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
Horace Mann School, Bronx, New York
Barbie Doll
Jonathan Slifkin
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
[email protected]
website: http://www.tcr.org/blog
newsletter: Click here to register for email updates.
e-mail:
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 subscriptions (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 responsibility 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, photocopied, 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
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
Winter 2013
®
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 thirtynine 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
A
fter the Seven Years’ War, Great Britain acquired territory 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 territory 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, Native 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 manage 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 colonies 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 acquired 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 Dependance 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 Happiness 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, summarized 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 beyond 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 preoccupied 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—occupation 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, provided 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 Travels 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 success 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 Commerce 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 American 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 Virginians,” 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 planters, 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 aristocracy, 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 Mississippi 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 Pennsylvania. 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 Protect 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 demonstrated 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 acquire 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 settlement 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 Virginia’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 organized 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 operations 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 petitions 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 temporary 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 temporary, 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 Johnson, 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 negotiated 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 accommodate 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 British 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 difficult 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
Notes
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
1
15
16
Samuel G. Feder
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
25
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
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
17
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 reexamine 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 institutional innovator and proponent of change by finding in China’s
classical tradition the precedents that would justify the adaptation 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 administration, 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, Empress 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 selfstrengtheners 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 missing. As Jonathan Spence put it, “The ‘self-strengthening’ movement 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 movement 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 Interpretation 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 mission, 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, including 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 modernized 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 political 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 Reforms 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 “imperial 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 scholars 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 Confucianism, 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 innovator, 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 Confucius 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 approaching peace, to the final age of universal peace. Of course, in
the original literature of the New Text versions, the term “institutional 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 incorporation 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 values, 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 controversy 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 reformist ideology to inspire and organize a radical reform movement. 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 insufficient 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 responsibilities. 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 SinoJapanese 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 accept 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 spreading 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 sponsorship.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 governorsgeneral 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 reformers 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 meantime, 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 lowranking 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 previously 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 according 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 reformers 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 faction, 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 recommended 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 specialized 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 “eightlegged” 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 Emperor 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 possibilities 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 including 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 a coup 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 September 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 leaders 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 protection 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 imperialism 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 imperialism 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
Endnotes
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
1
37
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
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
39
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
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
41
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 knowledge 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 Riley’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 “utterly 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 argument 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 effective, 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 Lincoln’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 childhood, 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, highquality 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 Government 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 audience 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 foundation 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 sharpening 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 famously 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 theoretical “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 forbidding it on home soil. Lincoln grew up in a border state, and this
comparison and criticism offered antislavery ideas for his inquisitive young mind.
The Kentucky Preceptor and “Aesop’s Fables” also include stories 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 LincolnDouglas 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 knowledge 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. Lincoln 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 eternal 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 confusion 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 family attended services together regularly.83 As an adult, Lincoln occasionally 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 making 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 enlightenment authors, including Volney, Hume, and Paine, wrote
critically about Christianity.92 Lincoln had read works of these authors 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 criticizes 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 organized religion, then Thomas Paine, with his Age of Reason, spurred
Lincoln to examine an even more fundamental facet of Christianity—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 every 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 Moreover, 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 Lincoln expressed in his letter complaining about the “priest-ridden”
community.
Union and Presidential Power
Lincoln held an unwavering belief in the necessity of preserving 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. Further, 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 arrest 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 something 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 Washington 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 “obtained 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 Senate: “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 cannot 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 Longfellow’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 adversaries—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 encouraged 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 treatment 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 consolation.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 because 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 imperfections.”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 speaking 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 Christianity 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
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
1
THE CONCORD REVIEW
Ibid., p. 353
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
22
23
65
66
George C. Holderness
Bray, Reading with Lincoln, p. 176
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
45
46
THE CONCORD REVIEW
Genesis 3:19 (King James Version)
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,”
73
74
67
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
Matthew 12:15 (King James Version)
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
123
124
69
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
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
71
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
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)
73
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
A
t home and abroad the City of Berkeley conjures up
images of the Free Speech Movement and antiwar protests, hippies, 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 Berkeley 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 segregation 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 development 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 attractions, 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 mobilize 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 conservationist, 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 commitment 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 development 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 century. 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 conceived, 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 continuous 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 acquisition 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 secured 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 specified 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 context 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 restriction 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 agreements 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 conveyance 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 Improvement 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 development. 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 MasonMcDuffie 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 initiate 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 Commission 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 commends 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 pragmatic 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, authorized 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 disastrous 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 ordinances 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 motivating early zoning efforts:
THE CONCORD REVIEW
83
It may sound foreign to our general ideas of the background of zoning, 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 segregation, 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 Proposed 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 forward 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 methodology 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 “enforcement” 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 penalties for breach of restrictions.”53
A 1935 pamphlet advertising the Mason-McDuffie Company’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-andanswer 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 development’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 sentiment of their restrictive covenants. A letter found in the company
archives reveals a prominent shareholder’s apprehension regarding 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 highquality 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, including 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 agencies 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 origins 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 restrictive 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 segregation, 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
Notes
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
1
87
88
Maya Tulip Lorey
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
11
THE CONCORD REVIEW
Claremont Park Company Indenture, 1910
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 well28
29
89
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, MasonMcDuffie 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, MasonMcDuffie 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
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
61
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, MasonMcDuffie 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)
91
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 ClerkRecorders 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
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
93
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
S
ince Canada’s colonial era, relations between its Francophones 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 assimilated 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 unrelenting 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 English majority. A deeper split between French and English values
was visible before the country’s industrialization: agriculture, CaIris 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 tradition 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”: essentially 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 majority 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 culture, 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 descendants 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 assimilation 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 Parliament, 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 number 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 representatives 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 gradually 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 effective 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, religion 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 homeland 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 homeland 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 Garneau 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 differed 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 bearing 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 francophones) 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, Ontario 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 Canadians 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 regarding 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 instruction 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 Conservative 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 respectfully 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 Reciprocity 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 allowed 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 British 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 dissemination 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 nationalist 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 nation. 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, industrial 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 exponentially 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 Francophones 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 conscription.” 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 undertook 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 nationalist 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 welfare 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 education 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 constituted 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 humanistic 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 traditional 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 collective 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 similarities 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 traditional 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 revisionism; 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 seigneurial 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 Francophone 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 achievements in World War II, French Canadian society was striving for
a new, yet still distinct identity marked by autonomy and self-sufficiency; this created a milieu in which resource- and job-related
conflict flourished. In addition, new immigrants were being immediately 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 illegal 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 support 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-centan-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 communities.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 EnglishCanadian, 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. HydroQuébec 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 nationalism 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 bilingualism 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 Biculturalism 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 Lesage’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 dissatisfied 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 preservation 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 resignation 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 federalism. 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 protect 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 Canadian 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 preferring 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 federal 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 issues 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 members 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 Measures 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-marginalized citizens seeking political acknowledgement.136 Their tactics
were in many ways clumsy and juvenile, and their manifesto carried 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 fleeing 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 thinking 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 entering 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 Frenchlanguage 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 support 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 destabilizing. 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 government; 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 patriating the Constitution from Great Britain. The Constitution Act
of 1982 was approved by all of Canada’s provinces besides Quebec155—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 document 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 amendments, 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 province’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 Accord 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 Accord and the province never conducted a vote on the issue. To
give Manitoba time, the federal minister concerned with federalprovincial 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 committee 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 established 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 referendum 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 Accord’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 carried 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 separatism, 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 separatists 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 Papineau’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 develop 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 shocking—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 Superior Court, Bertrand argued that the bill threatened his Charter
rights; the Superior Court agreed that this was true, but nonetheless 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 selfdetermination: 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 constituents are “subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation 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 approaching; 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 established Bill 99, which states that a “clear majority” is constituted
by a vote of at least 50 percent + 1.186 During the referendum campaign, 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 immigrants 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 residents 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 increasingly alienated from Quebec. In general, the vision of a sovereign
Quebec has lost much of its purchase among the province’s citizens, 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 fiscally 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 collective culture; however, French Canada did not lack federal representation, 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 industrialization that gave rise to the abrupt spike in separatist sentiment,
which emerged during the Quiet Revolution, and it was the October 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, sovereignty 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 opportunity. 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 socioeconomic 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
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-quebecsovereignty-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
1
THE CONCORD REVIEW
(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-andCompromise-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
133
134
Iris Robbins-Larrivee
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
46
THE CONCORD REVIEW
135
Ibid., p. 80
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 legallyregulated 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
75
76
136
Iris Robbins-Larrivee
Leskun and Tobin, p. 23
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-onbilingualism-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 TrudeauLevesque 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
102
103
THE CONCORD REVIEW
137
Leskun and Tobin, p. 28
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
131
132
138
Iris Robbins-Larrivee
Jay Makarenko, Charlottetown Accord: History and
Overview Mapleleafweb (February 10, 2009), http://www.
mapleleafweb.com/features/charlottetown-accord-history-andoverview
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
159
THE CONCORD REVIEW
139
Ibbitson
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-losesfaith-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
189
190
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-andCompromise-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-sovereigntyhappens-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-onbilingualism-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/henribourassa
Makarenko, Jay, Charlottetown Accord: History and
Overview, Mapleleafweb, February 10, 2009, http://www.
mapleleafweb.com/features/charlottetown-accord-history-andoverview
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/durhamreport
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-losesfaith-as-marois-focuses-on-austerity/article12436744/
142
Iris Robbins-Larrivee
Smith, Denis, October Crisis, The Canadian Encyclopedia,
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/octobercrisis
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 history 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 martialed 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 number 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 Royals 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 teammates, 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 Dodgers, 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, “Baseball was truly the all-American sport in the 1940s…it [the breaking 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 population. 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, approved 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 realized 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 alltime career home-run leader for 33 years, feels that Robinson’s
feats motivated him throughout his career. In his forward to Robinson’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 carrying 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 abilities, 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, fuelling 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 demonstrating 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 further 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 breaking 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 Hopper, 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 tolerance 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 accepting in general. People in the country did not just learn this
lesson in the middle of the 20th century. The story of the breaking 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 barrier, 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 military.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 African 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
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-tookdifferent-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
1
THE CONCORD REVIEW
“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-abcnews/hanging-42-yankees-mariano-rivera-robinson-canotalk-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-politicalcorrectness1/ (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_PollApproval_Rating-Harry_S_Truman.png (accessed May 5, 2013)
19
155
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_PollApproval_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-robinsoncano-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-politicalcorrectness/ (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-owensin-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
A
fter 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 extravagant 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 actually 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 different 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, sequential 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, animals 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 independently 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 escapement 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, private 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 reckoning 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 contributions 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 equinoctial 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 looking 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
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
1
170
Mattie Glenhaber
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
13
THE CONCORD REVIEW
171
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
28
172
Mattie Glenhaber
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.
49
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 nation’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 GermanAmerican 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 sentiment 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 settlement 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 Revolutionary 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 identified 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 period 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 during 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 German 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 addition 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 stemming 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 Germany’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 Mennonites 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 arrested; 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 overcome 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 altogether.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 humiliation—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 productions, 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 German 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 caustically “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] wholeheartedly espoused the cause of Germany.”40 The Journal went on to
issue similar attacks against the German-American National Alliance 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 GermanAmerican 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 facilitated 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 obvious 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 GermanAmericans.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 Moreover, 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 support 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 bashing.”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 overtook 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 aggression, 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 politicians, and for the beer industry.
184
Hendrick Townley
Endnotes
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/germanamericans-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
1
THE CONCORD REVIEW
185
Galicich, p. 85
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 antiGerman mania of World War I,” Examiner.com, (last modified
March 17, 2012), http://www.examiner.com/article/the24
25
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
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)
187
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 antiGerman mania of World War I,” Examiner.com, last modified
March 17, 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/thegermania-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
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
189
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 utterly 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 dealings 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 encounters 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 “Judaism 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 between 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 monotheism, 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 Judaism 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 yeshiva and absorbing the ideology…I admired the ultra-Orthodox
194
Jonathan Slifkin
dedication and passion for spiritual ideals. The extent of its antiscientific 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 Biblical 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, foreshadowing 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 masterwork 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 catastrophist theory had fit nicely into Christian theology not only because
it allowed for a young earth but also because it provided a perfect 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 scientist. 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 contemporary 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 Biblical history. The most prominent example of creationism’s initially
waning influence was the 1925 court case The 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 Creationism stressed 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 (communism, racism, humanism, libertinism, behaviorism, and all the
rest) would be deprived of their pseudo-intellectual foundation.”25
Although science has rarely been successful in convincing 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 Biblically 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 animals 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 geologically 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 metaphorical 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, the Bible 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 theological 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 Intelligent 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 advocating 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, developed 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 conclusion 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 complexity 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 unscientific 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 international 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 Constitution.34 ID advocates had hoped that their efforts in public education 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 Constitution.” The decision specifically criticized Of 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 physical 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 compatibility, and most modern Jews find secular science, including evolution 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 currently 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 allegorical 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 paradigms, 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 understanding, 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 divinity 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 Maimonides’ 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 religious 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 understandable 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 scientific 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 minority, 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 Feldman, 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 philosophy, 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 Christianity: attempts to reconcile Judaism with science must devise new
interpretations not only of Genesis, but also of the Talmud, a collection 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 scientific problems lies not in this explanation per 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 kangaroos 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 statements 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 interpretation. 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 establishment. 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 the Talmud’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 philosophies, 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 matter, 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 alternative.”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 rabbis 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 selfdescribed 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 belief 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 assertions.”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 creationists 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 attention 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 ultraorthodox 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 others 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 evolutionary science into the Book of Genesis and the Talmud, or perhaps
vice-versa, Rabbi Slifkin has trampled over both Biblical and empirical 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
Natan Slifkin, “An Account of Events,” Zoo Torah,
<http://zootorah.org/controversy/account.html> (accessed
June 3, 2013)
2
Slifkin, “In Defense of My Opponents,” (October 5,
2008), Zoo Torah, <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/
InDefenseOfMyOpponents.pdf> (accessed June 3, 2013)
3
“The Opinion of the Gedolai Hador Shlita Against the
Books of Nosson Slifkin,” photograph, (September 20, 2004),
Zoo Torah, <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/pashkevil.
jpg>
4
Slifkin, “A General Response to the Charge of Heresy,”
Zoo Torah, <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/
scienceresponse.html> (accessed June 3, 2013)
5
Zoo Torah, <http://www.zootorah.com/> (accessed June
3, 2013); and Tamar Rotem, “The Rabbi Who Wrestles With
Crocodiles,” Haaretz (April 15, 2005), <http://www.haaretz.
com/the-rabbi-who-wrestles-with-crocodiles-1.156122>
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, <http://
www.iep.utm.edu/s-rel/>
12
Gen. 1:1-28 (JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh)
13
Tracey R. Rich, “Jewish Calendar,” Judaism 101,
<http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm>; and Michael Ruse,
“Creationism,” (October 29, 2007), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy ed. Edward N. Zalta, <http://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/creationism/>
14
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “How
Old is the Universe?,” (December 21, 2012), <http://map.gsfc.
nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html>
1
212
Jonathan Slifkin
Michael Marshall, “Timeline: the Evolution of Life,”
New Scientist (July 14, 2009), <http://www.newscientist.com/
article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life.html?full=true>
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 BellyButton?,” [June 1, 1996], Answers in Genesis, <http://www.
answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n3/belly-button>)
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, <http://www.gallup.
com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx>).
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
15
THE CONCORD REVIEW
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,
<http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook>
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), <http://online.
wsj.com/article/SB118308869790152666.html>
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, <http://www.sacred-texts.com/
jud/gfp/>, 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
213
214
Jonathan Slifkin
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, <http://www.
zootorah.com/controversy/ravaharon.html>, 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,
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387>
45
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, <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/
gould_noma.html>
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,
<http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook>
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, <http://www.
zootorah.com/controversy/ravaharon.html>
Gould, Stephen Jay, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural
History 106 (1997): 16–22, The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould
216
Jonathan Slifkin
Archive, <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_
noma.html>
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, <http://www.sacred-texts.
com/jud/gfp/>
Marshall, Michael, “Timeline: the Evolution of Life,” New
Scientist July 14, 2009, <http://www.newscientist.com/article/
dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life.html?full=true>
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “How Old
is the Universe?” December 21, 2012, <http://map.gsfc.nasa.
gov/universe/uni_age.html>
Newport, Frank, “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of
Human Origins,” June 1, 2012, Gallup, <http://www.gallup.
com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx>
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, <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/pashkevil.
jpg>
Palmer, Jason, “Multiverse Theory Suggested by Microwave
Background,” August 3, 2011, BBC News, <http://www.bbc.
co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387>
Parker, Gary, “Did Adam Have a Belly-Button?” June 1,
1996, Answers in Genesis, <http://www.answersingenesis.org/
articles/cm/v18/n3/belly-button>
Rich, Tracey R., “Jewish Calendar,” Judaism 101, <http://
www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm> Haaretz 2005
Ruse, Michael, “Creationism,” October 29, 2007, in The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Edward N.
Zalta, <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/>
Sickler, Bradley, “Conflicts Between Science and Religion,”
February 11, 2009, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, <http://www.iep.
utm.edu/s-rel/>
THE CONCORD REVIEW
217
Slifkin, Natan, “An Account of Events,” Zoo Torah, <http://
zootorah.org/controversy/account.html> (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, <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/
InDefenseOfMyOpponents.pdf> (accessed June 3, 2013)
Slifkin, Natan, “A General Response to the Charge of
Heresy,” Zoo Torah, <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/
scienceresponse.html> (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, <http://zootorah.com/> (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
T
hroughout 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 feminism 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 mothers and daughters would appreciate the detail and quality Barbie
would have.8 Therefore, Barbie needed the perfect wardrobe designer 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 suppliers 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 throughout 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 Barbie, 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 advertise 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 increase 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 successful 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, “Living 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 becoming a world success.
As Barbie became more and more successful, the changes
in the Barbie concept increased. Over the years, Barbie has acquired a large number of family members and friends. Consumer
demand after Barbie’s first release led to her boyfriend, Ken, making 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 39inch 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 entertainment 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 everyone 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 Barbie’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
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
1
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
O
n 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 cruiser Emden. 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 on Emden
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 forbidden.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 concerned, 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 industries, brought Germany an industrialized and rapidly expanding
economy, eclipsing all other European powers.
However, while industrialization was absorbing the workers 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 importation 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 million 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 maritime 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 willing 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 complex” 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 shipbuilding yards had the most obvious of motives.16 The creation of
the Navy League (Deutscher Flottenverein) in 1898 was a clear demonstration 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 expanding 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 undergone 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 materials 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 powerful 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 tempting for other countries, as they could now compete with the Royal
Navy on basically the same starting point.
One such crucial technological breakthrough was, ironically, 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 committee 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 advantages, 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 engines 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 indeed 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 doing 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 Dreadnoughttype 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 motivation, 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 protection 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 that individually, the
dreadnoughts in the Kaiserliche Marine possessed a qualitative advantage 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 surface, 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 dreadnoughts 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, German 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 German 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 shipbuilding 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 partitioning Morocco and had also agreed not to oppose Britain’s moves
in Egypt in exchange for a free hand in Morocco.34 France’s neglect 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 Théopheli 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 powers like Italy and the United States. Also, given the recent defeat
of Russia, France’s principal ally, in the Russo-Japanese War, Germany 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 support 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 favorable”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 opposite 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 progressively urgent.
Thus the most important motivation for the Reich to develop a powerful navy was its desire to achieve that “world-political
freedom.” What the Kaiser wanted most was international recognition 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 international 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 strategic defensive 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 “danger 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, embarrass 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 undertaking. 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 emphasized, 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 legitimate. 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. Moreover, it only engaged with the Royal Navy a very limited number
of times, inflicted on the British fleet only tactical damages completely 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 the Entente 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 Mediterranean 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 vessels 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 shipbuilding 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 Marine 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 actual 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 dreadnoughts 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 neutralized 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 Scandinavia 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 attack, 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 estimation, 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 resentment 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 Wilhelmshaven 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 Kaiserliche 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 importance of Royal Navy to British empire as stated by Selborne:
since Britain’s politics, diplomacy, economy, defense and therefore 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 possession 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, according 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 unintentionally 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 during 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 “fourtempo” established by the Novelle of 1908, which meant the building 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 British 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 enemy 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 justified—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 inconsequential 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 voluntarily. 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 Kaiserliche 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 battlecruisers. The dreadnoughts of the High Sea Fleet were never
put to sea for battle again until in Jutland, where Tirpitz’s confidence 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 surface 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 Kaiserliche 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 altogether. 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 during 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 difference 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 aggressive 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 damage 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 battle despite 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 determination 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 surrender 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 Kaiserliche 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 incompatibility” 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 economic 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 antagonism 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 superiority 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 creation 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 encouraged 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
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
1
266
Renhua Yuan
Paul M. Kennedy is J. Richardson Dilworth Professor of
History at Yale University, whose book, The Rise of the AngloGerman 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
15
THE CONCORD REVIEW
267
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
31
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 HMS Lion 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
90
91
Ibid., pp. 422–423
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)
271
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-editorin-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 cocaptain 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 of The Concord Review.”
William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions, Harvard College
HARVARD COLLEGE
Office of Admissions and Financial Aid
Mr. Will Fitzhugh
The Concord Review
730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 USA
September 15, 2010
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