Can the United Nations and the president send American troops to war without asking Congress?

In a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Barack Obama cited UN Security Council authorization to justify war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The Washington Times editorial on the subject adeptly explains why Security Council Resolution 1973 is illegal under the UN’s own charter, which prohibits military intervention in the internal affairs of a state. The purpose of the UN is to help prevent wars between states, not to meddle within states.

Under United States law, the Security Council resolution also constitutes insufficient authorization for military action. Some defenders of Obama’s stance on the resolution cite the 1945 United Nations Participation Act as purportedly allowing the president to wage war based on UN authorization alone. But the Act really prohibits such unilateral military action on the president’s part.

I’ll quote the relevant section of the Act, Section 6:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

The language of the section can be somewhat confusing, so I’ll break it down into more easily digestible parts.

• “The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.” This means the President of the United States can arrange a deal with the Security Council whereby the American military would be “on call” for the Security Council. Any such deal would be subject to congressional approval. (No such deal has ever been negotiated.)
• “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein…” If the US has a deal with the Security Council for American troops to be “on call,” then the president doesn’t need congressional authorization to use military force under the auspices of the UN mission. This is what Obama defenders point to as legal permission for the president to ignore Congress when going to war in Libya. But remember, the US has no “on call” deal with the UN.
• “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.” Outside any congressionally approved “on call” arrangement, the president must seek congressional authorization before waging war on behalf of the UN. As I’ve written, the US has no forces “on call” to the UN, so this final sentence applies to the Libya operation.

Therefore, as per the United Nations Participation Act, Obama’s war in Libya is illegal. This makes three ways in which the war is illegal: Firstly, the Constitution forbids it. Secondly, the UN charter forbids it. And now, thirdly, the Act under discussion forbids it.

I shall add a fourth criterion by which the Libya war is illegal: the 1973 War Powers Resolution. According to the resolution, the president can only wage war under these three scenarios:

1. Declaration of war.
2. Specific statutory authorization.
3. American territory or soldiers are under attack.

Congress has not declared war against Libya. No law otherwise authorizes war against Libya. And Libya did not attack the United States or its military. These conditions forbid Obama’s Libya intervention under the War Powers Act, in addition to the other reasons I’ve described that the war is illegal.

Watch this

In this video from the Cato Institute, Rep. Tom McClintock explains why Obama’s war in Libya violates the Constitution.

Can the UN allow Obama to wage war? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Thousands protested against war in Iraq. Where are they as we bomb Libya?

President Barack Obama has committed the United States to military action against Libya, despite lacking any plan for victory or extrication, any compelling US interest in the area, or any authorization from Congress (as the pesky Constitution demands).

Does the left agitate about what an outrage this is? By and large, with some praiseworthy exceptions, no. Here’s an article from the left-leaning website Crooks and Liars: “Bombing Libya: Airstrikes open a coalition war against a mad dictator“. Replacing “Libya” with “Iraq,” that could’ve been the hed of any 2003 neocon article about the Iraq war.

The politically active left doesn’t care about stopping presidential military adventurism or constraining American empire, after all. These were mere talking points against a Republican president, abandoned as soon as the Democrats took power.

I hate politics.

Libya war demonstrates why I hate politics is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

President Barack Obama, without congressional approval, has announced US military intervention in Libya.

I wrote the following letter to President Barack Obama regarding military action in Libya:

Mr. President, in 2007, you said the president could not legally attack another country without congressional approval. Yet that’s exactly what you’ve pledged to do regarding Libya.

The Constitution clearly says Congress, not the president, can authorize war. Alexander Hamilton supports this interpretation in Federalist 69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Why are you reneging on what you said in 2007, thereby breaking the Constitution you swore to uphold?

Update: Vice President Gene Healy of the Cato Institute speaks in a good podcast on this topic: “Obama Makes War in Libya, Tells Congress Later“.

A letter to the president regarding Libya is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Also, of course, the President believed a failed horse breeder with no disaster response ability, Michael Brown, a fine selection to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency. New Orleanders know what a swell job Brown did.

The article “Welcome to the Hackocracy” in the October 17, 2005, issue of The New Republic details more instances when, while filling government positions, the right politics mattered more than the right resumes. A suitable motto for the Bush White House would be, “Who needs knowledgeable experts when we have loyal sycophants?”

Bush has not contented himself with cronyism at home. As a headline from the front page of today’s Washington Post reads, “Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq.” This excerpt from the article reveals how the Bush administration decided who would lead Iraq’s reconstruction:

To pass muster with O’Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn’t need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O’Beirne’s staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

What was the attitude of many of the Bush lackeys in Iraq?

“I’m not here for the Iraqis,” one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. “I’m here for George Bush.”

The President’s staffing decisions for the Coalition Provisional Authority crippled it when intelligent rebuilding of Iraq could have dampened or prevented the insurgency. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis might still be alive today if the executive branch had sent professionals rather than ideologues to Iraq.

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush has failed his soldiers. As Head of Government, Bush has failed the American people. As leader of Iraq’s democratization, Bush has failed the masses of Iraq. Never in history has an American president failed on this many levels with such profound consequences. This writer used to think denouncing Bush as the worst president ever was hyperbole. But, now, he’s starting to believe the label is accurate.

In concert with illegal wiretapping, torture of detainees, and interpreting away provisions of laws he’s signed, this shouts the need to impeach and remove Bush from office. His behavior cannot stand before history as proper in a chief executive.

Bush’s cronyism has gone too far is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

So, what can the United States do about the situation? To answer that question, knowledge of Iran’s historical circumstances, as well as of the history of its nuclear program, is essential.

I. Historical Background

To predict how Iran will react to an American or UN stratagem, one must consider the history that will inform Iranian actions. This history is one of both foreign exploitation and increasing clerical power. The 19th century would be a good point at which to begin telling the tale.

Fath ‘Ali Shah, the first sovereign of the Qajar dynasty, ruled from 1797 to 1834. His realm had suffered through decades of warfare, leaving his government’s coffers unable to pay operational costs. Therefore, Fath turned to the British to help fund government activities, which gave the British Empire influence in the country. Meanwhile, after more wars that resulted in the Treaty of Golestat in 1813 and the Treaty of Turkmanchay in 1828, Iran had to cede the Caucuses to Russia. The Turkmanchay treaty also opened Iran to Russian merchants and diplomats. This development sparked nearly a century of diplomatic feuding between Britain and Russia, with the two nations vying for dominance in Iran, that would have dire consequences for Iran in the 20th century.

Even before then, though, Iran slipped more and more under the umbrella of the West, and not to Iran’s benefit. As European influence expanded and transportation systems developed, tying Europe and the Middle East more closely together, Iran’s economy shifted in the process. The economy became more susceptible to “global market fluctuations and… periodic famine.” But the shahs of the Qajar dynasty did nothing to slow the pace of European encroachment. Instead, to raise money, they sold land to wealthy capitalists, hindering customary patterns of land usage and harming the economy even more. To raise more money, Naser al–Din Shah, who ruled from 1848 to 1896, granted “excessive concessions” to foreigners over trade issues in exchange for hard cash. This, he did not spent on his people or his country, but on his court and his luxurious vacations to Europe. The shah’s behavior, in collaboration with foreigners, enraged many Iranians.¹

The Tobacco Riots of 1890 constituted the start of backlash against the shahs. Naser al–Sin had given the British massive concessions on tobacco trading in Iran. Angry protests and a boycott of tobacco forced Naser to rescind the concession. The events of 1890 showed:

1. Iranian merchants could organize and whip up public support.
2. The Iranian people could curtail the power of the shah.
3. The Shi’a clergy, men to whom Iranians traditionally turned for guidance for hundreds of years, who had helped agitate the people against the tobacco concession, were increasing in power.²

With these factors at work, the Tobacco Riots would serve as a preview of future events, including the Islamic Revolution nearly a century later, as well as something much sooner…

Concurrently with Iran’s increasing interaction with the West, newly arisen Iranian intellectual circles interested themselves in democratic procedures. These intellectuals found solace in the 1905 Russian Revolution³ during which popular uprisings convinced Tsar Nicholas II to substitute Russia’s absolutist state with a constitutional monarchy.⁴ After the shah’s government beat some Iranian merchants, the intellectuals united with the merchants and the clergy to stage colossal strikes and protests against the government. Eventually, to appease the Iranian masses, the shah allowed for the writing of a constitution in 1906. (This was the first alignment of all these forces that would prove strong in 1978–1979.)

Foreign intervention would spell the doom of the constitutional government. First, in 1907, the almost century–old squabbles between Britain and Russia culminated in the Anglo–Russian Convention. This Convention carved for the two empires “exclusive spheres of influence in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tibet.” In Iran, as per the treaty, Britain controlled areas “along the Persian Gulf,” and Russia regions “in northern Iran and the Caucuses.” As a result of the agreement, then, both Russia and Britain had large stakes in the internal politics of Iran.⁵

Four years later, in 1911, Iran’s constitutional regime paid an American consultant, William Morgan Schuster, to advise the government regarding finances. Schuster recommended aggressive means to obtain funds from all over Iran. This upset the British and the Russians, from whose spheres the Iranians would also acquire money under Schuster’s plan. Russia demanded the Iranian government fire Schuster; upon said government’s refusal, the Russians deployed soldiers to march on Tehran. Facing this threat, the shah sent Schuster home and terminated the constitutional regime.

Until World War I, the Russians acted as the de facto masters of the Iran outside its official sphere of influence. The Great War, however, forced the withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the country. Unfortunately for Iran, its respite did not last long. The Russians soon came back, along with the British, the Germans, and the Turks, who fought battles amongst themselves in Iranian territory.

In 1917, though, the new Soviet Union ended Russia’s claims in Iran, engendering much Iranian love for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (despite the elites’ dread of Communist ideas spreading to their country). A few years later, in 1921, the British also abandoned their spheres of influence in Iran, after “international pressure.” Britain did not leave Iran without a parting gift: It supported an Iranian military officer, Reza Khan, who in 1920 had been crucial in suppressing a Communist revolt. Reza Khan seized control of the Iranian military and eventually overthrew the last Qajar shah, after which he anointed himself Reza Shah Pahlavi, the first shah of the Pahlavi dynasty.⁶

Reza secularized Iran somewhat through educational and judicial changes. He shifted jurisdiction over many issues from Shi’a religious tribunals to state courts or government agencies. He instituted secular schools. But the new shah was not a liberal dedicated to the welfare of his people. His government censored the media and prohibited unions and political parties. The shah also renewed trade concessions for oil, which would inflame Iranian wrath for decades.⁷

Iran’s shah was not a complete stooge of the West, although he chose an unethical way to show it. In the 1930’s, afraid of the Soviet Union and desperate for more commerce, Reza increased trade and enhanced relations with the Third Reich. When Reza would not renege on his deals with the Nazis, the British and the Russians invaded Iran in 1941 and deposed him. The familiar conquerors elevated Reza’s son to Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Ironically, during World War II, foreign rule increased media freedom, political liberty, and economic prosperity. New political parties and trade unions arose. At the same time, the Shi’a clergy enhanced their strength, with the dissolution of the previous shah’s secularization initiatives. After the war, when the foreign occupiers withdrew, moderate leftists, Iranian nationalists, and some clergymen loosely coalesced into the National Front, under the leadership of Mohammed Mosaddeq. The purpose of the National Front was to limit the shah’s and the clerics’ power (although the latter goal caused tensions in the political alliance). Another objective of the National Front was to achieve Iranian control of Iranian natural resources, ending “foreign exploitation” of them.⁸

Toward that end, after Mosaddeq became prime minister in 1951, he nationalized all of Iran’s oil. Britain, the primary recipient of Iran’s oil largesse, hated Mosaddeq’s action and, ergo, placed trade sanctions on Iran. Subsequently, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and current British Prime Minister Anthony Eden advocated a combined United States–United Kingdom operation to topple Mosaddeq. Nothing quite that grandiose occurred. Despite that, August 1953 saw the end of Mosaddeq’s administration. Mosaddeq’s grip on the state’s helm had been loosening because his social democratic programs had been alienating his clerical supporters. Following the shah’s hasty departure from Iran after a political conflict with Mosaddeq, the Iranian prime minister lost his already tenuous position to a Central Intelligence Agency–sponsored coup. Mohammed Reza resumed his position within a week of his flight.

Thanks to American intervention in Iran—not even to contain the Soviet Union, but to protect business profits—any chance for Iran to become a progressive republic vanished. The resurgent shah, to avoid another Mosaddeq, stifled all further political deviation from his agenda. Israel’s Mossad and the CIA assisted Mohammed Reza in this regard by helping him in 1957 to forge his own Gestapo, the Organization of National Security and Information, also known as Sazman–e Amniyyat va Ettela’at–e Keshvar (SAVAK). This secret police cemented the shah’s ruled for decades, causing Iranians to quake with fright. (As Yoda said, fear leads to anger…)

In 1960–1963, Mohammed Reza introduced the White Revolution. As part of this Revolution, the shah liberalized laws to convey more equality to women and began economic reforms that increased Iranian incomes. These measures angered the Shi’a clergy, whose power the economic reforms eroded and who wanted to continue subjugating women as per Islamic tenets. Soon, ordinary people became discontent as well with the White Revolution, as the economic reforms backfired. Failing farms compelled an Iranian rush to the cities, where Iranians found “high prices, isolation, and poor living conditions.” An ever–decreasing standard of living accompanied rampant inflation. During all this misery, Iranians had no political outlet through which to vent their dissatisfaction. No political freedom existed, with SAVAK arresting and torturing anyone who dissented from the shah’s policies. Only bloody rebellious actions could serve as channels for the people’s rage.⁹

Supporting the shah while this was happening was the United States of America. Ever increasing numbers of American consultants assisted Mohammed Reza with economic planning and military strengthening. With American aid, the Iranian military emerged as the strongest in the region and one of the biggest on Earth. The shah’s reliance on Americans tarnished both him and them in the eyes of the Iranian people.

Finally, in the 1970’s, Iranian intellectuals tired of Mohammed Reza’s tyrannical maladministration. They joined forces with Shi’a clerics loyal to the exiled philosophy professor Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. Khomeini had condemned the White Revolution in 1963, for which government agents stormed Khomeini’s madrasah, “killing several students,” and arrested him. Eventually, the government forced Khomeini into exile. This did not stop Khomeini from constructing doctrines for the maintenance of a Shi’a Muslim state and disseminating them to the Iranian people, thereby fortifying and gaining allegiance.¹⁰

The alliance of intellectuals and clerics fomented a revolution in 1978–1979 that forced the shah to abdicate and allowed Khomeini to return home. Iranians voted for the institution of an Islamic Republic by a large margin. Ayatollah Khomeini (of whom current Ayatollah Khameini is the successor) and his Shi’a clerics and mullahs brutally crafted this Islamic Republic, eliminating whatever Western influence they could along the way. The ayatollah and his cronies have dominated Iran from 1979 until today, exhibiting as much barbarism as the shah ever did. Iran’s democratically–elected president serves as a figurehead. He possesses little authority to thwart the designs of the Shi’a theocrats.¹¹

All this history reveals a Western proclivity for harmful interference in Iranian affairs extending back 200 years. One could defend the intervention in World War II as necessary to constrict German trade and ensure the flow of Lend–Lease materiel to the Soviet Union.¹² Every other intrusion into Iran was an imperialistic endeavor to protect Western business interests. After two centuries of detrimental foreign exploitation, Iranians would have little reason to trust in the good intentions of the United States and Europe. This distrust, in concert with Iranian hostility toward foreign interference in political life and usurpation of natural resources, could make UN attempts to command Iran backfire. Iran could perceive such ultimatums as yet more Western efforts to dominate Iran’s future.

The Shi’a clergy emerges in the history as a force that, after embedding themselves into Iranian culture for centuries, have exercised rising societal influence over the past century, until they took over the country outright in 1979. Shi’a clerics have entrenched themselves in the local ways and traditions. These clerics will not disappear as a concern anytime soon. Domestic rulers in ivory towers could not rid themselves of Shi’a clergy as a potent social influence; foreign soldiers definitely will not be able to accomplish that.

With cognizance of the broad historical context of Iran, description and analysis of the current nuclear crisis with Iran is now proper.

In August 2002, an Iranian dissident movement accused the theocratic government of operating in the city of Natanz a uranium enrichment facility and in the city of Arak a heavy water plant. In December 2002, while on its weapons of mass destruction allegations binge, the United States proclaimed Iran’s guilt of “across–the–board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.” Unlike with Iraq, American declarations about Iran turned out to be at least partially true. The IaeA examined Arak and Natanz in February 2003, and it declared a few months later Iran had broken the Non–Proliferation Treaty.¹³

Iran promised the European Union Three—Germany, France, and Britain, who had taken the lead in diplomacy with Iran—in October 2003 it would cease all research into the enrichment of uranium, an essential procedure in constructing both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. That December, Iran pledged it would cooperate with surprise inspections of its nuclear installations. Iran did not keep that oath, though, as the IaeA chastised Iran in June 2004 for insufficient cooperation. To strike back, Iran announced it would start researching and making centrifuges, vital to uranium enrichment, again. But Iran reversed course several months later, in November 2004, assuring the Europeans it would halt “all nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing work.” Iranian President Mohammed Khatami seemed to negate this the next year, in February 2005, when he said no Iranian government would surrender Iran’s right to nuclear technology.¹⁴

The frothing hard–liner Ahmadinejad replaced the moderate Khatami in the middle of 2005.¹⁵ With Ahmadinejad as its spokesman, Iran dropped all pretense of cooperating with the Europeans. On September 15, 2005, Ahmadinejad told the world his country would spread nuclear technology throughout the Muslim world. Nearly four months later, on January 1, 2006, Iran revealed it had discovered how to extract uranium from ore. Ten days later, on January 10, Iran restarted its research on nuclear fuel. This finally compelled the Europeans to give up their efforts to negotiate. They recommended the United Nations Security Council take up the matter.

On January 13, Iran threatened to toss the IaeA out of the country if the Security Council itself involved itself in the situation. Regardless, in a rare occurrence of agreement between the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China, and Russia, all six nations wanted the Security Council to take action.¹⁶ This produced a Security Council resolution on March 29 demanded Iran totally cooperate with the IaeA within 30 days. The Security Council’s declaration was not “legally binding,” however, because Russia and China were reluctant to impose sanctions or start war in the event of Iranian noncompliance.¹⁷

Afterward, on April 11, Ahmadinejad said Iran had learned how to enrich the uranium after they had extracted it. The Iranian Atomic Energy Organization announced the Natanz facility had accomplished the feat. Because of this, on April 28, the IaeA declared Iran in defiance of the March 29 Security Council requests.¹⁸ That is where the nuclear confrontation with Iran stands now.

II. Problem Statement

Iran, a barbaric theocracy whose president has wished for Israel’s destruction and indicated he would disseminate nuclear technology, has been researching such technology. The Iranian government claims it only wants peaceful nuclear energy. (Plenty of oil sits beneath Iran, and lots of desert that could accommodate solar collectors lies across the country. One could wonder why Iran would need nuclear technology for energy production.) The United States and its diplomatic partners worry Iran desires nuclear weapons for its own use and to give to terrorists. Hence, the United States wants Iran to end its nuclear program.

III. A: Policy Options—Diplomatic (Political)

The United States has been seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis with Iran for the past several years. Washington, D.C., has not negotiated directly with Tehran, with which Washington has no diplomatic relations. Instead, the administration of American President George W. Bush stepped back to let Britain, France, and Germany attempt to convince Iran to terminate its nuclear program. This constitutes an exception to normal American foreign policy; the US government, especially under Bush, has preferred to address what it perceives to be security threats by itself or as a leader of an alliance. Relying completely on other countries in this instance means the US government is not in ultimate control of what happens. If the president says jump, the leader of another country will not necessarily say, how high. Still, with the American commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government might not have wanted to stretch itself further by tackling the Iranian problem.

The Europeans did not accomplish their objective. Iran continued its nuclear research while not taking its negotiations with Europe seriously. Iran was always ready to go with another nuclear transgression for any imagined slight. Eventually, the Europeans conceded defeat, so the Security Council has now taken charge of the issue.

The Security Council has not had any more success than the Europeans did alone so far, though. It has only managed a toothless resolution on March 29 that Iran ignored altogether. Furthermore, nearly a month after the Security Council issued its commands, Iranian President Ahmadinejad speechified regarding the Security Council: “The Iranian nation won’t give a damn about such useless resolutions… Today, they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country.”¹⁹ UN diplomacy does not appear to be a winning strategy.

The US could engage with Iran directly, but that would necessitate recognizing Iran’s government and opening diplomatic relations with it. Washington would be averse to doing that, especially with Ahmadinejad occupying the Iranian presidency. Besides which, Iran already knows the might of the United States forms the backbone of every diplomatic maneuver so far, yet Iran does not seem to care. For the US to open direct negotiations with Iran would, therefore, not help. All it would do is give Iran the status of being a nation the US has deemed fit for recognition, in exchange for nothing, which would bolster Iran and humiliate the United States.

III. B: Policy Options—Economic

In an effort to fabricate a compromise whereby Iran could have nuclear energy but the rest of the world could feel safe Iran was not gaining dangerous nuclear know–how, Russia offered to enrich uranium for Iran on Russia’s own soil and then ship the uranium back to Iran. Nothing has come of this Russian initiative, though.²⁰ Iran has apparently decided it wants to enrich uranium itself.

If Iran does not start cooperating with the United Nations, the Security Council could meet again and insist Iran alter course for “international peace and security.” Iranian noncompliance with such a resolution would permit the Security Council to enact economic sanctions against Iran. China and Russia, however, have been squeamish about such a move.²¹ Also, implementing broad economic sanctions against Iran would constrict or prevent the flow of oil out of that country. As the world grapples with high oil prices, across–the–board sanctions could damage everyone’s economy even as Iran hurts. The situation could be like Thomas Jefferson’s embargo of Britain and France all over again.

Perhaps sanctions could leave alone oil trade with Iran; that would have a better chance of sticking. Because oil is already the lifeblood of Iran’s economy, and because oil would become more important with trade in everything else forbidden, Iran could not afford to cut off oil supplies or fiddle with prices too much. So the rest of the world would not hurt for oil, although Iran would still suffer the pain of sanctions. If Iran continues its intransigence, Russia and China might support limited sanctions, as they would not threaten oil supplies, although a lot of skilled diplomacy would be necessary.

III. C: Policy Options—Military

In the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh unveils to the American people secret plans the US government has for war with Iran. The end objective of the war would be the overthrow of the theocracy. To achieve this, the US military would bomb Iran extensively, which planners hope would embarrass the Iranian government, thereby inspiring the Iranian citizenry to revolt and depose the mullahs. Concurrently, the American military would drop bunker–buster tactical nukes on Iranian nuclear facilities, such as the one at Natanz.²²

That is one of the most idiotic plans in the history of military strategy. The American dream of happy Iraqis valiantly rising against their oppressors and eagerly embracing regime change Washington would like turned out to be fantasy. No reason exists to believe the same American dream would come true in Iran. Two hundred years of Western imperialism in Iran has ensured Iranian revulsion of foreign influence. Most Iranians would stick by their own people rather than act as foreigners attacking their home want. The Shi’a clergy, who have centuries–old traditional claims to Iranian hearts, and not bomb–happy Americans, would find the most supporters in Iran. Because of this, not even Iranian opposition groups want American intervention, believing it would damage their cause.²³

Plus, targeted American strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure could likely fail. The Iranians have had the Israeli destruction of Iraq’s French–supplied nuclear reactor at Osirak, as well as hundreds of American and British sorties across Iraq in the 1990’s, from which to learn. They protected against bombing runs by constructing some of their nuclear installations underground. In addition, the US government does not know the locations of a few of Iran’s important nuclear assets. A bombing campaign could miss them.²⁴

After the United States gained nothing from starting a war, Iran could inflict grievous costs in retaliation. The Shi’a Iranians, through shared faith with Shi’a Iraqis, command enormous influence with them. Many more Shi’a Iraqis than who are insurgents now could become such at the urging of their Shi’a brethren in Iran. Iranian troops could start attacking American soldiers in Iraq. Iran could even capture parts of Iraq. One Pentagon affiliate has said, “The Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” Hezbollah could come out of hibernation as well, attacking Israel and American interests in the Middle East.²⁵ And, deciding it has nothing to lose, Iran could use its oil as an economic weapon to harm Western economies.

Sometimes, the benefits of military action can outweigh horrendous consequences. World War II stands as the most powerful demonstration of that truth. Attacking Iran as the military plans in Hersh’s article suggest would not, however, yield sufficient gains to offset the damage to American interests and operations or to justify the enormous loss of life in Iran, Iraq, and Israel (if not more countries).

IV. Policy Recommendation

I have not seen any policy or strategy under consideration of which I approve, so I will devise my own.

The United States and Europe should continue pursuing diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue. I do not think Iran would capitulate to such an approach, though. Iranians, with reason, loathe foreign attempts to influence their politics and control their resources. As a result, I do not believe Iran will voluntarily strike a deal with anyone to limit or eliminate a national program it sees as its right. Meddlesome foreigners can go to hell.

Before I outline my proposal, I must state, I do not believe Iran will use nuclear weapons offensively if it learns how to make them. Any obvious first use of nuclear weapons on Iran’s part would invite nuclear retaliation from Israel and the United States, and possibly from France and Britain. Passing nuclear weapons off to terrorists would not be a viable option for Iran, either, because nuclear forensics could trace a bomb’s fissile material back to its source.²⁶ One might say the so–called “Mad Mullahs” are just that—mad—but Iran’s lack of military aggressiveness over the past 20 years, with trigger–happy Americans and Israelis nearby, argues against that. Iran’s theocrats are evil but not demonstrably insane or suicidal. They would place their own collective survival above global Islamist revolution. If nothing else, a dead revolutionary movement cannot advance its cause.

With Iran’s rationality in mind, I propose what I call neo–containment. In the neo–containment framework, if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the United Nations would place limited sanctions, as I described above, on Iran. Food, water, and medicine for the Iranian people, in addition to oil, would be the only exemptions to the sanctions. Limited sanctions would prevent mass starvation and famine while squeezing the Iranian economy. Militarily, the United States would officially point nuclear missiles at Iran and promise it will suffer the missiles’ fury if it does use nuclear weapons on anyone. If Iran does not want to struggle under sanctions and squirm under nuclear threat, Iran could dismantle its nuclear weapons and relinquish the capability to create more. If that does not happen, then Iran’s economic and technological capabilities can wilt under sanctions, and its psyche can suffer from knowing the world’s sole remaining superpower, with an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons, might use those weapons on Iran, annihilating it. Iran could never build enough nuclear weapons to combat that threat. From these economic and military coercive devices, frustration and fear could build in the Iranian population, undermining cultural health and thereby national cohesion.

To try to ensure the resulting anger flows to the Iranian government and not the United States, the American government should utilize soft power resources. Washington should emphasize its foe is the theocracy of Iran, not its people. The US should publicly appear not to be interfering with Iran internally, but to be sitting back after promising to recognize Iran officially and extend economic and technological assistance to Iran if the Iranians overthrow their government. Covertly, Americans should spread through Muslim networks messages about the benefits of disarmament and democracy and the evils of nuclear–intent mullahs. When Iranians receive these messages, they should see them as coming from Muslim brothers, not American imperialists. To complement this tactic, Iranian expatriates who know the positives of republican government and the negatives of Shi’a theocracy could tell their stories to the world. This could all inspire hope and desire within Iranians for something better than lives of terror under a repressive theocracy.

Containment worked against the Soviet Union. It took 40 years to do its job, but the United States avoided a devastating war that would have left the world a worse place than it is now. I believe the similar strategy I described above would handle Iran just as adeptly. Indeed, neo–containment could perform even better. Iran could never threaten the United States with nuclear extinction, so Americans would not have to live with the dread of that again. Since Iran would be incapable of wiping out either the American people or their nuclear capability, no matter what, the Iranian government would be insane to employ nuclear weapons in anything other than clear self–defense. So Americans need not fear even the loss of a city. The risk of such an attack would not be zero, because Iran’s government could theoretically defy rationality. But the danger would be minimal, and it would not be anything we do not already face from China, Pakistan, or Russia.

Neo–containment would thus be the least perilous idea, while promising the most impressive results. The strategy would not guarantee complete success: American soft power might not overcome the tinge of “American imperialist dog.” Cold War victories argue the US would have a good chance of accomplishing its goals, though.

¹ Encyclopædia Britannica, “Iran.” Available http://www.search.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/eb/article–9106324.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Encyclopædia Britannica, “Russian Revolution of 1905.” Available http://www.search.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/eb/article–9064487.

⁵ Britannica, “Iran.”

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ WashingtonPost.Com, “Timeline: Iran’s Nuclear Development.” Available http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp–dyn/content/custom/2006/01/17/CU2006011701017.html.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Encyclopædia Britannica, “Iran: Year in Review 2006.” Available http://www.search.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/eb/article–9403324.

¹⁶ WashingtonPost.Com.

¹⁷ Paul Kerr, “UN Urges Halt to Nuclear Enrichment,” Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today. Available http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_04/uniranurges.asp.

¹⁸ WashingtonPost.Com.

¹⁹ CNN.com, “IAEA: Iran Defies U.N. Demands.” Available http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/28/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html.

²⁰ Kerr.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Seymour Hersh, “The Iran Plans,” The New Yorker. Available http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact.

²³ Jill Jermano, lectures at The George Washington University, 17 April 2006.

²⁴ Hersh.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Barry L. Rothberg, “Averting Armageddon: Preventing Nuclear Terrorism in the United States.” Available http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djcil/articles/djcil8p79.htm#H2N18. Gabriele Rennie, “Tracing the Steps in Nuclear Material Trafficking,” Science and Technology. Available http://www.llnl.gov/str/March05/Hutcheon.html.

Neo-Containment for a Nuclear Iran is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

1. Presidential candidates have little reason to campaign to the whole country. If partisan or personal loyalty makes victory certain in a state, a candidate can safely ignore it in favor of other states. Conversely, if a candidate will definitely lose in a state, then he won’t waste his time there. Only competitive “battleground states” see much activity.
2. We have less national turnout. If a state will assuredly support one candidate, why bother voting? Also, lack of vigorous campaigning in a state might contribute to voter apathy during an election.
3. With the winner-take-all plurality system, candidates try to attract moderate voters, so to avoid turning people off, they emphasize their personalities more than their policies. This results in bland, visionless candidates who take those traits into the White House.

I believe a new presidential electoral system is in order. We need something that rewards candidates who have bold ideas, while drawing more voters into the process as well.

Therefore, I recommend we emulate the French.

Hear me out! The French have an excellent method by which to elect their president. It is a two-stage electoral process. In the first part, candidates from all the country’s parties can run. Candidates who mobilize partisans with daring policy agendas will perform best here. Afterwards, during the second stage runoff, the first and second place finishers of the first round compete. Whoever achieves a majority vote wins. This requires the candidates to make themselves as palatable toward the center as possible.

Eliminating the Electoral College and implementing two-round direct popular vote elections here would deliver many benefits. It would reward courageous candidates with striking ideas in the first stage, but it would weed out dangerous fanatics in the second stage. It would allow smaller parties to achieve greater prominence than they could achieve in a winner-take-all elector paradigm. It would give candidates reason to campaign to every American. And it would give each voter a larger role in determining the outcome of the election.

As a German friend also pointed out to me, “I don’t quite get it that in the US, votes for the Greens i.e. are all lost, even help a candidate from the right to get into office (see 2000)—a second turn of the elections would allow Green supporters to vote for the Democrat.” This is an important point. The major parties would have to give adherents of smaller parties reasons to vote for them. This would force the Democrats and Republicans to take other parties, such as Greens and Libertarians, seriously, and perhaps heed some of their political desires. This would make more Americans feel as if they play an important role in the republican process.

To complete the reform, we also need to make going out to vote easier. Right now, we seemingly make voting as hard as we can. Elections take place on weekdays, so if Americans want to vote, they must take off work or rush to the polls before or after work. When they get there, they must wait a long time to finish the process, because the volunteer polling coordinators are old, retired people. (Young people have to work, after all.) All this makes voting seem not worth the hassle to millions of Americans.

To change that and increase turnout, every Election Day should become a federal holiday. That would allow Americans to vote without worrying about missing work and forfeiting pay, or hurrying through throngs of people in the morning or evening. Younger Americans would also be able to volunteer to oversee the polls, thereby making voting a smoother and faster experience.

While we’re on the subject of changing our electoral system, let’s consider this: At the time the Constitution was drafted, one of the Anti-Federalist objections to the document was to the pluralistic election of representatives. The Anti-Federalists argued this could allow the election of representatives whom most of the community despised, but who still managed to get more votes than anyone else. Instead, according to the Anti-Federalists, districts should select their representatives by majority vote.

I believe that Anti-Federalist objection has merit. How can a representative represent a district if most of the people there hate him? Changing congressional elections to two-stage elections, similar to what I outlined above for presidential elections, would be a good idea. That way, we could ensure the majority of citizens in a district would have voted for their congressman. All the benefits of switching the national presidential election to a two-stage majority vote model would apply here.

Many conservatives would object to the national scope of my reform plan. They’d correctly point out it would erode federalism. Because population centers—cities—would yield greater power, our executive branch might also shift to the left. Given the power of the presidency, this might produce a government similarly inclined to governments in Europe. Anathema to conservatives, that would be.

To counteract the leftward effect and to placate conservatives, I suggest we repeal the 17th Amendment. Let the state legislatures elect senators again. Senators who don’t rely upon the people as an electoral base would be a lot more willing to challenge the president. Not only might the Senate be more conservative than the President, but they’d feel safer defying him since the people who put him in office wouldn’t be the same ones who put them in office. They wouldn’t have to worry as much about the President’s popularity.

In addition, with the people electing both the House of Representatives and the President under my plan, we’d need more checks against the tyranny of the majority. Election of federal senators by state legislatures would constitute such a check.

No electoral procedures could solve all problems. But this extensive reform plan would eliminate many of them:

• Campaigns focusing only on battleground states.
• Nullification of millions of votes.
• Candidates whose only goal is to win a plurality of the ballots.
• Victories by candidates whom most of the community doesn’t support.
• Apathy of the electorate toward politics.

We especially should not underestimate the importance of the last element. Only an interested and engaged citizenry can serve as the foundation of a republic. Without it, a republic cannot stand.

Heal our republic: change our electoral system is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Really, how many people did the Michael Jackson trial affect? (I don’t mean, how many haters and fans had feelings about the issue, but how many lives were truly impacted by the trial?) What makes the sad case of Natalee Holloway in Aruba more significant than most of the other instances of missing children each year? Did a comatose woman in Florida merit substantially more attention than everything else happening in the country? Going even farther back, was the O.J. Simpson murder case much more compelling than the other crimes people had committed? Etc., etc.

Certainly, many of these kind of stories are interesting. Some attention to them from the media is due. But, in the coverage of news outlets who purport to tell us about the world, should these stories crowd out everything else?

No.

As someone who is studying journalism, I understand the media’s tendency to focus on these sensationalist topics. They are easy; all journalists have to do is talk to a few cops, lawyers, or celebrities, camp out in front of a courthouse or stay in a hotel, and then they have a story. They don’t have to dig through evasive, hostile, or obscure sources, and they don’t have to risk making anyone angry. Also, news organizations know their audiences will eagerly consume this fluff. It provides viewers or readers doses of excitement without challenging their preconceptions and worldviews much. Not even the Terri Schiavo affair did that, being as it was about a matter that was abstract for most people.

So, this whole cycle enables journalists to relax with unchallenging assignments, while still raking in the money. And it allows consumers to go through life without serious introspection of themselves and their societies.

But this process obscures issues that, even though they are difficult to cover and contemplate, still affect the lives and well-being of many Americans, if not all of them.

I’m talking about subjects such as these:

• Government corruption. I don’t mean just malfeasance, but abuses of power that might be “legal” but still assault the principles our nation holds dear.
• Domestic ramifications of the War on Terror. In the news, the War on Terror appears as mainly a struggle in foreign lands. We know this War on Terror impacts life at home, too, and we need to understand more about it. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not comfortable being ignorant of these things. If the intransigence of the Bush administration prevents the media from covering this more thoroughly, then the media should make an issue of that.
• The histories and motivations of people around the world. As the events of September 11, 2001, showed us, Americans hardly live alone on this Earth. What other countries and societies do can affect us profoundly. Comprehending their thoughts and beliefs is, therefore, important.
• Related to the point above, but American news outlets should tell us more in general about what’s happening about the world. For example, the savagery of the Sudanese government in Darfur and the massacre of protesters in Uzbekistan should receive more attention in the American media. No country is an island, to borrow from an old proverb, and the tragedies of one region can eventually impact us. Besides which… The country from one of those examples, Uzbekistan, is an ally of the United States in our War on Terror! If our partners conduct state-sanctioned murder and other human rights violations, the American people should know that, and be able to pressure their government accordingly.
• The environment. The health of our planet impacts everyone. It merits more than the token quoting of a scientist source every once in a while. How are Americans to know what to do about the environment if the media doesn’t investigate and illuminate the issue?
• Crime and punishment. I don’t refer to telling us Mrs. Wutherford was mugged last night. Already, local newscasters and newspapers focus too much on criminal incidents. But what no media on any level examines is, how effective is our justice system in punishing felons? Do our cops and prisons serve as effective deterrents? Does capital punishment do anything to prevent heinous murders?

This is but a small sampling of the things on which the national media should focus. Will the media ever minimize their sensationalist fluff pieces in favor of these kinds of stories?

That depends on the American people. Above all, news corporations want to make money. Sadly, that is their driving force these days. If Americans tune out substanceless vapidity and demand actual enlightenment, then the media will have to respect that. Can something like this actually happen anytime soon?…

I hope.

Sensationalist media ignores real issues is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

These advocacies of violence for one’s own selfish ends are not Machiavelli’s only breaks with the teachings of ancient philosophy and Christianity. Machiavelli also put forth a conception of the world whereby no natural order exists. God or luck is not around to guide the world or anyone on it. Humans and their own initiative are responsible for shaping and changing the world. Consequently, if one wants to acquire anything, one must fashion or achieve it himself, without relying on divine providence or luck.¹

Agathocles the Sicilian, King of Syracuse, whom Machiavelli describes in the middle of The Prince, is a paragon of Machiavellian philosophy.

This man was born of non-royal lineage to poor parents; his father was only a potter. Agathocles lived a lifetime of crime, but his sins were of “such virtue of spirit and body” that he rose through the ranks of the military to become praetor of Syracuse. And then, Agathocles decided he wanted to become Syracuse’s leader. He naturally sought to achieve this goal with the same criminal methods that brought him to prominence in the military.

After warning Hamilcar the Carthaginian, a general fighting in Sicily, what he was planning, Agathocles summoned the senators and populace ostensibly for a discussion of important public issues. But when everyone had gathered, Agathocles commanded his soldiers to slaughter all the senators and wealthiest people of Syracuse. With them then dead, Agathocles took control of the city as its prince.

Despite the brutality of Agathocles’s rise to power, however, there was nary a public complaint about the affair. Agathocles was secure in his position during his reign as well.²

This all demonstrates the Machiavellian principle that violence and criminality are the means by which one obtains power. “To kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion” are not ethical, says Machiavelli, but they constitute the path to empire and dominion. So any overlord who employs these methods is not the inferior of any other leader.³

One might think this is nonsensical, for violent actions do not inspire love, and are not good leaders ones who are loved? Machiavelli contends this is not true. Love relies on “a chain of obligation,” that men will break because they are evil. Therefore, a prince who must use a people’s love for him to rule lives upon a shaky foundation. Also, seeking love paradoxically inspires hatred, because funding beneficent works for some people requires either taking property from other people or financing the works oneself. The latter makes one poor, and ergo weak and contemptible. And the former enrages those from whom money must be taken.

Instead, says Machiavelli, inspiring fear within one’s subjects is the better course of action. If the people fear their leader, they shall retain that fear into perpetuity, rather than forgetting it as they do love when convenience strikes. The violence that instills this fear will not cause a country to hate its leader, either. The prince need only take care to show justification for his endeavors, and to refrain from touching men’s property and women. After all, Machiavelli proclaims, “Men forget the death of a father more quickly than the loss of a patrimony.” (This ties into why taxation to fund good works, in the pursuit of love, instills hatred instead.)⁴

Additionally, to avoid hatred, a leader must ensure he commits most of his atrocities swiftly as he is assuming power. This is necessary “to secure oneself.” Afterwards, the prince should discontinue routine violence and only use it for “utility for the subjects.” Otherwise, if cruelties persist, one’s people will not feel secure, and so they will despise their leader.⁵

Agathocles demonstrated Machiavelli’s philosophy of violence very well. He wrested supreme power for himself with a swift flash of brutality. But he refrained from seizing anyone’s property, and his thirst for blood did not run rampant during his administration. This is why, according to Machiavellian values, the people of Syracuse feared Agathocles but did not hate him. Consequently, Agathocles gained and kept power without significant opposition.

Another Machiavellian principle Agathocles showed during his seizure of power was caution of the aristocracy. The rich always scheme for more possessions and more control, says Machiavelli. Whereas “the people want not to be oppressed,” the aristocrats “want to oppress.” Should any opportunity arise, “the great” as Machiavelli calls them, will betray their leader for their own gain.⁶ Thus, when Agathocles executed the richest citizens of Syracuse, he eliminated what could have been a threat to his rule, as per Machiavellian guidelines.

Machiavelli also emphasizes relying on oneself, instead of on fortune or on other people. Fortune, after all, does not exist; humans are the makers of their own fates. And other individuals are wicked schemers who will take advantage of one’s reliance on them.⁷ The only force or person, on which one can depend, is oneself.

Agathocles receives praise from Machiavelli for his self-reliance. Agathocles did not rely on anyone’s help as he rose to power. Instead, he climbed through the ranks of the military by his own efforts, experiencing “a thousand trials and hardships.” After Agathocles staged his coup d’etat, he maintained his rule himself through “many spirited and dangerous policies.” He did not depend on others or on any public love of him.⁸

He also did not rely on luck when, into his reign, the Carthaginians twice defeated him in battle and eventually laid siege to Syracuse itself. Instead, Agathocles took the initiative to defend his city, and turn the tide of the war against Carthage. While keeping some troops in Syracuse to withstand the Carthaginian siege, Agathocles slipped out of Syracuse with the rest of his men and assailed Africa, where Carthage stood. Agathocles beat Carthage on its own soil, thereby freeing Syracuse and forcing the Carthaginians to concede Sicily to him.⁹

² Ibid., 34-35, 37.

³ Ibid., 35.

⁴ Ibid., 63-65, 66-68.

⁵ Ibid., 38.

⁶ Ibid., 39-40.

⁷ Ibid., 66-67.

⁸ Ibid., 35.

⁹ Ibid., 35.

A Paper on Machiavelli’s The Prince is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

This oath to believe in God and act according to his principles comes from Zoroastrian scripture, a representative of the millennia-old literature of Persia. Despite its age, scholars have not examined Persian literature to any great degree. Many of its few extant remains lay spread across the Earth, residing in public and private hands, improperly inventoried or even unrecorded. Those receive at best incomplete supplementation from meager references in the writings of Greek, Latin, and Arabic authors. Therefore, in combination with their own scarcity, students of Persian literature have yet to construct a whole model of ancient Persian literary works.²

The first written Persian literature appears in Pahlavi, the language of Persia under the Sasanian dynasty, rulers of Iran from 226 to 651 AD.³ Pahlavi spawned from Old Persian, the only traces of which are rock inscriptions commanded by Darius the Great and later Archaemenian kings, and it evolved into Modern Persian. The Pahlavi literature scholars know about today compares to the Bible’s Old Testament in size and deals largely with religion and liturgy.⁴

As it did on the Arabian Peninsula,⁵ poetry also held importance in Persia. When Iranian poetry arose is uncertain, but a legend from the famous Iranian poet Firdausi places its invention at around 3000 BC, during the reign of King Jamshid in Iran’s Golden Age. Two types of poetry existed at first: the ballad and the epic. The ballad, which tells a story, eventually begot the lyric, the hymn, the satire, and the panegyric. The epic, a longer storytelling mechanism, of which The Shah-Namah by Firdausi is an example, likely derived from the ballad as well. In the modern era, nothing remains of the first ballads, nor of any “love poetry” artists might have created. Heretofore-mentioned Zoroastrian scripture comprises the first Persian poetry on record.⁶

Zoroaster, from whom Zoroastrianism takes its name, resided in either northwestern Iran around 600 BC,⁷ or in eastern Iran around 1400 BC,⁸ depending upon the source. Wherever Zoroaster originally lived, the teachings of “one of the great religious leaders of the East”⁹ soon spread throughout Persia.¹⁰ Zoroaster told of a Dualistic world where good and evil dominate; leading the forces of good is Ahura Mazda, or Ormazd,¹¹ the “lord of wisdom, the one, eternal, uncreated, good, wise, and munificent god.”¹² Commanding the forces of evil is Angra Mainyu, or Ahriman. Good and evil will struggle against each other until the end of the present world, when Ahriman will fail, as men, with their free will, choose good, banish evil, and bring vohu hsapra, or paradise.

Meanwhile, before the coming of paradise, Ormazd describes the actions of humans in his “life-book,” which Ormazd will use to determine people’s judgments upon death. Men who have lived well will cross the Cinvat Bridge into heaven, and men who have lived poorly will experience the torture of hell or the wait for ultimate decision in purgatory.¹³ During their lives, humans should pray before “the life-giving force” that is fire. This is not fire worship, as many have erroneously assumed, but worship of God via the fire.¹⁴

Enjoying some of its greatest influence 1,000 years before the rise of Christianity as the state religion of the Archaemenian kings, Zoroastrianism faltered after Alexander the Great conquered Persia in 333 BC and destroyed many of its holy books. Following the Mesopotamian invasion came a dark age of 550 years, in which any literary or religious activity that might have occurred left no trace, either in poetry or in prose.¹⁵ With the coming of the Sasanian dynasty, though, Persian religion and literature restarted. After ousting the Parthians in 229 AD, the Sasanians revived Iranian traditions that had lapsed into disuse.¹⁶ Pahlavi prose evidence reveals a rebirth of Iranian poetry, recording that even two Sasanian kings were poets. One king, Bahram Gur (420 to 438 AD), allegedly created the Persian rhyming couplet while lion hunting with his gorgeous lover, Dilaram.¹⁷

In the spiritual realm, the Sasanians revived Zoroastrianism as the religion of state once more. This time, however, the Sasanians instituted a church hierarchy, similar to that of the Byzantine Christian church. The priests who comprised this hierarchy were the Magi, who had already established themselves as Zoroastrian adepts before the Sasanian dynasty. (Some of these Magi, according to Christian theology, were the Wise Men who witnessed the birth of Jesus Christ.) The Magi maintained the prayer fires and helped people make sense of the myriad forces of light and darkness on Earth.¹⁸

Zoroastrianism prevailed in Iran until the Muslims conquered it in 651 AD. Despite their respect for other monotheistic religions, the Muslims henceforth suppressed worship of Ormazd. To escape oppression, some Zoroastrians ran for India, while a few others elected to weather Muslim discontent and remain in Iran. Remnants of these Zoroastrian groups, known as Parsis, still exist today, and only through them has the modern world learned about Zoroastrianism and its scriptures.¹⁹

The main component of those scriptures is the Avesta, the “bible and prayer book” of the Zoroastrians.²⁰ Though it debuted sometime afterwards, the Avesta’s meter bears similarity to that of the Indian Vedas.²¹ Avistak, the Pahlavi word from which Avesta probably comes, means “wisdom, knowledge, the book of knowledge” or “the original text, the scripture, the law.”²² Appearing throughout the Avesta are bits and pieces of poetry, which though few, prove the utilization of poetic expression in Iran at least 3,000 years ago.²³

The language in which the Zoroastrians constructed the Avesta takes its name from the work: Avestic. It is a sister language of Old Persian and Sanskrit, and therefore, in spite of its manifestations in Pashto, it is not an ancestor of Modern Persian.²⁴ What actual script Avestic might have used is a mystery, because Alexander’s Macedonians ruined most of the original books, and the Sasanians wrote down the Avesta in Pahlavi when they recorded it from their oral tradition. In this Pahlavi text, instead of reading the Avesta from left to right, as a Westerner would, one reads it “from right to left.”²⁵

Several divisions form the Avesta. The oldest part, the Gathas, likely promulgated from Zoroaster himself. Other sections came later, as subsequent generations of Zoroastrians, up to the Sasanians, worked on and added to the Avesta.²⁶ An example of the newer sections is the Yashts, which contained poetry, interspersed with prose, proclaiming the virtues of several demigods, heroes, and powers. Octosyllabic meter formation, a la the Kalevala verse from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “Hiawatha,” characterized the Yashts’ poetry. The language of the Yashts is younger than that of the Gathas, but the Yashts are poetically and religiously older,²⁷ featuring polytheistic notions and other religious principles antedating Zoroaster.²⁸ The tenth Yasht, for instance, praises a figure from early Iranian mythology, Mithra, who observes and helps men, sparks battles, and dispenses justice.²⁹

The Avesta would remain unknown to most of the world but for the Parsis, individuals who continued their Zoroastrian ways after the Muslim seizure of Persia, and who thus preserved the Avesta through the generations. These Parsis, in the middle of the 18^th century, introduced Westerners to the Avesta, exposing them for the first time to a native and contemporary source about early Iranian literature and thought. This allowed scholars to begin serious research of Persian literature and religion.³⁰

Effects of that Persian religion and literature continue to reverberate across the globe. Modern monotheistic religion, still the primary driving force behind geopolitical events, has borrowed extensively from Persian Zoroastrianism, with, amongst other examples, the Muslims appropriating the concept of an “unbegotten” God,³¹ and the Christians copying the notion of a purgatory.³² While in Babylonia’s captivity, the Jews interacted frequently with the Persians, likely adopting, or at least considering, some of their ideas, which in turn passed to their monotheistic progeny.³³ The physical remains of Zoroastrianism and early Persian literary and religious thought might be few—only scraps of manuscripts³⁴ and 140,000 Parsis exist³⁵—but their influence will exert itself for millennia to come.

² Yu. E. Borshchevsky and Yu. E. Bregel, “The Preparation of a Bio-Bibliographical Survey of Persian Literature,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 (April 1972): 169.

³ Williams A. V. Jackson, Early Persian Poetry from the Beginnings Down to the Time of Firdausi (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920): 2; Williams A. V. Jackson, An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1892): xxxi; and Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, Volume II (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1951): 3.

⁴ Browne, 3.

⁵ Dr. Mohammed Sharafuddin, lectures at The George Washington University.

⁶ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 1, 2, 6.

⁷ Ibid., 2.

⁸ Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair, Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2002), 22.

⁹ Jackson, Avesta, xi.

¹⁰ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 2.

¹¹ Jackson, Avesta, xxiv.

¹² Bloom and Blair, 22.

¹³ Jackson, Avesta, xxiv, xxviii.

¹⁴ Bloom and Blair, 22-23.

¹⁵ Browne, 3.

¹⁶ William D. Whitney, “On the Avesta, or the Sacred Scriptures of the Zoroastrian Religion,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 5 (1855-1856): 341.

¹⁷ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 8.

¹⁸ Bloom and Blair, 23.

¹⁹ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 14, and Avesta, xi.

²⁰ Jackson, Avesta, xi.

²¹ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 4.

²² Jackson, Avesta, xi.

²³ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 6.

²⁴ Browne, 3.

²⁵ Jackson, Avesta, xxxi.

²⁶ Ibid., xxiii, xxix.

²⁷ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 4-5.

²⁸ Ilya Gershevitch, “Zoroaster’s Own Contribution,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23 (January 1964): 14.

²⁹ Jackson, Early Persian Poetry, 5.

³⁰ Whitney, 340-341.

³¹ Dr. Sharafuddin.

³² Kevin Knight, “CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory” <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm>, 21 March 2003.

³³ Jackson, Avesta, xxx.

³⁴ Borshchevsky and Bregel, 169

³⁵ “Zoroastrianism and Avesta: Overview and FAQ” <http://www.avesta.org/zfaq.html>, 30 March 2003.

Thus Spoke Zoroaster is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Three-and-a-half centuries ago, a very similar man wrought his influence on politics, both in England and in America. His name was Hugh Peters, and he shared Reagan’s ability to captivate and persuade the masses, with simple directness and descriptive metaphors.¹ Hugh,² too, received the appreciative approbation of his friends and the intense scorn of his foes. His enemies despised him so much they executed him, after which they wrote biting parodies of his viewpoints, such as The Tales and Jests of Hugh Peters, and slanderous biographies of his life, such as England’s Shame by William Yonge.³

Hugh Peters entered life in May or June, 1598, at Fowey, Cornwall,⁴ a county that occupies a peninsula on England’s southwest corner.⁵ Cornwall has a different past from the rest of England: even after the Saxons had long since established control elsewhere in England, the Cornish peninsula remained under the dominion of the Celts. Only in the tenth century AD did the Saxons take Cornwall, and even following the Saxons’ conquest, Cornish assimilation into greater English society occurred but slowly. In 1200 AD, 200 years after the Norman Conquest, Celtic culture still pervaded Cornwall, with the marked absence of big urban centers, the broad disbursement of its population, and the lingering predominance of its native language, Cornish. As of the 1640’s, the decade of the English Civil War, the majority of Cornwall’s residents west of the town of Truro continued to speak Cornish.

Cornwall’s early modern economy based itself upon something an industry unique to the peninsula, which no other region in the known world, much less England, possessed: tin mining. Even fishermen and farmers toiled in the mines during times of economic hardship. Tin mining exacted a harsh toll on workers, and for their difficult labor, the workers earned relatively little money. Presiding over the tin mining areas, and administering law and order, were not standard courts, but royal Stanneries that did not fall under the jurisdiction of normal English laws. Tin mining and Stanneries tied the Cornish together, so that the common inhabitants of the English-speaking East felt more loyalty to their counterparts in the Cornish-speaking West than to Englishmen in other counties.

Because of Cornwall’s societal and physical isolation from the rest of England, intermarriage amongst the Cornish happened often. A saying goes, “All Cornish gentlemen are cousins.” From 1509 to 1640, between 70 and 80 percent of weddings involving lowly ranking Cornish gentlemen were to Cornish wives, and the commoners intermarried yet more often. But the most highly ranking Cornish gentlemen, who often fulfilled such roles as justice of the peace, deputy lieutenant, and sheriff, did not partake of the rampant intermarriage, preferring to marry spouses outside the county, rather than choose fellow Cornish who gripped the lower rungs of the social ladder.

Upper gentry deviated from Cornish norms in other ways, too. They enjoyed more money and more education, and they possessed more interest in issues affecting all England. All the upper gentry spoke English, and many higher gentlemen in the East went so far as to despise Cornish. The Eastern gentry had assimilated themselves the most into English culture, and their religion was the most liberal, as opposed to the conservatism with which most Cornish beheld religion.⁶ Naturally, the Eastern gentry would have felt more kinship with English elsewhere than with their Cornish neighbors.

Enter Hugh’s parents, whom he deemed “considerable.”⁷ Hugh’s mother, nee Treffey, descended from the gentry family who governed the Eastern parish to which Fowey belonged. And Hugh’s father, whose Dutch ancestors had fled to England from Antwerp in 1543, because of persecution for their “reformed” Protestant religion, worked as a merchant.⁸ Having upper Eastern Cornish gentry maternal ancestors, and Dutch paternal ancestors, Hugh lacked connections to the vast majority of other Cornishmen, who would overwhelmingly support King Charles I during the English Civil War, whereas Hugh and the numerically few Eastern gentry would support Parliament.⁹

Spending his childhood immersed in the successful merchant community, instead of the impoverished tin mining families, Hugh developed an interest in trade, especially that of New England, and particularly that in fish. Later emphasizing to Hugh the importance of healthy commerce, and inspiring within him a utilitarian perspective of life that valued business acumen, was financial misfortune Hugh’s family suffered after losing cargo at sea. As a result of their monetary decline, Hugh’s family had actually become poor by the time they sent him to Cambridge University in 1613.¹⁰

While Hugh was attending Cambridge, his tutor passed away, leaving 14-year-old Hugh “exposed to my shifts.”¹¹ The newly master-less teenager, according to Royalists writing after his death, then became what English society at the timed feared: a sinful, dishonest, and promiscuous young man. Cambridge authorities supposedly flogged and expelled Hugh for his dissolute immorality. That, however, would have been news to Hugh, who received his BA from Cambridge in 1618.¹²

Even though Hugh matriculated at Cambridge at the same time as several notable Puritans, such as Thomas Goodwin, and most likely interacted with them, Hugh apparently did not adopt their ways of thinking. That happened two years after Hugh graduated from Cambridge, in 1620.¹³ Hugh heard a minister preaching from the text “The Burden of Dumah” at St. Paul’s in London, and then, “God struck me with the sense of my sinful estate.”¹⁴ Hugh awakened to the cause of Puritan religion, becoming a deacon in 1621. Hugh returned to Cambridge for his MA in 1622, and in the latter part of that year, he spent a few months in London, listening to the sermons of the Puritans Davenport, Gouge, and Sibbes. The next year, in 1623, the Bishop of London licensed Hugh as a priest, a short time after which the Earl of Warwick appointed Hugh as curator of the Holy Trinity Church in Rayleigh, Essex.¹⁵

During his stay in Essex, Hugh completed his conversion to Puritanism after listening to the words of Thomas Hooker, another Puritan divine¹⁶ (who would eventually, in America, defend the right of the people to elect their own representatives).¹⁷ After preaching in Rayleigh for a few years, Hugh in 1625 wedded a “good gentlewoman,” a widower named Elizabeth Reade, who brought with her an income of 200-300 pounds annually. Hugh’s new step-daughter by virtue of this marriage was the wife of John Winthrop, Jr., with whom Hugh would become a friend.¹⁸

In 1626, assisted by his new money,¹⁹ Hugh ventured to London, not to preach, but to study religion further. Some of Hugh’s friends, though, persuaded him to preach one time at St. Sepulcher’s Church; a “young man” in attendance, whom Hugh said was an MP, offered to arrange for Hugh 30 pounds yearly if he would preach at St. Sepulcher’s once a month.²⁰ Hugh agreed to do so, and his sermons eventually attracted so many devotees as to necessitate weekly appearances.²¹ A hundred per sermon Hugh claimed to convert to Puritanism. Hugh achieved so much success, he said, that others experienced “envy and anger.”²²

That might just be rationalization for what happened shortly thereafter. In November of 1626, the Earl of Warwick invited Hugh to preach at Christ Church. On the pulpit, Hugh prayed that the Queen abandon her Catholic religion, lest she die for her sinful practices. Subsequently, the authorities imprisoned Hugh, but Warwick paid bail to release him. His brush with jail did not deter Hugh, for he then prayed again, at St. Sepulcher’s, that the Queen forswear Catholicism. Hugh thusly won a six-month holiday in New Prison, without the possibility of bail. Once Hugh had finished his sentence, the Bishop of London revoked his preaching license, ignoring Hugh’s protestations of loyalty to the Church of England. Despite having no license, Hugh resumed preaching anyway, at his old Rayleigh church, for the rector and the wardens weren’t cognizant of Hugh’s expulsion from the ministry. Hugh justified his defiance of the Church’s commands and doctrines, while simultaneously professing loyalty to it, by insisting he was loyal to the true Church of England, the core of it, if not to its current wretched façade.

Meanwhile, throughout the 1620’s, Hugh engaged in other activities aside from preaching to advance the Puritan cause. He helped to fund lay appropriations, whereby Puritans purchased church ministries throughout England for Puritan preachers to occupy. Also, in May 1628, Hugh bought 50 pounds of stock in the New England Company, which eventually changed into the Massachusetts Bay Company.²³ Presumably from his participation in this enterprise, Hugh knew John White of Dorchester, whom Hugh called, “That good man, my dear firm friend.”²⁴

In the late 1620’s, because of “some trouble” (likely his confrontations with Church officials), Hugh journeyed to Holland. Once there, Hugh adhered to the army of United Provinces Stadholder Frederick Henry, who practiced the religion for which Hugh’s paternal ancestors suffered oppression, but tolerated other Protestant religions as well. Frederick’s forces included four English regiments; Hugh became the chaplain of the regiment under the command of Sir Edward Hardwood. Hugh accompanied Hardwood’s regiment through several battles, while also learning the virtues of the tolerant Protestantism Frederick espoused.

Hugh departed the Stadholder’s army in winter 1631 to attend the Convention of Protestant Estates at Leipzig, which Gustavus Adolphus had organized. The Convention’s purpose was to mobilize the various Protestant churches against Roman Catholicism, but the divide between Calvinists and Lutherans proved too great for the sects to cohere into a large Protestant alliance. But the Convention did provide Hugh yet another outlet to demonstrate his commitment to the worldwide struggle against Catholics.²⁵

Following the Convention of Protestant Estates, Hugh Peters accepted in 1632 the ministry of an English church in Rotterdam. Under Hugh’s guidance, his congregation accepted ideas in which the future Independents would believe. In addition, Hugh displayed his tolerant leanings by refusing to shun the Brownists, of whom many English religious figures disapproved. Neither of these activities pleased the Church of England, which was, with Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud at the forefront, at this time attempting to establish control over English churches in the Netherlands. Facing harassment from the Laudians, Hugh left the Continent.²⁶

Upon the advice of some of his Puritan friends in New England, Hugh resolved to sail to America.²⁷ After evading Laud’s minions in England with great difficulty, Hugh boarded a ship bound for Massachusetts in July 1635. Accompanying Hugh on this adventure were, amongst other passengers, Sir Henry Vane, the son of a privy councilor, and John Winthrop, Jr., the husband of Hugh’s stepdaughter.

The men found a colony suffering from economic depression and political division. Hugh drew on his experience and fascination with trade and finance to help Massachusetts improve its economy, by urging its inhabitants to focus on commercial endeavors, such as shipbuilding and fishing, instead of on agriculture, as the colonists had been doing. In order to ameliorate the political discord, which Hugh loathed, he worked with Vane to set up a “reconciliation meeting” of myriad factions in November 1635. Hugh sat on a committee to revise Massachusetts law as well, aiming to help reduce “legal disputes.” A year after his arrival, in December 1636, Hugh replaced Roger Williams as minister at Salem, and fairly quickly ended the conflict Williams had engendered…²⁸ if only by excommunicating Williams and having one of his followers killed so everyone in Salem would be too scared to challenge their former preacher’s expulsion or their new preacher’s doctrine.²⁹

Around the same time, Hugh also seemed to flout his own principles of Protestant toleration in a confrontation with Ms. Anne Hutchinson. Hutchinson had formulated three levels of Christian progression, beginning with “nature and instinct,” proceeding to “law and human reason,” and concluding with “spirit, grace, and divine reason.” According to Hutchinson, many people who occupy the second stage mistakenly presume themselves to inhabit the third stage; one of those individuals, said Hutchinson, was Hugh Peters. Hugh, in turn, labeled Hutchinson’s beliefs heresy, that would encourage worshipers to ignore the words of God, thus exhibiting “devil-inspired individualism.” As of December 1636, though, Hutchinson’s followers paid no attention to what Hugh and his compatriots had to say.

Consequently, in May 1637, Hugh played an integral role in castigating and expelling Hutchinson and her top devotees from Massachusetts. Hugh perceived little contradiction between his actions vis-à-vis Hutchinson and Williams followers, and his ostensible tolerance of other Protestant viewpoints. Tolerance, to Hugh, did not extend to those he considered subversives trying to foment discord and disagreement. Also, because in Hugh’s mind, New England was a more perfect godly society than old England, displaying more intolerance in Massachusetts was acceptable. Elsewhere, where the godly had not established as much control, Hugh’s utilitarian expediency demanded more toleration. And, even if a slight contradiction did exist between his actions in America and in Europe, Hugh believed God might lead people to do inconsistent things, to shape a consistent larger picture.³⁰ Of course, that philosophy would have granted Hugh license to do essentially anything he wanted, but Hugh did not acknowledge that.

A few years after the business with Hutchinson and Williams, on August 3, 1641, Hugh departed Massachusetts to return to England, with the mission of assisting with creditors, encouraging the West Indies cotton trade, jumpstarting migration to Massachusetts, and helping the Puritan cause any way he could. When he arrived in his home country, Hugh discovered a nation in strife, the English Civil War just beginning.³¹ With godly fears of a Catholic attack from Ireland permeating the religious atmosphere after the outbreak of an Irish rebellion³² on October 23, 1641, Hugh abandoned his position as colony representative and signed on as chaplain to a parliamentary force heading for Ireland, which Hugh determined, “The clearest work.” Hugh’s intention was to do everything he could to “Christianize and civilize the Irish.”

Ultimately, though, Hugh’s stint in Ireland did not last long enough to effect any sort of mass Irish conversion, for the parliamentary force stayed in Ireland only from June to September 1642, achieving little success. Hugh still professed worry over the plight of Protestants in Ireland, however, and he preached his concern to his fellow Englishmen. Finally, in November 1646, Parliament assigned Hugh to organize supplies and troops destined for Ireland. His good performance of that task recommended Hugh for the mission of arranging materiel for Oliver Cromwell’s expedition to Ireland in 1649, to subdue the Irish rebellion completely. After finishing his initial assignment, Hugh then joined Cromwell’s army in Ireland as a chaplain and an advisor to Cromwell. Hugh suggested that Cromwell prosecute the war mercilessly, engaging in an archaic shock-and-awe campaign to persuade the Irish to lay down their arms, thus potentially ending the conflict more quickly.

Hugh’s work in Ireland, though, was but a small portion of his contribution to the parliamentary cause during the English Civil War; for most of the conflict, he occupied himself in England. On April 29, 1644, Hugh Peters went to the Committee of Both Kingdoms. Soon afterwards, Hugh joined the army of his old friend, the Earl of Warwick, as a chaplain. When the winds of war began blowing against Parliament, Hugh made preparations to flee England, but when Parliament’s fortunes increased, Hugh started propagandizing for Parliament throughout the country, via his passionate and persuasive sermons. Hugh additionally preached to Londoners “against the Reformed Churches, the Presbyterial Government, Assembly, Uniformity, Common Council and City of London and for a toleration of all sects.”³³ Political Independents welcomed Hugh’s efforts, but moderates found him off-putting, and political Presbyterians reviled the man.³⁴

Beginning in October 1645, Hugh performed as chaplain for Oliver Cromwell, commencing a political relationship in which Hugh would, from that time forward, enthusiastically support Cromwell. As a chaplain attached to Cromwell’s unit, Hugh frequently briefed Parliament about the battles in which Cromwell’s forces engaged. Hugh acted, too, at the behest of other generals besides Cromwell; in February 1646, Fairfax sent the Cornish Hugh Peters on a mission to persuade the Royalists in Cornwall not to attack Fairfax’s men. Personally going to Royalist headquarters in Cornwall, Hugh sparked talks that successfully convinced the Cornish Royalists not to assail Fairfax’s army.³⁵

After the first war concluded, Hugh defended the Army’s decision not to disband in his 1647 tract A Word for the Armie, and Two Words for the Kingdom, saying that the Army had not yet received arrears and indemnity and had needed to fight corruption in the House of Commons, and that the Army was still essential to preservation of law and order, and to resolve the Irish troubles. Furthermore, the Army deserved gratitude for winning the war against the King. In answer to concern over some soldiers’ lack of discipline, Hugh explained that lack of pay was the motivation, so compensating the troops for their efforts was necessary.³⁶

Hugh did other things to keep himself busy after the first war as well. Motivated by his lifelong revulsion of disagreement, Hugh said during the 1647 Putney debate that the participants should try to find a subject on which they agreed, after the discussion of voting and representation proved divisive.³⁷ Hugh accompanied Cromwell as chaplain during both the second war and the 1649 Irish campaign, as heretofore described. In what might have sealed his fate after the Restoration, Hugh also propagandized for the King’s death,³⁸ calling him “a dead dog.”³⁹ Hugh was not actually averse to the idea of monarchy—during the first war, he claimed to be fighting for England’s true king, and years afterward, when Cromwell was considering kingship, Hugh was ready to preach in support of a King Oliver I—but the behavior of Charles I led Hugh to resolve he could not fit within a godly system, so he had to die.⁴⁰

Following the King’s execution, Hugh continued to preach, now in Whitehall, on behalf of his friend, the new Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell.⁴¹ In March 1654, Cromwell appointed Hugh to a new government group, the Commissioners for the Approbation of Public Preachers, also known as Triers, whose objective was to ensure that preachers applying for open positions were qualified for them. Hugh led the Triers to approve men based on their moral rectitude, not their religious denomination, because for Hugh, morality was what mattered, not theology (at least, when he was in England). Under Hugh’s guidance, the Triers accepted Independents, Presbyterians, Baptists, and, surprisingly, Episcopalians.

When Oliver Cromwell died, Hugh Peters preached at his funeral. “My servant, Moses, is dead,” Hugh proclaimed. Hugh proceeded to support Oliver’s son, Richard Cromwell, as Lord Protector, until his departure at the Restoration. Hugh offered some words of encouragement for the Restoration, but generally withdrew from public life after the ascension of King Charles II.

That did not save from the wrath of the newly empowered Royalists. For many of them, even though Hugh did not personally help execute King Charles I or sign his death warrant, Hugh’s public relations efforts were still quite pernicious, maybe more than the regicide itself.⁴² The Act of Indemnity excluded Hugh,⁴³ and in May 1659, the Royalists put Hugh in jail. On October 12, 1659, Hugh’s trial judge, after denying Hugh legal representation, found Hugh guilty of assisting with the King’s execution, and sentenced Hugh to be “hanged, drawn, and quartered.” A year later, on October 16, 1660,⁴⁴ Hugh perished at Charing Cross.⁴⁵

Throughout his 40 years on the public stage, Hugh Peters sounded one note continuously, both in his speeches and in his writings: the necessity of faith in God. In A Word for the Armie, for example, Hugh suggested that many of the problems England was experiencing had their roots in popular lack of belief in and gratitude towards God. To solve England’s difficulties, Hugh recommended that Englishmen trust in God more, to “manage” England well. The English should also have devoted themselves to God more, because as things stood, “We content ourselves to give him a female when we have a male in the flock.” (Apparently, the concept of equality between the sexes eluded Hugh, not that anyone else in the era was progressive on the matter.) If England’s government were to improve, godly men, obsequious before their Lord, would have to run it.⁴⁶

Hugh’s belief in the need for faith had not changed when, while waiting in the Tower of London for his impending doom, Hugh wrote to his daughter in 1660 A Dying Father’s Last Legacy to an Onely Child. In this text, Hugh unceasingly expounded the wisdom of embracing God and Christ. On the second page, Hugh told his child, “Above all things know, that nothing can do you any good without Union with Christ.” Page 70 found Hugh commanding, “Stand in awe of God, and fear him always; hold to the Word as to Life; Question not Truths… Be very low and humble before the Lord.” Hugh concluded the work with a poem, in which, “I wish you neither Poverty, / nor Riches, / but Godliness…” Of course, Hugh also had to work in a condemnation of Roman Catholicism: “I wish Religion / truly pure may grow, / Above Profaneness and Idolatry, / Which strike to nip it, / and to keep it low…”⁴⁷

A Sermon by Hugh Peters: Preached Shortly before His Death, from 1660 as well, echoed many of the same points. Only Jesus Christ can “give satisfaction to the soul,” said Hugh. Fleeting riches and beauty do not suffice for true happiness, and people who seek those things above all else will never find the peace Christ can bring. Instead, such vain interests comprise “a worm in the gourd that will eat it out.” If a person does not have Christ, Satan will draw him or her into Hell, a fate from which neither money nor friends can offer protection. In order to enjoy the benefits Christ provides, one cannot embrace him only when he is most beneficial; the proposition is all-or-nothing. Mere Gospel will not bring one to Christ, for the “Doctrine of Devils,” such as Catholicism, can stymie it. Only Christians with “sincere affection after Christ,” strong faith from reading Scripture, and humility before God can attract Christ into them. The destiny of everyone else lies in the fires of Hell.⁴⁸

In his writings, Hugh did talk about more than just God. In Last Legacy, he included some autobiographical details towards the end, and he registered sorrow at for his popularity,⁴⁹ which is hardly surprising, considering his notoriety earned him a death sentence. In A Word for the Armie, Hugh made some secular recommendations as to how the English might improve their government. He thought Parliament should make journalists accountable to the state, to prevent “scandalous and slanderous personal affronts,” or if that were impossible, to hold people accountable for what they wrote, for the public would know their names. Paying government officials, so they would not connive for money, also struck Hugh as a good idea. Hugh wanted peaceful relations with other countries, particularly Scotland, and successful resolution of the Irish situation (which came in 1649). Also on Hugh’s agenda were proposals to feed all the English children, institute academies to teach “piety and righteousness,” abolish primogeniture, make prisons more humane, eliminate judicial pageantry, quicken legal proceedings, apportion Parliament seats better, and allow people to ward off tyranny by choosing their own representatives.⁵⁰

Even though few people would know of Hugh Peters today, he was an influential speaker and propagandist in his time. Many of his suggestions for the shape of English government might not have took hold, and his achievements on behalf of Parliament might have been transitory, but some of Hugh’s other accomplishments, such as assisting with the financial rescue of Massachusetts, which could have enabled it to lead a revolution a century later, continue to resonate today. Perhaps contemporary sentiment against Hugh, for the role he played in the execution of King Charles I, has prevented at least semi-popular recognition of him.

¹ J. Max Patrick, Hugh Peters, A Study in Puritanism (Buffalo, New York: University of Buffalo, 1946): 173.

² The normal standard is to use people’s last names when referring to them repeatedly, but “Hugh’s” flows much better than “Peters’s,” so this paper will eschew that tradition, at least in regards to Hugh Peters.

³ Sidney Lee, ed., The Dictionary of National Biography (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1909), vol. XV, pp. 957, 961, s. v. Peters, Hugh. Hereafter DNB.

⁴ Patrick, 137.

⁵ Cornishlight, “Cornwall Map Showing Towns and Villages” <http://www.cornishlight.co.uk/cornwall-map.htm>, 29 April 2003.

⁶ M. J. Stoyle, “‘Pagans or Paragons’: Images of the Cornish during the English Civil War,” The English Historical Review 111 (April 1996): 300-302.

⁷ Peters, Hugh, A Dying Father’s Last Legacy to an Onely Child (London: 1660): 97.

⁸ Patrick, 137, and Peters, Last Legacy, 98.

⁹ Stoyle, 299-302.

¹⁰ Patrick, 137.

¹¹ Peters, Last Legacy, 98.

¹² Patrick, 137-138.

¹³ Ibid., 138.

¹⁴ Peters, Last Legacy, 99.

¹⁵ Patrick, 138.

¹⁶ Peters, Last Legacy, 99.

¹⁷ “Hooker, Thomas.” Encylopaedia Britannica. 2003. Encylopaedia Britannica Online. 29 April 2003. <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=41884>.

¹⁸ Patrick, 138.

¹⁹ Ibid., 139.

²⁰ Peters, Last Legacy, 99-100.

²¹ Patrick, 139.

²² Peters, Last Legacy, 100.

²³ Patrick, 139-140, 192-193.

²⁴ Peters, Last Legacy, 101.

²⁵ Patrick, 140-142.

²⁶ DNB, 955.

²⁷ Peters, Last Legacy, 101.

²⁸ Patrick, 145-147.

²⁹ DNB, 956.

³⁰ Patrick, 148-149, 200-202, 204-205.

³¹ Ibid., 149, 152.

³² Dr. Linda Levy Peck, lecture at The George Washington University, 19 February 2003.

³³ Patrick, 152-156.

³⁴ DNB, 957.

³⁵ Patrick, 156-157.

³⁶ Peters, Hugh, A Word for the Armie, and Two Words for the Kingdom (London: M. Simmons, 1647): 5, 7-8.

³⁷ Andrew Sharp, ed., The English Levellers (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 118-119.

³⁸ Patrick, 153-154, 157, 168, 172.

³⁹ Peters, A Word, 9.

⁴⁰ Patrick, 171-172.

⁴¹ DNB, 960.

⁴² Patrick, 160, 166, 172.

⁴³ Peters, Last Legacy, 106.

⁴⁴ Patrick, 166-167.

⁴⁵ DNB, 961.

⁴⁶ Peters, A Word, 9-10, 14.

⁴⁷ Peters, Last Legacy, 2, 70, 118, 120.

⁴⁸ Peters, Hugh, A Sermon by Hugh Peters: Preached before His Death (London: John Best, 1660): 6-9, 16-22.

⁴⁹ Peters, Last Legacy, 108.

⁵⁰ Peters, A Word, 3, 10-13.

Hugh Peters, a Puritan Preacher is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

I allow the paper as written in 2003 remain on this site, though, as a reminder of the establishment’s folly back then as well as my own.

After the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sputtered and died, thus ending the Cold War, the bipolar system of world affairs evaporated, leaving a planet unsure of what factors would shape events to come. Harvard University Professor Samuel P. Huntington tries to dispel that uncertainty with his book Clash of Civilizations and Remaking World Order, in which he postulates an Earth on which civilizations, linked by culture and religion, would primarily set the course of international affairs. The civilizations, of which seven or eight exist, will inevitably conflict and compete with each other, as the people of the ever-changing and ever-shrinking world seek assuredness and identity in their own civilization, and disdain and stereotype other civilizations. This conflict and competition might lead to a “clash” between some civilizations, in which the participating civilizations would align against each other in mutual fear and hostility, possibly resulting in horrific warfare and bloodshed that would make no distinction between civilian and soldier. After all, in the epic battle between “us” and “them,” “they” cannot survive, if “we” want to preserve the civilization’s traditions and lifestyles.¹

The Islamist terror attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, followed by America’s war against Muslim terrorists, prompted some thinkers to ask, has a clash of Western and Islamic civilizations begun?² Subsequent events have shown the answer to be, “No.”

Indeed, many Muslim countries have been quite cooperative with the United States in prosecuting the War on Terror. For example, in the latest phase of the War, the invasion and liberation of Iraq, coalition ground forces (Americans, British, and Australians—all Western) launched their assault from Kuwait.³ Turkey, albeit belatedly, extended overflight rights to coalition planes.⁴ Also participating in American President George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” that supported the American operation in Iraq were the Islamic nations Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.⁵ Other Muslim states that helped the coalition, by permitting troop basing, were Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Djibouti, and Saudi Arabia.⁶

Because it is the birthplace and holiest land of Islam, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States merits particular notice. The friendship began in February 1945, when American President Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud after the Yalta Conference, promising to help protect the Saudis in exchange for cheap oil. That arrangement persists today; as well as assisting with domestic security,⁷ the United States acts as Saudi Arabia’s predominant armament and materiel supplier, equipping the Saudi forces with jets, tanks, and airplanes. In addition, the Americans have stationed over 6,000 military personnel in Saudi Arabia, whose purpose was to defend the kingdom from expansionist Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during and after the Gulf War (though with Saddam gone and Iraq on the path to democracy, the troops will soon have little reason for being there).⁸

The Saudi government demonstrates its appreciation for American military aid by exporting oil to the United States, which gets 1/6 of its petroleum from Saudi Arabia.⁹ Even today, despite OPEC fears that newly available Iraqi oil might potentially create a drop in prices, Saudi officials have not reduced oil shipments.¹⁰ If Saudi participation in the early 1970’s OPEC oil boycott is any indicator, such restraint is not necessarily a given, whatever pact the Americans and the Saudis have.¹¹

As heretofore mentioned, the land of Mecca and Medina has assisted with the War on Terror by allowing American troops destined for Iraq to base there. Also, of course, the Saudis authorized the Americans to direct Operation: Iraqi Freedom from the Prince Sultan Air Base in the middle of the Saudi desert,¹² and they let thousands of American Special Forces troops infiltrate Iraq from their territory, eight hours before the attempted decapitation strike of March 19, 2003.¹³ Before the invasion of Iraq, when the United States was focusing on Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia helped the War by severing relations with the Taliban¹⁴ and by, as in the current endeavor, lending the Americans Prince Sultan Air Base as a command center.¹⁵

If a “clash of civilizations” were occurring between the West and the Muslims, the War on Terror would not enjoy the support it does from several Muslim states, including the home of Mohammed, Saudi Arabia. One could try to counter this argument by noting that millions of Muslims vociferously oppose the War on Terror,¹⁶ and that even within Saudi Arabia, an American ally for over 50 years, many citizens revile the hosting of American soldiers and understand Osama bin Laden’s crusade against the United States.¹⁷ But, as realists would argue, since governments are the primary actors on the international stage,¹⁸ not even a conflict between individual countries, much less between whole civilizations, could take place without their support. And even from the liberal perspective, which assumes the importance of non-state forces,¹⁹ the War on Terror is not a civilizational conflict, because most Muslims’ active dislike of the West, through its representative, the United States, has not translated into the masses becoming terrorists and fighters themselves.²⁰

Furthermore, the residents of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Islamic countries, where the United States has toppled brutal regimes over the course of its War on Terror, received Americans warmly and happily. While the Americans conducted their air campaign against the Taliban, some Afghans helped American Special Forces designate targets by providing the soldiers horses from which to operate their equipment. After the Taliban collapsed, the Afghans celebrated their freedom and thanked their “infidel” liberators.²¹ The Iraqis behaved similarly: they cheered the downfall of President Saddam Hussein’s regime, vandalizing his statues and posters, while expressing their gratitude towards the coalition forces who secured their freedom.²² Now, the Iraqis are working with coalition soldiers to restore law and order within the country.²³

Muslims in Kosovo appreciate the Americans as well. NATO, with the Americans at the forefront, halted Serbian ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Kosovo, and today, in a sign of affection, the American stars-and-stripes fly all over Kosovo. A poster of former American President Bill Clinton six stories tall looms above the capital city’s primary street, Bill Clinton Boulevard. One Kosovar doctor, Besnik Bardhi, gave his daughter the name “Madeleine,” after former American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“If there is a God,” Bardhi proclaims, “his missionaries on Earth are Americans.”

Fondness for Americans runs so strong in Kosovo that, two years ago, after an American troop’s firearm accidentally discharged and killed a young boy, the boy’s father absolved the American of guilt and symbolically welcomed the soldier into his family. Just as remarkably, following the September 11 attacks, some Muslims worried so much about a possible American withdrawal from Kosovo that they proposed their own children face combat in Afghanistan, just so the Americans could remain in Kosovo.²⁴

The joyous rapture with which the Afghans and the Iraqis received the Americans, and the intense esteem in which the Kosovars hold them, show that two vital components of a “clash of civilizations,” popular terror of losing the traditional culture and virulent hatred of the opposing side, do not exist with any uniformity amongst Muslims. If they did, the populaces of the Afghans, the Iraqis, and the Kosovars would have greeted the Americans largely with guns and bombs instead of with demonstrations and cheers. Considering that not even the people of the very countries America and its allies targeted, or in Kosovo’s instance, rescued, view the “other civilization” as a dangerous enemy, one could hardly claim a civilizational war is occurring.

With many states, most societies, and all targeted countries in the Muslim world not lining up to fight the West, an explanation other than a “clash of civilizations” is necessary to describe the War on Terror. The Bush administration, in its National Security Strategy, thinks the struggle that has gripped the world’s attention stems from conflict within Islamic civilization, between authoritarian and undemocratic rulers, and frustrated groups who look to terrorism because they cannot express themselves politically.²⁵ Others, such as the Cato Institute, believe American interference in foreign affairs inspires loathing, and therefore, terrorism, against the United States.²⁶ Which viewpoint is correct is a topic for another paper.

(Sorry, these endnotes aren’t as helpful as they could be, because for this paper, we could skimp on notes referring to class texts.)

¹ Huntington.

² Dr. Kimbra L. Fischel, lectures at The George Washington University.

³ Cable News Network, “Forces: U.S. and Coalition” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/index.html>, 13 April 2003, and “Maps/Troop Movement” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/fullpage.troops/>, 13 April 2003.

⁴ Cable News Network, “Turkey Grants Overflight Rights to U.S.” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.turkey.overflights/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁵ Cable News Network, “World Braces for Iraq War” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.int.reaction/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁶ Cable News Network, “US & Coalition Bases in the Persian Gulf” <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

⁷ Michael T. Klare, “The Geopolitics of War” <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=klare>, 13 April 2003.

⁸ World Politics, 174-177.

⁹ Klare.

¹⁰ “The Bigger Threat Still Lurking—Economies After the War,” The Economist (12 April 2003): LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

¹¹ Cable News Network, “Backgrounder: Saudi Arabia is a Key U.S. Ally” <http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/11/09/saudi.arabia/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹² Craig Smith, “Saudis Quietly Play Crucial War Role” <http://www.iht.com/articles/90394.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹³ John M. Broder with Eric Schmitt, “A Nation at War: The Plan,” The New York Times (12 April 2003): B1. LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

¹⁴ CNN, “Backgrounder.”

¹⁵Deborah Amos, “Saudi-U.S. Tension May Affect Iraq Action” <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/saudi_us021110.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹⁶ Ben Wedeman, “Arab Leaders’ Loyalties Torn Over Iraq” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/otsc.wedeman/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

¹⁷ World Politics, 174-177.

¹⁸ Dr. Fischel.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ As the cable news networks have pounded into viewers’ heads again and again…

²¹ Gaddis, 54.

²²Cable News Network, “Iraqis Attacking Symbols of Saddam” <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.baghdad/index.html>, 13 April 2003.

²³ Ellen Knickmeyer, “U.S.-Iraq Joint Patrols Begin in Baghdad” <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030414/D7QDHPHO1.html>, 14 April 2003.

²⁴ William J. Kole, “Reviled in Many Places Around the World, Americans are Adored in Kosovo,” Associated Press (6 February 2003): LexisNexis Academic Universe, 13 April 2003.

²⁵ Gaddis, 53-54.

²⁶ Ivan Eland, “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?” <http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf>, 14 April 2003.

Whom are We Fighting: Muslim Civilization or Muslim Terrorists? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, a doctor on a ship that fought at the Battle of Manila Bay, reached the rank of captain in the US Navy.

What can one say about Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, whom one newspaper called “one of the finest looking, most sociable and brightest officers of his grade in the navy”?¹ Not much, really. I searched the Internet with Google and perused the databases on ALADIN, entering every iteration of Carpenter’s name I could imagine, but I still could not find a lot beyond a rough summary of his life. He entered this world on June 28, 1874, in Kittery, Maine,² and left it on March 26, 1955, in Bremerton, Washington. After graduating from Harvard Medical School, Carpenter worked as a surgeon in the United States Navy, where he eventually achieved the rank of captain.³ During his naval career, Carpenter participated in the Spanish-American War of 1898,⁴ helped establish hospitals at such locations as Bas Obispo, Mexico; Bremerton, Washington; and Baguio, Philippines; he also served as the Reserve Fleet surgeon in the 1910’s, commanded the Division of Planning and Publication at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery from 1923 to 1927, and sat on the Medical Examining and Retiring Board during the Second World War. Carpenter apparently wrote pieces for the Naval Medical Bulletin,⁵ though I could not find any of them.⁶

Fortunately, Carpenter kept a journal of one of his stints, from May 18, 1897 to August 15, 1898 aboard the USS Raleigh, which along with the letters and clippings that accompany it in his collection at the Library of Congress, provides the only detail about Carpenter’s life available. In his journal, Carpenter describes such locations as Italy, Northern Africa, the Middle East, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Philippines, where Carpenter fought in the Battle of Manila Bay.⁷ The section of the journal in which the Battle rages stimulates the most excitement, so that portion, in addition to Carpenter’s letters about the Battle, was the focus of my research.

Before I recount Carpenter’s experiences during the Battle, I should provide some details about the Battle itself. It took place on May 1, 1898, a few days after the United States had declared war on Spain. An American naval fleet—Commodore George Dewey’s⁸ Asiatic Squadron⁹—steamed into Manila Bay¹⁰ hoping to find and destroy the Spanish Navy’s Pacific fleet,¹¹ under the command of Spanish Admiral Patricio Montojo y Pasarón,¹² thus eliminating any threat it might pose to America’s West Coast. Even though Dewey’s ships lacked full stocks of ammunition, they annihilated the Spanish flotilla at Cavite,¹³ experiencing no casualties themselves while inflicting 381 deaths and injuries on their Spanish counterparts. After the Battle of Manila Bay, Spanish naval power in the Pacific vanished.¹⁴

According to Carpenter, the Raleigh received an official telegram of the war declaration on Tuesday, April 26, 1898.¹⁵ The Raleigh, which had anchored in Hong Kong, then departed for Mirs Bay, a short distance away, alongside the Olympia and the Baltimore, with British sailors cheering on the Americans from the Hong Kong shore.¹⁶ After rendezvousing with the Asiatic Squadron inside Mirs Bay, the Raleigh sat with the rest of the fleet until 2 PM Wednesday. While the ships were waiting, Carpenter writes, “Our one thought is on Manilla [sic].”

The Asiatic Squadron could not head for Manila before Wednesday because it had to wait for the American consul from Manila, who had difficulty leaving the city because of “rough seas.”¹⁷ (Engine trouble on the Raleigh, because a “careless oiler” had damaged the port circulating pump,¹⁸ had also threatened to delay the Squadron, but the ship’s engineers had repaired the pump 12 hours before the consul arrived.) With the consul safely in American hands, Dewey’s fleet stormed towards Bolinoin¹⁹ at eight knots.²⁰

The consul, though, provided one of the ship captains with intelligence that convinced the fleet commanders to go straight to Manila Bay.²¹ Carpenter describes the three-day journey as “auspicious,” with “lovely cool days and beautiful moonlight [sic] nights.” The ocean was so calm Carpenter hardly knew he was afloat. Drills for general quarters, fire, and collision kept the crew prepared for combat, and target practice kept the gunners’ eyes sharp. During both day and night, the fleet practiced signaling each other, with red and white flashes on the foremasts of various ships.²²

Before the Asiatic Squadron attacked the Spanish fleet, the Boston and the Concord searched Subic Bay²³ for Spanish gunboats. After those two ships found the Bay empty, the whole fleet anchored there; Carpenter had expected the fleet to stay the night, but a council of war among the fleet commanders decided not to wait for dawn. To make itself harder to see in the darkness, the Raleigh extinguished all of its running lights but for a shielded one on its rear, as did the other ships. Thusly prepared, the Squadron moved to commence its assault.²⁴

As the ships slid into Manila Bay, bright bolts of lightning pierced their shroud of darkness.²⁵ Spanish forts launched torpedoes at the Americans, all of which the Americans avoided.²⁶ Soon afterwards, the crews saw flashes on the northern shore, after which a “small black rock,” which was really a Spanish fort, lobbed a shell with a “shrill, curdling whirr” at the Raleigh as it passed. The Raleigh gave its opinion of that with its five-inch guns, firing the introductory American shots of the Battle of Manila Bay. The fort continued its assault, until the Boston eliminated its artillery battery. With that peril overcome, the fleet sailed merrily up the Bay.

Even though the crew knew a more fierce battle with the Spanish fleet was coming, one would not have known it by observing their behavior, writes Carpenter. He says they could have been going to a “festive occasion, from their jokes and general good spirits.” Below decks on the Raleigh, the crew even danced to an accordion and a guitar. This continued until the dawn of May 1, 1898, which brought the Battle proper in its wake.²⁷

In the light of early morning, the Americans could see the Spanish ships waiting for them at Cavite. The Americans charged at the Spanish without fear, paying no heed to the Spanish shells that were falling around them but not hitting them.²⁸ Withholding their response, the American ships drew to within 4,000 yards of the Spanish, at which point the Olympia, leading the American attack,²⁹ let loose with its eight-inch guns. The firing accelerated from both sides, orchestrating a cacophony of violence with “the whirr of shells” and “the whiz of shrapnel.”³⁰ The Americans circled around, and in what Carpenter calls “a stirring sight,” they pummeled the Spanish with the eight-inch guns of the Olympia and the Baltimore and the six-inch guns of the Raleigh. Fire started to ravage the Castilla, and the Reina Christina began to sink.³¹

Some Spanish torpedo boats, cloaking themselves with the smoke of the burning ships, tried to assail the Americans by surprise, but the Americans forced them to withdraw; the torpedo boats only tried again by going along the shoreline. They did not even get to retreat that time, “as one doubled like a jackknife” after a shell hit it, and its partner fled to the beach and hemorrhaged its crew, who “scampered like scared rabbits over the embankment.” The defeat of the torpedo boats terminated Spanish attempts to sink the American fleet with torpedoes.³²

By that period of the Battle of Manila Bay, the Americans had experienced no significant casualties: only six sailors on the Baltimore had suffered injury. Carpenter writes that at this time, 7:45 AM, the Americans pulled back in order to facilitate a meeting of the fleet commanders and to have breakfast.³³ As the captains were discussing the Battle, “We cheered each other while the bands of the Baltimore and the Olympia played.” Once the meeting and the breakfast concluded, the Americans, fully refreshed after a good rest, rejoined the Battle at 11 AM, with the Baltimore in front.

This was when the Americans knew they had achieved victory. The Castilla and the Reina Christina sat under blankets of fire, and the only other Spanish ship in sight was the Don Antonio de Ulloa. Carpenter says the most exciting part of the Battle then took place. The Baltimore approached the shore,³⁴ and she swept along the whole coast, firing “shot after shot” at Spanish artillery batteries as they revealed themselves, churning up large billows of dust that showed where the Baltimore had directed her fury. The Baltimore then came upon a fort with two water batteries in front of it.

The Baltimore rammed the batteries, fiercely pushing away whatever was in her path.³⁵

With the batteries annihilated, the Olympia, the Boston, and the Raleigh bombarded the Spanish arsenal at Cavite. They also sank the Don Antonio de Ulloa,³⁶ “which defiantly waved the Spanish flag.” Carpenter gives the crew of the Don Antonio credit by recording they “stood up nobly,”³⁷ even though their ship went down in 15 minutes.³⁸

Meanwhile, the Concord stalked a merchantman that attempted to claim English affiliation, but the captain of the Concord “decided that as they were good Spaniards in the morning they had better be so all day.” After allowing the merchantman a little while to reach the shore, and watching that time expire, the Concord’s captain ordered his crew to shell the merchantman,³⁹ which the Raleigh observed flaming as it passed the crippled merchantman on its way to the city of Manila itself.

The Americans thought the city of Manila would wage yet more battle against them, as it had constantly shelled the American fleet before and after breakfast. Manila instead erected the white flag of peace, ⁴⁰ and promised not to attack unless the Americans fired first, so the Americans anchored nearby, amongst a fleet of sailing vessels.⁴¹

The Battle of Manila Bay was over, and the Americans had won.⁴² The ships of the Spanish Navy’s Pacific fleet were lying either in American hands or at the bottom of the Bay.⁴³ One hundred twenty men perished on the Castilla and fifty-six died on the Reina Christina, and eighty men on the latter ship had wounds. Of the Spanish, Carpenter says they demonstrated admirable courage and possessed excellent weapons, but “they could not shoot straight” with them.

During the Battle, only one American died: an engineer on the McCulloch from heat exhaustion. As an assistant surgeon, Carpenter had little to do but rescue four firemen and take them to sickbay. This afforded Carpenter the opportunity to witness almost the entire Battle, during which he contributed to the Reina Christina’s death by shooting it a few times with a six-pounder. He also observed the activities of the normal gunners, such as “Old Rodman,” who would say before firing on the Spanish, “Farewell, vain ship.”⁴⁴

After reading some of Carpenter’s journal and letters, I have learned much about the Battle of Manila Bay. Before doing this research project, I knew only that the Americans had shattered Spanish Pacific naval power during the Battle; I remained ignorant of most of the details. Now, however, I can play the Battle in my mind, from the “small black rock” treacherously shelling the Americans to the Baltimore crusading against the batteries to the Spanish fleet burning and sinking, with the happiness and confidence of the Americans providing texture to the whole picture.

One thing I still cannot do, though, is understand Carpenter. Throughout the writings of his I read, he relates little beyond what he saw and some of his gut reactions to that. Carpenter fails to record his deep thoughts or feelings, to provide context for the facts of his memories. While he does demonstrate awe at the sight of American shells crashing into Spanish ships, and excitement at the adventure of the Baltimore fighting the Spanish artillery, all that reveals is his basic humanity. Bright lights and loud sounds thrill normal people. As a researcher, I take dissatisfaction in the fact that Carpenter, at least in his descriptions of the Battle of Manila Bay, provided only enough for me to conclude he was normal. By definition, that does not distinguish him from most individuals.

Perhaps some other sections of Carpenter’s journal might convey his ruminations and emotions. Maybe Carpenter left something else somewhere that would allow a researcher to discover him, not just his factual recollections. If not, then, unfortunately, history really has lost him.

¹ Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, papers (1897-1901). Library of Congress, Manuscript Division. Washington, D.C. 1 container (ca. 17 items). This particular bit of information comes from a newspaper clipping. For more information about the collection, see Appendix A. To see the clipping, look at Appendix J.

² Or Portsmouth, New Hampshire, as the National Cyclopedia, cited below, insists.

³ “Deaths,” Journal of the American Medical Association 158 (28 May 1955): 324. See Appendix B.

⁴ Naval Historical Center, “Manila Bay Medal – USS Raleigh” <http://www.history.navy.mil/medals/dewey/dewey3.htm> and “Photo # NH 43347 picture data” <http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h43000/h43347c.htm>, 9 December 2002, along with Patrick McSherry, “USS Raleigh Crew Roster” <://www.spanamwar.com/Raleighcrew.html>, 21 October 2002. Even though these are web sites, I deem them credible, because the first two are from a body attached to the Department of the Navy, and the last is from someone who maintains an elaborate web site full of information that jibes (mostly) with that of the Center and with that contained in Carpenter’s material.

⁵ National Cyclopædia of American Biography, s.v. “Carpenter, Dudley Newcomb.” See Appendix C.

⁶ I could find, however, two other articles Carpenter wrote: “Visit to the Chefoo, China, School for the Deaf,” Association Review 9 (1907): 359-362; and “Gunshot Wounds as Seen in the Philippines,” Medical News (6 August 1898): 174-176. I located the former in the Adams Building of the Library of Congress, and I discovered the latter in the back of Carpenter’s journal. A copy of “Gunshot Wounds” appears in Appendix D.

⁷ He was then an assistant surgeon. From a crew roster in the Library of Congress collection. (Appendix G)

⁸ George Dewey (1837-1917), aside from leading the Asiatic Squadron in the Spanish-American War, also participated in the American Civil War, fighting with the Union Navy in battles at the Louisiana cities of New Orlean (1862), Port Hudson, and Donaldsonville (both in 1863), then with the blockade forces in 1864 through 1865. After the Spanish-American War, in March 1899, Congress fashioned for Dewey the rank of Admiral of the Navy, the highest any naval officer has ever achieved. From Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

⁹ The Squadron’s members included the Olympia, which was the flagship, the Baltimore, the Raleigh, the Boston, the Concord, the Petrel, the McCulloch, the Nanshan, and the Zafiro. From Patrick McSherry, “The Battle of Manila Bay (Cavite)” < http://www.spanamwar.com/mbay.htm>, 21 October 2002.

¹⁰ Manila Bay reaches from the South China Sea into Luzon, the Philippines. The Spanish started constructing the city of Manila in 1571. Aside from hosting a key battle of the Spanish-American War, Manila Bay also witnessed naval and aerial battles during World War II. From EBO.

¹¹ This fleet comprised Admiral Montojo’s flagship, the Reina Christina, the Castilla, the Isla de Cuba, the Isla de Luzon, the Don Antonio de Ulloa, the Don Juan de Austria, the Marques del Duero, the El Cano, and the Argos. From McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.”

¹² Patricio Montojo y Pasarón (1839-1917) served on various assignments in the Philippines and elsewhere before taking charge of the Spanish Pacific fleet. After he lost the Battle of Manila Bay, the Spanish court-martialed and imprisoned him. Later, the military exonerated Montojo, but he could not regain his commission. Ironically, Dewey testified in Montojo’s defense. From Jose Poncet, “Admiral Patricio Montojo y Pasarón” <http://www.spanamwar.com/montojo.htm>, 16 December 2002. (The EBO had nothing on Montojo!)

¹³ Cavite, on the southern peninsular coast of Manila Bay, contained the Spanish naval base the Asiatic Squadron seized after the Battle of Manila Bay. From EBO. Admiral Montojo located his fleet there to avoid harming Manila during the confrontation with the Americans. From McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.”

¹⁴ McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.” See Appendix E.

¹⁵ Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

¹⁶ Dudley Newcomb Carpenter, Manila Bay, to Anna Carpenter (his mother), 3 May 1898, letter in Library of Congress collection. A copy is in Appendix F.

¹⁷ Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

¹⁸ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

¹⁹ I searched for this city or place on the Internet, but I could find no reference to it. Perhaps Carpenter spelled it incorrectly.

²⁰ Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

²¹ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

²² Carpenter’s journal, p. 282.

²³ Subic Bay lies in Luzon, Philippines, 35 miles northwest of Manila Bay. From EBO. Admiral Montojo had stationed his fleet there for the confrontation with the Americans, but the artillery that was to fire on the Americans from Grande Island was not in place, so Montojo took his ships back to Manila. From “History of Subic Bay” <http://www.subicbay.net/Collections/The%20Subic%20Bay%20History.htm>, 12 December 2002. I think this web site is reliable because it fits with McSherry’s description of the Battle of Manila Bay.

²⁴ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

²⁵ Carpenter’s journal, p. 283.

²⁶ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898. The Spanish said the Americans “must have had a map of their torpedos [sic].”

²⁷ Carpenter’s journal, p. 283.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 283-284.

²⁹ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³⁰ Carpenter’s journal, p. 284.

³¹ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³² Carpenter’s journal, p. 284.

³³ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³⁴ Carpenter’s journal, p. 285.

³⁵ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898. Carpenter says the Baltimore shoved “everything before her,” which I presume to mean the batteries because ramming a fort and surviving is quite improbable.

³⁶ I think Carpenter might have gotten the names of the Spanish ships confused, because in his 3 May 1898 letter to his mother, Carpenter identifies the ship as the San Juan, even though Don Antonio de Ulloa is the correct name, as McSherry indicates in his description of the Battle.

³⁷ Carpenter’s journal, p. 285.

³⁸ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

³⁹ Carpenter’s journal, p. 286.

⁴⁰ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

⁴¹ Carpenter’s journal, p. 286.

⁴² McSherry, “Battle of Manila Bay.”

⁴³ A typed tally sheet pasted to the inside back cover of Carpenter’s journal.

⁴⁴ Letter to mother, 3 May 1898.

The Fighting Doctor: Dudley Newcomb Carpenter at the Battle of Manila Bay is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos