American Victorianism in North Carolina

Constructing the Iconic Biltmore House in Asheville

Michael Streich

2011

America’s Gilded Age was illustrated in large measure by the extravagance of its millionaires, particularly those “new money” folk seeking to enter what was referred to as “society.” Society gathered at the palatial homes of families like the Vanderbilts, vacationed at Newport, Rhode Island and Jekyll Island, Georgia, and trekked through Europe’s great cities like Paris and Venice. But it was in hilly Asheville, North Carolina that the finest mansion was constructed by George Washington Vanderbilt. Opened at Christmas in 1895, it reflected what historian Virginia Cowles described as “…a tradition of elegance and refinement…”

 

Bringing Europe to America

 

G.W. Vanderbilt was the youngest grandson of the “Commodore,” Cornelius Vanderbilt. The Commodore established the family fortune in the early to mid-19^th Century. His fortune, according to Biltmore Estate guides today, began when he borrowed money from his mother to begin ferry service in New York. His fortune grew after he invested in the ever expanding railroad networks. Historian Cowles, however, maintains that the fortune was the result of Cornelius’ selling arms during the Civil War, much as J. P. Morgan had done, according to Howard Zinn.

 

G.W. Vanderbilt was not a businessman in the same vein as his grandfather Cornelius or his father, William Henry. G.W. Vanderbilt loved the arts and books. A July 7, 1896 New York Times article states that, “He possesses a collection of rare publications which has few equals either on this continent or in Europe.” He filled the Biltmore Estate with an impressive book collection which is still there today as well as priceless art including historical artifacts.

 

Lifestyle of America’s Gilded Age Society

 

The Vanderbilt family was part of “America’s aristocracy,” a term used by Cornelius Vanderbilt Junior. G.W. Vanderbilt’s estate in Asheville was one of the best examples of that lifestyle. While members of grand society competed for attention and box seats at the New York Metropolitan Opera, established by the Vanderbilt family in 1883, George W. Vanderbilt and his wife Edith Stuyvesant Dresser entertained in the western hills of North Carolina.

 

The 250-room house, modeled on French mansions in the Loire Valley and English “baronical” homes, was surrounded by gardens. Frederick Law Olmstead created the gardens while the surrounding forests were placed under the care of Gifford Pinchot, a friend of Theodore Roosevelt and a leader in the conservation movement.

 

Hundreds of servants worked at the estate which, according to the New York Times (December 26, 1895), had, “Every conceivable modern adornment and convenience.” The house even featured an in-door swimming pool. G. W. Vanderbilt treated his servants well, unlike many other wealthy members on America’s Social Register. Historian Page Smith comments that, “the only limit to the numbers of servants was the resourcefulness of the master and mistress in conceiving of tasks to be performed…”

 

Living and Working at the Vanderbilt Estate

 

Mr. Vanderbilt hired both black and white workers. Significantly, the children of both races were educated together, a practice unheard of in the “separate but equal” South. Pictures of integrated classrooms and working groups are on display in the servant’s quarters in one of the top floors of the house and can be viewed by visitors today.

 

The estate was a destination. President William McKinley visited Biltmore in June 1897. It was a retreat for G.W. Vanderbilt and his guests, a pleasant diversion from the hectic life of New York yacht races and regattas. Biltmore Estate was a symbol of wealth that reminded Americans that success in the capitalist system was possible. Cowles writes, “Society must not be looked upon as a pleasure, but a duty.” When the home opened on Christmas in 1895, gifts hanging on the immense tree were not just for the Vanderbilt party, but for children of the many servants.

 

Wealth and Social Obligation in the Latter Gilded Age

 

Historians differ as to whether the Vanderbilt family was “old money” or “new money.” The family settled in colonial America in the mid-17^th Century. By the late 19^th Century the Vanderbilt ladies ruled fashionable east coast society, filling newspapers with stories of ostentatious balls, while the men were captains of industry and finance. Constructing the Metropolitan Opera in 1883 was a reaction to the “old money” families that monopolized the opera boxes at the Academy of Music.

 

Philanthropy was as much a part of the social life as public demonstrations of opulence. Vanderbilt University preserves the legacy of such efforts and nearly every millionaire strove to support educational institutions and the arts. Teddy Roosevelt’s father helped to establish both the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural History. His philanthropic efforts were also directed toward children such as establishing the orthopedic hospital.

 

The Legacy of George Washington Vanderbilt

 

Biltmore in Asheville is one of the finest examples of American Victorianism as well as the contributions of America’s industrial aristocrats. G.W. Vanderbilt, however, took social responsibility to a deeper level. Preserved and open to the public today, the estate is a time capsule of an age both reviled for its chasm of wealth and poverty and emulated as an example of capitalist success.

 

Sources:

 

Ballard C. Campbell, editor, The Human Tradition in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era (Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1984)

Virginia Cowles, 1913: An End and a Beginning (Harper & Row, 1967)

Guide to Biltmore Estate (The Biltmore Company, 2004)

Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History pf the Post-Reconstruction Era, Volume 6 (Penguin Books, 1990)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich; reprints subject to written permission; first published in Suite101 in 2011]

 

Medieval Church Corruption

Priestly Marriage, Simony, and Lay Investiture in the Middle Ages

Nov 24, 2009 Michael Streich

Cycles of Medieval church corruption coincided with the growth of strong secular rulers and were only tempered by the appearance of reformist popes and church orders.

  

   

The level of church corruption in the Middle Ages corresponded to the growth of reform movements as well as leadership by spiritual popes. Reform movements like those begun at Cluny in the 10th Century, the growth of the Cistercian monastic order, and the rise of Mendicant orders such as the Franciscans appeared during times of rampant corruption that began at the highest ecclesiastical tiers and filtered down to local diocesan parishes. Such corruption was tied to many reasons and, in most cases, was only temporarily halted by the reformers.

Priestly Celibacy within the Clergy

Priestly marriage and concubinage existed throughout the Middle Ages. During the 11th Century, reformist clerics coming out of the Cluny movement condemned priestly marriage, contributing to the controversy between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV of Germany. On the eve of the 16th Century Reformation, reformist bishops in Spain and Italy issued condemnations of priestly marriage and common law arrangements.

University of Chicago Professor Andrew Greeley, writing about the medieval parish priest, states that, “At most times and places he also had a wife (or a concubine) and children of his own…” Greeley further observes that local bishops made no attempts to curb such practices and frequently had concubines of their own. Some dioceses even imposed a tax on priests with wives and children.

The Sin of Simon Magnus

Simony was the practice of selling ecclesiastical offices. In essence, the practice involved the trafficking of benefices. Unqualified men purchased church offices, enriching the coffers of the feudal lord or king, and recouped the investment from revenues obtained from the benefice. Contracts often detailed the specifications of such agreements with the newly appointed abbots of bishops promising to pay the lord a yearly percentage of collected revenues after the initial purchase.

The term “simony” referred to the New Testament Acts of the Apostles which relates the story of a man named Simon who practiced magic. After witnessed the bestowing of the gifts of the Spirit by Peter, Simon, greatly impressed, offered to buy the authority to bestow God’s gifts. Peter’s angry reply included the rebuke that, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money.” Medieval reformers seized on this statement to end simony. Although the 451 AD Council of Chalcedon had ruled against the practice, it was continued throughout much of the Middle Ages.

Lay Investiture

The crisis over “lay investiture” was most clearly illustrated by the conflict between the German Emperor Henry IV and the reformist pope, Gregory VII. The term derives from the practice of secular lords not only appointing bishops, but investing them with Episcopal symbols of office like the ring and crozier (staff). Kings like Henry IV were following long established precedent and relied on the loyalties of vassal bishops and their knights. Additionally, many bishops were both spiritual and secular rulers over their appointed sees, as in the case of Milan in Northern Italy.

Gregory VII and the reformist popes that came after him challenged this perspective. Only the popes could appoint bishops even as only church cardinals could elect popes, a practice followed since the reforms of Pope Nicholas II. In the early days of the church, groups of bishops consecrated new bishops and invested them with the insignia of ecclesiastical powers. Not until the pontificate of Callistus II was the issue resolved when German emperors agreed to stop investing bishops with spiritual emblems like the ring.

The Cycles of Church Corruption

The cycles of corruption frequently corresponded to poor church leadership, both central and local, as well as the rise of powerful lords. As European kings began to preside over more clearly defined territories, later identified as early modern nation states, the role of papal power was further diminished, such as with the Avignon papacy in the 14th Century. Corruption would persist until the 16th Century Council of Trent.

Sources:

• Joseph Dahmus, Dictionary of Medieval Civilization (Macmillan, 1984)
• Andrew Greeley, “Magic in the Age of Faith,” America, October 9, 1993, p8 ff
• Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475 (McGraw-Hill, 1992)
• 
  

The copyright of the article Medieval Church Corruption in Medieval History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Medieval Church Corruption in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Socrates and the Search for Justice

The Greatest Philosopher is often Compared to Christ

michael streich

may 10, 2008

The Socratic Method forced young Athenian men to come to an understanding of justice, virtue, and ethics, and the purpose of knowledge, threatening Athenian status quo.

Socrates has been called the greatest philosopher of all time. His pursuit of justice and virtue through the “Socratic Method” of questioning eventually led to his death in Athens in 399 BC. According to former Yale University historian Jaroslav Pelikan, “He was himself a type of forerunner of Christ.” Never having written, his words come through Plato and Xenophon. Socrates’ teachings, however, still challenge a post-modern world.

 

Ethics, Virtue, and Knowledge

 

Unless knowledge leads to the formation of an ethical understanding rooted in virtue, it serves no purpose. Socrates challenged contemporary views of knowledge and individual success and enflamed the young aristocratic men of Athens, future leaders, with a new perspective of thought. Hardly unpatriotic, Socrates had served as a hoplite in several battles, yet would be accused by the Athenian leadership of corrupting the youth.

 

His method was constant questioning, reducing an answer to further scrutiny and forcing his listeners to consider deeper answers to often perplexing questions: from “what is justice” to “how is a man just?” Is the victim of injustice more righteous that he who commits injustice simply because the unrighteous do not understand justice? If justice was fully understood and lived, would there be unrighteousness?

 

In this regard, as Pelikan demonstrates, Christ could be Socrates’ completely righteous man. Pelikan quotes Glaucon in a discourse with Socrates on righteousness and the fully righteous man. In the end result, “He shall be scourged, tortured, bound, his eyes burnt out, and at last, after suffering every evil, shall be impaled or crucified.” (Plato’s Republic, book 2)

 

Rejecting the Gods and Democracy

 

The leaders of Athens also charged Socrates with rejecting the state gods and teaching new gods. By implication, this also meant that his teachings threatened Athenian Democracy. In Athens, justice was dispensed through the Assembly or Ekklesia.

 

Socrates did not believe that everyman possessed the same level of knowledge or understanding of justice or that every citizen’s opinion should count as heavily as another. Perhaps this helped influence Plato’s Utopia, a state ruled by a Philosopher King.

 

Death of Socrates

 

The people of Athens should have listened to the Oracle at Delphi, which declared Socrates to be the wisest of men. Socrates interpreted this to mean that he was the only man who did not know anything. The knowledge of not-knowing stems from the truth of seeing oneself correctly.

 

So great was their mistrust and fear, that rather than exile, Socrates was ordered to commit suicide by drinking a cup of poison. Even in this final act, Socrates was true to his beliefs and submitted to the unjust state. His death has often been compared to the death of Christ, further illuminating the analogy.

 

Does this imply that Socrates was a proto-type Christian? Socrates lived almost 400 years before Christ and to ascribe Christian beliefs to him is redundant. How he lived his life in view of his teachings, however, ties him closely to Christ. Both were “Law Givers;” both taught an ethic that transcended everyday thinking; both suffered deaths solely because their teachings offended contemporary leaders.

 

Sources:

 

Bryan Magee, The Story of Thought (QPB, 1998)

Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (Yale University Press, 1985)

Sarah B. Pomeroy, Stanley M. Burstein, and others, Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History (Oxford University Press, 1999) 

COPYRIGHT owned by Michael Streich.

 Bacon's Rebellion Challenges Virginia Colony Power Elites

Michael Streich

In 1676 the forty-thousand inhabitants of the Virginia colony were confronted by an uprising that came to be called Bacon’s Rebellion. Led by 29-year old Nathaniel Bacon, related to Governor Berkeley and a member of the House of Burgesses, the revolt centered on frontier Indian policy, high taxes, and the actions of a small group of wealthy planters Bacon referred to as “unworthy favorites and juggling parasites.” Although unsuccessful, Bacon’s Rebellion forced social changes in Virginia and the event itself continues to be debated by historians.

 

Causes of Bacon’s Rebellion

 

Nathaniel Bacon represented a higher social pedigree than many of his planter counterparts whose fortunes were amassed over years of hard work and shrewd business ventures. These men comprised the “favorites” Bacon referred to, tied to the royal governor and his policies that included a monopoly on the deerskin trade. According to historian Alan Taylor, “the Chesapeake’s leading men lacked the mystique of a traditional ruling class.”

 

As poor whites made their way to the frontier to establish farms of their own, they encountered various Indian groups, some friendly while others were hostile. Governor Berkeley’s policy was to keep the Indians divided, maintaining good relations with friendly Indians that also supplied him with valuable trade in deerskin. On the frontier, however, settlers made no distinctions between Indians and killed all Indians indiscriminately following minor skirmishes and escalating tensions.

 

The governor’s decision to build several new forts on the frontier was met with severe criticism. Farmers saw this action as leading to higher taxes. High taxation was already a chief reason for collective discontent. Additionally, tobacco prices had fallen while poor corn harvests threatened the fragile profit margins of many small farmers. Too often, their farms were bought by the wealthier planters intent on consolidating their land holdings.

 

Bacon Breaks with Governor Berkeley

 

From contemporary accounts, Nathaniel Bacon was articulate, charismatic, and well educated. Bacon gathered a small army of disenchanted farmers and poor whites to press a change in crown policy. After Berkeley and the House of Burgesses refused to declare war against the frontier Indians, Bacon and his followers took matters into their own hands and attacked Indian settlements, killing both friendly and hostile natives. For this, Bacon was declared guilty of treason.

 

To what extent was the rebellion an attack on aristocratic privilege as opposed to differences in Indian policy? Columbia University historian Howard Zinn writes that the “character of their rebellion” was “not easily classifiable as either antiaristocrat or anti-Indian, because it was both.” Bacon forced the governor and his cronies to flee Jamestown, which was subsequently burned.

 

In July 1676 Bacon published his “Declaration of the People,” which listed the grievances leading to the uprising. Included in this manifesto were the charges of unjust taxes, the monopoly of beaver and deerskins, and frontier Indian policies. All of these issues appealed to impoverished whites and poor farmers that supported Bacon’s actions. Bacon also attracted fugitive slaves to his cause.

 

End of the Rebellion

 

Shortly after burning Jamestown, Bacon died of dysentery and his movement collapsed. Fugitive slaves were returned to their masters and white leaders in the movement were hanged. Alarmed, England sent 1,000 soldiers and a new governor to replace the 70-year old Berkeley. Was the rebellion indicative of a social revolution, an illustration of class conflict? Was Bacon merely using popular anger over hated policies to gather a following in order to achieve his own, personal agenda?

 

Bacon’s Rebellion would not be the last uprising against colonial governments. By 1760 there were 18 uprisings as well as half a dozen slave rebellions as Africans began to replace indentured servants. Bacon’s Rebellion, however, sheds insight into the early workings of colonial policy at a time significant social transformations were taking place.

 

Sources:

 

Nathaniel Bacon, “Declaration of the People” (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, Vol. 9: 184-87)

Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Viking-Penguin, 2001)

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (on-line edition)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich; reprints only by written permission]

 

The Catherine Palace. Michael Streich

Catherine the Great and Enlightenment Reforms

Michael Streich

 Catherine the Great died in 1796, several years after the start of the French Revolution. Despite her openness to Enlightenment ideas, her correspondence with pre-revolutionary thinkers like Voltaire and Diderot, and her attempts at internal reform, the violent phases of the Revolution turned Catherine against her earlier inclinations. In the end, she considered sending an army to France to restore the monarchy. Catherine’s depiction as an enlightened despot has left open the door of debate: to what extent did Catherine accept the progress and reform associated with Enlightenment belief?

 

Catherine as Empress After 1762

 

With the assistance of highly placed government officials and the elite Guards units in St. Petersburg, Catherine engineered a bloodless coup in 1762, deposing her inept and highly unpopular husband, Peter III. Intelligent and exceptionally literate, Catherine was devoted to Russia, embraced Orthodoxy, and determined to reform government and foreign policy.

 

Catherine became an avid art collector, filling the Winter Palace (later the Hermitage) with priceless masterpieces. She came to the throne as the most literate and best educated autocrat in the history of Russia. She spoke French fluently, wrote plays, essays, and treatises on a number of topics. Catherine valued books and acquired the libraries of both Voltaire and Diderot upon the deaths of those great thinkers.

 

She invited both Voltaire and Diderot to St. Petersburg. Denis Diderot accepted her invitation and spent afternoons discoursing, freely advising what progressive changes she could facilitate in Russia. Yet, as she admitted in her writings, neither Diderot nor the other philosophes fully appreciated what it was like to govern. Her foreign policy hardly reflected Enlightenment ideas. In 1778, the Prussian king, Frederick II, commented that “the empress of Russia is very proud, very ambitious, and very vain.”

 

Catherine’s reforms, such as in administration and law, were tempered with a sense of paranoia that engulfed her entire reign. Within a two year period, there were 13 pretenders to the throne, some claiming to be Peter III. This culminated in the 1773 Pugachev Revolt, perhaps the greatest peasant uprising of the century.

 

An Enlightened Monarch or True Autocrat

 

Catherine rose at five every morning. Referring to herself as the “first servant of the state,” (much like Frederick the Great said of himself), she worked long hours. Under her rule, more books were published in Russia than in all previous years and the modern Russian language replaced the older “church Slavonic” language. Moscow University was founded and Catherine encouraged the building of elementary and intermediate schools.

 

No reforms, however, limited her role as the autocratic ruler of Russia. As with other so-called Enlightened Monarchs (Frederick the Great, Joseph II of Austria), Catherine was willing to reform certain aspects of civic and social life, but not at the expense of her own power. Under Catherine, serfdom expanded and became more firmly entrenched. Censorship prohibited the publication of books that criticized her reign or the autocratic system.

 

By the time the Bastille fell in Paris in 1789 to French mobs, Catherine had already become reactionary. Events in France, at least for Catherine, represented the effects of unbridled Enlightenment thinking. Additionally, she recalled all too vividly the peasant challenges to her own legitimacy. What she owed Russia was order and stability rather than chaos and turmoil. Hence, she retreated from liberalism.

 

Sources:

 

Anthony, Katherine, Catherine the Great (New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1925)

Hingley, Ronald, The Tsars 1533-1917 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968)

MacKenzie, David and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond 4^th Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993)

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., A History of Russia 2^nd Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969)

[copyright owned by Michael Streich; all reprints subject to written permission from the author]

1776: The Year of Bright Hope for the American Colonies and for a World Yearning for Freedom

 Michael Streich

1776 was a year of bright hope, bitter defeat, and Christmas promise for American patriots hoping to sever political ties with Great Britain. The year began with Thomas Paine’s January 9^th publication of Common Sense and ended with George Washington’s morale boosting victory over Hessian mercenaries at the Battle of Trenton. But the highlight was the July Declaration of Independence, a document revered still today as the statement to the world of why government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

The Independence Moment in America and for the World

 

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln referred to the Declaration of Independence as he commemorated the lives of Americans lost at the Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. In Lincoln’s words, it was the “honored dead” that impelled devotion to the truth cherished by all Americans, truths that included freedom and the fact that “all men are created equal.”

 

These truths are rooted in Thomas Jefferson’s timeless document that audaciously declared the freedom and independence of thirteen colonies of the British Empire following years of perceived unjust taxes and tyranny on the part of King George III. American independence would have to be won, however, and even the end of the Revolutionary War did not mean that the new nation had emerged successfully. That would be accomplished with the War of 1812.

 

Jefferson’s Declaration would inspire many independence movements throughout the world, into the 20^th Century, as indigenous peoples looked for successful models to emulate. Although global factors did not always match the same American example, it was the ideal of Jefferson’s Enlightenment perspectives that gave courage to even the smallest of colonies seeking self-determination.

 

Independence did not Translate into Battlefield Victory

 

The mere act of declaring independence did not awe the British or other European powers. France, for self-serving reasons, recognized the fledgling nation and provided support. The Dutch, according to historian Barbara Tuchman, were the first to officially recognize the sovereignty of the new nation.

 

One month after the Declaration, George Washington’s army was defeated in Long Island and driven across New Jersey. Washington himself was almost captured. British General William Howe defeated Washington several times in the New York area between September and November of 1776. The British would hold New York until the end of the war. By early December, the patriot cause appeared bleak.

 

1776 and the Christmas Promise

 

By December’s end, Washington crossed the Delaware River during terrible weather conditions. His ragtag army was in danger of falling apart. But he surprised a sizeable contingent of Hessian mercenaries at the Battle of Trenton. Washington’s victory ended the year on a positive note for the patriot cause. It was not enough to secure French support, however. That would come in 1777 after the patriot victory at Saratoga. But the Trenton victory demonstrated that colonial forces could defeat the British, albeit German hirelings.

 

The Year that Changed the World

 

1776 did change the world. Often in history, great events and ideas are not fully manifested until years after. The same can be said of 1776. The year has been etched into every American consciousness ever since because, as Lincoln recollected in 1863, it represented the creation moment for a “new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

 

Sources:

 

William R. Polk, The Birth of America: From Before Columbus to the Revolution (HarperCollins, 2006)

Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution, Volume One (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)

Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute: A View of the American Revolution (Ballantine Books, 1988)

Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (Alfred A. Knopf, 1992)

[First published in 2010. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting only by written permission from the author]

 

New Deal Opposition

Criticism of FDR's Recovery Program in the 1930s

Opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal came from many corners including the Republican Party, Socialists, Communists, prominent leaders and the Supreme Court.

Feb 9, 2009 Michael Streich

Opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal came from many corners including the Republican Party, Socialists, Communists, prominent leaders and the Supreme Court.

The overall success of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal is still hotly debated. Many of the “alphabet agencies” that were intended to be temporary solutions are still functioning and with success. Others ended either during the First and Second New Deal or with the coming of World War II. Roosevelt was, among other things, a pragmatist who rejected the boom and bust cycle mentality of previous administrations. As Hugh Johnson, head of the NRA stated, “Roosevelt was “the man who started more creations than were ever begun since Genesis…” Yet the New Deal faced significant opposition.

Opposition to the New Deal

FDR’s New Deal represented immediate solutions to the despair and paranoia gripping the nation in 1933. Since the 1929 stock market crash, unemployment had risen from under 2% to almost 12% at the time Roosevelt was inaugurated. Unemployment would plummet back to under 2% as the U.S. entered World War II in 1942. The New Deal produced some recovery as unemployment fell to about 7% just before the recession of 1938, peaking at over 8% before again declining.

Many Americans, however, argued that the New Deal was a Pandora’s box of troubles that violated the Constitution and sought to impose socialism, although socialist leaders like Norman Thomas believed that FDR was not doing enough, complaining that the New Deal was “trying to cure tuberculosis with cough drops.”

Initial supporters like the “radio priest” Father Charles E. Coughlin turned on Roosevelt over deficit spending and the Federal Reserve. Louisiana’s “Kingfish” Huey Long challenged Roosevelt, promoting his “Share the Wealth” program that would have restricted how much the wealthy could earn and impose high taxes on those with the greatest incomes.

Communists assailed the New Deal as “social fascism” and called FDR a dictator. At the other end, business leaders, believing they had been made the scapegoat for the nation’s ills, wanted a return to the old economic order, believing that the market would correct itself without the meddling of direct government interference.

The Republican Party and the Supreme Court

The Republican Party had suffered near catastrophically as a result of the 1932 and 1936 elections. For the Republicans, New Deal programs and policies represented dangerous experimentation that would result in high government spending, increased taxes, and a significant growth in bureaucracy that would end in top heavy federal centralization. Republican leaders like former President Hoover and Idaho Senator William Borah firmly believed that New Deal experimentation would actually deepen the effects of the Depression and hold back recovery that they felt was already underway.

The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority through 1936, invalidated several of Roosevelt’s programs instituted during the First New Deal. In 1935, significantly, the court in a unanimous decision declared the National Recovery Act unconstitutional in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp., et al. v. United States. The court in a 5-4 decision also invalidated a railroad pension law in 1935 and in a 6-3, 1936 decision, struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

In the 1936 Tipaldo decision, the high court struck down a New York state minimum wage law. In the face of all opposition to the New Deal, the Supreme Court seemed to be Roosevelt’s bitterest foe, forcing him to consider reforming the court through “court packing.” Ultimately, however, by 1937, the court began to approve New Deal measures and as conservative members left the court, FDR was able to appoint members to what would become the “Roosevelt Court.”

Opposition to the New Deal, coming from many disparate individuals and groups, never dampened Roosevelt’s resolve. It is a testament to his leadership during one of the darkest periods in U.S. history that he was able to overcome the often rancorous and vocal opposition, ultimately leading the nation into full recovery.

Sources:

John Franklin Carter, The New Dealers (Simon and Schuster, 1934).

Albert Fried, FDR and his Enemies (Palgrave/St. Martin’s Press, 1999).

George Wolfskill, “New Deal Critics: Did They Miss the Point,” Essays on the New Deal (University of Texas Press, 1969).

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (Harper, 1980) available on-line.

The copyright of the article New Deal Opposition in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish New Deal Opposition in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Huey Long Captivated Audiences

Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation

Huey Long, the Louisiana Kingfish, ruthlessly eliminated political opposition and used patronage to solidify his political machine in Louisiana.

May 15, 2010 Michael Streich

Huey Long, the Louisiana Kingfish, ruthlessly eliminated political opposition and used patronage to solidify his political machine in Louisiana.

On September 8, 1935, a young man stepped from behind a column in the Baton Rouge capital building pointing a .38 caliber revolver at Louisiana Senator Huey Long. What happened next is a mystery. The assailant, Dr. Carl Weiss, was riddled with bullets from Long’s body guards. His body had been hit with 61 bullets. Long, who received one shot to his abdomen, died following a failed operation. Speculation still exists if Dr. Weiss actually discharged his gun, or if Long had been assassinated by a stay bullet that ricocheted off the marble columns. Long, the self-styled “Kingfish,” was dead and would pose no threat as a third party candidate against President Roosevelt in the election of 1936.

The Rise of Huey Long in Louisiana

Huey Long came from a poor family and grew up in a parish (or county) that had a reputation for challenging the status quo. By the time he became governor at age 34, he was, according to historical writer Jack Pearl, the “supreme dictator of Louisiana.” University of Texas historian Lewis L. Gould agrees, referring to Long as “virtual dictator.” Long’s political machine controlled the politics of the state through patronage and Long himself was ruthless in his actions toward enemies.

Carl Weiss, Long’s assassin, had good reason to hate the man. His father-in-law, a judge, had been ruined by Long, his reputation falsely impugned. Weiss’ wife had become depressed over the affair and their children were treated as outcasts. But given Huey Long’s reputation, Weiss was viewed sympathetically after his assassination of the demagogue. This was particularly true of the Louisiana wealthy class. As governor, Long “taxed the rich practically into extinction,” according to Pearl.

Huey Long, FDR, and the U.S. Senate

Senator Long was a firebrand on Capital Hill. Labor Secretary Frances Perkins recalls how Senator Long held up an appropriations bill to fund the newly created Social Security system with a 19-hour filibuster at the moment Congress was set to adjourn. His “Share the Wealth” redistribution proposal, though completely unworkable, was embraced by millions of poor and unemployed Americans, particularly at a time the New Deal seemed to be foundering.

Long cared nothing for Senate protocols. He took on Senate leaders, like Arkansas Senator Joseph Robinson, and helped elect Hattie Caraway to the U.S. Senate in 1932, directly challenging Robinson’s state political machine. This action demonstrated very clearly Long’s ability to defeat the political machines of Southern state politics as well as the leaders of those machines. FDR, always wary of Long, knew that he needed the support of those Southern political bosses to pass New Deal measures. Huey Long was a threat.

Long, who had cautiously supported FDR in 1932, had become an adversary by 1935. Long saw himself as a future president and curried the favor of those that had not benefited from the New Deal. Historian Albert Fried writes that Long became a “militant advocate” for “Labor, the unemployed, small farmers and businessmen, the poor…” Long proposed a redistribution of wealth This included the government confiscation of personal wealth over $2 million and the distribution of $5,000 payments to every family in America.

The Death of Huey Long

Ironically, Huey Long, according to Pearl, was obsessed “with the subject of assassination.” He was always surrounded by body guards, many of them common thugs. At the time Weiss confronted Long, one of those body guards actually used a machine gun.

Even if assassination had not ended the career of a corrupt and self-absorbed politician, the government might have. The same Treasury agent who had brought down Al Capone in 1931 was investigating the Long machine in Louisiana. Ultimately, numerous cronies would be brought to justice. It was the one reliable tool FDR’s justice department could level against the Kingfish. For Huey Long, it was only a matter of time.

References:

• Albert Fried, FDR And His Enemies (Palgrave for St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999)
• Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
• Robert Mann, Legacy of Power: Senator Russell Long of Louisiana (Paragon House, 1992) [Senator Russell Long was the son of Huey Long – see Chapter One]
• Jack Pearl, The Dangerous Assassins (Derby, CT: Monarch Books, Inc., 1964)
• Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew (NY: Viking Press, 1946)

The copyright of the article Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Ancient Libraries

Michael Streich

Ancient libraries are as old as the first early Near East civilizations. Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, boasted the largest ancient library. The rise of Greece and later Rome, however, witnessed the two most significant libraries, at Pergamum and Ephesus, both in Asia Minor, which competed with and attempted to rival the great library at Alexandria in Egypt. The great libraries of Rome may have gotten their start when Sulla first carried Aristotle’s library to the city on the Tiber. Later, Julius Caesar became the patron of public libraries. Yet none matched Pergamum and Ephesus.

 

The Ancient Library at Pergamum

 

The Pergamum library was considered the second finest, after Alexandria. At its height, the library contained 200,000 volumes. Much of this success was due to the rulers of Pergamum, who were patrons of the arts and furthered the scope of the library. Under Eumenes II (197-159 BC), the library grew spectacularly, so much so that the curators of the Alexandrian Library in Egypt became concerned and placed an embargo on exported papyrus.

 

The rulers of Pergamum turned to using animal skins, “Partian leather.” The term “parchment” is directly traced to “Pergamum,” from which it was derived. Although the term “paper” may be more accurately derived from the Egyptian papyrus, Pergamum guides tell visitors that the term “paper” can be traced to the ancient city’s name. In Germany, as an example, “pergament paper” is butcher paper, thick sheets of wrapping paper that take the name from parchment paper, hence Pergamum.

 

The Pergamum library is also credited with developing the first Codex system. At the end of the Roman Republic, Marc Antony, the Triumvir of the eastern regions of Roman control, gave the library to Cleopatra. The ruins of this great library can still be found in Pergamum (the Turkish city of Bergama) beside the remnants of the Temple of Trajan and Hadrian.

 

The Ancient Library at Ephesus

 

It is fitting that the great city of Ephesus, also in Anatolia, had the third most prominent library in the Ancient Roman world. It was only one of four imperial cities to feature street lighting at night. According to Anna Edmonds, “Ephesus rivaled Rome in its magnificence.” Of the great library, Tony Perrottet writes that it was, “an architecturally unrivaled evocation of ancient time…”

 

The library was built at the end of the first century AD by Gaius Julius Aquila to honor his father Celsus, Roman Governor of that region of Anatolia. The “Celsus Library” contained over 12,000 volumes as well as the burial vault of Celsus, a singular honor since the dead were buried outside of city walls in the many necropoleis found beyond ancient city ruins.

 

Ancient Libraries Lost in History

 

As the Roman Empire sunk into eventual decay, many of the old libraries were lost. Earthquakes, barbarian invasions, and early Christians seeking to purge the land of pagan writings contributed to this loss of ancient literature and history. In Egypt, old papyri was used to teach young scribes and later discarded on garbage heaps, some of which have recently been discovered by archaeologists. Some surviving imperial correspondence alludes to documents destroyed by barbarian invasions, such as the account of Pontius Pilate’s tenure as governor of Palestine.

 

Ancient libraries attest to the literary enlightenment of emperors, kings, teachers, and the everyday citizens of the Greek and Roman world. Their presence reflects a highly developed literary tradition that transcends mere record keeping.

 

Sources:

 

Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, Richard J. A. Talbert, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Anna G. Edmonds, Turkey’s Religious Sites (Damko Publications, 1998) p 144.

Tony Perrottet, Royt 66 A.D. On The Trail of Ancient Roman Tourists (Random House, 2002) p 216.

“Pergamum,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, General Editor, Vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1939). 

First published in Suite101 February 22, 2009. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republication only by written permission from author.