interested in psychology.

Renhua Yuan (German Navy in WWI) is at the University of Chicago. He is a graduate of the Affiliated High School of South China Normal University in Guangzhou, China.

g g g g g g g SUBMISSIONS ======

We need the best history research papers we can find, and we welcome a chance to consider your best work.

Essay Requirements You may submit a history paper to The Concord Review if you completed it before starting college. You must be the sole author. The paper must be in English and may not have been previously published except in a publication of a secondary school that you attended. Essays should be in the 4,000-6,000 (or more) word range, with Turabian (Chicago) endnotes and bibliography. The longest paper we have published was 21,000 words (on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. She went to Stanford...see it on www.tcr.org). Essays may be on any historical topic, ancient or modern, domestic or foreign, and must be typed or printed from a word processor. Essays must be accompanied by a check for $40, made out to The Concord Review, and by our ‘Form to Accompany Essays.’ The author will receive the next four issues of the journal in pdf. Essays should have the notes and bibliography placed at the end (Chicago/Turabian style). For more information, and a submission form, go to:

www.tcr.org and click on “Submit”

Send questions to the Editor, Will Fitzhugh, at [email protected] Member Schools and National Partners in The Consortium for Varsity Academics®

Member Schools Menlo School (CA) Singapore American School (Singapore)

National Partners American Council of Trustees and Alumni Anonymous (3) Earhart Foundation Gilder-Lehrman Institute Robert Grusky The History Channel Lagemann Foundation National Center on Education and the Economy Deborah Rose Sandra Priest Rose

l For information on joining the Consortium, please contact Will Fitzhugh at [email protected] Annual Membership is $5,000, payable to The Concord Review “The Concord Review offers young people a unique incentive to think and write carefully and well…The Concord Review inspires and honors historical literacy. It should be in every high school in the land.”

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Historian

“The leading U.S. proponent of more research work for the nation’s teens is Will Fitzhugh, who has been publishing high school student [history research] papers in his Concord Review journal since 1987...”

Jay Mathews, The Washington Post

“I believe The Concord Review is one of the most imaginative, creative, and supportive initiatives in public education. It is a wonderful incentive to high school students to take scholarship and writing seriously.”

John Silber, President Emeritus, Boston University

“I very much like and support what you’re doing with The Concord Review. It’s original, important, and greatly needed, now more than ever, with the problem of historic illiteracy growing steadily worse among the high school generation nearly everywhere in the country.”

David McCullough, Historian

“We have been glad to have reprints of essays published in The Concord Review, submitted by our applicants over the years, to add to the information we consider in making admissions decisions...All of us here in the Admissions Office are big fans ofThe Concord Review.”

William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions, Harvard College HARVARD COLLEGE Office of Admissions and Financial Aid

September 15, 2010 Mr. Will Fitzhugh The Concord Review 730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24 Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 USA

Dear Will,

We agree with your argument that high school students who have read a complete nonfiction book or two, and written a serious research paper or two, will be better prepared for college academic work than those who have not.

The Concord Review, founded in 1987, remains the only journal in the world for the academic papers of secondary students, and we in the Admissions Office here are always glad to see reprints of papers which students have had published in the Review and which they send to us as part of their application materials. Over the years, more than 10% (107) of these authors have come to college at Harvard.

Since 1998, when it started, we have been supporters of your National Writing Board, which is still unique in supplying independent three-page assessments of the research papers of secondary students. The NWB reports also provide a useful addition to the college application materials of high school students who are seeking admission to selective colleges.

For all our undergraduates, even those in the sciences, such competence, both in reading nonfiction books and in the writing of serious research papers, is essential for academic success. Some of our high schools now place too little emphasis on this, but The Concord Review and the National Writing Board are doing a national service in encouraging our secondary students, and their teachers, to spend more time and effort on developing these abilities.

Sincerely, Bill William R. Fitzsimmons Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid

WRF:oap

Administrative Office: 86 Brattle Street • Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138