Introduction to American History III The Age of Industrialization, 1865-1898

The development of a variety of elements in the first half of the nineteenth century, all necessary to the creation of an industrialized nation, culminated in the Civil War, 1861-1865. With the guaranteed unification of the United States in 1865, the American people turned toward turned toward a new era of economic opportunity. Manufacturing, commerce, and the rise of business—particularly the small rather than the large—provided the mobility to lift the individual economically, socially, and politically. The latter half of the nineteenth century saw perhaps the greatest amount of energy and opportunity offered the individual in this country’s history.

 

Big business, without interference from governmental regulation, grew rapidly into monopolies that threatened the small businessman, labor, and the American consumer. Solutions to the newly posed problems took time to develop; poliical and social philosophies were slow to change. These factors allowed monopolies to continue through the latter half of the century.

 

During the forty years after the Civil War the western half of the United States was settled by black and by white. Small towns, cattle ranching, service work; all was taken advantage of by those who saw little economic opportunity at home.

 

During the forty years after the western half of the US was settled, but only after the removal of the Indian had been accomplished. The methods used: destruction of the buffalo, the center of his diet and way of life; and decimation and control by the army. The nation’s conscious was disturbed. A primary question was asked, “How could relations between the indigenous peoples and American public be improved?” Separatism seemed only to breed low self-esteem and poverty. President Chester Arthur proposed a legislative solution in his address on the “Indian Problem.” The legislative response, known as the Dawes Severalty Act, 1887, was a sincere, though failed, effort to solve the social problem through governmental regulation.

 

In 1887 Indian tribes were officially dissolved. The land, held by the tribe, was divided into sections large enough to hold farms. It was felt if there was a common economic tie between the races, all would be well. The remainder of the land would be leased for mineral rights, or water rights, or logging. That money would go into a special bank created by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA was set up to collect the reserves given for the specific use of land. Each Indian family would have it’s own funds to be available upon request.

 

There were two problems with this plan. 1.) The Indians did not want to farm. They were hunters-gatherers. 2.) When families did request their money, they were told it was not available at that time. The former tribes began to formally complain to Congress by 1920. Law suits were accepted by federal courts in the early 1990’s. The US Supreme Court found in favor of the tribes in the 2010. The Indians, who had never received a penny from the BIA, had to sit in court and listen to the Secretary of Agriculture explain there were no accounts. Shreds of numbers or parts of names were available, but not enough information was available to determine whose account was whose. To make matters worse, there was no money.   It had been stolen over the years by anyone who wanted some in Washington, DC. The tribes, who thought there was supposed to be over one billion dollars in the accounts, were granted seven million to share.

 

With removal of the Indian, new technology, and efficient, inexpensive transportation was established in the Great American Desert. Farther west gold, silver, copper, and lead, among other metals, contributed valuable metals necessary to industrialization and to the economy. William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold speech” highlighted the primary argument of the time that arose over hard-money (gold and silver) versus soft money (paper).

 

It was the refusal of government at the state and local levels to respond to the needs of these new agricultural and western elements which led to the first and most basic of the citizen reform movements. The goal was to put the power of government in the hands of the citizenry, not a few unconcerned politian’s there to pick-up crooked money. This was known as the Progressive Movement.

 

By the end of the nineteenth century the American middle class, created through commerce and industrialization, was firmly established. That middle class, with its emphasis on diligence in work and in savings, daily lived on a strong moral basis and education as the key to economic success. This has been the cornerstone of the United States and its people through the twentieth century.

 

 

 

Copy write by Janet Newlan Bower 2016

U.S. Industrialization to 1915

us-into-iii

AMERICA: POST WWII TO PRESENT

The United States of America, post-WWII, was a unique intertwining of foreign policy and domestic economy. The primary problem posed in the international

arena was the rise of the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), formally Russia. This military concern helped develop a strong domestic economy.

Because Russia was attacked in 1941, Great Britain and the US decided to join forces with Joseph Stalin and the USSR. In the European theater it was hoped that with Russia on the East and the U.S. and Britain on the West, Hitler’s German forces would be squeezed into submission.

There was some suspicion that Stalin would take advantage of the western allies, but Hitler had promised to destroy democracy in Britain and German forces had to be destroyed.

The inherent problem in a Russian-Western alliance was the future of Europe after the war. Russia had been on a land-grab to create a “greater Russia” since the 1600’s. The US purchased Alaska in 1867 to stop Russia from moving into North America.   Communists took over the Russian government in 1917. Communism was committed to spreading, and controlling, as much land as possible. It was obvious that the two efforts, combined by Russian leaders, was a threat to Europe and poorer, more oppressed, parts of the world.

Tensions could be seen developing during the war, especially when Harry Truman took the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in April of 1945. This small business supporter had little of the faith and confidence in Stalin that was held by his predecessor.

WWII ended in Europe in May of 1945. Stalin promised FDR and Winston Churchill he would enter the war and attack Japan from the East within 90 days. The war ended, August 14 but surrender not signed until September 2, prior to that commitment. Stalin wanted to help “reconstruct” Japan as a democracy. The US and Britain argued since Russia had not entered the war, it could not enter Japan to expand communism.

While tensions continued to grow between Truman and Stalin, they did not erupt into the Cold War until 1949. The primary allies, the US, Great Britain, the USSR, and France, divided Germany into four parts, each taking control of their section with the capitol of Berlin, about 50 miles inside of the German sector, divided in the same manner.

In 1947, Stalin made growing tensions more dangerous by suddenly announcing that all roads and railroads into Berlin would be closed. Winter was coming and there would be no way for the other three allies to feed, clothe, and warm their representatives in that city.

A study of the agreements signed noted the air routes were not discussed, and, therefore, open. The Berlin Air Lift lasted almost a year. All three western allies participated in bringing more than enough supplies into West Berlin. In 1948, Stalin announced the roads and rails were now open. But by that time anger and frustration prevented renewed friendship with the USSR.

Western troops were brought to Berlin, well armed and well trained. Their guns were pointed outward, toward Russian-controlled Germany. Russian guns were pointed inward, toward the western allies. It was this narrow line between the troops in Germany that started the Cold War.

Each side tried to gain independent, or “third world” support at the expense of the other, but there was no “war” between them. That was particularly important because the US and Britain had developed the atomic bomb by 1945 and Russia by 1949. Neither sided wanted to see devastation of the other. This was a war of words between capitalism and communism not bombs.

The US and the West decided to use a policy of containment, formulated by advisors to the president, the goal of which was to contain communism where it was, but not allow it to spread. Franklin Roosevelt had already allowed the Soviets to move troops into central Europe. Stalin had promised free elections. When Truman asked when they would take place, Stalin replied they would not, if they were free elections, the USSR would lose.

In 1949 China went communist. Much to America’s surprise and chagrin, one quarter of the world’s population was added to the communist numbers. It was even more important that the containment policy be maintained.

There were two small wars fought in the Cold War. The Korean and Vietnamese Wars were fought be communist factions in each country that wanted to take control. Power is an aphrodisiac to many, it certainly was in these situations.

With the Korean War, the Truman Doctrine described American policy throughout the Cold War. “The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war.” As a consequence of this action, the US military will respond.

The Korean War began in 1950 with a surprise attack by the North Koreans (Korea was divided by allied powers) and Chinese regular military.   Negotiations drug on for over a year. Discussions of peace ended when Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and flew to Korea to conclude this war. Ike told the North, either you sign these terms or I go home and start sending atomic bombs over here. The North had a choice. They could believe the general who planned the attack to destroy German forces–or not. They wisely chose to stop fighting. It was only learned several years ago that the North did not sign the agreement nor have they attacked South Korea since.

The Vietnamese War was fought against unification efforts of Ho Chi Mihn and pro-communist forces from the North trying to unify Vietnam, and as a consequence, takeover the grain-rich and prosperous South. A debate rages among historians today, was he a nationalist or a communist. He was undoubtedly both. He argued for a united country, even though communists argue there are no national boundaries and all workers will share equally. Interestingly, the elites, whereever they control, have seen to it that the average citizen receives minimal while the goodies go to the top. Once Vietnam was united, the Northern leaders killed more than 2 million South Vietnamese. This was a typical behavior of the communists as well as totalitarian regimes.

The French had colonized Vietnam, but it fell to the Japanese in 1941. Ho Chi Minh had worked with the U.S. trying to force the Japanese to leave. After the WWII France announced it was taking over again. Ho Chi Minh went to Washington to ask Truman for assistance in maintaining independence for Vietnam, but was told France was too important an ally to offend. He then went to Moscow and secured communist assistance. The end of the Vietnamese war concluded in 1973 with the US troops’ departure. Congress was to fund the work of the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam [ARVN] for defense of the South but stopped as soon as Nixon resigned. The money was then reallocated to welfare domestically.

During this quarter of a century several important international associations developed. In 1945, immediately after Japan’s defeat, the United Nations [UN] was established. It was to include all the nations of the world. Divided into several organs, the Secretariat included the administrative heads and the general organization of the association, headed by the Secretary-General. The General Assembly conducts the ordinary business. It considers all members to be of equal influence and power.

The Security Council (a discussion of which is found further along in this blog) is made up of a limited number of members. Beginning with 11, there are now 15. The two important powers held by this council are economic punishment and military action. Five members—the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China—hold the absolute veto. Any time one of these powers exercises the absolute veto, all discussion on it stops. There is a tension between these five members that have continued to this day.

In addition to the UN, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed by the US, Canada, Britain, and western Europe in 1949 in response to the heavily armed and trained Soviet troops in Germany. This military alliance guaranteed if one member is attacked, all would fight against the aggressor. It has proved so effective that it continues despite Communist Russia’s end to the Cold War in 1992 when the country militarily and economically fell apart.

There was economic concern about western Europe immediately after WW II. The shortage of food and jobs brought votes for communism, especially in France and Italy. That was not why the US fought the war. Ultimately an economic plan was proposed to all who fought in the war, including the USSR. They would get together and decide what they wanted to do to restore their economies, how much it would cost, and how it would be repaid. The US did want to approve the plans before money, $12 billion, was provided. (Sadly, today the US could not offer such a loan, we do not have enough money in our treasury. Inflation is not our friend.)

Stalin forbad the USSR and the “Soviet Satellites” in central Europe from participating. Western Europe took rapid advantage of the offer. Western Europe bounced back to normal economies quickly. They had repaid their loans by 1956.

John F. Kennedy (JFK), strongly anti-communist, followed Ike in the presidency. Again, tensions between the US and the USSR tightened. Three events occurred shortly after Kennedy took office. First, Bay of Pigs fiasco occurred in 1961. In December 1960, after JFK won the presidency, Ike called him into the oval office. He explained the US had planned to assist Cuban expatriates in an overthrow of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The US had trained them and would provide air cover for the invaders. If JFK did not want to participate, Ike would cancel the whole effort.   JFK came back the next week, after checking with his military advisers, and agreed he would continue the plans.

The details of the day of attack at the Bay of Pigs are still classified. Apparently someone, name unknown, changed the orders and cancelled the US air cover the US air cover without telling the expatriates.  The attackers were arrested as they came on shore. The US paid millions to have them released and brought back to the US.

In June, approximately six weeks after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, JFK agreed to meet with Nikita Khrushev, leader of the Soviet government, in Europe. His aids warned Kennedy that he needed more experience before taking on Khrushev, a known tough negotiator. JFK insisted he would be just fine. We do not know what was said in the meeting, there were just the two leaders and their immediate aides; the transcript is still classified. Apparently, according to one American aide, the president flinched at something said. Khrushev left the meeting in the superior position. Six weeks latter, the Russians began to build a wall around the Western-controlled portion of Berlin. The residents were sealed off from the West. The wall did not come down until a general revolt of Soviet control in 1989.

In an effort to retain some dignity, Kennedy decided, since no one planned on a large war again, the US needed specialized warriors to put down small wars. The Green Berets were formed. To test the effectiveness of the fighting methods, they were sent to a small “brush war,” to become known as the Vietnamese War.

Domestically, the US and it’s middle class were very successful. And why not? Until 1950 the US produced 75% of all goods made in the world. That percentage went down slowly but the US was not challenged until the late 1960’s.

Eisenhower kept the economy going strong by introducing the instate-highway program. This interstate roadway connected all the states with a modern means of transportation. Not only did it encourage travel but was an enormous boost for trucking products from region to region.

Labor disputes and anti- and pro-communist arguments took up the first ten years post-war, then the civil rights movement began to develop. It actually began in 1943 with the first lunch counter sit-ins started by black sailors. FDR rapidly called the Secretary of the Navy and said get them out of here. “I’m not going to have a civil rights movement while I’m fighting a world war.”

Efforts were dampened after that for several years, but picked up again with the civil rights marches, sit-ins, and strikes in Southern states in the 1950’s, led by the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. the Board of education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954, ordered an end to segregated schools. The movement for racial equality had begun. Martin Luther King was murdered in 1968 and with him the emphasis on peaceful action. Now a much more violent group, the Black Panthers, took over the fight for racial equality.

Upon JFK’s assignation in November 1963, Lyndon Johnson took the presidency. He ran a two-prong program during his ten years in office. First, he was going to eliminate poverty and guarantee civil rights for all. This War on Poverty, or Great Society, saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, guaranteeing the right to vote, the Economic Opportunity Act, 1964, guaranteeing equal employment, and Medicare/Medicaid, 1965, providing medical care for the poor and the elderly.

His second concern was US military action in Vietnam. When Ike left office, the US had 750 armed troops in South Vietnam to train the army. When JFK died, there were 16,000 US troops in that area. At the height of the War, 1968, Johnson had over 500,000 US troops. He said he would win at any cost, as has been stated by historians, he never thought to ask what that cost would be.

The war turned from one not known by the average American, to one supported by that American, and finally, despised by that American. The election of 1968 was one of ending that war. Over 28,000 Americans were killed, as many injured, not to mention the South Vietnamese. Richard Nixon won the presidency with the promise he would end the war.

Johnson’s national economy looked strong as he began his presidency, but costly governmental programs and a continuing war soon tore the economy to pieces. In addition to that by the late ‘60s the US was in a social revolution. The college-aged children led the revolt, but were soon run over in the challenge by their parents.   The war, the economy, the social changes all happened at the same time. No one was prepared for them. The 1970’s saw the culmination of these changes.

Richard Nixon was a strong anti-communist, as were his predecessors; but as a Quaker, he too believed in social justice. He continued the country’s leftward tilt with the first quota plan enforced by the federal government. To work on federally-funded projects, a union had to have a specific number of minorities in the workforce. The union also had to have a percentage of apprentices who could work up to full membership.

His real success was in the environmental field. The Environmental Protection Act of 1969 set up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act of 1970 provided standards for clean air around the country. It was controlled by the EPA. The Clean Water Act, 1971, provided for clean water throughout the nation, to be controlled by the EPA.

It was Nixon who first visited China as president. It was he who signed the Vietnamese Peace Treaty in 1973 promising to remove US troops but to continue to provide supplies to the South Vietnam army. As soon as Nixon resigned over lying about knowledge of an illegal act, Congress stopped payments to South Vietnam and funded US social projects.

The Cold War ended somewhere between 1989 and 1992, depending on what is being measured. It was certainly over by 1992 because the USSR military left Germany. There was no longer threat of a major war.

As communism died away a new foe, Radical Islamism, entered the scene. We are currently in the mists of terrorism, but not sure of where it comes. An estimated 10% of Muslims are radical, but 90% are friendly. This leaves the Christian West unsure of what to expect next. Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations,” certainly seems to have predicted these tensions.

Once the inflation of the 1970’s, caused by the Vietnamese War, was deflated, the US economy went along well until 2007. The public had learned it could acquire a house for almost no money. When the mortgages had to be repaid, large numbers of people were defaulted upon. Investment firms were bankrupt, large banks were in trouble, and the public were without savings. Large numbers of people lost their jobs, with no hope for employment soon. We are still recovering from this “Great Recession.”

Modern America faces an uncertain future. This uncertainty is without doubt what the US has experienced consistently since its inception.

 

Copyright 2016   by Janet Newlan Bower

 

 

Camp David Accords, 1978

The Camp David Accord, 1978

by Janet Newlan Bower

When Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, invited Anwar Sadat, President

of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, to Camp David to discuss peace in the Middle East, he became involved in a unique effort to help the area move into a significant position in world affairs.

The fighting and destruction of the Middle East seen today is not new. Back through the mists of history, this land and its people are descendents of ancient Mesopotamia 3000 years ago. For centuries, warfare and religion have guided tribal lands. The difference today is a collection of new nations, since 1948, most Arab, with one Jewish state.

Muhammad introduced his new religion, Islam (submit to God), in 600 A.D. in the mists of this turmoil. He had, through years of interpretation of messages from the Angel Gabriel, understood a new way of personal and social order with God. Insights into the Quran led to a change in the Middle East.

Since the early days, tribes fought for more good growing land. Muhammad said to the fighting tribes, if you accept Islam, you will always succeed. They did join Islam and they did win. As warfare raged across the Middle East, Islam expanded simultaneously. The Middle East became Muslim. Islam encouraged forced conversion with the exception of Christians and Jews. Muhammad instructed followers that these religions, too, were “people of the book,” the Bible, and should not be forced to convert.

In the 13^th and 14^th centuries the Islamic civilization was among the most influential

In the world. The finest of scientific thinking, navigational development, and medical advancement came from the Middle East, as did art, architecture, and literature. The Muslim world had control of the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. and the Silk Road to China. By land and sea, the Islamic empire stretched from Spain in Europe to China, from the India to Russia, from Constantinople to Austria.

While western civilization was stuck in stick and dirt huts or being run over by thundering herds of nobility, the Islamic learning centers (or universities) developed new and exciting ideas which led to financial and intellectual success.

They passed these ideas on to other learning centers in the Muslim world, including those in Andalusia (Spain.) Until Ferdinand and Isabella, relations between Moors (black Muslims), Jews, and Christians were fairly good. As Moors learned of the latest ideas in Andalusia, Europeans did too and started using them. Chunks of Spain had been wrested from the Moors over time. The marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella concluded the Christian goal of regaining control of Spain. They then forced out all Moors and Jews who would not convert to Christianity.

Europeans began to immediately put these Muslim ideas to good use, particularly the navigational equipment and studies. As they did so, they changed the major sails and ship contours leading Europe to new commercial routes to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
At the same time trade routes were being found by Europeans, discovery of new lands, particularly the New World of the Americas with its new spotted furs, gold, silver, emeralds, pearls, offered enormous sources of wealth. Western Europe rose financially and intellectually as the Middle East declined into the backwater of history. Eventually Arabia came under control of the Sultan of Turkey.

During World War I, president Woodrow Wilson announced the destruction of territorial holdings of Turkey in his “Fourteen Points” speech. Britain and France were to redraw the Middle East. The regions would be known as “mandates,” but were, in fact, colonies managed by these two European powers.

The Balfour Resolution of 1917 endorsed the concept of a home for Jews to be carved out of Palestine, a British mandate. Nationalism had reached it zenith and the Jews, dispersed by Romans in 70 A.D., wanted to return home.

By the late 1920’s the British government decided to sell land to those Jews interested. No one was prepared for the rush to buy. Palestinian farmers who did not own land outright, but had farmed it for generations, were displaced. Tensions between the Arabs and the Jews grew.

The United Nations passed the Partition Resolution in 1947. Palestine was to be partitioned into Arab and Jewish sections in 1948, when the British mandate expired. In addition to Israel, the Arab states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt (again) were created.

As soon as the independence of Arab states was formalized, 1948, they declared war on Israel. The five-year war ended with an expansion of Israel from 55% to 77% of Palestine. In 1964 Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt, Syria, Iraq, then Jordan. This “Six Days War” saw the further expansion of Israel into the Golan Heights, Gaza, the Siani, and the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

Also in 1964, the Arab states named the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to commit to liberate the Palestinian people. The United States insisted the PLO agree Israel had the right to exist before it could attend international conferences. The PLO would not agree.

Why the hostilities in the Holy Lands? According to Jimmy Carter in his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, Christians and Muslim Arabs lived in the same land but, “They had no commitment to establish a separate and independent nation. Their concern was with family and tribe and, for Muslims, the broader world of Islam. Strong ideas of nationhood started only when Arabs saw increasing numbers of Zionists immigrate to Palestine, buying tracts of land for permanent homes with the goal of establishing their own nation.” (Carter, 56)

November 22, 1967, the United Nations Security Council was so concerned about Israel’s expansion it passed Resolution 242. Two-forty-two argued for a lasting peace in the Middle East. It included 3 primary points: 1.) withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, and 2.) an end to belligerency and 3.) “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.” (Smith, 341)

In 1973 the Yom Kippur War erupted when Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli forces in the Sinai and Golan Heights. Israel won and occupied more land.

The U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 338. It called for 1.) cessation of military conflict in the positions they now occupy; 2.) called up on all parties to immediately begin to implement Resolution 242 in all of its parts; 3.) concurrently, as the ceasefire negotiations begin, the parties confer on establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Anwar Sadat decided there had to be an end to fighting. In 1977 he went to Israel and argued for peace. Menachem Begin, prime minister of Israel, agreed. A diplomatic meeting between them should be held in December of that year, but no decisions were made.

Jimmy Carter decided to host Sadat and Begin. Using Camp David meant the media would not be able to speak to them without his approval, and he did not approved. They and their small diplomatic delegations would be able to speak more openly.

What were goals of the Camp David meeting? Sadat wanted a comprehensive peace agreement; the Israelis leave the Egyptian Sinai, Palestinian rights, and Israel’s agreement to resolve any further conflicts peacefully. Begin wanted a “greater Israel” with all the occupied territory as it existed.

Carter’s goals were more realistic. “It has always been clear that the antagonists cannot be expected to take the initiative to resolve their own differences. Hatred and distrust in the Middle East are too ingrained and pride is too great for any of the disputing parties to offer invitations or concessions that they know will almost inevitably be rejected.” (Carter, 15)

He was to be the mediator, the peacemaker. “Accommodation must be sought through negotiation with all parties to the dispute, with each having fair representation and the right to participate in free discussion. Compromise is necessary from both sides, with clear distinction made between what their dreams and ideology dictate and what is pragmatically possible.” (Carter, 15 )

The talks, begun on September 5^th, were believed to take a few days. Actually, the conference lasted seventeen days. Sadat and Begin spoke to each other the first day, then not again until the last day. Carter moved between the two leaders and their delegations. State Department experts in the Middle East proposed a draft agreement. This was reviewed by Carter and the two leaders line-by-line, page by page. They wanted to leave and go back to Washington, D.C. but Carter was able to keep them at Camp David, on track in their discussions.

What the Camp David Accords resulted in was two sets of agreements, a “Framework” for 1.) agreement on a peace treaty to be held within three months. Normal relations between the two countries was be part of the treaty. It was signed in March 1979. 2.) Palestinians were to be guaranteed human rights, full autonomy, and security within their own state. 3.) Jerusalem and other holy cities were to be open to Jews, Christians, and Muslims under the leadership of an elected urban council. .

The Camp David Accords were signed by Begin, Sadat, and Carter on September 17. 1978. There was such hope that Begin and Sadat received the Nobel Peace Prize

But the difficulty of arriving at this consensus could be seen by incomplete detail.

The Palestinians were never given any appreciable autonomy by Israel. A Palestinian state, a special concern for Carter, was never established. The Israelis did withdraw from the Sanai within three rather than five years. Begin did so only when reference to the West Bank was deleted from the Resolution 242 at the peace treaty (Smith p.360). Israel continued to occupy the other territories taken in war.

An indication of the difficulty experienced by Carter in gaining agreement was the financial subsidy the U.S. provided. If Egypt and Israel agreed not to attack each other they would each receive $10 billion at the time of signing the treaty. After that, for each year they did not attack each other, Israel would receive $3 billion and Egypt $2.1. billion. They have not attacked each other since the signing of the peace treaty (Aid to Egypt, p. 1).

The other Arab states refused to accept the peace treaty. But Carter moved to other crises in the Middle East and around the world. The presidential election of 1980 was just around the corner. He had no further time for such detailed involvement.

Carter reflected on the Camp David Accords historically. “Continuing impediments have been the desire of some Israelis for Palestinian land, the refusal of some Arabs to accept Israel as a neighbor, the absence of a clear and authoritative Palestinian voice acceptable to Israel, the refusal of both sides to join peace talks without onerous preconditions, the rise in Islamic fundamentalism, and the recent lack of any protracted effort by the US to pursue peace based on international law and previous agreement ratified by Israel.”(Carter p. 13)

The Camp David Accords were a first step in the development of the new Middle East. Permanent peace will come. Jimmy Carter should be given credit for being the first president to try.

Copyright 2015 by Janet Newlan Bower

Elections, Electors, and the Electoral College

Elections, Electors, and the Electoral College

By Janet Newlan Bower

The Electoral College is an example of the interdependency and the sovereignty of the government of the United States and the 50 individual states. It is this meeting of delegates to the Electoral College, representatives from each state, that elects the nation’s president and vice-president at their state level. The Electors meet only at the state level, there is no national gathering. (Please see the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1.)

Every four years, preliminary to the election of the presidency, the states each gather as many electors as it has U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives from each political party running a presidential candidate.

The total number of possible electoral votes is 535, the total number of representatives to Congress, plus 3 from the District of Columbia (23^rd Amendment, 1961.) The electoral voting throughout the country at the individual state level is known as the Electoral College. These votes are sent to Congress to be counted. The candidate who wins a majority of Electors’ votes, 270 or majority plus 1, is elected President. The electors hold a second vote, at the same time, for Vice President.

How do states determine the Electors? Each political party running a candidate for president that election is asked to submit a list of potential Electors to their state’s Secretary of State. This is done several months in advance to give state officials time to check the proposed elector’s qualifications. There are some limitations on electors such as neither members of congress nor federal employees may participate. The electors are to be independent citizens.

Political parties usually select potential Electors who donate large amounts of money or spend much time volunteering, or both. It is an honor to be selected as a pontiential Elector.

Presidential elections are held every four years, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. It is here the public influences the outcome of the election by voting for the political party it supports. While each party in the state puts forth a number of Electors, the candidate’s name is provided to save printing costs and voter frustration.

The political party that wins the majority of public votes on election day will send it’s Electors to the state capital . All but two states, at the current time, assume a winner-takes-all policy. Nebraska and Maine require proportional representation.

So, you say, in a way the public does determine who will win the presidency–not exactly.

Once the general election is held, the governor of each state submits a Certificate of Ascertainment to Congress and the National Archives. It lists the names of those candidates running for President and Vice President with the names of the Electors who represent them. It also states the winner of the election and the Electors who will meet at the state capitol.

Those chosen Electors will meet at their state capitol on the first Monday after third Wednesday of December and cast their vote. Each elector may vote for whomever he or she wishes for President and for Vice President separately. It makes no difference who the party supported, it is entirely up to the elector for whom to vote. The vote is public so the electors’ decisions will be known immediately.

How can the states guarantee the electors will vote for the persons supported by their party? The states cannot make such a guarantee. Each elector is free to vote for whomever he or she wants. There are only 15 incidences of an Elector voting against his or her party in our entire history

Is this a threat to the public’s vote? No.

The Constitution uses a number of psychological techniques in its application of democratic-representative government. If a person has spent a great deal of money or time with a party, would that person commit political suicide by voting against the candidates? Not likely.

Once the Electors have voted a Certificate of Vote is prepared at their meeting. The votes are recorded on this certificate and it, too, is sent to Congress and the National Archives.

On January 6^th of the next year both houses of Congress meet to count the electoral votes. The President of the Senate presides and will announce the election of the President and the Vice President.

If a majority is not received for the presidency, the election moves to the House of Representatives where each state has one vote. The Senate is responsible for electing the Vice President if no majority of electoral votes is received.

The President-Elect will take the oath of office on January 20^th.

The original electoral concept held a major flaw that became apparent as soon as political party identification began in 1796. George Washington, elected in 1789 and 1792, refused to identify with the growing political divisions into parties. He, and others, felt if this identification continued, eventually politicians would put party ahead of country. And that’s what such identification did.

The election of 1796 saw John Adams elected President. Thomas Jefferson received the second most votes in the Electoral College and was elected Vice President. This conflict in political and economic philosophy, Federalist versus Jeffersonian Republican, led to a disastrous four years for Adams as Jefferson bedeviled him at every turn.

The loophole in the electoral process was epitomized in the election of 1800. Thomas Jefferson, and his running mate, Aaron Burr, won the election. However, the final decision was sent to the U.S. House of Representatives since both had received the same number of electoral votes.

As the House votes for President, it votes by state with each state having one vote. On the first vote Jefferson and Burr received the same number of votes, as they did in the second and third and further votes. Finally Jefferson suggested to Burr that he step down for a vote, then Jefferson would be elected President. Burr could then run and be elected Vice President.

This sounded good to everyone except Burr, who thought perhaps the House really wanted him president rather than Jefferson. After 35 votes, the Federalists finally agreed to support Jefferson, giving him the presidency. Burr was then elected Vice President. There was a chill in the White House.

Jefferson was so angry he instructed the Jeffersonian Republican leaders in both houses (the party also took control of both houses in Congress) to create a constitutional amendment that would prevent such a fiasco from every happening again.

Both houses of Congress voted to approve the 12^th Amendment. It was sent to the states and agreed to by two-thirds of them. It states that electors will vote twice, once for the president and once for the vice-president. The restriction of only one vote for one’s state’s candidate remained.

The 12^th Amendment completed the election process for the two most important offices in the administrative branch of government. Other amendments added voters to the public’s participation, but the actual system of election was finalized under Jefferson’s presidency.

The Electoral College is a reflection of the federalist system of government in the United States. There is no “federal” government, that was a nick-name given the United States’ military in the American Civil War; much like the moniker, Uncle Sam, given to the government of the United States during WWI.

The government of the United States is a sovereign entity with the ability to strongly affect the lives of those within it’s borders if the occasion demands. But the 50 states are also sovereign governments with strong influence of the citizens within it’s borders. Both the national and state governments must cooperate together to make this country function efficiently. The election of the President and Vice-President is just one example of American federalism in action.

-END-

Copyright 2015 Janet Newlan Bower

Magna Carta: Its Contributions to American Liberalism

 

American liberalism was introduced to the world with the writing of the United States’ Constitution in 1786. It argued the right of the individual to equality before the law, self-government, and economic opportunity. It is not the conventional rag-a-muffin domestic argument between conservative and liberal at election time. The liberalism I write of is the very basis of this country. The United States of America includes numerous collections of different heritages, cultures, and varied communities. We are one because of this concept of liberalism. It is our past, our present, and our future.

This is the 800^th commemoration of Magna Carta (Great Charter). It is a distant document written on sheep skin; but we drape its sinewy shreds about the flag of the United States and cling to its ideals. Why? It is the cornerstone of both the unwritten constitution of the British and the American constitution.

Legally it is true the king, or government, has all the power and owns all the land (eminent domain). When did Americans gain civil and legal rights that put limits on that government? How did we gain the rule of law, with personal and property rights protected, so necessary for a free and democratic society to function?

A review of Magna Carta, agreed to by King John of England in 1215, and sealed for the first time by the guardians of ten year old Henry III, will explain the development of American liberalism of today. The components of liberty—a democratic-republican form of government and personal property rights must include several guarantees. These led to an emphasis on the individual and constitutionally guaranteed protections from an abusive and arbitrary government with the powers of a king.

If the king/governmental leaders, must obey the law; then it is the law, not the leader, which is superior. John guaranteed, on behalf of himself and all future monarchs, to all freemen and their heirs the following rights.

First he granted equality to all under the law. Not only was the law above the king but the rule of law, provided “due process,” that is the rules and regulations of arrest and trial. Specific provisions, such as witness testimony, defendants allowed to face his accusers and witnesses, and a speedy trial provided by the government, before a jury of his peers, all guarantee the innocence of an individual until the government proved him guilty. These protections are found in the Constitution, and the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th and 14^th Amendments. Most important of all, Magna Carta guarantees the writ of habeas corpus as granted in clause 39, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” This is reiterated in the Constitution’s fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments. The trial must proceed through regular procedure. Government may not arbitrarily take money or other private property without a conviction.

If the law is superior, then the individual is secure in person and property. The essence of democracy is equality before the law.

The second component of a liberal government is the guarantee of self-government, the people will elect the governmental representatives to determine policy. Regular elections provide a means by which the public can change governmental philosophy or policy.

Magna Carta promised a legislature, ultimately over the centuries, equal in power to the monarch. The commitment was made to all freemen (aristocracy, clergy, the few farmers who could afford to buy their freedom), as more and more of the population gained freedom, they fell under the protections offered.

The promise is found in reference to a “common council (Clause 12) to determine how much to pay the king each year for the use of his land (remember, the king owns all the land—think of it as property taxes.). This led eventually to the argument of “no taxation without representation.”

In 1295, urban leaders, whose towns also had pay for the use of the king’s land, were invited to be present at the common council. After the aristocratic business was complete, the town could argue about how much the crown could expect in taxes. The middle-class eventually became part of the legislature.

Parliament argued if it had control of the country’s revenue through determination of taxes, then Parliament, not the king, had control of the national treasury. If the king wanted national monies, he had to go to Parliament for approval just as the president, today, must gain approval of Congress before spending national treasury.

The importance of regular elections for government was explained by Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address, as the only method for leaders to know what the public wants. “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.”

The third component of liberalism is the protection of private property. Three times Magna Carta assure all in England if the king took “corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment” (Clause 28), “horses or carts” (Clause 30), or “wood for our castle,” (Clause 31) there would be immediate compensation. The 5^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,” thus protecting private property. Magna Carta also encourages commerce through the standardization of weights and measures in England (Clause 35). This guarantee was repeated in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the constitution (1786).

The protections of economic opportunity and private property for the individual leads that person to be invested in what the government is doing. That person will vote, and if so motivated, will run for office.

Liberalism means if the individual is willing to work, he or she should keep their gains without fear of governmental usurpation. Herbert Hoover, in his “Philosophy of Rugged Individualism,” 1928, explained, “Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit, a force proceeding from the deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved.”

Magna Carta was successful because it is flexible. It remains the cornerstone of the English constitution It failed in its objective, to preserve the feudal society based on the knight, the goal of the rebels who fought against John. It did succeed in the development of monetary economic forces that were quickly moving through England. The middle class, with its emphasis on the individual, was elbowing its way to the forefront of political and economic life. These people were more interested in economic opportunity than in defending castles. As they gained their freedom they were welcomed under the protective umbrella of guaranteed liberties.

John was not eager to toss away his power, but the rebels made clear, either he agreed to the liberties or he died. John decided to agree, but within months he had sent agents to ask the Pope to dissolve the agreement he was forced to sign under duress. True, he was threatened with his life and true, even in that day, a contract signed under duress was null and void. Innocent III immediately sent an envoy with notice Magna Carta was to be nullified under threat of excommunication. Even though England was under the Church influence at that time, the urge to continue to live with the liberties gained was too important. Magna Carta was not renounced. Liberalism began its centuries-long movement to enhance the common man.

As Englishmen traveled to Virginia in 1607, James I guaranteed them all the rights and liberties of Magna Carta. Each of the other twelve colonial charters was granted the same rights. Limited government and individual liberties continued to be the primary colonial considerations for the next 150 years. Colonials elected their legislative deputies, paid their taxes to the colonial legislatures, worked their farms, and when they died, passed the wealth of their work on to their children.

American colonials knew their political and their property rights well. As in England, at least once a year Magna Carta was read aloud in every village so all knew their liberties.

By the time the constitution, with its emphasis on separation of powers as well as checks and balances, was signed and ratified by the colonial constitutional conventions, Americans were well versed in their individual political guarantees.

In the United States of America the political power resides in the people. That explains the tremendous emphasis we have always placed on the responsibility of the individual.

The specific guarantees of Magna Carta have, over the years, been re-legislated and made more pertinent to modern Great Britain. Americans have chosen to maintain those guarantees in the Constitution.   As you read the Constitution I think you’ll be surprised to learn how much economic, political, and legal rights we gained from it. Magna Carta is still one of the most significant documents ever written.

-End-

 

Note:

Magna Carta was an agreement between John and his nobility and clergy limiting the king’s power in 1215. The earliest know engrossment (not a copy since each of the nearly 300 written was by hand in Chancellery Script) in the formal manner of a public document in 1217. John’s son, ten-year old Henry III, sealed an agreement through his two regents, the papal legate, Cardinal Guala, and the earl of Pembroke, William Marshall . The document would have been sealed, not signed, since the simple intent of the monarch made it a valid agreement. They did so to solidify Henry’s monarchy and their own power.

Oxford University currently holds four of the seventeen known engrossments, three from 1217 and one from 1225 In the opinion of Sarah Thomas, Bodeian Libraries, University of Oxford, since no engrossment of Magna Carta 1215 has been found, it was not written and not sealed, It was an agreement on a hand-shake.

The clauses, or chapters, were not numbered as they are today. The hand was even although Medievalists believe it was written quickly so the documents could be sent around the country. The black ink is now a brown, but it is perfectly legible, if you can read thirteenth century Latin.

 

Sources:

Hoover, Herbert. “Rugged Individualism Campaign Speech.” Digital History,

ID #. 1334 Digital History:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1334.

 

Holt, J.C. “The Making of Magna Carta.” The English Historical Review

No. CCLXXXIV—July 1957, pp. 410-420. http://JSTOR.org.libraryaccess.sdmesa.edu.

 

Hoyt, Robert S. Europe in the Middle Ages. Harcourt, Brace, & Wold, Inc. Chicago: 1957, pp. 445-461.

 

Magna Carta. The British Library. http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta.
“The Magna Carta” National Archives and Records Administration.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured documents/magnacarta/.

 

Painter, Sidney. “Magana Carta.” The American Historical Review. Vol 53, No. 1 (Oct.-Dec.), 1947.   http://www.jstor.org.libraryaccess.sdmesa.edu/stable/1843678?.

 

Thomas, Sarah, Bodlian Libraries, University of Oxford. Seminar and engrossment of Magna Carta 1217. April 2011. Scripps Research Institute, San Diego, California.

 

Copyright 2015 Janet Newlan Bower

 

After 500 Years–There is a Northwest Passage!

The key to the search for the Northwest Passage was the economic stimulus to find the shortest route to China from Europe.

Due to a combination of economic and social changes in the latter 1400s an economic boom occurred in Europe. There was an active trade not only among principalities and new nations, but among regions as well. The most lucrative of these regions was China, always an attraction because of its fine exports and sophisticated elite anxious to purchase Western goods. There was a particular demand for fine and unusual pelts of fur. The Chinese did not have fires for warmth in the winter, the only way to keep warm was to wrap. The elite wore fur, the commoner wore cotton, the West sold both.

China had traded with the West since Rome sought its exotic exports in the first century B.C. A well-trodden Silk Road brought spices, jewels, silk, and fine furniture. The Roman elite, and eventually the elite of the entire Western world, were anxious to purchase specialties. China stopped selling exports to Southeast Asia and the West in 1435. Revolution over high taxation was translated by imperial advisors as caused by new ideas coming from international trade.

Instead China decided to sell its exports from India. Not until 1803 did China agree to broaden trade on its own shores. A new problem arose for the West. The traditional Silk Road, running from China to the Mediterranean Sea, was long, slow, and difficult because of the terrain, the Crusades and animosity with Middle Eastern Muslims.

The solution was to find a sea route to India. Spain and Portugal had been the leaders in new navigational design and technology. It was they who had been controlled by Muslim Moors. The locals picked up the navigational theories and technology developed throughout the Middle East. Others in Europe followed quickly,

When Christopher Columbus sailed from Spanish shores, he did so in the belief he knew a faster way to India across the Atlantic not around Africa. He was wrong. What he did find was the Americas. Although he sailed around Hispaniola (currently Haiti and the Dominican Republic) he claimed all the land for Spain. Ultimately Spain controlled the western half of South America, the Caribbean Sea, Central America, Mexico, the land from Florida through Texas to the northern edge of California and everything in between.

Immediately luxury items streamed into Spain, then the rest of Europe. Unusual furs, gold, silver, emeralds, cocoa, tobacco for the elites. Potatoes, squash, beans, tomatoes were sold to the commoners, diminishing the chance of starvation. Spain immediately turned that income from taxation on these items into the strongest navy in the world.

The other leaders of Europe decided to do the same thing. They explored, took new land, sold the special products found there to the rest of the world to acquire riches, then turn that money into a top-notch military. And so the race was on.

To sail to China, a prime market for many of these items, it would be advantageous to find a faster route across the oceans. Everyone agreed there must be a waterway in North America that united the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Spain and Portugal called that waterway the Straight of Anian and searched along Baja California and Alta California to no avail.

The rest of Europe referred to it as the Northwest Passage. John Cabot, in 1497, claimed a long narrow strip of land along the Atlantic coastline for England. Henry VII (1485-1507) asked him to find the passage, but he could not. His son, Sabastian Cabot, in 1503, also found nothing. Samuel de Champlain founded Quebec in 1608. French explorers examined the land from the Appalachian hills to the Rocky Mountains for the passage. Henry Hudson, 1609, discovered the Hudson River on behalf of Holland.

Vasco da Gama found a water route around the Horn of Africa to India in 1498. That didn’t stop the searches in North America. In 1806, the exploration team of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark returned from what would become the American Northwest. They were unable to find the waterway. Jefferson’s, and America’s, hope for a commercial advantage with faster access to China was dashed.

The United States ended its search for the waterway but Great Britain did not. It continued to encourage search in Canada. Robert McClure found the Northwest Passage in 1850-1854. It was much further north than explorers have thought, in fact, above the Arctic Circle. There were several other attempts to cross over it through the rest of the nineteenth century. The first completed voyage across the Northwest Passage was by Ronald Amundson in 1903-1906. This obviously was not an easy journey, dodging icebergs and dealing with terrible weather, but it was doable.

In the 1950s Arctic ice began to melt. Since the 1970s the recession of thin summer ice made possible the idea of commercial use for the passage. An American oil tanker, the Manhattan, made it through to the East Coast with the help of an icebreaker in 1968. In 2013 a Danish ship, the Nordic Orion, a commercial carrier, made the voyage. Owners estimated it saved $80,000 in fuel costs and several days travel by short-cutting the Panama Canal. If used, the Northwest Passage would save approximately 4,000 miles for ships between Europe and Asia.

The Arctic is an area stretching over eight nations: the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, and Finland. The Northwest Passage winds through Canada but the entrance from the Atlantic is through Finland, the exit into the Pacific is through the Bering Sea lined by the United States and Russia.

If the ice-melt continues to open the Northwest Passage to commerce, undoubtedly all eight nations will be involved in determining Passage regulations. Already there is a conflict between the United States and the other boarder nations and Canada. Led by the United States, the joint owners maintain since the passage is a connecting waterway, it is part of the international waters and falls under the Law of the Seas. Canada argues the majority of it passes through its northern land and is Canada’s to regulate. The argument is on a low flame for now.

But there are other factors that can make the flame burn hotter. The United States Geogeological Survey, (USGS ), estimates almost one-fourth of the earth’s oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids may be found in the Arctic and, particularly in the continental shelf. Valuable minerals, such as nickel and zinc, are to be found as more land is exposed in the ice melt. In addition, military interests are peaking among a number of the Arctic landowners.

The 2011 U.S. Department of Defense “Report to Congress on Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage. “ It emphasizes that if the Arctic ice continues to melt, further opening the Northwest Passage to commerce, the U.S. must establish a naval presence in the waters. Our weather analysis must be much improved. A deep-water port would need to be built in Alaska. American national interests are at stake.

Control of the Arctic is under the eight landowners and the indigenous peoples of the area. They have formed the Arctic Counsel. It is a voluntary association committed to environmental concerns. As an indication of the growing importance of the Northwest Passage, in 2013 China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea became Arctic Council observer states.The International Arctic Science Committee has a membership of nineteen members. It is a non-governmental, (NGO), association to organize research.

At this point, cooperation among nations has been the common bond. There is no reason to assume the cooperation will not continue.

The Northwest Passage has been a long time in coming. After 500 years, it’s here!

-End-

Sources:

Department of Defense.   (May, 2011)   Report to Congress on Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage. http://www.defense.gov/…/Tab_A_Arctic.

“The Melting North.” The Economist.  http://www.economist.com/node/21556798.

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Northwest Passage.”  Britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/420084/Northwest-Passage.

Foner, Eric. Give Me liberty, An American History, Vol. I to 1877, 3^rd edition  Chapters 1, 2, and 8. W.W. Norton & Co.: New York, 2011.

Masters, Jonathan. “The Thawing Arctic: Risks and Opportunities.”  Backgrounders, The Council on Foreign Relations. Dec.16, 2013. http://www.cfr.org/arctic/thawing/risks/opportunities/p32082.

“Northwest Passage.” How Stuff Works. Howstuffworks.com.

United States Geological Survey.   (2008) “Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle.”  Pubs.usgs.gov/…/2008/3049/fs2008-304.

Maps:

National Snow and Ice Center. “What is the Arctic? ”https//:nsidc.org/…/arctic…/arctic.html.

Copywrite   2015   Janet Newlan Bower

Jedediah Strong Smith and the Way Westward by Janet Bower

Jedediah Strong Smith, fur trapper, explorer, cartographer, and businessman, was a giant in the exploration of the Western third of the United States. Tall with blue eyes and brown hair, he had a rugged scare across his face and one ear roughly sown on his scalp by needle and thread after an attack by a grizzly bear.

Unlike the typical mountain man, Jed read the Bible every day, did not swear, shaved regularly and was heroic in his efforts to save associates in dangerous situations. He kept a journal and drew maps of where he had been, very unusual behavior for a mountain man .

The West he traveled was crowded with trees and meadows, raked by craggy cliffs and softened with rolling hills stretching into land covered with sand, sagebrush, and rattle snakes. The only people there were unknown Indian tribes. Even though Smith worked well with these people, he was involved in all three of the most important Indian wars between 1822 and 1830.

What did such a man accomplish in his short thirty-two years?

By the time of his death in a Comanche attack in 1832, the thirty-two year old had drawn the first maps of the entire West, from Yellowstone south to the Great Salt Lake, west to San Diego, then north to the Columbia River. The maps were rough, but were the first to give future trappers and emigrants an idea of what to expect.

Smith was the first to record and map the travel possibilities of the South Pass. In 1824 Smith crossed and wrote of this twenty-mile slope of land in the mists of the Rocky Mountains, smooth enough to take a wagon across. At last, hope of a fresh start for desperate families.

Smith’s directions formed trails for new lands by destitute farm families and led the Mormon followers to the Great Salt Lake. The original maps were lost long ago and modern survey equipment made maps much more accurate, but the Smith maps were serviceable and the public used them.

The Panic and Depression of 1837 devastated Midwestern farmers and small town businessmen.   Livelihoods of the middle class, were lost. There seemed to be no hope until Jed Smith. Now Americans saw economic opportunity on the other side of the mountains.

No one nation owned that territory called Oregon Country. It currently contains the northwestern section of the U.S. and western Canada, from the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean. The United States, Great Britain, Spain (then Mexico), and Russia all claimed it. But since no country owned it, there could be no charge for the land.

Faming with cheap, or even free, land was an opportunity not to be missed. Thousands now traveled the Oregon Trail. 1841 saw the first overland migration of thirty-one Americans, once over the South Pass, create a land route over the Sierra mountain range to California. A new trail for the pending gold rush of 1849 was begun.

In the latter 1820’s Jed Smith searched from San Diego to the Columbia River looking for a shipping route on the Pacific Coast for commercial trade, particularly the fur trade, with China. The fur business was lucrative. A pound of pelts taken to St. Louis would sell from $4 to $6. Even greater wealth was acquired when furs were sent on to New York, where a pound would sell for $10. In Europe, China, and Russia furs brought even more money.

In China, wearing fur was the only way to stay warm and the wealthy loved the luxury. The fur market there provided the possibility of unlimited profit. Why not save the trip across the continent to New York, and send the furs trapped in the West directly to Asia? It would be faster and less expense—as the ports of San Pedro and Los Angeles prove today.

As early as 1811, John J. Astor, owner of the American Fur Company, tried to start an Asian-facing trading post on the edge of the Pacific Ocean. 1811, the weather and the War of 1812 ended that effort. The appropriate departure location was again searched for in 1829, but despite his best effort, Jed Smith also failed.

By 1831 Jed Smith realized the combination of more competition from increasing numbers of trappers and the cost of trapping in Blackfoot country meant less income. He sold his share of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company to his partners, William Sublette and David Jackson and returned to his family in St. Louis.

Of his five siblings, he brought his four brothers to St. Louis. His sister was married and preferred to spend time with their parents. Smith sent the two younger brothers to private school. He found work for his two older brothers, one with his trading company. Smith’s feeling of financial responsibility to his family had carried on through his years in the West.

When he returned home to the “Gateway to the West,” he brought $30,000 (1830 currency) in pelts with him. He purchased a house and retired.

One of his brothers wanted to establish a trade company from St. Louis to San Diego by taking the Santa Fe Trail. Smith agreed to go with him as far as Santa Fe to get him started in the business.

On a particularly hot day the company scattered, searching for water. Smith rode alone to find water. There was water there, and six or seven young Comanche who surrounded him.  Anxious for a fight, the braves ignored his signs for peace and killed him. His guns were purchased by a Mexican trapper who sold them to a friend of Smith in St. Louis. He told the story related by the Indians, Though searched for, Smith’s body was never found.

Why did he go through all of the difficulties and dangers? He explained in a letter to his brother,

“It is, that I may be able to help those who stand in need, that I face every danger—it is for this, that I traverse the Mountains covered with eternal Snow—it is for this that I pass over the Sandy Plains, in heat of Summer, thirsting for water, and am well pleased if I can find a shade, instead of water, where I may cool my overheated Body—it is for this that I go for days without eating, & am pretty well satisfied if I can gather a few roots, a few Snails, or, much better Satisfied if we can affo[r]d our selves a piece of Horse Flesh, or a fine Roasted Dog, and most of all, it for this, that I deprive myself of the privilege of Society & the satisfaction of the Converse of My Friends!”(Morgan, “Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the West, p.312.)

Smith didn’t just introduce the West to the United States, he made it feasible for the middle class to farm there when it had seemed there was no hope for the average American farmer. “Old,” a term of honor among the mountain men, Smith opened the last third of the contiguous U.S. to migration. His moral compass kept the confidence of his men. His curiosity led him to explorations. His faith in Christian teachings kept him constant. His efforts opened this country to commercial development leading to world leadership for the United States within the century.

###

Sources:

Primary Sources:

Smith, Jedediah Strong.  “A Manuscript Journal of the Travels of Jedediah S. Smith Thro’ the Rocky Mountains and West of the Same together with a description of the Country and the Customs and Manners of the different Tribes of Indians thro’ which he Travelled” (sic)

The original journal & notes were destroyed by fire, but his friend, Samuel Parkman, had written two transcripts by memory:

The 1^st was the basis for Maurice Sullivan’s “The Travels of  Jedediah Smith (Santa Ana, CA, 1934)

The 2^nd transcript went to the Missouri Historical Society,  Preceded in content the Sullivan ms & is the basis for Brooks’

“The Southwestern Expedition of Jedediah Smith.”

Warner, J.S. “Reminiscences of Early CA. ” Southern California Historical Society, Publications, volume vii, 1861.

Secondary Sources:

Brooks, George R., Ed. The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah S. Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827. Western Frontiersman Series Volume XVIII Arthur H. Clark: Glendale, CA. 1977.

De Voto, Bernard. The Year of Decision 1846.   Houghton Mifflin Co.: Boston, 1942.

Harrison Dale, “The Ashley-Smith Exploration and the Discovery of a Central Routeto the Pacific, 1822-1829. Glendale: 1941.

Morgan, Dale. Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the West. University of Nebraska:  Lincoln, 1953.

Copywrite 2014 Janet Newlan Bower

 

The Strange Story of the UN Security Council

The United Nations (UN), formed during WWII and chartered in June,1945, is made up of six branches; the most important of which is the Security Council.   It is currently composed of fifteen members, five permanent and ten elected by the General Assembly for a three-year period. The purpose of the UN is to provide of all the nations of the world a table where disputes and difficulties could be worked out peacefully. All members have one vote in the General Assembly and are, therefore, considered equal.

The Security Council holds important responsibility in determining if an international situation is serious enough to consider action. If necessary, it determines whether economic sanctions should be used against an abusive regime and/or if UN policing authority is necessary to stabilize the area. It is also responsible for recommending the appointment of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly when an opening occurs. It, with the General Assembly, elect judges to the International World Court of Justice. All of these are demanding responsibilities.

It is currently composed of fifteen members, five permanent and ten elected by the General Assembly for a three-year period. The five permanent members are the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China—all allies during WWII.

There are two unique features to the permanent seats, these five countries are always there, not elected but assigned by the UN Charter. The permanent members each have an “absolute veto.” The absolute veto stops all further discussion on a specific measure. For instance, if the UN wanted to criticize China for its civil rights policy, which it did several years ago, China could simply lay an absolute veto on that document, which it did. There will never be such a criticism as long as China holds the absolute veto.

These five special seats in an organization that argues for equality of all countries seems an oxymoron?  When the UN Charter was being discussed, principally by the United States and Great Britain, but including all free governments, it was important all countries participate.

Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) was concerned that the American people would not join. Americans had refused to join the League of Nations because of concern that a majority of members could impose an action not desired by the U.S. national policy or public. By having a permanent seat with an absolute veto, the U.S. could stop any action that could have opposed American policy. This satisfied those concerns. The U.S. joined the United Nations.

There was a proposal by Bill Clinton, in the 1992 presidential campaign, to force Britain and France out of the Security Council’s permanent status and give those seats to Germany and Japan, major leaders in the world economy.   To do so meant Britain and France had to vote agreement to that change. Since it was assumed they would use their absolute veto to stop the effort, and since the WWII generation, who suffered atrocities under German and Japanese control during WWII, were infuriated that such honor would be granted them, the effort wilted.

Is the unique power of these nations with permanent seats fair in the UN’s atmosphere of equality? No, but who ever said life was fair?

-Janet Newlan Bower

###

Sources:

Foner, Eric.  Give Me Liberty! An American History. Vol. Two, Third Edition.  W.W. Norton and Company:  New York  2010,  943, 958

“Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations:  Issues of U.S. Military Involvement.”  The Navy Department Library, 2006.

“United Nations Security Council  [Functions and Powers].“ http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml

“United Nations Security Council [the Security Council]”  http://www.un.org/en/sc

“United Nations Security Council [Structure]”.   http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/structure.shtml

Copyright 2014 Janet Newlan Bower

Janet Bower Bio

This blog is the cumulative result of more than thirty years of adjunct professorship teaching history—U.S., Western Civilization, and World—at San Diego Mesa College as well as several other community college districts and universities. I have published articles on natural history and contributed a chapter to Women in the Biological Sciences (Grinstein, Biermann, and Rose). Now I have shifted my vision to writing of history this blog. Good reading!