Popular Destiny: Causes and Views Leading to the Civil War

Manifest destiny and popular sovereignty are not common phrases evoked in modern culture. What exactly are these two theories, popularized so long ago? What roles did they play in changes to the culture and society of the day? Were they really as divisive as is frequently asserted? These questions and more will be explored in the contents of this paper, examining the root causes of the United States' Civil War.

First up, "manifest destiny". Manifest Destiny is the theory propagated by the religious fervor in the late 1700's, primarily from New England's Puritans. The victories of the War of 1812 fueled this religious nationalism, as did the Louisiana Purchase, and Lewis & Clark's exploration of the territory. However, it wasn't until newspaper columnist and editor John O'Sullivan's article regarding the annexation of Texas published in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review was the term 'Manifest Destiny' actually coined. (ushistory.org, 2008) As vast droves of people moved west, first with the promise of free land, and then with the Californian gold rush, they brought the economics of their home states along with them, leading to Southerners looking for land to produce cotton, tobacco and other crops to clash with the industrialized Northerners looking for factory lands and resources to tap into. These issues were temporarily resolved with some measures like the Mason-Dixon Line, but Manifest Destiny raised questions about this fledgling nation's views on religion, regional economics – and their relation to each other on a federal level, race and the value of man, national patriotism, and even morality, to an extent. 

Popular sovereignty, on the other hand, was the name given the theory that the people living in a given area should decide their own nature of government. The first man to really propagate the theory was Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan, however, it didn't gain national prominence until Stephen A. Douglas coined the term in 1854. There were two main factions of the popular sovereignty movement: one that asserted that the territory's settlers should vote on their status early in territorial development. The other stance said a territory's status should be determined by a vote, taken when the territory was ready for statehood. ("United states history," 2009) This theory was the basis for the Compromise of 1850, and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act four years later. However, due to the "Bleeding Kansas' tragedy, the gaping holes in this ideology became sharply evident. After these events, it was mocking called "squatter sovereignty" by John C. Calhoun, and consequently picked up by the theories critics, primarily Southerners and pro-slavery Northerners. It was hoped that the application of popular sovereignty to incoming states and would preserve the Union. Unfortunately, it was not to be, as it would only work if there were enough voters in the territory persuaded to lean pro-slavery, and apart from an ACORN-level of voter fraud, was nigh impossible to achieve. The death knell for popular sovereignty came in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates, when Stephen A. Douglas admitted that he believed that local laws could nullify the current federal fugitive-slave laws. That is when most historians see the theory as losing most of its Southern backing, and talks of secession began in earnest. (Weatherby, 2011)

These two views both had their own respective heydays. Manifest destiny inspired a nation to grow to its maximum physical potential, and even made a resurgence with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii. It united a people and gave them a purpose: to be fruitful and multiply across the land, and spread American influence from sea to shining sea. On the other hand, popular sovereignty, a theory born, raised and propagated from the south, tried to appease both sides of the slavery debate. However, all it truly succeeded in doing was driving the two sides further apart, even to the point of bloodshed. Effective for a time, it was at most a temporary measure, not really resolving anything for our nation. By the time it was given up, our newly-expanded country was not only divided ideologically, but was on the brink of war, needing only the slightest catalyst to push it over the edge into a bloody oblivion.

References

ushistory.org. (2008, April 12). U.S. history online textbook. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/29.asp

United states history. (2009, May 14). Retrieved from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h228.html

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/civil-war-sectionalism/

A List of Czars

The Ruriks (czars of Russia)

Ivan IV, the Terrible –Ruled: 1533-1584

Born 25 August 1530, first ruler to claim the title of “czar”, clashed with Russian nobles over divine right of kings, gained fame for his military exploits against the Tatars, and later for his brutality. Died 28 March 1584.

Feodor I – Ruled: 1584-1598

Born 31 May 1557, son of Ivan the Terrible and Anastasia Romanova, also known as Feodor the Bellringer or Blessed for his religious piety. Abdicated the throne to his brother-in-law, died 16 or 17 January, 1598.

Boris Godunov – Ruled: 1598-1605

Born circa 1551, was the first non-Rurikid czar, of Tatar descent, rule validated by marriage. Ruled during Russo-Swedish War, but established friendly relations with Scandinavians. Died 23 April 1605.

Feodor II – Ruled: 1605

Born ca. 1589, was the illegitimate grandson of Ivan the Terrible, ruled Russia during the Time of Troubles for under 1 ½ months; murdered by agents of alleged Dimitri I (Dimitri II, the False). Died 20 June 1605, at the age of 16.

Dimitri II, the False – Ruled:1605-1606

Born 1581, claimed to be youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, was one of three imposters. Rumors circulated he was actually illegitimate son of the Polish king, hence his diplomatic skills and fluency in both Russian and Polish, but this was never confirmed. Died 17 May 1606.

Vasili IV Sjujsky – Ruled: 1606-1610

Born 22 September 1552. Began rule upon murder of Dimitri the False, restored the line of Rurik as czar. Was overthrown by Polish invaders, died 12 September 1612.

In Polish possession – Ruled by Poles: 1610-1613

The House of Romanov

Mikhail III – Ruled: 1613-1645

Born 12 July 1596, unanimously elected as czar of Russia at age 17, claimed throne as a Romanov (descendent of Ivan the Terrible’s wife), very popular czar, ruling for 32 years. Died on his birthday, 1645.

Alexei Mikhailovich – Ruled: 1645-1676

Born 9 May 1629, took throne at age 16. Had a pacifistic foreign policy, but was a skilled diplomat: secured peace with Poland, avoided war with Ottoman Turks. Domestic policy dealt with corruption among nobles and government officials successfully. Died 29 January 1676.

Feodor III – Ruled: 1676-1682

Born 9 June 1661, born disabled by mystery disease (some speculate scurvy). Physically disabled, but renowned for his intellect: top Slavic monk was his tutor, knew Polish and Latin. Founded Academy of Sciences at Zaikonospassky Monastery. Died 7 May 1682, at 20, and his death caused the Moscow Uprising of 1682.

Ivan V – Ruled: 1682-1696

Born 27 August 1666, was the elder son of Feodor III, was seriously disabled. Did not want to be czar, but was persuaded and became joint-czar (or “dvoetsarstvenniki”) with Peter I. Died 8 February 1696, senile, paralytic and almost blind.

Peter I, the Great – Ruled: 1682-1725

Born 9 June 1672. Was double-czar with his older brother until Ivan’s death. Had a mind for shipbuilding and naval affairs since childhood, built St. Petersburg for access to Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea. Also had many successful military exploits. Known as a great reformer of Russia; solely responsible for construction and prominence of St. Petersburg. Died 8 February 1725, supposedly after rescuing drowning troops.

Catherine I – Ruled: 1725-1727

Born 15 April 1684, was a Lithuanian orphaned in childhood, adopted by a Protestant minister, and married a Swedish dragoon. When Peter I ousted Swedes, Catherine captured as prisoner of war, and sold to Russian prince. Peter met her, and became enthralled, and divorced his czarina to marry her. When Peter died, Catherine took the throne, but was supposedly was mostly a puppet ruler to her supporters. Died 17 May 1727, two years after Peter I.

Peter II – Ruled: 1727-1730

Born 23 October 1715, largely ignored by grandfather Peter I and Catherine I. Was crowned emperor shortly before Catherine I’s death, but only reigned 3 years before dying of smallpox. Died 29 January 1730.

Anna Ivanova – Ruled: 1730-1740

Born 28 January 1693. Daughter of Ivan V, but was neglected and ignored by her mother. Was elected czarina upon death of Peter II, began ruthless reign, using newly resurrected security police to suppress political enemies. Spent her last years on the throne attempting to solidify czarship of her niece’s son (Ivan VI) against her cousin (Elizabeth). Died 17 October 1740.

Ivan VI – Ruled: 1740-1741

Born 12 August 1740, never technically ruled. Was crowned czar as an infant, but was overthrown by Elizabeth within a year. Spent the next 20 years in solitary confinement, until murdered by his jailors during an escape attempt, 5 July 1764.

Elizabeth – Ruled: 1741-1762

Born 29 January 1709, was daughter of Peter I. Led the country through two wars successfully and expanded Russia to nearly 4 million acres. Also supported creation of the University of Moscow and Imperial Academy of the Arts. Died 5 January 1762.

The House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov

Peter III – Ruled: 1762

Born 21 Feb 1728 in Kiel, Germany. Grandson of Peter I, was noted for his mean disposition and revolting looks, also for groveling to Prussians, whom he adored. Acted more like a German prince than Russian czar, and surrounded himself with Prussians instead of Russians. Was overthrown and murdered in coup d’etat by his wife, 6 months after taking the throne., died 17 July 1762.

Catherine II, the Great – Ruled: 1762-1796

Born 2 May 1729, took the throne after overthrowing her husband. Noted for her sexuality, and for her forthrightness. Threw herself entirely into ‘becoming Russian’, as she was born in Germany, became extremely popular with Russian people. Was tutored by Voltaire, and was taught to have contempt for the political system. She died 17 November 1796, amid apoplexy and hysteria.

Paul I – Ruled: 1796-1801

Born 1 October 1754, speculated who his father was: some claim Peter III, Catherine II claimed it was her favorite lover. Since Paul didn’t resemble Peter, his illegitimacy wasn’t questioned. Was a people’s czar, noted for his laws against nobles; eventually was assassinated for said laws.

Alexander I – Ruled: 1801-1825

Born 23 December 1777. Ruled Russia for Napoleonic Wars, and became know as war hero. Instituted very liberal reforms for first half of his reign, but revoked many of them in the latter half of his reign. Died under suspicious circumstances 1 December 1825.

Nicholas I – Ruled: 1825-1855

Born 25 June 1796, took throne after his brother Alexander I. Reign started poorly, as a 3 week deliberation period about who would take the throne caused anarchy and sparked a failed Decembrist coup. Died 18 Feb 1855.

Alexander II – Ruled: 1855-1881

Born 17 April 1818. Known for emancipation of serfs, causing strife among nobles. Was also King of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland, in addition to czar. Four separate assassination attempts were made on him, finally succeeding on 13 Mar 1881.

Alexander III – Ruled: 1881-1894

Born 10 March 1845. Attempted to unite Russia with one religion and language, banning the use of all language other than Russian, and restricting Judaism and other religions. Same organization that assassinated his father planned to kill him too, but plot was uncovered and conspirators were hanged. However, the Imperial Train was derailed sometime later, and he died from injuries related to the crash on 1 November 1894.

Nicholas II – Ruled: 1894-1917

Born 18 May 1868, was a military hero, but strict czar regarding domestic policies. Abdicated the throne in 1917 during the Bolshevik Revolution, and was held under house arrest until his murder at the hand of the Communists on 17 July 1918.

References

Retrieved 19 February 2012 from http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/hornton/890/LLL.html

Retrieved 24 February 2012 from http://www.nndb.com/people/222/000092943/

Czar Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

The age of the czars was what many consider the golden age of Russia. With great leaders like Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and the Romanov Dynasty, “Mother Russia” grew and expanded by leaps and bounds under these great leaders. But how did this period of prosperity get started? This essay will look at the beginnings of the Romanov Dynasty, with Michael Romanov, and the beginnings of czardom itself with Ivan IV. What are the similarities between these two leaders, and what did they do right? Or perhaps more importantly, what did they do wrong, and did they learn from their mistakes?

Ivan Vasilyevich IV, son of Ivan III or Ivan the Great, was the first Russian ruler to claim the title “czar” – meaning “cesar” – after breaking completely out from the Mongol horde and marrying into the Byzantine Empire. He grew up without really having parents, as his father and mother died when he was 3 and 7, respectively. Because of this, his childhood was a brutal place, and he grew up with a proverbial chip on his shoulder, especially towards the aristocracy of the day, who manipulated the young Ivan and used his power to their own ends. Because of this hatred, he single-handedly brought down the various aristocrats that used him, throwing them to the dogs – literally, in fact. After he solidified his power, he assumed the moniker of Czar, something his father and grandfather coveted, but never claimed. That same year, he married a beautiful Anastasia Zakharina-Koshkina, heiress of the ancient but noble family known as the Romanovs.

Ivan surrounded himself with men solely focused on the future of Russia, and completely loyal to him. These men, true and the best of the Muscovites, played crucial roles throughout Ivan’s reign, and in what many consider the greatest achievement of his reign, the capture of Kazan. Even though the siege of the last Mongol stronghold in Russia was long and costly, but the ironclad will of Ivan the Terrible held his army together for six weeks, and finally broke the back of the Tatars, and the fortress was finally taken with one final assault. Ivan was a great tactician, and when he was urged to pursue the Mongols and crush the Crimean khanate as he had done with Kazan and Astrakhan’s khanates, he chose to wait, realizing the sheer impossibility of this, considering the distance to the khanate, and the forces of the Grand Turk guarding it. (Smith, 2011) Instead, he turned to making Russia the envy of Europe, by promoting the migration of craftsmen, artisans, and other various guildsmen into the blossoming land of the Muscovites.

However, this was also the beginning of his downfall, as he became increasingly paranoid and fearful of even his closest advisors. After the death of his wife and several other close family members died, a hatred grew in Ivan that gave him fits of terrible rage, culminating eventually in the slaying of his daughter-in-law and unborn grandson, and then his own flesh-and-blood son. He exiled his advisors and friends, and let doubt & fear gnaw at him until the day he died.

The next czar this paper will cover is Czar Michael, or Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov, first of the Romanov family. This distant descendent of Ivan the Terrible’s wife, Czar Mikhail was the first to formally use the surname Romanov, and was the first Czar to be chosen by a vote. He was elected unanimously, and after locating the young new Czar and his mother at a monastery – and convincing her that her adolescent son was fit to rule in Moscow – Mikhail set about to restore the Muscovy and rid the capitol of Russia from the thieves and invaders that had take up residence there. But it wasn’t all strong-arming his enemies into submission: using diplomacy, Mikhail managed to have both Sweden and Poland remove their troops by the Peace of Stolbova and the Truce of Deulina. (“Tsar Michael,” 2012) The Truce, signed with Poland, also allowed Mikhail’s father to be returned to Russia from exile, where he assumed the role of Czar for the few years before his death. Noted as gentle (for a Russian), and quite pious ruler, he – like his ancestor Ivan IV – relied heavily on his advisors, whom he hand-selected and were honest and very capable men. Russia had a surprising time of peace under Mikhail, with the only the only true blemish on his reign was his failure to marry his daughter to the prince of Denmark.

These two czars, both of them pioneers of their time, were so very similar, yet extremely different. Both started their rule from a young age, and both had victories that drove foreigners out of the Motherland. However, it is the latter half of their reigns that these two patriarchs differ: Ivan allowed his past to consume him, and drive him to madness, ultimately destroying his family line, whereas Mikhail learned from his childhood in hiding, and became a better and stronger ruler because of it. He may not be as remembered or even celebrated as Ivan the Terrible, but in this writer’s opinion, Czar Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov was the ideal leader of the Muscovy of Russia.

References

Smith, Maria. (2011). Ivan the Terrible. NNDB (Notable Names Database). Retrieved 4 February 2012 from http://www.nndb.com/people/933/000092657/

 (2012). Tsar Michael. NNDB (Notable Names Database). Retrieved 5 February 2012 from http://www.nndb.com/people/594/000107273

 (2001). Ivan IV "The Terrible". Russian Information Network. Retrieved from http://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/3117.html

The Father of Modern Military Aviation

Lieutenant General Billy Mitchell was one of the most visionary, controversial, and perhaps one of the most forward thinking military men of the modern age.  He defied conventional thinking about warfare in his era, standing by his views even though it got him court martialed.  Some consider him to be reckless, but he is the father of modern air power and air tactics.

Born William Lendrum Mitchell, Billy was born 28 Dec 1879 to the family of a wealthy Wisconsin senator. Mitchell attended the Columbian College of George Washington University, but enlisted in the Army upon the outbreak of the Spanish-American War; however, he was quickly given a commission due to his father's influence and was transferred to the Signal Corps. A fantastic junior officer, Mitchell proved himself by taking on challenging tours in Cuba, the Philippines and Alaska, and was then reassigned to the General Staff, becoming its youngest member. It was here that his interest in aviation was begun, leading to him even taking private flying lessons at age 38.

Upon America's entrance to WWI, Mitchell was one of the first soldiers to arrive in France, serving under General J.J. "Black Jack" Pershing.  He met extensively with leaders from both Britain and France regarding their air power.  Quickly picking up on their tactics and organization, Mitchell spearheaded the Signal Corps' preparations to bring over their own air forces.  In spite of America's mediocre entrance into air warfare, Mitchell's reputation was greatly increased as a bold, fearless albeit sometimes reckless leader.  Even though it took months for the first American airplanes to arrive, Mitchell was promoted from lieutenant colonel to brigadier general, and given command of all American Air units stationed in France.  This new position allow him to plan and execute the air phase the Saint Mihiel offensive, where he commanded 1500 Allied aircraft.  He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, and several foreign decorations for his role as a combat airman, but he was rather outspoken regarding the use of air power, which alienated and offended most of his superiors who still believed ground warfare was the only and best way of fighting war.

Upon his return to America in 1919, Mitchell was given the position of deputy chief of the Air Service, allowing him to remain a brigadier general, in spite of him continuing to be unpopular with his superiors and peers in both the War Department and Navy Department.  He accused them, and rightly so, of being incredibly narrow minded and shortsighted regarding the use of air power.  His intellectual duel with the Navy finally are reached its zenith with the tests of 1921 and 1923, where Mitchell and his bombers sunk several battleships, both ones considered obsolete from our fleet, and once considered top of the line from the defeated German fleet.  This convinced Mitchell and many in the Navy Department that surface fleets were outdated and needed both air power and air defense. Mitchell continued to lock horns with those in the War Department, however, with his Army superiors regarding the airpower.  Because of this, he was demoted to his permanent rank of colonel in transferred to Texas.  Even though this was not uncommon at the time, it was still viewed by many of Mitchell supporters as a sort of punishment, even exile.  In spite of this, Mitchell refuse to remain silent, and when a Navy dirigible crashed and killed all 14 members of its crew, Mitchell was furious.  He sent a scalding statement accusing Army and Navy senior leadership of extreme incompetence and "almost treasonable administration of the national defense." This was the final straw for many in the Army.  Mitchell was court martialed and charged with insubordination, and after a trial in which everyone knew the predetermined outcome, he was suspended from active duty for five years without pay.  Instead, Mitchell resigned his commission, and traveled the country for the next decade promoting the use of air power, for both military and civilian uses.

Upon the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a pro-air power Navy man, Mitchell was given hope once again.  He thought perhaps Roosevelt would even appoint Mitchell as Assistant Secretary of War for Air Power or maybe even Secretary of Defense under a new, unified organization and military forces.  Unfortunately, FDR was never given the opportunity to allow Mitchell into the bureaucratic world of politics, since Mitchell died of complications caused from influenza in 1936.  However, his legacy lived on, raising America from 14^th in world air power to the global force it is today, and he has and inspired countless young airmen, including young Army officer Henry "Hap" Arnold, who would go on to become one of World War II's most influential air power advocates, and eventually becoming the Air Force's first ever Chief of Staff and 5-star general.

 Many would consider Mitchell to be reckless, unwise and even foolhardy; but history tends to remember him kindly, as an innovator, forward thinker and inspirational leader. He was a man who wasn't afraid to stick to his guns and stand up for what he believed was right. A patriot and trailblazer, Mitchell willing to sacrifice everything, even his career, to help his country become stronger.

References

Billy Mitchell. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/mitch.html

Billy Mitchell. Notable Names Database. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nndb.com/people/344/000179804/

William "Billy" Mitchell Biography. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.who2.com/bio/william-billy-mitchell

The Double 5-Star

General Henry "Hap" Arnold was one of the most forward-thinking generals of World War II. Hap was trained to fly by the Wright brothers, a West Point graduate, air power advocate, 5-star General of the Army, first ever 5-star General of the Air Force, first man to receive a permanent commission as a 5-star General, and the only man to be promoted to 5-star General twice. He was a fascinating individual, a great leader, and a brilliant general. But what role did he play in WWII? And how does his story intertwine with the U.S. Air Force's?

Born 25 June 1886 in Gladwyne, PA, Henry Arnold knew he wanted to be a military man from the start. Admitted into West Point, he was soon given the nickname "Happy", or just "Hap",  and it stuck with him all the way through his graduation in 1907, into his military career. He had hoped to be a cavalry officer, but because of a rather mediocre performance as a cadet, he was sent to the infantry. He spent a full tour in the Philippines before applying to the cavalry again, but was refused a second time; because of this, he desperately applied to the Signal Corps, just to escape from the infantry. Finally accepted into the Signal Corps, Hap left his station at Governor's Island, N.Y. and was sent to Dayton, OH, to be trained to fly by the Wright brothers. After several crashes, or near-crashes, the young aviator grounded himself, resigning himself to piloting a desk for three years. He eventually overcame his fears, though, and got back into the air, leading a flight training school in California, and then going to Panama to establish a branch of the Air Service there. He commanded that until May 1917, just in time for him to be reassigned to the Air Service staff for World War I.

After the Great War ended, he was taken under the wing of Billy Mitchell, and began to rise in the ranks. He was given numerous awards for aeronautical achievements, and was given various commands throughout the 1920's. His was also a key testimony in the insubordination courts-martial of Billy Mitchell, because Arnold also shared Mitchell's beliefs in the airplane's crucial role in future warfare. They both recognized the strategic importance of air power, and both advocated the formation of an air arm of the military, separate from the Army. Arnold was the only one of the two to see this happen, however; not only that, but he was given command of this new Air Force. Before the birth of the United States Air Force, however, Hap was given command of the Air Service when the current Chief of the Air Service died, just before the outbreak of World War II. The newly-promoted Major General Henry Arnold's title was changed in 1941 to Chief of the Army Air Forces, and while holding this position, he was given his third star after Pearl Harbor.

Because of his new title and rank, he commanded all the air activities of our nation for WWII, both in the European and Pacific theaters. Under his guiding hand, the Army Air Forces grew from a mere 22,000 men with 3,900 aircraft to an astounding force of 2,500,000 men and 75,000 planes. Despite his nickname, Hap was somewhat of a harsh taskmaster and a bit of a micromanager. He hardly utilized his staff, preferring a very hands-on approach, and even though this was frowned upon, it was his strength, drive and vision that made the Air Forces grow so rapidly. He even took a nearly 35,000-mile tour of Africa, India, China and the Middle East in early 1943, with him stopping to attend the Casablanca Conference. In March of that year, he was promoted again, becoming a full-fledged four-star general. He was promoted once more before the close of the war, and was one of only five men to hold that rank, being among the likes of Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and MacArthur. Then, in 1945, he suffered a heart attack, attributed by his doctors as being due to overwork.

Shortly after this, in June of 1946, Hap retired after earning nearly all the awards a nation can give a military leader of his magnitude: three Distinguished Service crosses, the Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal and decorations from Morocco, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Peru, France, Mexico and Great Britain, to name a few. He was also a bit of an author, writing books on flying while he was in the service to inspire boys and young men to get interested in aviation, and then, after his retirement, he authored an autobiography called "Global Mission". This book is unique, in the fact that not only is it an autobiography of Hap Arnold himself, but it's practically an autobiography of the U.S. Air Force, through the story of Hap's own life and experience. Finally, on 7 May 1949, a year and a half after the birth of the Air Force he helped create, Congress officially and permanently appointed Henry "Hap" Arnold to the rank of General of the Air Force, the first and only man to be a five-star General in the Air Force. It's also interesting to note that he is also the only man to ever be given five stars in two different branches of the military.

Hap died the next year, however, at his ranch near Sonoma, CA. But his legacy lived on, not only with the Air Force in general, but in numerous other places as well: his namesakes include the Arnold Engineering Development Center at Tullahoma, TN, the Air Force ROTC's Arnold Air Society (an optional honor society for cadets), Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee, and more recently, the Hap Arnold Heritage service coat, a uniform jacket currently in testing for the Air Force's dress uniform.

Hap was indeed one of the most advanced and forward thinking generals of his day, seeing the potential of air power before it was popular, and he was a pivotal, albeit overlooked, character in World War II. Without him, Allied air power would have been horribly unorganized, and America's air arm of the military would've been years behind even the slowest nation to adopt it. His nurturing of the Army Air Forces allowed it to grow and blossom into the globally dominating force it is today, the sentry and avenger of America, this greatest nation on God's earth.

 

References

DuPre, Flint. (n.d.). The Official Website of the U.S. Air Force. Retrieved 15 April 2012 from http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=4551

Meilinger, Phillip. (n.d.). American Airpower Biography. Retrieved from http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/arnold.html

Hancock the Superb

Winfield Scott Hancock was one of the most overlooked Union generals in the entire Civil War, and history doomed him to share part of his name with one of the most despised generals of the time. Hancock, a Major General with experience from the Mexican-American War, was known as “Hancock the Superb”, and more informally by his troops as “The Thunderbolt of the Potomac”.  (Eicher, 2001)  But why is Hancock so forgotten? And what did he do to earn such fantastic nicknames? This writer will answer these questions and more in this glimpse into the life and military career of Hancock the Superb.

Winfield Scott Hancock was born on Valentine’s Day, 1824, an identical twin, in fact, and was named for General Winfield Scott, hero of the War of 1812. That namesake would come back to haunt him in his military career, which he didn’t even plan on having throughout his childhood. But he was accepted to West Point, and graduated as a second lieutenant in the infantry, just in time for the Mexican-American War. He earned a brevet, and then was transferred to the Army’s Quartermaster Depart, where he served as the Assistant Quartermaster until the outbreak of the Civil War.

Hancock was stationed in California at the start of the Civil War, his biggest struggle was preventing Union munitions stockpiled in Los Angeles from falling into Southern supporters’ hands. He was then reassigned to be quartermaster in Kentucky, but General George McClellan requisitioned him and put a star on his shoulder to command troops in William “Baldy” Smith’s divisions. Hancock’s first real test came in May 1862, at the battle of Williamsburg. He took his brigade and occupied two abandoned outposts, securing the Union’s flank. In spite of the Union losing the battle, Hancock’s reputation grew enormously, and McClellan saw great potential in Hancock. In fact, after the battle, McClellan wrote to his wife, “Hancock was superb today,” in addition to complementing Hancock on his physical appearance – as Hancock was a very attractive man with a commanding demeanor. (Jordan, 1988) After this, “the Superb” became Hancock’s nickname for the rest of the war.

Later, in the September battle at Antietam, Hancock was given command of a second division, taking over for the mortally-wounded General Israel Richardson. The next spring, the newly-promoted Hancock took command of another unit for an outgoing general and began working with General “Fighting Joe” Hooker. Major General Hancock was replaced for the Battle of Gettysburg, but when his new commander learned one of his other generals was killed, Hancock took command of the 1^st, 3^rd and 11^th Corps for the duration of the battle. This was an unheard-of honor, since there was a senior general on the field that day. However, Winfield even managed to find the time to correct tactical mistakes at Peach Orchard, and stave off the Rebels’ “Pickett’s Charge.” He was wounded during the charge, spending about nine months in pain and recovery – and still recruiting for the Union Army – after his doctors finally removed the mini ball. It’s interesting to note that in spite of his crucial role in Gettysburg, when Congress passed a joint resolution thanking the generals that played a key role in the battle, Hancock’s name was omitted. Some speculate this was because he shared his name with a failed general from the outset of the war.

After his recovery and return to his beloved Second Corps, his troops had been reassigned under General Ulysses S. Grant, who changed the Army’s fighting style to something much more akin to Hancock’s own. For example, in spite of the Union’s loss at the Battle of the Wilderness in May 1864, they didn’t retreat; in fact, Hancock led his 2^nd Corps in a counteroffensive against A.P. Hill’s troops, driving the Confederates back in panic and disorder. If it weren’t for General James Longstreet’s forces arriving to reinforce the Rebs, Hancock would’ve forced the collapse of the entire Confederate right flank. (Tucker, 1980) Just days later, the Superb led his men to capture over 2,800 prisoners at Spotsylvania Courthouse. However, at the battle at Petersburg, he deferred command to the current commander on the field, whom he outranked, due to his lack of knowledge about the battle situation and landscape. Unfortunately, the field commander opted not to order a final charge, something Winfield surely would have done, and that final assault would have in all likelihood ended the war 10 months early.

After his Gettysburg wound reopened and left him, for all intensive purposes, immobilized, and his troops faced several humiliating defeats without him, he was recalled to Washington D.C. His last battle was in October 1864, at Burgess Mill, where the Second Corps performed soundly under Hancock, by capturing and subsequently losing the strategic Boydton Plank Road. After the surrender of Lee and the fall of the Confederacy, Hancock was at odds with Grant, as Hancock believed in more lenient treatment of the South. Notwithstanding that, he was assigned as Commander of the Fifth Military District during the Reconstruction; he also received copious criticism in that post as well. He issued “General Orders No. 40”, which said in effect that if there was a state of peace in his district, he wouldn’t interfere with civil matters, nor would he post soldiers at polling places. He even went so far in his fair treatment of the South, that when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, he was vocally opposed to the execution of Mary Surratt, one of the co-conspirators, much to the indignation of Northerners.

When Ulysses Grant became President, Winfield became head of the Department of the Dakotas, until 1872 when George Meade died, and Hancock assumed his role as Commander of the Division of the Atlantic, or Department of the East. Then, in 1880, Hancock was the Democratic presidential candidate, and the war hero was very narrowly defeated by James A. Garfield. Six years later, on February 9^th, Winfield Scott Hancock the Superb died, from complications brought about by his diabetes. He was 62 years old, and was laid to rest in Montgomery Cemetery, Norristown, PA.

References

Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher. (2001). Civil War High Commands. pp. 277–78.

Jordan, David M. (1988). Winfield Scott Hancock:  A Soldier’s Life.  Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Retrieved 2 March from http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/winfield-scott-hancock.html

Sifakis, Stewart. (2003). Who Was Who In The Civil War? Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.civilwarhome.com/hanbio.htm

Tucker, Glenn. (1980). Hancock the Superb.  Morningside Books, Dayton, OH. Retrieved 2 March 2012 from http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/winfield-scott-hancock.html

Greene With Envy

Nathanael Greene is probably one of the most unknown men with one of the most misspelled names of the American Revolution. Nathanael, not “Nathaniel” Greene was one of George Washington’s most trusted generals, he was a tactical thinker years ahead of his time, and he the reason British General Charles Cornwallis met ultimate defeat in the America south. But what made this man rise from being a simple blacksmith to one of – if not the – greatest military tactician of his time? When faced with defeat after defeat, what gave him the resolve to keep facing the strongest military force on the face of the earth? This writer will attempt to answer these questions, and more, in this document, so prepare for a brief glimpse into the life and military career of Nathanael Greene.

Born into a Quaker family, Greene was raised in a very strict family, where his father counted learning to work more valuable than learning to read. But Nathanael was a bit of a rebel from the start, teaching himself to read with the family Bible and any other books he could get his hands on, with the help of future Yale president, Ezra Stiles. (“Major General,” 2011)  As he grew, his father appointed him manager of a recent-purchased mill, since Nathanael knew both the milling and smithing trades. With what was essentially his own business, Greene took an active part in the surrounding community, and began to expand his personal library. Much of this expansion included books on military science & history, which he “studied diligently”. (Heathcote, 1954) When the Quakers found out about this new study, they called him in before a committee to see if he still held their pacifist views. He claimed he was still a Quaker, but he wouldn’t give up studying things that interested him, so it was settled. He became actively involved in the politics of his home state, Rhode Island, and in 1774, helped form a state militia. He was denied a commission in that militia because he had a noticeable limp, and the leaders didn’t want someone appearing weak leading their men. As they would come to find out, there was no one better for the job. His political connections managed to get him in as a private, and even though he was devastated about this, his character was such that he wanted to serve, no matter the capacity.

After the Battle of Lexington, the Rhode Island militia set out for Boston, and when their Loyalist governor recalled them, Greene and a few others continued the march to lend their aid. It was there that the militia’s leadership began to realize Greene’s true potential, and after the Continental Army was formed, the former private was given a field commission as a major general, and was a field commander for the next 3 years. He eventually became George Washington’s most-confided in general, due to the friendship sparked by Greene’s personal welcoming of General Washington to Boston, and that Greene was willing to accept a demotion in order to serve under Washington. Because of this friendship, Washington nominated Greene to become the Quartermaster General for the Continental Army, as he was already relying heavily on Greene’s supply management skills.  Greene did not want the post, but after Washington guaranteed he would remain a major general, he accepted the post.

Greene attacked the problems associated with the position with his characteristic zeal, completely restructuring the supply chain of the Continental Army, and effectively allowing the Americans to drive out and pursue the British from Philadelphia. He also combined the duties of Quartermaster with that of a field commander, an unprecedented move. However, after a series of rather insidious moves by Congress, Greene resigned from the thankless post and returned to field duties, being named as Washington’s successor as commander-in-chief.

After being given the position of second in command, Greene took control of the army in the south, which was poorly equipped and highly outnumbered by British General Cornwallis’ army. Greene decided to split his smaller army in half, forcing Cornwallis to do the same, and giving Greene more strategic options. After the commanders in charge of his half-armies killed or captured over nine-tenths of the British forces sent, Greene summoned all of his underling-commanders for a war council. They unanimously decided to conduct a ‘strategic retreat’, racing to the Dan River. After notifying Washington of his plans, and securing reinforcements, Greene sent out small, swift units to harass the main British army pursuing them. Because of this unheard-of tactic, Greene bought his men enough time to sneak across the Dan River & rendezvous with the reinforcements. After a week’s encampment across the river in Halifax Courthouse, Greene took up an ambitious campaign, driving the British all the way back to the coast, where he kept them cornered in Charleston until the end of the war.

Greene was remarkably modern in the tactics he used, like tiring his opponent with strategic marches, forcing the British to pay dearly for short-term advantages and using guerilla and scout warfare were considered at the time to be ‘ungentlemanly’, but were effective and the basis for today’s infantry tactics.

Nathanael Greene, forward thinker, friend to George Washington, catalyst in the victory of the American Revolution. This man’s determination, and willingness to go against the grain in life, helped shape our nation. As he once wrote “We fight, get beaten, and fight again.” He is the epitome of an American, one that is an inspiration to us all.

References

Hayball, David M. (2006). George Washington’s Generals: Major General Nathanael Green. The Liberty Tree Newsletter. Retrieved January 29 2012, from http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/greenehay.html

Heathcote, Charles William (1954). The Pickett Post. Retrieved January 29 2012, from http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/greene.html

Major General Nathanael Greene - Quartermaster General 1778-1780. (2011). Retrieved January 29, 2012 from http://www.qmfound.com/MG_Nathanael_Greene.htm

Time for a Warm Hat, It’s Going to be a Cold War

Not many people realize how long the Cold War with the former Soviet Union really was.  Many people think of Korea as the beginning of the Cold War, but it actually began almost immediately after World War II. While we were allies with Russia during WWII, it was only due to having a common enemy in the Nazis. However, after the Fall of Berlin, and the surrender of the Japanese Empire, the Soviets and Americans locked horns once again in what has become to be known as the Berlin Airlift.

The Berlin Airlift began when Josef Stalin ordered a complete road, railway and water blockade of the divided city of Berlin. The Soviets were determined to starve the city into submission, but they underestimated American ingenuity and the fledgling U.S. Air Force. At first, after diplomacy with the Soviets failed, there were many meetings of the top military brass, invasion plans were made, and World War III was nearly ignited. General Lucius Clay hade even set up an armored convoy designed to smash through the Red Army’s line, which would have certainly sparked war. But the last minute brilliance of British Commander Sir Brian Robertson saved countless lives: if the Soviets had blocked road, rail and water routes, why not supply the city via the air? This was mad possible by the foresight of someone during the drafting of the agreement the Allies of WWII had signed in 1945: there were three unguardable air corridors, 20 miles wide, to provide access to the city; the Red Army couldn’t attack any planes in the corridors.

The Communists seemed to have forgotten about this, however, and celebrated rather prematurely. (“Berlin Airlift”, 1994)  The aforementioned Gen. Clay looked to General Curtis LeMay to spearhead the operation, dubbed “Operation Vittles,” because Task Force Commander Brigadier General Joseph Smith – LeMay’s second in command – said they were just “haulin’ grub.” (Miller, 1998) However, the British, always the more refined of our kin, called it “Operation Plane Fare”. The determined daily food rations were enormous, totaling over 1,500 tons of food alone, not including coal or other fuels. This was beyond impossible, considering the most copious plane at the USAF’s disposal was the C-47, a cargo plane capable of carrying a mere 3.5 tons. At that payload, the Air Force would have to make over 1,000 flights a day. After doing the math, Gen. Clay knew that the USAF and the Royal Air Force wouldn’t even come close, so both Gen. Clay and Gen. LeMay sent requests for the new C-54 Skymaster , which carried more than three times the load of the C-47.

LeMay then appointed Lieutenant General William Tunner as the director of the Airlift after about a month of operations. After a fateful day of rain and fog over the airport in Tempelhof, Tunner reformed the process of approach to the two operational airports, allowing a continuous loop of laden aircraft and virtually eliminating all accidents. Some of the other changes implemented by Tunner, a career aviator, was to standardize all parts and procedures among the flyers. In addition to switching to the C-54, which could be unloaded easier and faster than a C-47, Tunner ordered crews to remain with their craft. Gen. Tunner was disgusted when he saw how many loaded and fueled aircraft were sitting idle on the tarmac, just waiting for their crews to return from the terminal. To help with this change, Tunner also ordered trucks outfitted as mobile snack bars, staffed by the prettiest Berlin girls, of course, to provide pilots with up-to-date weather information, coffee and other snacks. This alone cut the land-to-depart times to a mere 25 minutes!

Once the planes began this near-constant cycle, a problem that quickly became apparent was a lack of manpower to unload the planes in West Berlin. However, instead of shipping more troops into the city to help, the Berliners themselves stepped forward. They were all eager to help, because the supplies were for them and their families, and Gen. Tunner gave the order that those who helped would receive an extra ration. Since the rations were quite small, this was a big deal. Soon, other ‘bonuses’ were given for a good and speedy unloading, like another extra ration or coveted pack of cigarettes; in fact, the record set by the Berliners for offloading 10 tons of coal was set at just 10 minutes! Many former Luftwaffe servicemen stepped forward as well, to inspect and repair the planes on the Berlin side to keep the fleet operational. Within a matter of weeks, every aircraft that wasn’t being fixed or loaded/unloaded was in the air corridors, which was something not even Commander Robertson could have envisioned. The British even began using their Sunderland “Flying Boats” in addition to their modified Lancasters, so they could land on Lake Havel in the middle of Berlin to provide a third base of operation.

Flying the corridors was no cakewalk either. The unpredictable weather of Germany forced many pilots to “fly by wire”, or merely using instruments, more often then not. The two airports available were equally as hazardous, with one requiring pilots to thread a needle between high rise, and the other required pilots to drop sharply behind a building in order to have enough runway to brake. As if this wasn’t difficult enough, Soviet harassment was prevalent, with Red pilots buzzing and shooting near – but not at – the cargo planes, and Soviet ground forces releasing balloons and even flak in the corridors. When the pilots were on approach to land, Russians in East Berlin would interfere with the radio traffic and point searchlights in the pilot’s eyes, but there were no outrights acts of war, since the Soviets wanted to avoid that at all costs because of Gen. LeMay’s decision to station B-29’s at various RAF bases. They weren’t equipped to carry the atomic bomb, but the Soviets didn’t know that, and weren’t too keen on finding out.

In spite of the difficult weather and Soviet nuisance, tonnage records were being routinely set and broken, and soon the daily ration levels were exceeded to the point of what some would consider prosperity. With the increase of supplies, it was decided that a third airport should be constructed. But there was no heavy machinery in West Berlin, and no aircraft big enough to carry them at the time. Enter American ingenuity once again, where the required vehicles were cut apart, flown to Berlin on a C-82, and welded back together. This also allowed the Americans and British to construct a new power plant for the West Berliners as well. Thus began the creation of Tegel Airfield in the French sector of the city, which allowed for safer flying with a larger runway. American, German and French volunteers started construction on 5 August 1948, with the very first C-54 landing just 3 months later. This airfield actually grew into what is now modern-day Berlin’s main airport. There was only one obstacle to this runway: a Soviet-controlled radio tower. After pleas to get rid of it encountered a deaf Russian ear, a French general – ironically – Jean Ganeval said if they wouldn’t take it down, he’d just blow it up. There were no reports of a stereotypical maniacal French laugh after he said that. So, on 16 December 1948, there was a French dynamite vs. Soviet radio tower match; needless to say, the dynamite won.

Finally, in April 1949, after months of smooth airlift operations, Gen. Tunner wanted to do something big, to break up the monotony and boost morale of the troops and Berliners. He and his staff began planning the “Easter Parade”: an attempt to shatter all records in moving coal. The precious fuel was secretly stockpiled for the operation, and from 15 April to 16 April, more than 12,900 tons – yes, tons – of coal were brought into West Berlin. And because of this massive push air and ground crews discovered ways to be more efficient, improving the overall regular tonnage shipped from 6,729 to 8,893 tons per day! (Tunner, 1964) This was the last straw for the Soviets.

The Soviet blockade officially ended 12 May 1949, but it was decided that West Berlin should still be partially supplied by air to continue a buildup of supplies while the ground and water routes were reestablished. For being such an impossibility, the US delivered over 1,783,572 tons, with the British flying over 541,936 tons, brining the total to 2.3 million tons flown into the city. The US Air Force’s C-47’s and C-54’s alone traveled over 92 million miles over the 15 months of sorties. There were plans to expand the airlift even, since the blockade ended somewhat unexpectedly, and laid the foundation for the modern-day Air Mobility Command with its heavy freighters.

Overall, the Berlin Airlift was a huge success, not only for the tonnage flown into the besieged city, nor because it was the precursor to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, but because it won the hearts and minds of the German people and broke the will of the Soviets. This was just the first of many non-violent confrontations between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for decades to come.

References

(1994) Berlin airlift. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07 Dec 2011 from http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0807200.html

Giangreco, Dennis M. and Griffin Robert E. (1988) Airbridge to Berlin. The Truman Library: The Berlin Airlift Online Research File. Retrieved 06 December 2011 from http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/berlin_airlift/large/

Miller, Roger G. (1998) To Save A City. United States Air Force History and museums Program. Retrieved 07 Dec 2011 from http://www.spiritoffreedom.org/airlift.html

Tunner, William H. (1964) Over The Hump. Retrieved 06 December 2011 from http://www.spiritoffreedom.org/airlift.html

World War II’s Impact on Uncle Sam

Hearing stories of World War II always have fascinated this writer. Hearing them from members of “the Greatest Generation” who were actually there were downright remarkable. But almost all of the stories regaled to us as an American people look at the War in Europe, or in the South Pacific: we hardly ever hear about the war at home. What did WWII mean to people in America, to our armed forces, and to women and minority groups? What was its effect on our society as a whole? It is this writer’s intention to show some of the war’s impacts, and if it helped our country turn out for the better.

WWII, the largest, bloodiest conflict of the bloodiest century the earth has ever seen, had a much deeper affect on our nation that most people realize, but how did we get drawn into it? Our allies had been battling the Third Reich in Europe since 1939, and while Americans had been supplying the British war effort, we wanted to stay on our side of the “pond”: part of the isolationist theory popular at the time. But then, in December of 1941, the Japanese Empire attacked both American and British holdings all across the Pacific Ocean, most notably the cowardly sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese specifically targeted Pear Harbor because the majority of the U.S. Pacific Fleet was housed there, and it was also home of the Pacific Fleet’s headquarters. By both diplomatic and military deception, the Japanese managed to get a massive air fleet of over 350 planes and their carriers maneuvered into position undetected, and in the early hours of 7 December 1941, they attacked the U.S. in a premeditated act of war. Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the attack, had intended to launch the attack after a formal declaration of war, but his superiors ordered it before any such declaration was given. It was a major tactical victory, but because of these attacks, the USA jumped wholeheartedly into the war. Our troops were mobilized; our armed forces were built up to record numbers and shipped off to both theatres of the war, leaving many industrialized jobs open. Adm. Yamamoto then declared to his aides and officers, “I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant.” Enter “Rosie the Riveter”, as many of America’s women stepped up and began filling those industrial positions of the ‘sleeping giant’. Women were not only allowed, but expected to go to work to help the war effort. This broke years of tradition, in which women needed to stay home and have a man provide while she looked after the house and children; but now, Jane Doe could provide for herself. Little did anyone know that this would become a foundational shift of American culture, and pave the way for everything from female executives and heads of state to feminism. (Shultz, 2004) Women aviators also formed the WASPs, or Women Airforce Service Pilots, which shuttled newly-built aircraft across the United States to various Army Air Force (AAF) bases where they were needed.

Women weren’t the only ones to help with the war effort: many minority groups stepped up to the proverbial plate as well. One of the most notable is the famed Tuskegee Airmen, or the “Red Tails”. These Afro-American aviators volunteered for service in the AAF, and were given their own fighter squadron. They were primarily bomber escorts, and were known not only as the first all-black combat aviation squadron, but also for the distinctive red paint on the tails of their P-51 Mustangs. (Factsheets, 2011) At the outset of the war, blacks were only allowed to be cooks or other labor-intensive, non-combat positions, but the Red Tails were not only in a combat position, but a very important one. After many successes in bomber escorting, and a number of pilots becoming aces, the Tuskegee Airmen began being utilized for other missions like close-air support and search-and-destroy missions, where they were also quite successful.

By the end of the war, the Army Air Forces and other military branches, who were initially forced to accept both blacks and women, ended up bringing them into the fold as brothers in arms. When someone fights, bleeds and dies along with you, there is a sense of camaraderie that is forged stronger than steel, and this sense of camaraderie was carried through the armed forces for years before the civilian sector. As these veterans began to be released from the military, however, they began to realize society hadn’t shifted as much as the military. Women, who were experienced aviators, were expected to return to their homes and become housewives again; blacks who were pilots, soldiers and sailors were told to go back to being second-class citizens alongside the same men they fought with against the evils of the Third Reich and Japanese Empire. Our society had begun to change, but it was still a slow process, and it continues to shift today.

So, what did WWII mean to people in America, to our armed forces, and to women and minority groups? And what was its effect on our society as a whole? This writer would propose that World War II set in motion a foundational shift in our thinking about women and minorities, and we probably will never fully finish shifting. Change is the only constant, and WWII was a massive catalyst for changes in our society.

References

Schultz, Stanley K. & Tishler, William P. (2004). American Civil War to the Present. World War II: The Impact at Home. Retrieved November 21, 2011 from http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture21.html

West, Norman. (2008). Effects of World War II. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/effectww2.html

Factsheets: Tuskegee Airmen. (2011) Retrieved November 21, 2011 from http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1356

Depression and Deals: A Look at the Economics & Politics of the 1930s

When most people think of the Great Depression, black and white images of a dust-covered landscape and scrap shacks swirl in their minds; words like “dust bowl” and “stock market crash” are conjured on our lips. But is that really all the Great Depression was? When you ask someone about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, most people think of the hero who overcame polio to lead a nation against the fascist Reich, not a young Assistant Secretary of the Navy-turned-President of the United States that struggled to pull his country out of the Depression with questionable means. History is written by the victors, but this author will attempt to read between the lines of our history to discover the consequences of the Great Depression, and of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal”.

First, the Great Depression. Most people say the Great Depression began in October 1929, with the stock market collapse, but most economists point out the economy had entered a technical depression as much as six months earlier. (Nelson, 2008) This started a domino effect across the globe, since the U.S. was a major financier and creditor for Europe’s war debts following WWI. Because of this, many nations sought to protect their domestic production by imposing new and raising existing tariffs and setting caps on foreign imports, among other things. All this succeeded in doing was to reducing global trade and its value to almost half of what it was in the 1920s. This angered many nations abroad, especially Great Britain and Germany, two nations who had unemployment as high as 25%. This anti-American sentiment allowed a charismatic young war hero named Adolf Hitler – an Austrian, no less – to become appointed as Chancellor of Germany. Another consequence of the Depression was the shift in public opinion regarding economic prosperity. Americans in the 20s believed, as had their predecessors, that success came not from government intervention, but through the ingenuity of the private businessman. This was thrown out the window as the Depression lingered: Americans began to look to the Federal Reserve Board and the government to fix the problem. With some states like Wyoming, the Dakotas and Arizona receiving as much as $700 per person in so-called ‘federal aid’, and government programs springing up like the Tennessee Valley Authority, people thought we could spend our way out of the Depression. This ideological lunacy was encouraged by our newly-elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or FDR.

Herbert Hoover, president at the beginning of the Depression, said if the government left the economy alone, it would right itself. But the people of the U.S. were getting impatient, so when a new face came on the scene, claiming that the government was here to solve our problems and Hoover was simply cold and uncaring, people flocked to him in droves. This new face was FDR. Remaining very vague on his campaign, Roosevelt never put a real plan forward, but simply agreed to any plan Congress or his advisors came up with. (Wilkinson, 2008) FDR had little-to-no experience in the economic or business realms, but didn’t seem to have an interest in attempting to amend that. He was more or less a slightly veiled socialist, surrounding himself with Harvard Law School associates, a Columbia professor and Supreme Court justice, and – his most influential economic advisor – was Harold Laski, a London School of Economics professor, and noted Labour Party Marxist. (Engdahl, 2005) FDR’s “New Deal” was actually taken from Stuart Chase’s bestseller by the same name, in which Chase laid out his theory that the capitalist system that pulled Europe out of Feudalism was dead and gone, and we needed to give into the Bolshevik-style “central planning”. This book was highly esteemed by FDR and his advisors, and played a large role in devising his administration’s economic policies. This was quite alarming to America’s businessmen, and when a gutless Congress did nothing but rubber-stamp FDR’s bills through, acts like the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), and the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) destroyed what little progress the American free market had created.

Chase’s New Deal philosophy also led to the formation of Roosevelt’s lasting political legacy: Social Security, and eventually Medicare and Medicaid. We are still dealing with these failed programs to this day, since no one safeguarded the funds that were supposed to pay for them, making them in effect what Texas governor Rick Perry called them: a ponzi scheme.

In short, the Great Depression was the result of a plethora of mistakes, oversights and miscalculations, and FDR’s New Deal nearly destroyed our already-damaged economy. In the words of economist F. William Engdahl, “[h]ad Roosevelt not ended his Presidency as a victorious war President, he would instead be remembered as the President whose policies all but ruined the inherent economic vitality of the American economy for decades after.” (2005)

References

Engdahl, F. William. (2005). Some unconventional reflections on the Great Depression and New Deal. Geopolitics - Geoeconomics. Retrieved November 6, 2011 from http://oilgeopolitics.net/History/New_Deal/new_deal.html

Nelson, Cary. (2008). The Great Depression. Modern American Poetry. Retrieved November 6, 2011 from http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/about.htm

Wilkinson, Kyle. (2008). The Great Depression and New Deal: 1929-1940s. Retrieved November 6, 2011 from http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html