Welcome to HistoryBrief.com

The Birth of Secularism in the United States

2008-05-14T22:28:00.006-05:00

During the birth of the United States, the Founding Fathers gathered all of the injustices that they experienced under England’s control, and took many steps to ensure that the same violations would never be experienced by the citizens of the new United States. With state sanctioned religions being common in Europe, the Founding Fathers recognized the need for the right to practice any religion you desire. This idea has now been interpreted to mean that faith and religion should be absent from government life and American culture. Based off of various sources from the Founding Fathers, this is clearly not what they intended. This paper will examine that they relied on their Creator for strength during the Revolutionary War and they felt that religion would need to remain strong in American society for the nation to grow and remain strong.

Colonial America was an eclectic blend of various faiths from all over the world. This led to a need to protect that right for each citizen to practice the faith they prefer or the right to not practice any religion at all. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most prominent authors of such legislation. He was the sponsor of a bill which established religious freedom for all Americans. In there, he created the right to where no person would be forced to attend or support a church. In that same bill, he defended the religious independence that each American has, which allows them to worship without persecution.

There was also a common fear that religion would be used as a means of retaining authority by the leader of the state. For thousands of years, rulers have given their authority some type of divine backbone which reinforces their claim to leadership. This was done in ancient times by claiming that the leader himself was a god. In eighteenth century England, this was done by making the King the leader of the Anglican Church. By this act, if anyone wanted to oppose the government, they would also be opposing the official state religion. By allowing freedom of religion, there would never be one official American religion and therefore, Americans would run less of a chance of one day being ruled by a tyrant.

Benjamin Franklin was one of the most outspoken members of the Founding Fathers when it came for the need for religion in government. He was quite influential compared to his peers because Franklin was an admitted deist. He was a Christian no doubt, but he never claimed ownership by an organized and established church. He believed in his Creator, but also believed that one could be virtuous and moral without belonging to an established religion. His idea of generic religion was very much American in the sense that everyone could share the same beliefs and still retain their religious heritage.

Even though Franklin separated virtue from religion, he did express that if religion ever failed, morality and prolific kindness would also diminish. Franklin, along with his fellow delegates prior to independence, was very reliant upon their faith to give them the courage to stand up to the throne. It was only then after the Revolutionary War had been won that there was debate in Philadelphia whether or not to allow the presence of religion into government activities. Franklin made a very bold speech in which he asked the Congress if they felt that they could continue without God’s help. He then addressed only the members who served with him in the Continental Congress prior to the Revolutionary War. He asked them if they had forgotten that “powerful friend.” He made it quite clear that his sentiment was that if they did not have their Creator on their side, they would not be in the state of liberty to which they had achieved. This request came after an objection to the practice of saying a prayer prior to the start of business of the delegation. His words were obviously powerful because even to this day, Congress begins every session with a prayer.

The drive for religious freedom in early America was largely because there were Protestants from England and German Catholics who were living side by side in the new nation. Many have experienced the violent religious persecution which was occurring in Europe at the time, and they didn’t want that to carry over into the new United States. The largest objection and the strongest part of the first amendment is the protection from a state sanctioned Church. This meant that no one person would be forced to pay taxes to help support a Church. Most were pretty tolerant of a different religious congregation in their community, but that could only be sustained by denying government funds to it.

These principles would establish a free and open society with a backbone of tolerance and religious intermingling. It would remain that way for nearly two centuries until secularism became a pseudo-synonym for religious freedom. The philosophy which stood for tolerance and freedom would be altered to satisfy an agenda of a group who feel, that because a small percentage of Americans do not believe in any Creator, the nonexistence of religion should be commonplace in today’s society. This notion would most definitely trouble Ben Franklin, who himself, never supported exposure to a certain brand of faith. He instead was a strong proponent of generic religion in which he advocated that one could be moral and a generally good person without being spiritual. His main argument was that being a good Catholic or Anglican follower doesn’t necessarily make you a good and virtuous person.

In contemporary America, secular progressivism is rapidly growing. We see an annual protest against religious festivals and mainstream Judeo-Christian conventions such as Christmas and Easter. This movement contradicts the very fundamental values of religious freedom and tolerance and the idea of republicanism which, among other ideas, encompasses the notion that the majority rules. These groups have given the majority vote to the small minority of Americans who, not only abstain from practicing any religion, see the need to suppress the freedom of religion for all Americans.

There is still a silent majority of Americans who enjoy their freedom of faith and carry on early American traditions in modern day America. We see this in Congress when, before each session, they begin with an opening prayer. This is done in traditional form in a sense that they pray not to any specific deity, but instead to their “Creator”, which allows interpretation of belief. The proliferation of Christian practices arises when we observe judicial proceedings, and those about to testify are made to swear an oath upon a Bible. This practice plays upon the respect that all Americans have for the Creator and the force which Benjamin Franklin would say “governs the affairs of men.”

Jonathan Mayhew, a Congregational minister, wrote centuries ago about the danger of men who use their liberty as a tool for their own gain. He might have well been looking into the future because he dictates that liberty is something which should be enjoyed and appreciated. He warns against using rights and freedoms as a “cloak of maliciousness” and expresses that if you are living under a just government, a good citizen would enjoy the leadership they have and not to engage in any attempt to exploit the liberties rarely seen in many governments. This has very strong relevance in contemporary times because we see all too often people claiming that they “have their rights,” although this phenomena is unique to only a select few governments in the world and it would most likely not even be present in North America is it weren’t for a small group of courageous and pious men who initiated the drive for freedom and independence.

One of the largest examples of religious tolerance today is the encounter American society has with moderate Muslim Americans. This occurrence has become rather sensitive in today’s world because the United States is waging war on two fronts against an enemy which shares a common heritage with this small population in the United States. The results thus far have been uniquely American, in the sense that with the exception of a few radical groups who seek to diminish tolerance, they have often been recognized as law abiding and patriotic Americans. Society has been able to establish a clear distinction between radical terrorists and peaceful moderate Muslims who seek a society based around tolerance and freedom to the same extent as previous Americans.

This version of acceptance has been present since before the United States was even created. Integration of faiths and tolerance was first experienced on a large scale in North America through the Quebec Act. This was an Act of Parliament which was a way of dealing with the culturally diverse Canadians which were acquired through the Treaty of Paris at the close of the Seven Years War. This allowed them to continue practicing their Catholic faith and they were able to pledge their loyalty to the King of England, but did not have to pledge their loyalty to the Protestant faith. This would ultimately deny the colonists Canadian support during the Revolution, but it did set a precedent for integration of faiths into society, and we see it more and more as the years progress.

It is very common and widely accepted that our nation is great because we respect everyone else’s beliefs and traditions. It is not as well known, however, that those traditions are at risk because they are stifled under the banner of liberalism. The same core principles which made our country the great moral leader that it is, is the same principles which omitted the recognition of any particular deity, thus allowing people from all walks of life to unite in America and relate the same virtues. The Founding Fathers intended to create a nation where everyone, especially the majority, would be afforded the right to publicly express their religious affiliation, but the same rights are being used to stifle the expression of mainstream ecumenical philosophy. By this practice, religious freedom is not being provided, but is instead trading one set of rights for another. Societal norms of this nature are not conducive to a free nation, but rather instill resentment among the majority and foster the desire for, not a state sanctioned religion, but one that is recognized by our government as the dominant faith, which would no doubt turn back the clock on social progress.

Source:

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom, January 19, 1786, The Founder’s Library, http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2182/default.asp, (Accessed May 12, 2008).

David Morgan, Benjamin Franklin: Champion of Generic Religion. The Historian, 2000, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3498/is_200006/ai_n8289990, (accessed May 10, 2008).

Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer, delivered Thursday, June 28, 1787, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm, (accessed May 11, 2008).

Jonathan Mayhew, A discourse concerning the unlimited submission and non-resistance to the high powers, 1750, The Founder’s Library, http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2299/default.asp, (accessed May 11, 2008).

Parliament of Great Britain, The Quebec Act of 1774, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/parliament/quebec_act_1774.htm, (accessed May 13, 2008).

The Life of Quiren Groessl

2008-05-08T10:29:00.008-05:00

“I must have been in a state of shock from the wound. I didn’t seem to be concerned about bleeding and I realized that I was beyond the aid of our troops which were at least a hundred or more yards behind me.” –Quiren Groessl May 27, 1918

Wisconsin has produced some great Americans throughout its history and some are better known than others. Wisconsin lays claim to architect Frank Lloyd Wright, actors Chris Farley and Willem Defoe, and even controversial individuals such as Robert Lafollette and Joseph McCarthy. Whether it be hero or villain, nearly everyone is familiar with prominent Wisconsinites. However, there are many remarkable people with incredible stories who slip under the radar of the media and small-town gossip. One of these individuals spent his entire life serving Northeast Wisconsin only after serving his country in France during the Great War. This man is Algoma resident Quiren Groessl.

Quiren was born on January 11, 1896 . His family was originally from Germany, as are many of the families in Wisconsin. He grew up in Algoma, just east of Green Bay. One of four brothers, Quiren had responsibilities at home, and school, albeit important, weighed lightly against the day to day tasks required by his family. Quiren was successful in his academics and achieved something rarely seen in turn of the century Wisconsin, an acceptance letter from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. He enrolled as a freshman with the desire to study electrical engineering.

He began school at a time when war was raging across Europe. There was much unrest in Washington D.C. as part of the country wanted to maintain neutrality and others wanted to enter the war on our own terms, not as a means of retaliation. Quiren was a great admirer of Floyd Gibbons, who was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. Gibbons published an article after he survived the sinking of the Lusitania which instilled in Quiren to desire to leave school, take up arms, and fight for his country.

On June 29, 1917, twenty one year old Quiren Groessl enlisted in the United States Army. He was assigned to Company F of the 5th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment. He spent several weeks between Camp Douglas in Wisconsin and Camp MacArthur in Texas. He trained for the trench warfare to come and endured an intense drilling curriculum designed to imitate the stresses of war as accurately as possible. In February of 1918, Groessl moved to an embarkation camp called Camp Merritt. This camp was along the Hudson River and was greeted by Quiren as a large improvement over the quarters that he had previously inhabited. Camp Merritt had metal beds with mattresses and was housed in wooden barracks. From here, he would be ferried across the submarine infested Atlantic Ocean into a war torn France.

Quiren was boarded on the ship days before the rest of his unit. He and a few other selected soldiers were given the task of becoming familiar with the layout of the ship and it was their responsibility to lead their unit to safety in the event of a submarine attack. He left the United States with the 128th Infantry Regiment and headed to France. He described the sight of the Statue of Liberty fading over the horizon as one of the most sobering moments of his life. Like many other soldiers in the same situation, he wondered if he would ever see it again.

Corporal Quiren Groessl arrived in Brest, France early March of 1918. He and others were greeted with open arms by the appreciative French. They quickly boarded a train and headed near the western front. They began intensive training for weeks and used some of their off time at night to write home, gamble, sit around the campfire and talk of home, or check out the local nightlife. It wasn't until March 11 of 1918 that they received word that their Company would be broken up and they would be re-organized into the 28th Infantry Regiment of the First Division. This was done to replenish the ranks of the 28th Infantry after suffering many losses. This was a bittersweet moment for Quiren because he felt that his unit operated like a well oiled machine due to the intense training they endured, however many of the soldiers in his Company were from the same area and this way there wouldn't be large casualty reports flooding the small-town of Algoma, Wisconsin in the event of a defeat.

Due to this reassignment, Quiren was assigned to Company E, Second Battalion, 28th Infantry regiment. He was welcomed by the other men, much of whom had previous combat experience. His unit was deployed to the Beaumont area near the town of Toul. He was exposed to constant bombardment from German shellfire and it was at this point that he was able to view the horrors of war. He saw dead and wounded Americans being transported back and lived in fear, as many did, day and night. He quickly came to the realization and acceptance that "wars were started by old men, and fought by young men."

When Quiren had some free time, he would learn combat arms techniques from some very patient French instructors. The Americans came to fight with very little, so they relied for much of their weapons on the French. He was exploring a makeshift French workshop and came across a French soldier who was crafting a trench knife. These were common among frontline units, although they were not general issue. The French would make these by taking a standard field knife or bayonet and welding a steel hand guard around the knife and welding small, very sharp, metal studs to the guard, essentially fabricating spiked brass knuckles to the knife. Quiren, as did other American soldiers, bought one of these knives since it seemed like a simple and deadly weapon. He concealed it in his trousers and went back to his unit. This would be the most important purchase of his life.

After some training with French hand grenades and open warfare training, which signaled the end of trench warfare and the assumption of an upcoming offensive, Quiren and his comrades were then to endure a forced march back to the frontline. He became increasingly proficient in telling how far he was from the fighting by measuring the destruction a village endured from artillery attacks. Throughout the entire forced march, the soldiers had outrun the rolling kitchen which traveled behind them. This left them to consume their field rations which were not only unappetizing, but were reserved for emergencies. This also rationed their food, forcing them to skip dinner after a long day of marching. It wasn’t until they reached Raquencourt that the Army cooks finally caught up with them and Quiren and his unit were able to get a hot meal.

On May 27, 1918, Quiren Groessl’s life would be changed forever. His unit was back in the trenches trying to retake Cantigny. Just after first light, the German artillery opened up with a barrage which swept the American lines. Quiren surveyed the battlefield and saw no one. He then looked to his flanks and quickly noticed that all of his comrades were dead. It was then that he was tackled to the ground. A German soldier ripped the rifle from his hands and one of the Germans in charge ordered “Rouse mit em.” Quiren was released from his enemy’s tight hold and he found himself facing the business end of three German bayonets. He was ordered out of the trench and toward the German lines roughly one hundred yards away. It wasn’t until they were halfway there that he could see several German helmets moving back and forth. He hesitated slightly, but was quickly motivated by a bayonet point in the back. Soon after, he felt his warm blood run down his back and quickly made the decision to resist capture.

Before they departed the American lines, Quiren was relieved of any visible weapons, but was not searched. The Germans failed to find the trench knife he had purchased earlier from the French soldier at Beaumont. Thinking fast, he saw a shallow hole formed by shellfire and he pretended to fall into it. This allowed him to lower his arms and since they were so close to German lines, his captors had no reason to suspect anything. At that moment, American artillery screamed overhead. The Germans threw themselves to the ground in an attempt to find cover and before they could return to their feet, Quiren took action. He removed his trench knife from his waistband, spun around, and slashed the throat of one of his captors, killing him instantly. His knife was now lodged into the body of the dead German, so he grabbed the rifle of the dead German and rammed the butt of it into the face of the other German, knocking him to the ground.

Now facing an even match, Quiren made the near fatal mistake of dropping the rifle he had just used instead of using it to take out the remaining German, whom he hated for cutting him with the bayonet. As he spun around, the German came in with a bayonet thrust which should have killed him instantly. However, with the way Quiren was postured, they bayonet missed his vital organs, but he suffered a slash across his neck, shoulders, and spine. With his upper back split wide open and nerves exposed, Quiren fell to the ground in agonizing pain. Barely breathing and paralyzed, he lay there as the German attempts a finishing thrust to kill Quiren for good. At this lifesaving moment, an unknown rifleman from the American lines takes aim and shoots the German soldier dead. Letting out a grunt, he fell right next to Quiren.

He laid there for some time before he started to piece together what had happened to him. He found himself all alone with the important task of returning to his comrades, who didn’t even know he was alive. He spent the rest of the day drifting in and out of consciousness all the while trying to slide his way across the battlefield without the use of his arms. His back and shoulders were throbbing in pain. Pleading to God for help, he continued his path toward the American lines in the utmost silence to keep from alerting the Germans. The leg he had most use of was his right one and by pushing his right foot against the ground he was able to roll himself onto his back and then again onto his stomach. Yard by yard, inch by inch, he moved himself this way until he was just approaching the American lines. The Americans in charge of observation ordered covering fire and his comrades leaped out and quickly pulled the wounded Quiren into the safety of the American trenches.

Medics quickly came to his aid. They used every resource they had to stop the bleeding and get him in good enough shape so he could be moved to a Battalion First Aid Station. He was covered with blankets and quickly evacuated to the rear. Once he arrived at the Aid Station, which was located in the basement of a bombed out church, he was inspected by the doctor and once the doctor noticed how bad of shape he was in, prescribed a cigarette while he waited. They changed his dressing and he was again evacuated. After a brief stop at an American hospital, he was taken to a French field hospital where he would be operated on.

He was only at the hospital for thirty minutes when he was taken into the operating room. After being put under general anesthetic, the French doctors went to work, repairing everything they could with the resources they had. He awoke in the post-op ward surrounded by French soldiers. On May 29th, 1918, he was moved to a French hospital near Beauvaix. Although a French hospital, it was staffed by American doctors and nurses. He was placed in one of the wards so he could be examined and that’s where he heard a soldier screaming to a nurse about getting a shot. It was George Gulligan, a friend of his from Algoma who served in Company F. George asked to be moved next to Quiren since they were old pals from back home. While he was at the hospital, he received special attention from a nurse’s aid name Marjorie Talbot. She was always very kind to him, more so than to the other soldiers. She would sit at his bedside as he would dictate a letter to his family back in Wisconsin.

On June 7th, he was transported to the American Red Cross Hospital #1 at Neuilly, France which was near Paris. He was wheeled into Ward #160. He would soon develop some close friends and fond memories in the ward. Soon after arriving, Quiren experienced another life altering, although less serious event. The head nurse approached him and said, “Where are your medical records, Big Boy?” It was later discovered that the nurse called him Big Boy because she could not pronounce his name. Nevertheless, the other men in the ward found it to be hilarious and from then on, he would be referred to as Big Boy by those closest to him.

On June 25th, Big Boy was met by another soldier from his company. The man approached him and gave him the bayonet which was used to wound him earlier. The soldier had retrieved it from the dead German’s rifle when his unit went on the offensive the next morning to take Cantigny. The soldier explained that he was the one who killed the German and saved Quiren’s life. He was aiming for several seconds, but during the short fight which ensued, the man did not want to accidentally shoot Quiren. A few days later on June 28th, a familiar face entered Ward #160. It was one of Quiren’s biggest idol, Floyd Gibbons. Floyd was not there as a visitor, however, but as a patient. He was an embedded journalist attached to the 5th Marines who charged across the legendary wheat field at the Battle of Belleau Wood. He lost an eye during the fight and was shot through the elbow and shoulder.

Quiren experienced an unfamiliar feeling that day when a small group of women came in to visit the wounded. The group of four ladies purposefully denied Quiren any attention once they viewed on his chart that he was from Wisconsin, or as many called it then, “The Black Eye State.” Wisconsinites were under much suspicion of being German sympathizers since many residents of the state were either German immigrants or descendents from Germans. The event which knocked Wisconsin into a world of ridicule was when Senator Bob LaFollet gave a speech on the floor of Congress which strongly opposed war with Germany and even voted against going to war.

Quiren’s prognosis looked grim and the doctors were brutally honest when they told him that he would never regain the use of his arms again. It wasn’t until the next day that his medical records, which were lost on the train ride over, were found. The American doctors were able to see what operations were done and saw that the French doctor did an excellent job and they told Quiren that although he would be disabled, they were confident he would regain the use of his arms. He entered surgery once last time where his wound was cleaned up and closed. On July 24th, Quiren was told that nothing more could be done at that hospital and he would be shipped out. His friend Floyd Gibbons was sent back home the day before to start a lecture tour and now Quiren had to say goodbye to all of the friends he had made at Ward #160 American Red Cross Hospital #1.

He arrived at Base Hospital #20 for only a brief stint. The doctors decided to send him back to the United States since they needed every bed they had for soldiers who could return to the frontlines. On August 20th, Quiren would board a ship and say goodbye to Europe. He received exceptional quarters on the top deck for the voyage back. The ship zig zaged its way across the Atlantic and during the twelve day trip, there was only one submarine scare.

On September 2nd, Quiren experienced an emotional moment when he saw the Statue of Liberty as they approached American soil. He and the other troops on the ship endured a two week layover on Ellis Island and once any communicable diseases were ruled out, they were escorted to mainland America. Quiren was admitted to Hospital #11 on the Jersey shore at Cape May. He was allowed to be wheeled out onto the beach and watch the ocean for brief periods of time. He would look out over the Atlantic horizon and think about what he had gone through and what might be happening over there right now.

Then on one afternoon of sitting on the beach, he was cautiously approached by a young woman who began to ask him questions about his wound. He answered her and asked why the locals are so afraid to visit the wounded soldiers. Unlike the hospitals over in Europe, the locals in Cape May never came to visit the wounded and show their appreciation. She was surprised to know that the hospital was for wounded veterans, because everyone in Cape May was under the impression that it was for soldiers who contract venereal diseases. It was quickly sorted out with the townspeople and the wounded received regular visits from supportive Americans and Quiren and the young woman named Marion spent many afternoons going out on drives together and spending time with some of her friends. The doctors noticed a steep improvement in Quiren’s health due to the friendship he was receiving.

The color returned to his arm and he began to petition for a trip back to Algoma. His doctor had told him that he won’t be going home so soon and that the Army had other plans for him. He was to join the 4th Liberty Loan Drive; a touring group of veterans who will travel the United States and help promote the sale of war bonds. He was rather upset at this news because now that he was back in America, he wanted nothing more than to return to his family. He gathered up his belongings, said goodbye to Marion and left.

He arrived in Lexington, Kentucky on September 27th. He was to attend a rally in front of several thousand people. He was worried to find out that he would be the one to give a speech. Quite nervous he went to his hotel room to prepare some notes and indulged in a bottle of whiskey. At 7:00 pm he took the stage in front of thousands of patriotic Americans who came to support the military. Words started to spew out of him like the great orators of ancient times. He eventually grew tired and the next day he was greeted by many people who told him that his speech really touched them. The men at the Liberty Loan headquarters loved his speech and wanted him to give the same talk, but shortened down to 45 minutes. He confessed to being drunk while giving his speech and was then told that he spoke for an hour and fifteen minutes. He later explained that it felt like only a few minutes.

Quiren made several stops in every corner of the nation, giving speeches and meeting people along the way. He was never allowed the time he needed to visit his family in Wisconsin. On October 22nd, Quiren went A.W.O.L. (Absent without Leave). He was to report back to Cape May, but instead boarded a train bound for Green Bay, Wisconsin. His trip home grew even more important when he found out that his family received notice that he had been killed in combat. For every second Quiren was away from his family would grow more depressed. Quiren returned home only to be welcomed by a parade and cheering townspeople. He was then able to greet his parents and catch up on everything that had happened while he was gone.

On October 30th, the Liberty Loan Committee, who had heard Quiren was in town, quickly recruited him to help sell war bonds. Many of the townspeople were happy to contribute what little they had for the war effort. It wasn’t until he and the Committee ventured out into the countryside where many of the poorer farmers reside, that Quiren experienced first hand what had been happening on the home front. They approached a farmer in his driveway who happened to be of German heritage and he was introduced to Quiren. The Committee tried to sell the man war bonds, but he had no spare money to give. They quickly turned to threats, saying that his barn would be burned down and he would be run out of the country. Quiren, who you would never call shy, outright condemned the Committee for treating the farmer in that way. He later wrote that he was disgusted by the way Americans were treating their neighbors.

Realizing that he was in much trouble with the Army, Quiren returned to Cape May on November 21st. Armistice had been signed over in Europe while he was visiting family in Algoma. He was ordered to report to his Commanding Officer the next morning. He was screamed at by his C.O., not because he was absent for several weeks, which could have put him in jail, but they were simply worried about him. He had proven to them that he had convalesced enough to be discharged. On January 5th, 1919, Corporal Quiren Groessl received his discharge from the United States Army along with 100% disability and a Silver Star.

Soon after his discharge he wrote a letter to Marjorie, the nurse’s aid from Beauvaix. He thanked her for all of the help that she had given him while he was recovering. He was surprised to get a letter in return so quickly. Marjorie was delighted to hear that he was back in the United States and was doing well. She decided to tell him something that she couldn’t back in France. She was showing him extra special attention because the doctors there were almost positive that he wouldn’t leave the hospital alive. He was shocked because the greatest of his worries back then was the fear of amputation, not death.

Quiren returned home to Algoma that January and picked up life where he left off. He spent the remainder of the school year teaching the Eighth Grade in Algoma. The following September, he decided to go back to school and obtain his degree. He was always very strong in his academics, but this time, he was not the same man who was in school years ago. His physical strength was not like it was and he quickly found the fast paced lifestyle of a college student to be a little overwhelming. Quiren collapsed while at school and would spend the next year and a half in a hospital bed , all the while engaging in rigorous physical therapy.

Quiren spent the next several years in Algoma with his family. He became very active in the American Legion, as most Veterans were, eventually becoming a Life Member. He attended regular meetings and would travel annually to the American Legion Convention, which was hosted at various cities across the country. There he would reunite himself with his old friend, Floyd Gibbons. He and Floyd would write each other often, but would never have the chance to meet and share stories about Ward #160 except at the American Legion Convention.

It was then on September 19th, 1927, approximately ten years since American entered the Great War, Quiren made a trip across the Atlantic to France. The American Legion held its Ninth Annual Convention in Paris. He looked forward to seeing Floyd Gibbons, who was now the Foreign Director for the Chicago Tribune in Paris and Berlin. Quiren was given the chance to meet the French surgeon who saved his life and properly thank him. He was also able to re-visit the field where he was wounded. Quiren was happy that the Convention was being held in Paris of all places because when he was on the troop train and even when he was wounded, he was only taken along the outskirts of Paris, but was never introduced to the city itself.

He, his friends, and younger brother Joe made their rounds visiting cemeteries where fallen American soldiers rested. They would say a silent prayer and pay their respects. Floyd Gibbons was nice enough to provide Quiren with a map and list of the American cemeteries all around France. He spent the remainder of the trip showing those closest to him the places where he had been and telling them stories of his service days.

He had met with villagers who gave him a hero’s welcome once they discovered he was an American who fought for their freedom. They were greeted by all the locals and Quiren made his way to where the front line had been and made a reference that it was still as depressing as it was when he was there. After the Convention, he returned home to Algoma. Prior to his departure he was studying to be a Licensed Pharmacist. He studied through the months of May, June, and July and eventually passed his examination. He purchased the Rexall Drug Store in 1922 and spent four years training along side Ed Nesemann, a Registered Pharmacist. Once he received his credentials as a licensed Pharmacist, he would be able to become more active in the business he owned.

In 1928, he married Estelle Buettner of Kewaunee, Wisconsin. They would go on to have four children, Bill, Peter, Julie, and Jack and eventually eight grandchildren. Quiren and Estelle began their lives together while in Algoma. Quiren spent the next eight years running Rexall Drug Store. It was then in 1936, he decided to assume a new undertaking. He studied and took the exam for the position of Postmaster of Algoma. He took the exam with twelve other applicants and passed with the highest score. He was appointed to the position of Postmaster and he then sold half of his interest in Rexall Drug Store to Ed Nesemann. Quiren would retain the other half until 1960.

Quiren continued work as usual until September 23, 1939 when he received sobering news. His long time friend and idol Floyd Gibbons died of a heart attack. This was especially hard for Quiren to take because it was because of something as common as a heart attack. You see Floyd was not a soldier, yet he endured many of the most horrific experiences anyone can imagine. He was part of the most historic moments of American history such as the sinking of the Lusitania and the Fifth Marines charge across the wheat field near Soisson, France at the Battle of Belleau Wood. He lived through all of these moments in which he could have easily become one of the Americans killed and therefore a statistic, but he survived them all.

In 1948, Quiren received his license to operate an Amateur Radio, or more commonly called a Ham Radio. He would spend hours on end in the basement of his Cleveland Avenue home talking with people from all corners of the world. He had friends from the Army who owned one as well and they used this as a primary means of correspondence. Quiren had even made mention of a time that he was in a conversation with someone living in the South and they had talked for nearly an hour when he realized it was a man from the 128th Infantry, whom he served with in France.

In 1956, Quiren and his family were stricken with grief when they received word that their youngest child, Jack had drowned. He and a friend were on Lake Michigan fishing and their boat capsized. The pain that he and Estelle felt would never go away, but it did strengthen the bond between them and their children whom they already loved dearly. As with many parents in the same situation, Quiren decided the best thing to do would be to simply remain busy. He and his family were regular attendees to St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Algoma. Quiren had also volunteered his time as the Grand Knight of the Chairman of Algoma Community Chest. This organization was the predecessor to United Way. Their main function was to collect donations from local businesses and channel it into public works projects.

He sold his remaining share of Rexall Drug Store in 1962 and on December 27th, 1965, Quiren Groessl entered retirement. Leaving his position as Algoma’s Postmaster, he would spend his hours volunteering with many local organizations and many evenings in the basement on his radio. He took on more civil service positions such as being President of the Board of Education. He was also very active in initiating the Algoma Savings and Loan Association. This was a Credit Union of sorts which specialized in savings deposits and mortgage loans. Quiren would remain very active in helping this organization grow until he retired as President in 1978.

Quiren would spend several years on the Board of Directors of the Algoma Memorial Hospital. This was a small government funded hospital which, although limited in its care capacity, could tend to the many needs of the residents of Algoma and the surrounding area. Quiren would leave his seat on the Board once his age progressed and his mobility became difficult. This would be the last service that he would give to his community. Quiren Groessl passed away on Monday August 8th, 1983 at the age of 87 at St. Vincent Hospital in Green Bay. His wife Estelle would survive him by just over twelve years, passing away on January 20, 1996.

Towards the end of a man’s life, one often asks himself whether or not they have made a difference in the world. They become concerned about the impact they made on their community and the welfare of their family. I don’t believe Quiren Groessl ever had this dilemma. This man remained humble throughout his entire life. Even after becoming wounded in service to his country, owning a successful business, and even raising a family anyone would be proud of, Quiren remained modest in his accomplishments. The idea which can be largely attributed to this is that he never stopped being that young adventurous “Doughboy” in the trenches near Cantigny. He carried his same virtues and work ethic with him throughout his entire life. This was a man who has held many titles; Husband, Father, Corporal, Postmaster, but I feel if you were to speak with him today, he would ask you to just call him Big Boy.

Sources:

Quiren Groessl, Big Boy, in the Library of Congress, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.00296/pageturner?ID=pm0001001, (accessed March 3, 2008)

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wikewaun/newcemgl-gy.htm

Matt Groessl, e-mail message to author, April 29, 2008

Neville Public Museum Collection. Jacket File 2007.11

Library of Congress. Veteran’s History Project. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.00296/

Press Gazette Article by Rita Schlise, date unknown, Neville Public Museum Collection. Jacket File 2007.11

Quiren Groessl Obituary, date unknown, Neville Public Museum Collection, Jacket File 2007.11

One and the Same: Benjamin Franklin and Pope John Paul II

2008-05-08T10:08:00.004-05:00

Society during the Early American Republic and today has its share or differences, but fundamentally we still face the same challenges. The United States and the western world in general, have had to balance secularism and deism within their own culture to equalize the share of influence they have over public policy. Benjamin Franklin knew this when he advocated that morals and virtue could be practiced without being a member of any organized religion. We see this centuries later when Pope John Paul II emphasized how important family was in the overall good of society. This paper will examine that even though both of these men have fundamental differences relating to organized religion, they believe that virtue and spirituality are divine and therefore trump any man-made convention.

Benjamin Franklin grew up in a time when there was a wave of secularism across the British colonies. During this same period, there was a common convention sweeping Europe which mandated that every subject’s faith would be that of the ruler. This meant that if the King of France was Catholic, every French citizen was therefore Roman Catholic. If the King of England was Protestant, every English subject would therefore be Protestant. This was one of the principle ideas which encouraged the spread of deism throughout Europe and later the British colonies.

Franklin was a practicing deist and it strongly influenced his philosophy. He was a product of the Enlightenment and believed that virtue can be obtained by practicing high moral standards rather than relying on an orthodox church. This made Franklin a leading proponent in the idea of anticlericalism during the later part of the Eighteenth Century. He and others with similar views were afraid that England would send over a Bishop of the Anglican Church to oversee the spiritual guidance of the Colonies. By this time, the Colonists were accustomed to praying directly to their Creator without the intermediary of the Clergy. This was the fundamental drive behind the thought of most deists.

Franklin was unique in his thought, however, in that he still correlated religion with a moral lifestyle. Deists carried a very vague sense of God and believed that there was some sort of higher power in control, but it was really more of an abstract presence rather than an empirical form. Franklin still asserted his beliefs that virtue and morality was separate from religion, but did recognize that if religion were to disappear from society, that virtue and morality would lessen as well.

Franklin would exercise his philosophy in an attempt to fuel revolution with the other founding fathers. Just prior to independence there was a very diverse population of colonists. Franklin appealed to the large Protestant population to rally around the concept of liberty and unification of the colonies. Protestants were familiar with rebelling against authority. It was in their culture at the time to despise any sort of hierarchy which weakened the autonomy of the individual. He would carry these same principles that were practiced in the religious sense and adapt them for political gain.

Franklin knew how important morality and virtue was in American society. During the period of Independence he and his fellow delegates were actively reliant upon the Supreme Being that they worshipped, without citing one specific deity of a religion. It was only later during the Constitutional Convention that many of the delegates wanted to weaken the presence of God and religion in American society. Franklin, still a deist, saw the implications that a lack of religion would have on the moral well-being of the blooming nation. He reminded the Convention of the all-powerful ally that they had once relied upon and asked if they felt that they could continue without that divine guidance.

Benjamin Franklin was well-known as being a supporter of all religions. This progressive stance made him appealing to the established Churches of the western world. He was seen as being an enlightened man in an un-enlightened world. Prior to Benjamin Franklin, the Colonies were not seen as being enlightened or as having a philosophy of their own. Franklin used his eclectic influence as a diplomat from various European countries to play upon his newfound celebrity by legitimizing the ambitions from the British Colonies.

Franklin was the leading advocate of justice and human rights. In his autobiography, Franklin outlines several virtues in which he emphasizes justice. His efforts mainly consisted of the pursuit of liberty and rebellion against the tyrannical King of England. Later in his life once independence was established and the American republic was up and running he focused his influenced as one of the nation’s most prominent abolitionists. In a letter he wrote in 1789, Franklin called slavery “an atrocious debasement of human nature.” His philosophic influence would later be revived at a time when it would be needed the most, in the twentieth century.

Two hundred years after Benjamin Franklin, Pope John Paul II would emerge as an unlikely advocate to the enlightenment principles of the past. Pope John Paul II was a product of the Second Vatican Council. This assembly recognized the changing times and noticed that if the Church was to survive, they would need to adapt as well. Pope John Paul was present at this event and assumed a new philosophy composed of family value and genuine morality.

He recognized and understood modernity and how it would relate to the spiritual well-being of his constituents. Pope John Paul II would emerge as one of the leading advocates of human rights in the twentieth century, largely because he lived through the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Poland during WWII. He would make this his primary objective during his religious career and during his reign as Pope. During this time, he would speak about the importance of equality and freedom as it relates to modern society.

His philosophy would circle around the need for greater acceptance and toleration between interfaith relations. He acknowledged the idea that we all worship the same deity, just in different ways. His first action in this effort was during the Second Vatican and it encompassed a worldwide appeal to Catholics to stop the oppression of Jews. This included verbal and physical acts, as well as the way they are portrayed in the media. Over the course of his papacy, he would travel all over the world and visit with leaders of various faiths and talk about the rights of the person.

The key idea in Pope John Paul II’s message for human rights is that all people are created in God’s image and that human beings should be treated as such, not as objects. In addition to human rights, he was a leading figure in support for the rights of nations. In his 1995 address to the United Nations General Assembly, he argues that because of artificial divisions during the Cold War, human beings were under the control of foreign powers that were unfamiliar with the necessities of their local demographic. He cited the document that the United Nations passed in 1948 relating to the list of Human Rights that every human being had. Pope John Paul argued that these rights could be practiced on a larger scale and benefit the health of nations.

He warns against the dangers of utilitarianism. This, he says, is when morality is described as something beneficial to a certain group, not necessarily something which is good. Because of this idea, morality takes on a false sense of importance and loses its appeal to those seeking a virtuous society. Morality becomes a political tool to sway public opinion and not as an ideal to which all people should try to obtain.

One of his most revolutionary ideas is that he follows in the path of enlightenment thinkers and reinforces the notion that there is a difference between spirituality and religion. He argues that a person who attends church often might not necessarily be a good and virtuous person. He continues to reassert the duty of spiritual guidance to the individual. Unlike his predecessors, he makes it known in his philosophy that there is a direct connection between the person and God, and that relationship can thrive without an intermediary. In a letter that he wrote in March of 1985, Pope John Paul II stated that only God could be the fundamental source of everything good. This was essentially a deist statement, but now, hundreds of years later; this is simply a well accepted progressive stance.

The most influential effort by Pope John Paul II during his papacy was the definition of faith. This word had an elastic quality in that nearly everyone had a different interpretation as to what it meant. Pope John Paul II reasserted the moral authority of the Papacy by stating that faith was the teachings of Christianity which were explained by the Church. This practice standardized the very backbone that morality and virtue were structured around. He continues to explain that faith, pertaining to Catholics, is both intellectual and emotional.

He incorporates many enlightenment ideas into his defense of faith, as it relates to reason. In his encyclical Fides et Ratio, he explains that without reason, faith can be a dangerous attribute. He continues to explain that reason can, and often is subjective. He also explains that it can be influenced by environmental factors. He saw this first hand in Nazi occupied Europe, when the conscience of millions was altered by the common acceptance of brutality.

Pope John Paul II brought a more realistic philosophy to the twentieth century which strengthened the rights of many, both the individual and the nation. He recognized the importance of diversity and acknowledged the inner conflict we all have regarding the particular and universal factors that compose our identity. He defined truth as a relation between truth and reason which, depending on your individual identity, would determine the person’s sense of truth, which would usually change from culture to culture. All of these ideas were needed at a time when modernity carried a negative connotation, but because of Pope John Paul’s ideas, we were able to see and understand the source of good acts in today’s world.

Both of these men were confronted with a rising secular society with a larger influence than earlier secular efforts. During the time of Benjamin Franklin, there was a looming fear of a godless nation. This was a result of the first amendment of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion to all Americans. However, this was often interpreted as a need for God to absent from all social and political conventions.

As with most deists, Pope John Paul II saw that there was very little to contrast the various groups who followed Christianity. He, and Franklin, were active participants in outreach campaigns which bridged the gap between established Christian churches and smaller congregational parishes. Both men knew that the only difference was that of doctrine. Both men were influenced largely by political conventions which occurred during their lifetime. With Benjamin Franklin, he was living in the Colonies after the end of the Seven Years War. A result of the newly conquered land was the Quebec Act of 1774. Among all the provisions which established governing practices, there was a clause which made the pledge of allegiance for that area generic in theology. This meant that one would not have to swear allegiance to a Protestant religion in order to be loyal to their government. It also allowed Catholics to practice their faith freely. Pope John Paul II was present at a similar event which encouraged religious toleration, and that was the well-known Second Vatican Council.

Both of these men were not only advocates of human rights, they were custodians of human rights. They went about this in a unique way, by appealing to the spirituality of the masses. Benjamin Franklin used the wide influence of Protestant ministers, who regularly preached the notion of liberty and justice. He would also later correlate rebellion to a tyrannical king to being obedient to God. Pope John Paul II used his moral authority to establish rights for all people, regardless of their nationality, as well as rights for the nation itself.

Although Pope John Paul II retains the importance and overall authority of the office of the Pope, he does emphasize that you don’t have to be a good Catholic or a good Christian to be a good person. Both men are dynamic in their persistence that good works and morality can be regularly practiced without the presence of God and Christian teachings. Both do, however, recognize that without the presence of God and religion, morality and virtue would most likely suffer and be absent from most of society. Benjamin Franklin expressed in many letters that although he didn’t find religion necessary to be a good person, he could only hope that it never disappeared from American society.

Both men saw the emerging philosophy of republicanism as an important and necessary component of modern society. Benjamin Franklin saw the need for this political idea because it was directly affecting the providence of the burgeoning nation. Pope John Paul II coupled republicanism with his drive for human rights by insisting that liberty and justice are cornerstones of modernity and that a government only exists at the consent and wellbeing of the governed. This idea paired well with his drive for human rights on the world’s stage by insisting that everyone had certain inalienable rights which cannot be voted away or repealed by a ruling government, which is largely what republicanism encompasses.

In a way, both of these men needed to make certain concessions to secularism in order to adapt with the contemporary views and philosophy. Benjamin Franklin was founding a nation with strong religious ties to Europe and many would love nothing more than to establish a theocracy. Franklin, however, recognized the need for religious freedom, largely because he viewed most religions as the same. Pope John Paul II was rather progressive in his ideas as a result of the Second Vatican Council, but came under fire from critics as not being progressive enough. Yet in a way, the acts of Benjamin Franklin formed a series of events which would later be experienced by Pope John Paul II, mainly the difference between religious freedom and religious absence in the United States.

Normally one would compare the leading of the most established Church in the world with a man who viewed all religions as the same. The reason we see this comparisons is that in the twentieth century, as a reaction to grave injustices and atheistic proliferation, the definition of “traditional” carries a different meaning. Both men formed their philosophy based on what was needed during their own experiences with modernity. Both of these men had direct experiences with oppression and both assumed a duty to help on the global level to enlighten oppressive governments and advocate rights for all people. Both of these men used Christian principles to reinforce their message, which during both periods, proved to be largely successful.

The Difference Between Red and White

2008-04-21T19:25:00.007-05:00

Throughout the history of colonization, there have always been questions raised about the differences between indigenous peoples and the colonizing nation. Historian Nancy Shoemaker gives a very concise, yet complete argument as to why the British and Indians had such a complicated engagement during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In her book, A Strange Likeness, she examines how the similarities between the British and Indians were on a much more substantial and relevant level than the superficial differences they saw in one another. This paper will examine how real these similarities were and how many of the differences we study were manufactured by both groups in the encounter.

Shoemaker categorizes the broad spectrum of factors into several components. Some of the more essential ones are that of race, writing, gender, alliances, and land. She quickly acknowledges the existence of racial differences between both parties and this can be argued to be fabricated, at least by the Indians. The British had the idea that every Indian was born white and it was only because they were exposed to the environment more regularly and they lived closer to nature that their skin gradually took on a red hue. Whereas the Indians accepted the difference in race between the two, but in no way categorized it as factor in determining their right to the land.

This point was pivotal for humanity in general. Never before had a group of people, especially Europeans, identified themselves as “white.” Prior to this age of globalization, we have seen identities describes based on one’s nationality or religious affiliation, but never skin color. In North America, we see the tense coexistence of people of white, black, and red skin colors. Black people consisted nearly entirely of African slaves. The practice of this started in the Caribbean during the onset of the African slave trade in the Western hemisphere. This was adopted because it allowed anyone to identify a slave quite easily if they were to escape. Europeans of all religions and nations were self-labeled as white people, and the Indians were described as being red.

The spirituality of both groups can be factored into a number of occasions where the British deemed themselves as superior, simply because they were Christians. During this period of colonization and expansion, the word “civilize” became synonymous with converting a group of people to Christianity. The British saw it as their duty to help save the Indian people. Fundamentally, however, the differences were not as vast as predicted. It is revealed that both groups believe in the same supreme-being as their Creator.

Their spiritual beliefs had fundamentally influenced their societal norms by instituting very different policies for land use. The Indians practiced more of an animism philosophy where everything living and spiritual would be returned to the Earth. Because of this, there was greater respect shown for natural things. The Europeans believed in the Christian God; a God who reigned from Heaven and was the Creator of Earth, not its custodian. The Europeans were therefore more willing to cultivate, develop, and abuse the land they inhabited.

One of the largest contributing factors which ultimately put the Indians at a huge disadvantage was that of communication, specifically the art of writing. It was common for Indian tribes to pass down tradition and laws orally. When a peace deal would be brokered between two warring tribes, it was always an oral agreement, and this practice occurred for an unknown amount of time. The British however, followed the more European approach when it came to legal and diplomatic agreements, and that was to agree to something in writing and secure either the signature or seal of all parties involved on the document.

The Indians reluctantly followed the way of the Europeans and engaged in all diplomacy with written documents. This proved to be problematic, because although the difference in how both groups conduct diplomacy is rather unsubstantial as long as a mutually agreed resolution is concluded, the Indians and British had different meanings to their words. Both groups would speak and write in English, but the vernacular of words would produce two separate agreements as far as the Indians were concerned. This proved to be of little concern since they would only retrieve the written document from the council bag when they needed to challenge the British on their agreement.

The similarities between Indians and the colonizing British are in fact quite stunning. It is also quite interesting to see how the Indians adopted more European methods to counter the invading force of white men. The Indians had maintained a sense of primitive pride amongst their nations. They felt that their existence was to coincide with that of the Earth and that the land was to be respected, not owned. I believe that the Indians reserved their fundamental values in order to compete for the land that they had inhabited for ages. Although their similarities with the British were stronger than their differences, it was the latter that ultimately led to the suppression of Indian culture during the nineteenth century.

Sources:
Nancy Shoemaker, A Strange Likeness: Becoming Red and White in Eighteenth Century north America, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)

Invented Traditions, Myths, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony

2008-03-27T10:41:00.003-05:00

During the onset of American colonial history, there were many events which were sensationalized as the years went on. The events took on a new story and new meaning to accommodate various social causes or defend public policies. These events, or “invented traditions” were present in nearly every English colony, but was more prolific and enduring at the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This paper will examine how although these events in Massachusetts were later embellished into something extraordinary, they did possess real historical consequences that would play an important role.

One of the most used myths from American colonial history was that of the landing at Plymouth Rock by the Puritans. The Puritans were trying to escape religious persecution by the Anglican Church and sought after a territory out of reach from their bishops. They settled upon Plymouth Rock and later expanded out, eventually merging with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They did not seek religious freedom for their people; they sought after freedom to practice Puritanism. This would later be transformed into the desire for religious freedom by those who wanted freedom of religion after the creation of the United States.

Articles of Confederation were denounced and the Constitutional Convention was formed, there was some discussion on whether or not to allow an established religion exist in the United States. This was greatly detested by those affected by the control over the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that there needs to be a clear division between church and state and, after a few decades, it became a precedent that no church would be publicly supported, nor would worship in any one church be mandatory for any American.

The Puritans were cited throughout early American history as the basis for the American system. The Puritans drafted the Mayflower Compact which contains much of the conditions and language seen in the American Constitution. This is evident because the conditions seen in the Mayflower Compact is utilized to maintain survival. This desired goal for continuity is paralleled in the Constitution. The government in Massachusetts that was formed as a result was obliged to rule at the consent of the governed. These settlers were described as writing down the founding principles of a Republican society and setup their community around the idea of independence and the strong avoidance of outside interference. This was merely done to ensure the cooperation of the congregation with the clergy. It set out the basis of organization which the American Constitution would later mimic, not the other way around since the Mayflower Compact was written long before the Constitution.

In contrast to Jamestown, the Puritans were seen as the first ones founding a new country, although that was not their intentions. Jamestown was regarded as a transplant of English society and culture, whereas the Puritans sought complete independence from England. There story was embellished to leave us to assume a divine basis for their settlement, and this idea would later be used during westward expansion and the idea of manifest destiny.

During the Antebellum Period, the Puritans were made a strong example of by the abolitionists. They saw themselves and their cause as a continuation to that of the Puritans. The Puritan colony was layered in freedom by the abolitionists’ quest for freedom from England and their peaceful interaction with the Natives. Abolitionists used the strong Christian faith exhibited by the Puritans to reinforce the idea that everyone was equal in the eyes of God and that slavery was immoral.

There is no doubt that the events we learned of in elementary school and beyond occurred, but there is no reason to assume that the cause and goal of the early colonies was anything but survival. These myths were simply used as a propaganda tool by those looking to advance their own social reforms and to further define what it means to be an American. Looking back in hindsight, it is easy to assume that they were looking to start a new country because of the way the events played out, but for the Puritans at least, it was simply the search for religious autonomy and the will to survive.

Sources:

Ann Uhry Abrams, The Pilgrims and Pocahontas, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1999)

Reaction to Lucretius

2008-02-26T22:44:00.003-06:00

Lucretius was a Roman philosopher who signed on to the epicurean ideas which denied spirituality, superstition, and non-earthly phenomena. He took an unusual approach to publish his ideas by formatting them into poetry. This came at a time when Rome was conquering the empire created earlier by Alexander the Great and Greek culture was eagerly being adopted by many Romans. Poetry was an important genre of literature during the later part of the Roman Republic which Lucretius lived and arguably played an important role in the success of his work. This paper will discuss how Lucretius’ sweeping claims relate to the philosophy of his time, but how many of his ideas would later be ratified by modern scientific research.

One of Lucretius’ strongest assertions in his work is about how religion is not only false, but dangerous. He argues that religion is used to explain the unexplainable and as a result, can slow scientific progress. People would often associate a god to what science couldn’t explain and one of Lucretius’ main points is that nothing can come from nothing. His views and those of society of the time would clash when Lucretius defends one of his most prolific ideas which are that of the soul.

Lucretius defends the notion that the soul is not of spiritual matter, but a more material and empirical being. He describes what he calls “motes”, or what we today would call atoms or neurons. He states that the soul is entirely material and is comprised of motes moving in a random sequence which controls our bodies and our feelings. He attributes everything which involves the body to the activity of motes. Even intellect is attributed to the movement and reaction between motes located in the heart. This parallels his notion that the spirit is spread throughout the body, but forms a unity necessary for the feeling of different sensations. In the epicurean convention, he firmly establishes material cause to cognitive effect.

Lucretius is quite advanced in his thinking when he states that “matter is indestructible” He has the scientific reasoning to understand the basic elements of matter as we understand them today. He states that “The elements are held, are bound together in different degrees, but the basic stuff is indestructible, so things remain intact, unharmed, until a force is found proportionate to their texture, to effect reversion to their primal elements, but never to complete annihilation.” By this statement, Lucretius is defending scientific fact millennia ahead of his time. He takes his fundamental argument that everything is composed of atoms or motes and argues that matter can never be destroyed. It is possible to destroy an advanced assembly of motes, but ultimately they can only return to the basic form of matter.

One of the most contentious claims by atheists today is that once a human dies everything ceases to exist. Lucretius was a founding thinker of this argument. He states that the soul is not immortal and that there is no reason to fear death because there will be no continuation of your being to face either good or bad spiritual occurrences. He states that the thought of a spirit leaving the body is in fact the body’s motes exiting through every miniscule opening in the body. He states that the body’s motes, like other matter isn’t completely destroyed, but exists in the world around us and will someday be decisive in the production of another human being. In this same argument, he dismisses the idea that the soul escapes the body as a single entity. He argues that as a section or limb of the body dies or decays, part of the soul leaves the body along with the ability of that body part.

He uses this idea of death being the ultimate end of our consciousness to reinforce the notion that humans should not be afraid of death and that by focusing on what happens after we die ultimately takes away from the quality of life we can achieve. He says that people will do almost anything to stay alive. He states very vividly that “it drives a man to violate honor, or to break the bonds of friendship.” He continues his passage to explain that nearly every human would rather suffer exile, disease, loneliness, and constant torment, but stay alive instead of face death.

In Lucretius’ argument against personal immortality, he touches on the linkage between the atomic activity of the brain and human movement. Typically we see the brain as the control center of the body, ultimately controlling everything. Lucretius saw the body as controlling the mind. Following the atomist approach of Epicurus, he made no distinction between motes that compose the peripheral body, or cells, with the motes which make human thought necessary, or neurons. He used human drunkenness as an example. He attained proof by observing that the more an intoxicant is consumed, the more random and unusual a person will behave. This correlated with his argument that everything that encompassed our being was empirical.

Lucretius gives the reader an alternative mode of thought by offering his epicurean views on religion and physics. He tries to eliminate any fear that people carry with them as a result of religion and he works to convey the notion that everything that exists is purely chemical and there is nothing of superstition or divinity to be afraid of. He solidifies his stance pertaining to non-existence when he says that everyone will eventually die and nobody can escape it. He argues that death equates to annihilation and to anticipate a final judgment will only lower the quality of life which can be attained.

When people have questions about their own existence, Lucretius offers them several observations they can make which usually encompasses support for his claims. He offers his atomist approach with the idea that although your body simply decays postmortem and your motes escape into nature only to one day be made into a living being again, your immortality is retained, in a sense, but you will not remember your past life. In addition he makes the comparison of the growth both physically and mentally of children as they grow and the deterioration both physically and mentally of elders as they near the end of their life. He professes that death occurs as a process and it is not a sudden release of the soul as many followers of religion might assume.

There is no doubt that Lucretius’ ideas were revolutionary and far ahead of his time. He built upon the foundation of Epicurus and arguably reinforced the ideas of the thinker he had faithfully admired and supported instead of composing authentic atomist ideas. He paved the way for modern scientific methods to confirm what he and his predecessors had established. It is difficult to ponder whether Lucretius had actual proof of many of his claims which we only today have proven, or if he merely had a basic understanding marked by a solid hypothesis. Nevertheless, he planted the seed for enlightened thinkers centuries later and a birth for modern social criticisms.

Source:
Lucretius. Trans. Rolfe Humphries. The Way Things Are. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968.

Pragmatism and Modern Criticism

2007-12-18T10:40:00.000-06:00

Pragmatism has had a profound effect on human thought following the Enlightenment and even more so after the American Civil War. It has stimulated new ideas surrounding truth and how the individual pertains to the functions of society. This new method of thinking challenged many established rationales of government, religion, and science. Pragmatists offered what they considered to be a more realistic mode of reasoning, which incorporates real world factors and uses validation along with science to arrive at a greater state of truth.

Pragmatism revolutionized the way Americans conceive ideas with respect to religious or ethical views. This came at a time in American history where a few social concerns, such as slavery, women’s rights, and eminent domain, challenged the structure and immediate future of the United States. There were several early American thinkers, which gave an explanation of the most socially correct way to deal with the problems of the time. The most prominent of which was William James, Charles Pierce, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

William James was most well known for his explanation of how a human belief has a “cash value”. This was centered on the idea that a truth was not something conceived in the mind, but it had a direct correlation to the natural world. He made the comparison that religious and scientific beliefs were comparable, as they allowed humans to live more enjoyable lives. This gave some explanation to the world around us and even to things that could not be understood.

William James provided several theories which challenged the Darwinian mode of thinking. He argued that with certain truth being obtained from the world around us, that survival was more an idea of intelligence. Therefore, this idea took a higher rank in philosophy because Darwin’s theory argued that it was a matter of biological fitness which determined a species chances for survival. James’ ideas would add significant strength to the Pragmatic way of thinking because it would ultimately form a sense of compliance between the human mind and nature.

Charles Pierce was central in drafting a pragmatic method of problem solving which standardized the method of drawing conclusions based on observations. His Pragmatic Maxim was a way of clarifying ideas which he considered to be difficult by employing rational thought. His most successful means of this process is to bring to light the consequences which can be conceived through an idea and comparing it to the meaning of a concept. His goal was to ultimately draft a pragmatic view which was against political or social gain and was conducive to social equality.

Pierce was a staunch advocate for the scientific method, saying that it was the best way to conclude a problem of theoretical thought. He stated, however, that for an immediate answer with respect to a practical concept, it was better to use tradition and instinct. Pierce defended this theory by arguing that any theory which comes closest to the truth and best describes the world around us is therefore superior. He was very scientific in this action and uses rationalism and realism together to provide an easier and more time sensitive way to define a solution to society’s problems.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Supreme Court Justice in the early twentieth century and a combat veteran of the American Civil War. He recalled his days in the military and concluded that laws of the government were based on violence which eventually caused him to reject the idea of romanticism and all concept of natural law. Holmes was a strong proponent of common law in the United States which gave the authority and legal obligation for Judges to create law through their rulings. This was centered on the pragmatic idea that truth was determined by real life, almost tangible, causes and effects.

Curtis White encompasses many pragmatic views and uses them in contemporary situations. He is very expressive when it comes to the coexistence of Enlightenment and Christian ideas. White embodies all values of the imagination, or as he correlates it with, the spiritual sense. He emphasizes the importance of harnessing the desire to return to fundamental human behavior and expresses that this is one of several ways to sustain and converge the best ideas from both the Enlightenment and Christianity and mold them into one idea.

It is important to note that Pragmatism, as a way of processing thought, is very similar to that of historical thinking. Pragmatists rarely dismiss any idea contradictory to their own without substantial proof that negates its validity. Pragmatists often assume that there is no absolute truth in life, and neither do historians. This relates back to the scientific approach to problem solving as it prevents the mind from automatically dismissing an idea, essentially slowing down process.

Louis Menand wrote a very informative and comprehensive narrative which encompasses many of the early American thinkers from the era following the American Civil War. He cites many examples where pragmatism and metaphysics clash, but how pragmatists incorporate these ideas and modify them into their own, thusly making them more attractive to the American public, who was then faced with an array of social and political dilemmas. Menand incorporates Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Pierce, William James, and John Dewey and conveys a descriptive sense of how they were looking to draft an American solution to American problems. He expertly tells of the culmination of ideas these four men experienced and how they developed into pragmatists.

Reinhold Niebuhr describes an interesting contradiction between science and metaphysics. He states that if science rejects the suggestion of myth and the idea of metaphysics it will have only two choices when attempting to define truth in an absolute world. He describes one choice as the practice of visualizing the world as a mechanism with certain mechanical processes, which only encompasses a superficial view of humanity and unity, essentially removing any meaningfulness in the world. The second alternative, as described by Niebuhr, is to blend mythical and transcendent views of truth into science’s testimony of history. Niebuhr explains that modern Americans have maintained their spiritual life based on progress.

Menand reinforces this claim when he describes Pierce’s way of thinking about the criteria a belief must possess before it can be considered significant. Menand narrates that Pierce believed that if a belief was incapable of instituting change, it therefore had little importance or significance. This relates back to the basic pragmatic theory of holding a “cash value” and validating a belief with experience, as Pierce advocated. He continues to explain similarities between Niebuhr and Pierce’s views on the validity of a belief through observation. Menand diagnoses the problem that many non-pragmatic thinkers have is that they only consider their belief to be true or accurate if it directly reflects the “way things really are.”

Menand gives a very eloquent description of William James’ argument on the reality of a belief. He argues that James was convinced that a belief did not have to have a correspondence with reality to be valid. This was because imitating reality is not the primary purpose of having a mind, James argued. This was a significant statement by James as this was his first professional argument as a certified Psychologist and would bring pragmatism further into the scientific realm.

Pragmatism was a critical stage in human thought in America. It arose from civil and political unrest following the American civil war and aided in giving practical solutions to sensitive problems. This new idea was revolutionary in itself because pragmatic thinking forced many Americans seeking truth to obtain it through observation and validation. They might have considered any form of philosophy prior to this as simply theoretical because there were no “real world” examples to compare their ideas to. Pragmatism was especially important in the field of historical study because it prevents historians from rejecting any claim contradictory to their own theory. This assures that the historian will be reluctant to publish any historical analysis without solid proof and data to backup their argument. When weighing the benefits and shortcomings of Pragmatism, it may not be a philosophy that many humans can adopt, but many Americans can, as this philosophy is uniquely American.

References:

David Voelker, “Curtis White: The Spirit of Disobedience 3,” Ex Post Facto weblog, posted on December 12, 2007, [http://expostfacto.historytools.org/curtis-white-the-spirit-of-disobedience-3/] (accessed December 16, 2007).

Reinhold Niebuhr. “The Truth in Myths,” in The Nature of Religious Experience: Essays in Honor of Douglas Clyde Macintosh (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937), 122

Louis Menand. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. (Farrar Strauss and Giroux: New York), 356

The New Brew: A Story of Beer Culture in America

2007-12-06T10:02:00.001-06:00

The way Americans think about beer has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. Many people still have a preconceived notion that a beer drinker is some hillbilly throwing a handful of crumpled up dollar bills on the counter of a gas station asking for a 30-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon; a person who doesn’t care about flavor or quality as long as it will get him drunk. Today it is not uncommon to find a person spending ten or fifteen dollars for one bottle of beer and when they drink it, they drink it to appreciate its flavor and always in moderation. We see an emergence of brewers who embrace the “craft beer” revolution and brew for quality and not quantity and with word of mouth as their only advertising tool they soon develop a strong customer base. In the contemporary world, the American palate has become more sophisticated and a new appreciation is seen for new brews.

Beer was always an important part of the American diet, dating back to Colonial America. Beer was usually drank in place of water because many settlers did not trust natural water, even though American fresh water was crystal clear compared to that of Europe. Therefore beer was drank by every man, woman, and child since it had to be boiled which would kill all microorganisms and many did not think to simply boil freshwater. Early settlers, therefore, continued to drink popular English styles of beer, which consisted mainly of Porter and English Bitter, all of them Ales. After the Revolutionary War, many Americans abandoned beer because they saw it as a reminder of their British past. They would soon turn to whiskey for the next fifty years until a wave of German immigrants brought with them a new type of beer from Bavaria called Lager.

American beer use to carry with it a largely negative context. For over a century, American beer was typically referring to a Pale Lager. A lager is a class of beer which uses bottom-fermenting yeast at cooler fermentation temperatures for longer periods of time which produces a clear and clean beer with a crisp taste. The word “lager” is a German term which refers to the practice of letting beer ferment at a low temperature, typically 45 degrees, for around two months. American Pale Lager was, and is, bland in flavor which uses many adjunct ingredients such as rice or corn. These ingredients lessen the body of a beer and give a watery flavor and for nearly a century, there was no other alternative available.

It wasn’t until the 1970s when Americans started to demand quality. This was a simultaneous occurrence with the rising popularity with wine and Americans wanted an alcoholic beverage which ranged in flavor and style which they could discuss among friends and enjoy with a nice meal. This is largely a result of some key industry figures that, together, pushed for an emergence in craft brew. Craft brew refers to beer that is brewed on a much smaller scale, or microbrewed, with all effort and attention being done by a human brewer, not a machine. The brewery still makes a substantial profit because their distribution area is smaller, but is more popular with patrons because it is made locally.

The most significant cause to this trend can be largely credited to the baby boomers. As this large portion of our population gets older, they tend to drink less. However, as they drink less, they usually start to drink more quality oriented. This is rivaled by those who have just reached legal drinking age. Many of Americans who are in their twenties already have a developed and sophisticated palate due to their large exposure to gourmet coffees and other flavorful beverages. Quality aside, we also see the emergence and prosperity of microbreweries. This can be correlated with the increased trend in many Americans purchasing their food from local vendors or growers. It is only natural that we seek our favorite beer from local brewers.

There were a few key individuals who sparked the craft brew revolution and not only changed the way beer is made, but how we think about it. Michael Jackson was the father of beer culture. He was a beer writer who lived in England until his death from Parkinson’s disease in August of 2007 at his home in London. He was an author who traveled the world and tasted thousands of beers and reviewed them. He pioneered the ideas of having proper glassware and food and beer pairing recommendations. Jackson had an immense love of Belgian beers. He would travel the Monasteries of Belgium where Trappist monks would brew strong ales and even published a book referring to his journey through Belgium and the interesting beers he had experienced.

He was affectionately referred to as the Beer Hunter since he would travel worldwide and find hidden treasures in breweries which largely went unnoticed. He would write many books and articles about his experience and even had a show for many years on The Discovery Channel. He first started his career working for his local newspaper back in London. He approached his Editor with the idea of having his own column where he would review beer and give his opinion. His Editor wasn’t very keen on the idea and asked Jackson to verify his own request since he was only 16 years old at the time and the legal drinking age in London was 18. The Editor asked Jackson if he was really asking for the newspaper to finance a law-breaking escapade. Jackson said yes and the Editor approved his request for his own beer column and soon he would be famous throughout the world. Jackson left a legacy behind him and I believe that he would be pleased to see how his efforts changed the brewing world. On Sunday September 30th at 9:00 Eastern time, there was a nationwide toast to the Beer Hunter. I personally raised a glass of Unibroue Seigneuriale.

Jim Koch is another beer pioneer who made his mark on America. Koch is the founder of the Boston Beer Company which produces the well-known series of beers called Samuel Adams. His lineage consisted of many brewers and beer lovers in general. He attended Law School in Boston as well as an MBA program. After a while he left both of those endeavors because he was afraid that this would force him into a life where he would be successful, but he wouldn’t be happy. After three years, he returned to school and earned a law degree as well as his M.B.A. He worked for a consulting firm in Boston where he earned a hefty salary and had the chance to travel the country. He again grew complacent in his career and decided to leave his career and corner office and take the risk to open the Boston Beer Company. Koch was a personal friend of Michael Jackson and fed off Jackson’s love of beer and revolutionized the beer business in America. He produces enough beer to reach all corners of America, but produces it on the same level of a microbrewery. He does this by contracting hundreds of small breweries and some large ones like Miller to brew Sam Adams all around the country. This way, it reaches all customers, but is brewed in smaller batches and doesn’t have to travel that far to be consumed.

Fritz Maytag is the owner of the Anchor Brewery in San Francisco, California. He purchased the brewery in 1965 which rescued the brewery from bankruptcy and was pivotal in kick starting the craft brew revolution in North America. He now owned the smallest and most traditional brewery in America and acted as the example when microbrewing was not yet a term. Today, as it was in the 1960s, Anchor produces all of their beer by hand instead of relying on machines. Fritz was the pioneer in bringing back the Steam style of beer. Steam, also known as California Common, was a beer that used Lager yeast, but fermented at Ale temperatures. It was the first authentic American beer which was thought up by gold seekers during the 1850s. Maytag answered the call for millions of Americans who wanted a beer made by someone who cared about their final product and from a company where you could associate a face to the beer.

These figures have caused a large following among the populous where Americans realized and embraced the idea that there is a complex and vast range of brews. With the sophistication of American palates and the parallel advancement of the wine and beer industry, we see the emergence of the beer snob. Only 30 years ago there was no such thing, but there is now an entire nation of beer drinkers where quality and rarity outperform the nostalgic swill of their parents.

All of these men will tell you, quite easily in fact, why small-scale craft breweries produce the best beer in the world. The most obvious is that by focusing their attention on such a small amount, they can make minor changes to the beer directly, not via some computer screen in a control room at a large Brewhouse. Also, the biggest advantage to microbrewers is that they do not need to cater to the taste of the entire nation. Since every region or community has a certain preference for their diet, brewers can cater to them with a line of beer that shares the same common desires with their customers and they do not have to produce a watered down mild Lager as a basic “catch-all” brew. Not to mention craft beer is seen as one of integrity. Those drinking it know that the brewer carefully thought out which ingredients are going into it and created a finished product that they are proud to attach their name to.

This new and sophisticated culture has already embraced many of the aspects found in the wine world. Many who are familiar with wine are also familiar with the profession of the Sommelier. A Sommelier is to a wine cellar what an Executive Chef is to the kitchen. They typically work at a restaurant and are the ones who create a wine list and keep it fully stocked. They work with distributors and educate the serving staff on the wines which are on special and pair nicely with the special dishes of the evening. Perhaps the largest and most honored responsibility of the Sommelier is to approach the table upon request and make a wine recommendation based on the customer’s budget, preference, and entrée’. There is now a specialist like that for beer.

The Cicerone is a new occupation formed from the demand of today’s beer culture. They usually work at higher end restaurants where there is a large beer selection and appreciation of craft brews. The Cicerone stocks and maintains a beer cellar and will act in the same way as a Sommelier by approaching a table and recommending beer based on the food that it will be paired with and the personal taste of the customer. This has provided an educated expert who has been formally trained and certified by an exam board and works in their off time to promote craft beer and educate those unfamiliar with our nation’s rising beer industry.

Perhaps the largest similarity between the wine world and the beer world is the aspects which provide the largest conversation topics. These include the practice of barrel aging a beer, much as they do wine. It is not uncommon for many brewers today to purchase used Port or Cognac casks and age a beer for roughly one year which will smooth out its flavor and add a little extra shelf life by fortifying the chemical makeup of the beer by slightly exposing it through oxygen by aging it in porous oak. The other factor in beer sophistication is one that simultaneously makes beer a hobby for most people and that is the idea of having proper glassware for certain beer and having a proper serving temperature. Prior to the 1970s beer was usually served in a typical Pub Glass which looked like an upside down cone. There are now goblet shaped glassware as well as some custom and patented glassware from Samuel Adams.

As with wine, many Americans act as their own Cicerone at home and try to learn what beers pair well with whatever dish they are having that night for dinner. This has become such a large trend in American homes that the Brewers Association has published a pairing chart that lists all beer styles and recommends the type of entrée, dessert, and cheese that will pair best with each beer. This directly reflects the way that Americans think about beer and how we have come to embrace craft beer and abandoned the macrobrews and imports.

The old brew of our past was largely influenced by a wave of German immigrants which migrated here during the mid 1800s. They brought with them a revolutionary way of making beer which included lagering. Prior to this, beer was produced the English way which was always Ale with a bitter taste and usually was darker in color and taste considering the popularity of roasted malts. German Americans used mostly pale two-row barley which made a milder beer and was more expensive, but was more palatable and was enjoyed by many people with varying tastes. It wasn’t until the craft brew revolution when we learned of another little country with an advanced brewing heritage.

Belgium, which shares a border with Germany, has been brewing for over one thousand years. There are a large number of secular breweries throughout Belgium, but perhaps the most well-known and world renowned breweries are those run by Trappist Monks. If you were to talk to a Trappist monk they will quickly inform you that they are not brewers, they are monks. They will explain that they only brew beer to be able to afford being monks and perform various philanthropic acts. These monasteries have put out some of the world’s greatest beer, but only one monastery stands out from the rest.

The St. Sixtus Monastery, located in Flanders, Belgium, is home of the Westvleteren Brewery. They are the brewers of the Westvleteren Abt 12. The Westy 12 is an Abbey Quadrupel, a style of beer which is fermented four times which raises its alcohol content to around 12% Abv. This beer is dark brown in color and uses special yeast strains which produce fruity esters and a caramel flavor which both warms the stomach and pairs with nicely with many foods. Year after year the top beer magazines and websites chose the Westvleteren Abt 12 as the best beer in the world. The most unusual fact about the Westvleteren Brewery is the fact that despite the large worldwide demand, they will not increase production to meet that demand and make a larger profit. They decline to follow every business protocol in the world and only brew enough beer to live off of the sales. This sparked the ingenuity and competitiveness of the average American to travel to Belgium or buy from the grey market, since the Monks request that their beer not be resold to anyone.

With the advancement of beer culture in America it is only normal that at a certain point we assume our hands-on tradition as Americans and decide to brew our own. Homebrewing has become increasingly popular throughout America in almost all segments of mainstream society. This allows Americans to create, improve, and enjoy something they are responsible for and can assign their name to. Homebrewing has formed friendships, not to mention an entire industry. When done correctly, homebrew should taste better than anything you can purchase from a store.

Homebrewing allows Americans to create or adopt a recipe, purchase ingredients from a local homebrew store, and use equipment from the comfort of their own kitchens to create a homemade beer which adds to the idea of appreciating a beer when you drink it, since the person who drinks it was present the entire time it was made. Homebrewing, such as with most hobbies, has been organized into professional organizations. The Beer Judge Certification Program, or BJCP, is responsible for training and certifying beer judges who will preside over a homebrew competition. The BJCP is also responsible for dictating the brewing standards in regards to what a beer needs to contain to be considered for a certain beer style.

As with most important parts of American society which has its own industry, beer has reached a plateau as far as innovation and creativity. This has opened up the market and mouths for new beers to meet the demand of new beer drinkers. Perhaps the most ingenious and beneficial is the birth of our nation’s organic beers. These brews are made from purified water, but not distilled as this provides no yeast nutrients and gives a watery mouthfeel. They are brewed with certified organic hops and malt. They are also brewed without chemicals which make sanitation very difficult and forces many of these beers to be bottle conditioned rather than force carbonated.

Following in this tradition of creating beers to accommodate the lifestyle of certain members of society, brewers have now started to experiment with, and brew beer made from a type of grass called Sorghum. The use of Sorghum allows this beer to be drunk by people who have Celiac disease, a condition where the person is allergic to wheat or have a problem metabolizing gluten. Since gluten is a byproduct of malted barley, beer enthusiasts find themselves in a situation when they develop this condition where they cannot enjoy a beer.

It is said that beer and America grew up together. Today beer dominates the American market, outselling wine and liquor more than two to one and craft brew alone holds over twenty percent of the American beer market. Today, there are over 100 different styles of beer in America which give people a different sense of beer itself; because no one can say they don’t like beer anymore. There is a beer to fit everyone from all walks of life and with enough courage to being sampling the vast array of craft beer available, everyone will be able to sit back and pop open twelve ounces of happiness.

References:
1. Oliver, Garret. The Brewmaster’s Table: Discovering the Pleasures of Real Beer with Real Food. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005
2. Standage, Tom. A History of the World in 6 Glasses. New York: Walker & Company, 2006
3. Ogle, Maureen. Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer. New York: Harcourt, 2007
4. Jackson, Michael. Ultimate Beer. New York: DK publishing, Inc., 1998
5. Jackson, Michael. Great Beer Guide. New York: DK Publishing, Inc., 2000
6. Brown, Peter. Man Walks Into a Pub: A Sociable History of Beer. London: MacMillan UK, 2004
7. Daniels, Ray. Why Cicerone?. 2007. www.cicernone.org
8. Jackson, Michael. “Why Beer Is Best.” The Independent. 22 Feb. 1997
9. Jackson, Michael, “It’s Thanksgiving, So Try One.” The Independent. 19 Nov. 1994
10. Glover, Brian. The World Encyclopedia of Beer. London: Anness Publishing Ltd., 1998
11. Jim Koch, interview by Roadtrip Nation 2005, Roadtrip Nation Interview:Jim Koch, www.roadtripnation.com, July 30, 2004.
12. Broadcast. American Eats: Beer. History Channel. December 4, 2007.
13. Kate Novack, “The New Brew,” Time Magazine, June 11, 2007.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1627018,00.html
14. Michael Jackson, interviewed by the Shelton Brothers, Michael Jackson Interview. August 7, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLohwMW7qjU
15. Brewer’s Association. 2006 Craft beer Industry Statistics. Updated April 13 ,2007. http://www.beertown.org/craftbrewing/statistics.html

Book Review: Nathan the Wise

2007-12-05T12:12:00.000-06:00

Out of the Enlightenment grew revolutionary ideas which benefited many aspects of society. The most conducive idea to the betterment of nations was that of religious tolerance. This is portrayed with dynamic expression in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s book, Nathan the Wise. This story is a direct reflection as Lessing’s beliefs and is favorable to those of the Jewish faith, but drew criticism from Christians because of their representation as anti-Semitic. This was reflected on the Templar’s opinion of how just because Nathan was wealthy, did not mean he was a good man (55). There is also an underlying theme of the resentment felt by many Christians of the time towards the Jewish people based on the event of Christ’s crucifixion.

Lessing provides several examples explaining why, exactly, Nathan is wise. To follow the theme of the story, Nathan is very tolerant of other religions. Nathan is shown to be so when he raises his daughter Recha to worship God, but not to sign on to the rituals of any single religion. (32) This story is depicted before the idea of predestination, but was written at a time when this idea was widely considered to be true among many social groups in Europe. Nathan could therefore be considered wise because he was a wealthy merchant (42, 51, 55). He also had a reputation of being, in a way, generous. He often gives to the poor, but is rather parsimonious as he gives only a little (51). Nathan could also be described as enlightened and also, in a way, pragmatic, as he does not assume to know things.

Nathan is used throughout the book, in conjunction with other characters, to reflect Lessing’s views on women and various religious faiths. He explains throughout the story that there is not one “true” religion (56-57, 70). The most prominent example of this idea is when Saladin asks Nathan which religion is the true one. Nathan began to tell a story of a man who had a ring which would assure that the owner was always in God’s grace and this ring was always passed from the owner down to the son who was the father’s favorite. He told the story of how the ring was passed down through the generations, but came upon a father who loved all of his sons equally. He solved this dilemma by having two other rings made which was an exact copy of the original. He gave the rings to his sons and did not reveal which one had the special ring. A judge declared that they must simply live their lives in such a way that it will prove that they have the true blessed ring (71-72). Nathan then explained to the Sultan that the “true ring was indistinguishable, almost as indistinguishable as the true religion is to us.” (72)

Lessing uses an idea of sorority among Christian woman to depict Daja and Recha as more loyal to each other than to Nathan. Daja meets with the Templar in secret and confides in him that Recha is not of Jewish origin at all, but that she is a Christian (80). This is important because Daja is Christian as well, even though she works for Nathan. The story then engages in the discussion about the one “true” religion as the Templar meets with the local religious Patriarch to discuss what to do with Nathan. Daja had told the Templar that Nathan had stolen Recha as a baby and raised her Jewish. This was punishable by death in Jerusalem at the time. The Templar meets with the Patriarch, but will not disclose Nathan’s identity to him (85).

The overall message of Lessing’s work is to not be so quick to dismiss another faith based upon one or two conflicting beliefs. He wants to put a larger emphasis on the effects of religion on society. He makes many references, such as the story of the three rings, that being a good Christian or a good Jew does not automatically make you a good person. Lessing was a strong advocate of religious freedom, even at times defending the Christian faith. He gives us his strongest argument for religious similarities at the end of the play when it is revealed that Recha is the sister of the Templar and both of them are children of the Sultan’s brother (118). This forced Recha’s religious identity to jump back and forth from Jewish, to Christian, and then finally to Muslim.

Lessing used many ideas and experiences from his own life in the story. Lessing modeled Nathan after his very good friend, Moses Mendelssohn. Lessing reinforces this idea, through Nathan, that your citizenship should be the most prominent factor in determining their identity, rather than the religion you practice (56, 57). This was offered as a potential solution for much religious intoleration which was spreading across Europe during Lessing’s day.

Lessing’s work, surprisingly, has much relevance in contemporary times. The most relevant theme in the story which relates to the world today has to do with the Templar. In the story, the Templar was responsible in many ways for mending relations with Nathan and the Sultan. This can be seen as a direct reflection of the role the United States is playing in the Middle East with the effort of mending relations between Israel and the Muslim world. Many might also say that there is an increased unification of Christian and Protestant faiths in ideas only; this pairs with the contemporary idea of diversity and tolerance. Many spiritual individuals have begun to lower their practice of religious superiority and embrace followers of other faiths based on their character.

Lessing was successful in, not only reflecting the enlightened ideas of the time, but writing a story which would inspire discussion and force the reader to examine what was more important, their religion, or their caliber of being. Lessing was very diplomatic as to not offend any particular group of people, but distinguishes the problems of his day and provides potential solutions for them. He provided a conclusion as to what will happen if all three monotheistic religions would exist peacefully and lightened the sensation surrounding this idea by inserting it into an entertaining theatrical production. Lessing was successful by this action because hundreds of years later, we are still discussing his ideas.

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Nathan the Wise. trans Ronald Schechter. Beford St. Martin: New York, 2004.

A Two Front War? Why we won the battles, but lost in the end.

2007-11-26T12:33:00.006-06:00

***This article was my Bachelor's thesis***

The decision to go to war in Vietnam was a controversial one. Looking back in hindsight, we question whether or not it was necessary, and with a strong consideration to the policy of containment at the time, we then question what was mismanaged and ask if we were as prepared as we could be. No other war had diplomacy, military action, and espionage so well integrated. There is no question as to why we are still studying this pivotal point in America’s history. Whether or not an agreement was made determining America’s success or legitimacy in Vietnam, there is an abundance of factual data we can examine to better understand if America was justified in throwing our military into a warzone. After careful analysis of the events which unfolded in Vietnam, it can be determined that America won on a military front, but lost on a social and political front and this would lead to the imminent withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam.

The beginning of America’s involvement started with Eisenhower’s administration. Eisenhower signed on to the ideas of many alarmists and argued that if South Vietnam fell to communists, then all of Southeast Asia would fall. To help counter this, Eisenhower took a lesson from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was successful in holding firm against the Soviet Union in Europe, and he was vital in the formation of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). SEATO solidified an alliance with the government of the United States and various other governments in the region who were opposed to Communism and wanted the United States’ help to provide security. There was a fear at the time that if Communism was left unchallenged, they would spread throughout Southeast Asia, spread to Hawaii, and eventually overtake the West Coast of the United States. The concept of this was deemed more than unacceptable by the American government and the policy of containment would be tested to its end during the war in Vietnam.

After the election of 1960, when President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office, the government of the United States added some bite to their bark. Kennedy saw that Southeast Asia would be a theatre of operations where the policy of containment could be put to the test. Kennedy saw that the use of Special Forces in an unconventional role was ideal for repelling South Vietnamese guerillas. He saw how successful the British were using the same strategy in Malaysia and saw that groups such as the Green Berets would be ideal in the jungles of Vietnam. These Special Forces groups were trained in unconventional guerilla warfare and were best suited to provide instruction to the South Vietnamese forces who opposed the Communist aggression.

The Kennedy Administration made all necessary diplomatic efforts to provide security to the Diem regime. Ngo Dinh Diem was picked by the United States to lead South Vietnam because he was strongly opposed to Communism. Lyndon B. Johnson even made a trip to South Vietnam in 1961 and met with Diem to see what was needed to counter the insurgency in the South.

Johnson promised more aid and an increased contingent of Advisors to train the South Vietnamese in the art of jungle warfare. Kennedy has been a long proponent of the Green Berets and has long expressed his admiration for them. He sent them into South Vietnam, not only because they were an elite group capable of providing the much needed assistance, but from a political standpoint, they carried an image as Special Forces operatives. Special Forces operatives typically are not employed for extended duty. They are inserted to accomplish one distinct mission and are immediately extracted from the warzone. This was smart on Kennedy’s part because it provided a message to the American people what we were not sending a large fighting force to the region for prolonged engagement.

Diem had initially requested aid from the United States in the form of a Civil Guard or Self Defense Corps. Kennedy had insisted that the only necessary force that the South needed was a fighting force consisting of 19,000 fighters. Diem assumed command of this force as President and armed them with antiquated French rifles and gave them the responsibility of protecting the South Vietnamese countryside. They were quickly defeated by the Viet Cong and Kennedy provided the finds and other aid needed to establish a permanent Civil Guard.

The primary role of these advisors was to provide training to South Vietnamese resistance fighters. They would pass on their American training to the resistance fighters and arm them with American weapons. The advisors typically spent their time on the sidelines. It was an ambition of the government of the United States not to be actively engaging with the enemy if it could be avoided. This was done to ensure a continuation of diplomatic talks with the government of the Soviet Union.

Beginning in 1962, United States lawmakers began to discuss whether or not Diem was capable of resisting the spread of Communism in his region. In 1963, security officials on the United States began to talk about a regime change in South Vietnam. There was concern whether Diem was seriously committed to the security of his nation, or whether he was just trying to avoid a coup and remain in power.

Ngo Dinh Nhu was Diem’s brother and was in charge of the secret police force and was very much despised among the South Vietnamese people. He was the orchestrator of the repression of Buddhist monks in the region and had the ear of Diem which made his advice very counterproductive to the agenda of the Kennedy Administration. The decision was made to overthrow Diem. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was in contact with military leaders in South Vietnam to overthrow Diem and all the while this move was highly opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff . However, Kennedy and the CIA were in support of it. On November 2nd, 1963, Diem was overthrown and executed with his brother. It was reported that Diem and his brother committed suicide. This was aggressively argued by Diem’s family, citing that the Roman Catholic faith they practiced made their decision to take their own life unlikely. Kennedy was outraged because he had not given the approval for Diem’s murder.

This created a power vacuum in the region and the North Vietnamese were quick to take advantage of the situation by advancing their guerilla campaign in the South. This wasn’t as successful as the North Vietnamese had hoped because no South Vietnamese Army troops were withdrawn from the field to participate actively in the Coup. A new Buddhist regime was installed in Diem’s place. Scholars began to argue that indeed Diem was a failure as a puppet for the United States; he was very good at uniting those in the South.

The pivotal moment in our involvement in Vietnam was the attack of the U.S. Naval Destroyer USS Maddox. This incident became very controversial because there was a second attack on the USS Turner Joy. The attack on the Turner Joy was questionable and the details didn’t coincide among the sailors. The government used this incident to rally support for war and to increase our involvement in Vietnam. Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, ultimately giving the President the power to conduct military operations in Vietnam, and Southeast Asia as a whole, without a declaration of war from Congress.

The USS Maddox was on a reconnaissance mission along the coast of North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin. The ships command reported being attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats while sailing in international waters. The USS Turner Joy was en route to the gulf when the USS Maddox reported they were being attacked. The USS Turner Joy was running at full steam to provide assistance to the Maddox, but by the time the Turner Joy had arrived, the torpedo boats had fled.

With the newfound power provided by Congress, the President was in a position where he could launch a massive ground attack against the Communists. Johnson immediately coordinated intelligence among the CIA and members of the intelligence community in the Armed Forces. It was now inevitable that there would be American troops sent to Vietnam and the Advisors that are already in the Southeast Asian Theatre of Operation would be removed from the sidelines and full scale combat would soon occur.

Much deliberation began between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps regarding the strategy that would be best suited to the terrain and to the culture as a whole. The Army wanted to conduct a series of sweep and clear campaigns and relying mostly on mobility. The Marine Corps wanted to conduct an “ink blot” strategy which would require American forces to install many coastal bases, such as Da Nang, and slowly move out and capture territory and have Reserve forces holding the captured areas. This was aggressively proposed by the Marines since they had learned in Haiti and Nicaragua prior to the conflict in Vietnam that it is vital to maintain control over captured terrain and maintain a frontline as to avoid an insurgency.

On March 8th, 1965, there were 3,500 Marines from the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade that landed at Da Nang, essentially sparking a full scale military commitment for the United States. The Marines were chosen as an initial conventional fighting force for the same reasons that the Special Forces were chosen as Advisors early in the War. The Marine Corps is amphibious and therefore carries an aura of short term engagement. This way, the Johnson Administration could increase the scale of the War slowly as to not shock the public into full scale war and maintain a certain level of support.

Surprisingly, the public opinion from the United States was overwhelmingly positive. Americans were use to the Marines entering and leaving a warzone in short, but effective campaigns. The whole idea at the time, especially in Washington D.C., was that Vietnam was a key ally in the fight against Communism and victory would be deemed essential for the nation’s policy of containment to hold its legitimacy.

This brought the total number to 23,500 of American military personnel already in Vietnam and they were assigned to protecting United States airfields such as Da Nang by the use of Hawk ground-to-air missiles and also to protect the American Embassy in Saigon. The remainder of servicemen in the country acted as advisers to the South Vietnamese. The additional Marines were sent to Vietnam with a promise from President Johnson that they would not see or engage in active combat. They were only being sent to Da Nang to assist in protecting the American airfields.

This necessity became clear after July 1, 1965 when a Viet Cong demolition squad infiltrated the United States airbase at Da Nang. The squad damaged several aircraft during this attack reinforcing the need for more Marines to expand their patrol radius to better provide force security. Just prior to the attack the 7th Regimental Landing Team, made up entirely of Marines, landed near Chu Lai and was prepared to provide the additional personnel that the Americans at Da Nang so desperately needed.

At the time, the decision to go to war in Vietnam was directly reflective of United States policy. Certain factors also contributed which held little legitimacy with the American public. Such institutions as the military industrial complex demanded an increase in activity in the market for the economy to grow. This would lead to a growth of conspiracy theories regarding exactly what influence business had on the Johnson Administration and would ultimately affect public support later on.

We can see the repercussions of our anti-Communist ambitions decades later and have a firm understanding with respect to the blunders which were made through the duration of the conflict. An emergence of cultural and anthropological knowledge has come to light and holds more relevance today than it did to the policymakers of the 1960s. We can examine various ideologies which made the Vietnamese such radical fighters. They were instilled from birth with a strong feeling of homogeneous pride and a certain degree of xenophobia.

The Vietnamese, for close to around one thousand years, have shown fierce resistance to foreign controlling powers. Their resentment and national pride do not weaken with each generation. Scholars during the 1960s knew this and knew the United States would be in for a difficult fight. The Vietnamese had maintained resistance attitudes for centuries of Chinese rule beginning in the 1st Century B.C. which spanned nearly a millennium.

The Vietnamese would also hold up to the next generation patriotic figures such as the Trung Sisters and Phan Chu Trinh, who led a peaceful movement against the French. The Trung Sisters, however, were a more substantial rallying tool. These two sisters were largely responsible for repelling Chinese rule during the beginning of the 1st Century A.D. and represented the determination for autonomy that each Vietnamese nationalist felt inside. This also fueled resentment against the pro-Western leaders of the South who wanted full cooperation with the United States.

General William Westmoreland was the Commander of Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) beginning in 1964 and would later become the Army Chief of Staff in 1968. General Westmoreland drafted a comprehensive three point plan that would achieve victory in Vietnam and he aggressively lobbied this strategy to policymakers in Washington D.C. to increase support for military involvement. His plan was conducive to victory given the Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine during the 1960s. It encompassed everything from an increase of troops to the use of NATO and regional alliances.

Phase one of Westmoreland’s plan was to rally support, not only from the United States, but also from other Western and pro-democracy governments to turn the tide of war. At this time, the United States was fighting a figurative uphill battle. Our troops were always taught to fight the last war. The conflict in Vietnam was a significant change with regard to the tactics employed by the enemy. Our conventional forces were not accustomed to fighting against an invisible enemy such as booby traps and civilian combatants. Westmoreland’s goal was to put the United States and its allies on the offensive and formulate a means to measure success.

General Westmoreland continues his strategy with the second part involving a large scale offensive campaign. There was some hesitation in Washington D.C. regarding large scale combat, however Westmoreland gave an anticipated victory date for 1967 and this gave a false end to an open ended situation. The second part of this plan was strictly combative. His goal was to destroy many of the guerilla fighters and as many of the uniformed regular enemy forces as possible. Westmoreland’s goal was to put the enemy in a defensive situation and slowly push them from metropolitan or populated areas.

Westmoreland concluded his strategy citing that if the enemy remained a threat the United States would need to continue their efforts for another at least another year and attack them in their remote posts. This plan was successful in achieving enough support to continue, especially from President Johnson. Perhaps the largest cause of this strategy’s popularity was the fact that the United States was caught in a stalemate, not because the United States lacked the means to combat the enemy, but simply because United States policy prior to Westmoreland’s efforts didn’t allow full scale military involvement.

Johnson was decisive in forming public opinion after Westmoreland received approval because he maintained a sense of feeling where nothing new was occurring in Vietnam. He expressed to the media that we were still assisting the South Vietnamese and how the responsibility of defeating Communist forces fell solely on the South Vietnamese military, as it did prior to Westmoreland moving on the offensive. With the sense of continuity occupying the public and Johnson’s war powers he received from Congress, the executive branch gained near absolutism in regards to the management of troops and the campaigns that would be waged.

Throughout America’s involvement in Vietnam, the military had to disguise its offensive missions as retaliation for an attack on American forces, largely because the war had prominent critics in Congress and no politician would denounce the American military’s inherent right to self-defense. Johnson was hard at work back in Washington carefully carving the image of our mission which would suit American policy and satisfy his desire to continue what President Kennedy had begun. While this was occurring, the United States military was preparing for full scale offensive combat on a scale unseen since World War Two. A pivotal moment came near the Vietnamese city of Chu Lai where units within the 3rd Marine Division mounted an offensive against the Vietcong.

On August 18th, 1965, all diplomacy had failed and the Marines launched Operation Starlight from three fronts. From the southeast, an amphibious assault; from the west, a hellebore assault; and from the north, the infantry moved in. The Viet Cong was trapped in the Van Ton Peninsula and nearly one thousand enemy kills were achieved on August 24th . This battle was significant because it gave the American people and politicians at home a public victory which would lessen dissent among war critics for the time being.

This particular battle was one of the few times where the Viet Cong fought in a conventional sense. Being mostly a guerilla force, they were fond of attacking small groups of Americans from concealed locations and immediately moving into another location. Their attempt to stand up to the American military would not soon be repeated. Nevertheless, the 1st Vietcong Regiment was disassembled as an effective fighting force and they felt their first defeat while losing their safe havens along the coast.

As with most conflicts, a nation or other occupying force cannot achieve victory solely based on military efforts. Diplomats and intelligence officials are still active in trying to lessen the length and intensity of war. Every branch in the American armed forces employs Officers who are educated in engaging with the indigenous public and battle the enemy on a social front.

There seemed to be a new trend within the American populous where a violent attitude was adopted towards the war in Vietnam and towards the troops fighting there. This was prevalent on the floors of Congress where the decision to go to war was being constantly questioned. Propaganda would be employed throughout Vietnam, but also surprisingly, at home in America. This effort was mainly to help ease the friction between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of Congress who never voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and still actively proposed the standing down of American forces in Vietnam.

However, without political stability in Vietnam, there would be no political stability at home. With the U.S. Military’s counterinsurgency operations in full swing, our Generals in the field acknowledged the need for thorough improvement and maintenance of public affairs efforts. Our politicians saw blunders from the past and adopted a policy where the government of the United States publicly denounced the use of torture. Anything that happened covertly, however, would not be disclosed. This did not add any unneeded motivation for the enemy to feed on. It would actually encourage cooperation from indigenous people in Vietnam and assist with our counterinsurgency efforts.

Perhaps the strongest element of this cooperation was the use of Combined Action Platoons or CAPs. CAPs were the primary example used back home to convey a sense of partnership with the South Vietnamese. CAPs were made up of thirty eight men from the South Vietnamese Popular Force and were embedded with a Marine Rifle Squad and given the task of protecting a single South Vietnamese village. This was key in the success of America’s counterinsurgency efforts and was also the cornerstone in maintaining Congressional support back home, thusly assuring the continuance of military operation overseas.

The strategic and political importance of this strategy was that by having an American military force located in each village accompanied by indigenous Vietnamese soldiers, it would ultimately instill in each citizen a sense of trust and they would turn to the CAPs for assistance or advice instead of pledging loyalty to the Viet Cong. This gave the Vietnamese a sense of stability and security because they were confident in the CAPs fighting ability and grew comfortable in the fact that their villages were safe.

Since the decision to go to war had already been made, and some would argue it was inevitable, the only democratic tool available was debate. This occurred on the floors of Congress as well as in the media. There became a point when the Johnson Administration needed to determine how much information they would be allowed to withhold under the Constitution. There was a large debate and concern over what could be deliberated during a time of war, not only among the public, but within the government. This led to a practice of publicly condemning Policymakers who had opposed the war and labeled them as un-patriotic. We see this today and throughout the span of American political history.

The need for regulated censorship became clear. Scare tactics were employed to justify this action which was dangerously close to being unconstitutional such as the fear of Communist infiltration in American society. These efforts most often took the form of withdrawing funding to programs which had affiliations with anti-war movements or those who were overtly critical of the Johnson Administration.

Perhaps the largest tool used by the Presidents during the Vietnam War was to either misdirect or not disclose casualty figures from the battlefield. Nixon was very skilled at this as he would report casualty figures as “low” when they were higher than he was anticipating or was previously told. This was widely used by Commanders and Politicians alike in an effort to maintain the succession of opinion that the decision to go to war in Vietnam was correct, despite the knowledge obtained through hindsight.

The North Vietnamese acted with very little concern regarding lives lost or the body count. Ho Chi Minh and his top advisors expressed that they would fight down to the last man in exchange for a final victory. This method of measurement itself is largely imprecise due to the practice of falsifying records on both sides as a method of propaganda.

Since the war in Vietnam was so controversial, there was widespread social outcry demanding that the United States withdraw from Vietnam and that our troops, politicians, and commanders were responsible for all atrocities that occurred in Vietnam. The largest cause for this growing movement was the broadcast media. For the first time in history, there was a television set in most households and you had a well known news figure embedded with the military reporting what was happening in very vivid visual detail. In prior conflicts, newsreels would be edited, not necessarily to supply a bias, but to shield the public from the horrors of war. This practice was seen as counterproductive from a news standpoint and was viewed as unethical.

One of the root causes to the widespread broadcast of negative Vietnam coverage is the institution of competition. Since Vietnam was seen as negative due to the cause of war being unclear and discrepancies coming from the Oval Office, many Americans had preconceived ideas that the war in Vietnam was bad. The news companies simply needed to stay up in the ratings and polls taken from random samples declared that American were more receptive to negative war coverage.

The group throughout the nation who had the loudest voice crying out dissent and was most active in protest was the Counterculture. The Counterculture had various celebrities, such as the Grateful Dead and Jimi Hendrix, to endorse them and had many followers to spread their message coast to coast. The Counterculture battled many issues such as racial equality to women’s rights and had social criticisms which were well received to teenage and college-age Americans. However, the most publicized effort, and the one which left their mark on the History books, was their effort to end the war in Vietnam. It is important to note that the Counterculture was voicing their opposition to the war since its early stages and it was only when the mainstream public grew frustrated with the way it was being handled was when the Counterculture became the unofficial spokesmen for society.

College campuses became a prime venue for antiwar protests and accommodated a free discussion of the issues. This tradition continues in almost all Colleges across the United States. The Counter Culture used the reputable names of their respective schools and the news media to spread their message, quite effectively, from coast to coast. This was largely caused by overwhelming agreement that the war in Vietnam needed to end quickly and was fueled by reports of war crimes on the battlefield committed by Americans.

Although the Counterculture was not the sole cause for America’s withdrawal from Vietnam, they were pivotal in changing public policy. They lived out an American Dream that you never hear about anymore; one which was not of material ambitions. They lived out the American Dream where a few people speaking out in protest on a college campus in San Francisco can change the mind of some of the most powerful people in the world all the way in Washington D.C. and change the tone surrounding the war in Vietnam.

The climax of the war in Vietnam, at least from a political standpoint, came on March 3, 1968. President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection. This was a huge hit to the morale of the troops fighting overseas because it was the Kennedy-Johnson Administration who came to the American people with a plan and were the key architects in our involvement over in Vietnam. However, Johnson’s failing health and the internal division of the Democratic Party during 1968 made the inevitable campaign undesirable for a President seeking a sure victory. Shortly after Johnson had announced his intentions not to seek reelection, a discussion began on Capitol Hill regarding the eventual withdrawal of troops.

Just a few miles down the Potomac, the Pentagon had their own crisis to deal with; one which would be a military success, but would change the tide of public opinion at home. The Tet Offensive, which occurred during January of 1968, was a pivotal moment in America’s mission in Vietnam that would change everything. During the holiday of Tet (Lunar New Year) the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong broke a ceasefire which was in effect and launched a surprise attack on 100 cities across Vietnam. Although the Americans and allies were quick to respond and repelled the attackers, ultimately claiming victory, this event had the opposite effect at home. This was seen as a severe failure in intelligence and eventually led to widespread distrust in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of President.

Richard Nixon was elected by a slim majority over Hubert Humphrey. Nixon made it very clear that he wanted to end the war in Vietnam. He constantly expressed the need for “peace with honor”. He and Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was Nixon’s Secretary of State, worked feverishly to ease tensions between the Soviet Union and China and to work on a multilateral base to peacefully transfer the security of South Vietnam back to the South Vietnamese. In addition, Nixon called upon the allies of the United States to assist in securing peace.

Many have tried to decipher the phrase “peace with honor” since Nixon coined it during the 1968 Presidential Election. Nixon wanted to call on the “silent majority” of Americans who still thought that the United States could win in Vietnam, but achieved little support on that issue. Many had warned that it would be political suicide to promote a pro-war agenda and that the only necessary means to try and secure victory would be to stay the course in Vietnam.

Nixon stated later in 1973 that the government of the United States would continually recognize the Republic of Vietnam as the sole governing body of South Vietnam. By this policy, South Vietnam was still considered an ally of the United States and Nixon made large efforts to arm the Army of the Republic of Vietnam or ARVN. This practice would prove disastrous when the North Vietnamese Army invaded South Vietnam and captured Saigon two years later. The beginning of the end in Vietnam was just beginning.

Many critics of the war in Vietnam, however, fail to recognize the correctness of the government’s actions in the region. It’s very easy and unnecessary to point out what “should” have been done when looking back at an event with contemporary knowledge. The United States had a policy of containment to uphold and was actively battling Communism for over a decade at the war’s onset. The United States also had an obligation to our allies in South Vietnam by helping them with the same principles that were expressed during the Korean War. The decision to go to war had already been made and the problem now was finding a way to peacefully and honorably withdraw from Vietnam while supporting our allies all while using tactile methods which would preserve the most life.

This didn’t seem to be a large concern of the anti-war doves. The American military needed to leave Vietnam, and now. The confidence that Americans once felt with respect to the Office of the President of the United States were disappearing. On June 13th 1971, the New York Times published excerpts from a study which soon became referred to as the Pentagon Papers. These documents were leaked to the New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg which disclosed the American involvement in Vietnam beginning in 1945. The suspicions that many critics carried with them would soon be proven when information was made public about how the war was intentionally continued by dropping bombs over Laos and all of the tools and strategies which were in opposition to the public policies of the United States, but were employed anyway, were brought to light and put under scrutiny by Congress.

The election of 1972 was, in a way, a referendum on the war in Vietnam. This was the center issue of the election and the Candidates used the deteriorating public support to offer a resolution to the war. President Richard Nixon ran as the Republican incumbent and, yet again, approached the American people with a promise of peace. Nixon’s Advisor, Dr. Henry Kissinger was active during this time in a peace negotiation with North Vietnam, but needed to draft terms which would be acceptable for the government of South Vietnam. These negotiations began as a secret, but the North soon went public when they deemed the peace agreement favored the American’s ally of South Vietnam. Nixon needed to make a move which would please South Vietnam and force North Vietnam back into the peace talks.

Last ditch efforts were employed by the United States to turn the tide of war. Prior to this, the United States has not lost a war and the closest the United States military has ever come to defeat was the stalemate of the Korean War. There were massive air campaigns launched over North Vietnam; some were aggressive in nature, however some were defensive maneuvers or pre-emptive strikes.

Operation Linebacker was the first large scale air bombardment campaign since President Johnson had halted further air attacks in the North earlier in 1968. Like most deep missions, this was a joint effort among the three branches wielding airpower and made valuable use of the Air Forces B-52 bombers. The main intention of this campaign was to decrease the materials and personnel moving south to fight in the Easter Offensive.

The Easter Offensive was a massive attack by the North against the South Vietnamese and the United States. The conventional element of the North Vietnamese Army was the largest ever seen by the United States since the Korean War. This Easter Offensive was significant because this was the first attempt to invade South Vietnam since the Tet Offensive four years earlier. Victory was eventually claimed by both sides since the North Vietnamese suffered high casualties, but made their way deep into the Southern territory. The North was also successful in capturing numerous South Vietnamese units stationed in remote bases throughout the countryside west of Da Nang.

Operation Linebacker 2 was an air campaign on a massive scale. The United States Air Force bombed Hanoi and destroyed much of the North Vietnamese infrastructure. The United States was successful in this attempt because the North Vietnamese left Hanoi and other largely populated areas virtually undefended due to the presumption that the United States and the South would not invade North Vietnam. There were, however, surface-to-air missiles spread throughout the North and Communist fighter jets stationed sporadically.

This event was pivotal, not only on the battlefield, but at home. This air campaign put the North in a situation where they had no choice but to negotiate. While this was occurring in the military world, the Nixon Administration pressured the government of South Vietnam to accept the terms of peace as they were or risk the loss of American aid. The counterculture and dissenters in the United States were quick to respond with, yet another period of intense anti-war protests.

Naturally, this wasn’t well received at home or in Saigon. Nixon had essentially put both the government of South Vietnam and the American people between a rock and a hard place. Saigon and the United States had decades of cooperation behind them and neither party wanted the war to continue. The North Vietnamese themselves had drained much of their resources fighting this war and, although reluctant, succumbed to Operation Linebacker 2 and approached the peace talks.

Thanks to much effort by Dr. Henry Kissinger, the Paris Peace Accord was signed on January 27, 1973. This action ultimately ended America’s direct military involvement in Vietnam. We would, however, need to maintain diplomatic relations with the South and maintain the welfare of our military still stationed in South Vietnam. This did temporarily cease fighting in Vietnam, but as the military mobilized in areas throughout Vietnam, small firefights would continue to take American’s lives. In addition, the security of the American Embassy in Saigon became even more inherent as it would soon become America’s only safe haven in the country.

The Paris Peace Accords was a very simple solution to a very complicated and long standing problem, or so it seemed. The agreement was a success as it did allow our forces to recover the dead bodies of American servicemen and exchange Prisoners of War, but it would be short lived. In December of 1974, the North Vietnamese attacked the South in a series of guerilla style skirmishes. This was obviously a breach of the Paris Peace Accords and surprised the government in the South and was received in the United States as a provocative act by the Government and Joint Chiefs of Staff, but as typical by many Americans.

This was clearly a prime example of what two nations see as an acceptable means to secure peace. The military wanted peace through diplomatic means since a prolonged and costly war would be unacceptable to many Americans, but maintained military involvement as long as the South needed them. The North aspired to end the war through the defeat of the South and felt that any peace agreement which included the United States would favor the pro-western government of South Vietnam.

Shortly after the offensive by the North Vietnamese, the President of South Vietnam resigned and blamed much of the failure on the United States. He stated in a radio broadcast after he left office that the South was betrayed by the United States due largely to the fact that the United States cut much of the foreign aid which the South was receiving prior to the Paris Peace Accords. The United States pledged to end direct involvement, which included financial support for the South Vietnamese military. This left the South Vietnamese military high and dry with nominal domestic resources to rely on for victory.

President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam claimed that he was tricked into signing the Paris Peace Accords by Henry Kissinger. He stated that Kissinger, on behalf of the United States, promised military aid to help repel the incoming North Vietnamese and secure a sovereign border. The United States, at the time, stated that they would continue their air support in a defensive role as to not violate the Paris Peace Accord. The United States did not act when their ally was in trouble and this was later acknowledged by Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger.

With the United States bound to the peace agreement, they quickly focused their efforts and resources to moving and evacuating American military, diplomatic, and civilian personnel out of Vietnam. The North was aggressively conquering the South and with many funds from the Communist Bloc, was able to reinforce and recruit new members to the Viet Cong in the South. They carefully conquered the villages that the Americans had once successfully controlled and used fear to fuel chaos on the streets of Saigon.

With the political structure of South Vietnam collapsing, America’s allies were in danger of retaliation by the North. The security blanket provided by the United States had been repealed by those who were thousands of miles away and indigenous personnel and other civilians were left to fend for themselves or escape via American helicopter. Martial law was ordered throughout Saigon and quickly fueled the unrest already in existence. North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon and quickly engulfed the border areas of the city. The airport located within the city was shelled by NVA rocket and mortar attack rendering the station inoperable.

Operation Frequent Wind commenced. American helicopters throughout Saigon quickly evacuated American military personnel and diplomatic civilians. The code word for this operation was a reference to the weather in Japan followed by the playing of “White Christmas”. This was made available to the news media and eventually was made known to local Vietnamese. Once the signal was given, thousands of Vietnamese rushed to the Embassy in an attempt to escape the defeat which was sure to come.

This effort was a joint campaign between the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and CIA. The joint military aircraft largely consisted of various versions of the Chinook helicopter. This aircraft which uses twin rotors and can lift a larger capacity than most helicopters. The CIA used Air America, which is a privately employed air service used by the CIA as civilian satellite organization. Operation Frequent Wind was successful from a military standpoint as it accomplished all military objectives.

The second to last helicopter to leave the Embassy carried the Ambassador to a naval warship waiting 80 miles away. There was still a small squad of Marines left on the Embassy roof, mainly consisting of Military Police. There was a small discrepancy in the plans and it was assumed that the remaining Marines were accompanying the Ambassador on the helicopter. It wasn’t until he was received back on the Navy ship that it was discovered that Marines were still on the rooftop. Three hours after the Ambassador was extracted, the remaining Marines were taken to safety.

Many lessons were learned from Vietnam and certain measures were taken to ensure it most likely wouldn’t happen again. The War Powers Act of 1973, also known as Public Law 93-148, was passed in Congress. This would essentially repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and from then on, the President as Commander in Chief, would have absolute power over the military for a period of 60 days. After the initial period, the President would need to obtain power from Congress to continue his efforts, whatever they may be. These Congressional resolutions themselves have an expiration date which keeps both branches of government in check.

The war in Vietnam was unique in the fact that a large majority of battles or skirmishes were won by Americans or Combined Action units. There was relative stability in the South as far as government was concerned, although there were military assaults targeting civilians which accompanies the fog of war scenario in an insurgency. Progress from a tactical standpoint was slow progressing, but the stalemate observed from a South Vietnamese government facing a Communist takeover was seen as a victory.

Never before in American history had military and politics been so intertwined that it grew to be counterproductive to victory in Southeast Asia. In prior wars, Generals were given much latitude in their decision making abilities, mainly out of necessity. During Vietnam, however, the Commanders in the field and Diplomats in Saigon could speak with the President in real time and receive his authorization to proceed with military plans. This caused some problems because a General doesn’t have to run for reelection and therefore be so inclined to make decisions based on public opinion.

Public opinion has never been so vital to the way that war was waged. Young Americans and Counterculture members proved that democracy wasn’t just a theory. They showed what can happen when enough Americans who want change work together to achieve it. The television set was used as a vital tool for directing the populous by both the Government and dissenters alike. We can verify this decades later as nearly all aspects of our lives involve, in some way, a television set.

The war in Vietnam was one of the most costly; not in human life, but in materials and natural resources. The phrase which comes to mind is that you cannot simply go to war, but that you need to take a nation to war. From this idea, Vietnam was a failure due to the unilateral move by the Executive Branch and the clever misdirection of facts to increase our involvement. It is hard to say that with enough resolve the United States could have won in Vietnam. It is safe to say that with the right strategy and a concise knowledge of the nation’s history, many blunders could have been overcame and the war may have ended in victory earlier than anticipated.

References

Primary Sources

Homer Bigart. Special to The New York Times. Stampone in The Air Force Times "A 'Very Real War' In Vietnam--And The Deep U.S. Commitment: As The East-West Conflict Intensifies In Vietnam--Forces And factors In The Struggle." New York Times (1857-Current file), February 25, 1962, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

David Binder. Special to The New York Times. Associated Press Wirephoto "U.S. Program Reported to Halt Red Advance in Vietnam in '62: First Link to Government Broad Program Begun." New York Times (1857-Current file), December 15, 1962, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

Max Frankel. Special to The New York Times. "U.S. Ships and 1,800 Marines on Way to Indochina Area; Laos Decrees Emergency: U.S. Moves to Counter Laos Crisis." New York Times (1857-Current file), May 13, 1962, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

John Galloway, The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Rutherford, N.J., Fairleigh Dicksinson University Press, 1970

John Galloway, Fulbright and McNamara: an investigation of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Inter-University Case Program, Syracuse N.Y., 1970

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Public Papers of the President of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965-1970 (Washington D.C.)

Gladwin Hill. Special to The New York Times "Goldwater Silent About Attach On U.S. Destroyer Off Vietnam." New York Times (1857-Current file), August 3, 1964, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

Jack Langguth Special to The New York Times Special to The New York Times Special to The New York Times "Mrs. Nhu Says U.S. Will Bear Stigma: Calls Americans Responsible for Fate of Her Family-- Rules Out Suicide She Affirms Faith Mrs. Nhu Says U.S. Must Bear 'Stigma' for Her Family's Fate Discusses Her Children Pastor Visits Her No Visa Extension Asked Tran Van Chuong to Return Diem Brother Quits Post." New York Times (1857-Current file), November 3, 1963, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

Michael Leifer, Vietnam and the Premises of Intervention, Vol. 45, No. (Summer 1972),
Pacific Affairs pp. 268-272. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030- 851X%28197222%2945%3A2%3C268%3AVATPOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

"Attackers' Identity Confirmed." New York Times (1857-Current file), August 3, 1964, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

"Battle Went On Under Full Moon: G.I.'s Strolled in Saigon and Hotel Service Was 'Slow'." New York Times (1857-Current file), November 3, 1963, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

"North Vietnam Reds Seek To Spur Vietcong Effort." New York Times (1857-Current file), November 3, 1963, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

"Provisional Regime Set Up." New York Times (1857-Current file), November 3, 1963, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 30, 2007).

Public Papers of the Presidents, 1965. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office, 1966, vol. 2, pp 794–799.

Phone Conversation, Alexander Haig to President Richard Nixon, 06/13/1971 12:18.

Tad Szulc. Special to The New York Times "More Marines Due For Vietnam Duty: Another Battalion May Be Sent to Guard U.S. Base, Possibly at Da Nang. More Marines Due For Vietnam Duty " New York Times (1857-Current file), March 2, 1965, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed November 13, 2007).

Speech, United States Senate Chamber, Washington D.C., Senate Robert Lafollette (R-Wi). Free Speech and the Rights of Congress to Declare the Objects of War. Oct 6, 1917.

Secondary Sources

Robert Atkins, A Censorship Timeline, Art Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3, Censorship I. (Autumn, 1991), pp. 33-37.

Anthony Austin, The President’s War; the story of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and how the nation was trapped in Vietnam, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1971

Wolf Mendl Yung-hwan Jo, U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia: An Appraisal. (Review), Vol. 52, No. 3. (Autumn, 1979), Pacific Affairs, pp. 508-509. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-851X%28197923%2952%3A3%3C508%3AUFPIAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-

Chester J. Pach, Jr. and James R. Arnold, The First Domino: Eisenhower, the Military, and America's Intervention in Vietnam. (Review), Vol. 98, No. 2. (Apr. 1993) The American Historical Review, pp. 606-607. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28199304%2998%3A2%3C606%3ATFDETM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam, New York: Harper, 1997

Michael McClintock, Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990, 2002.

Edwin E. Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996

Stephen Peter Rosen. Vietnam and the American Theory of Limited War. International Security, Vol. 7, No. 2. (Autumn, 1982), pp. 83-113. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2889%28198223%297%3A2%3C83%3AVATATO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

E. M. Schreiber, Anti-War Demonstrations and American Public Opinion on the War in Vietnam, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Jun., 1976), pp. 225-236.

U.S. Government Military Manual. United States Marine Corps, Recruit Knowledge, (San Diego, California: Instructional Training Company, 2001)

BBC Website Post. 1975: Vietnam’s President Thieu Resigns. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/21/
newsid_2935000/2935347.stm

Influence of Christianity on the Early American Republic

2007-11-01T00:04:00.000-05:00

Many of our contemporary freedoms originated during the mid-Eighteenth century in a period of enlightenment and religious initiative where a focus was moved from the good of the state to the good of the individual. The idea that each citizen of the United States owns certain God-given rights was sparked by virtues synonymous with the Christian faith and can only blossom as well as it did in a democracy.[1] Christianity can be seen in the drafting of American documents from the Declaration of Independence to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. In a more conservative day, the rules of society and a manner of behavior was measured only with those of Christians. Christianity, no matter what denomination, was the most dominant factor affecting the culture and policies of the early United States.

Many of the ideas during the Enlightenment originated in Europe and had a sort of Machiavellian attitude accompanying them. The typical philosophy during the Middle Ages focused around the idea that the good of the state was above the good of the individual. This changed during the formation of a new democracy overseas; a new nation called the United States of America. This form of government allowed the free exchange of ideas giving every citizen a list of freedoms and a Representative to argue on their behalf. The proof comes from reading the Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson refers to a higher being many times citing that each human is given certain rights that are not to be infringed upon.

These principle ideas evolved during the early American republic and acted as a template that today’s policies were formed upon. At the time of this change, there were century old institutions that were difficult to challenge, let alone overturn; the most ancient and controversial was the institution of slavery. For thousands of years, humans have owned other humans and it was seen as normal. With a new Christian movement and free thinking, it would take some time, but eventually free Americans would not see African Americans as slaves, but as fellow Christians with the same rights they enjoy. During present times, it is easy to view ninety years as a long time, but historically, that length of time is the equivalent to the blink of an eye; for a millennia old practice to essentially disappear from most societies is remarkable.

There was a revolutionary moment when Jefferson stated that a division between church and state is necessary to uphold the individual freedoms and prevent religious persecution, nevertheless we can see many Christian traditions throughout mainstream American culture. An example would be a large focus on Christmas during the Holiday season and one can even take notice that Americans are more likely to perform charitable acts than most other times throughout the year. With a rise in secular progressive feelings accompanied with a wave of liberalism American society is finding itself slowly moving away from traditional Christian values and putting a focus on the minority of citizens who don’t share Christian values for whatever reason.[2]

This new way of thinking continues even though rituals or traditions within our own form of government have roots in the early American Christian foundation. The act of having a newly confirmed government official take their oath of office with their hand placed on the Bible is still present to this day and is currently becoming under fire by those who don’t share the Christian beliefs that many of our forefathers did. Up until now, the majority of government officials were Christian and no contradiction was given to the practice of swearing an oath on the Bible.

It wasn’t until recently when United States Congressman Keith Ellison, who was a practicing Muslim, swore his oath of office on the Quran.[3] This has had mixed reaction because many argue that the Bible isn’t representative of any particular religion, but rather a tradition started centuries ago and should be carried on. On the other hand, many Americans have said that if one doesn’t believe in the book they rest their hand on, how can they be trusted to carry on their duties in an honorable way? This initiates a new way of thinking. It forces the public to reconsider what is more important; having a belief in God, or having a belief in general.

Even though American culture has gone through several changes, our nation exhibits many Christian virtues and beliefs in mainstream society and many secular practices and traditions can be traced back to early Christian ideas instituted by Puritans and other devout Christian pioneers. America today is a very religiously tolerant place compared to many other societies around the world due to the open-minded attitude of the Founding Fathers when looking at the eclectic blend of Christians that occupied the original thirteen colonies. This allowed the various brands of Christians to share the same general belief, but to practice it in their own way, all the time maintaining that common bond as fellow Christians.

[1] Henretta, James and Brody, David and Dumenil, Lynn, America: A Concise History (Bedford/St. Martins 2006), 277.
[2] O’Reilly, Bill. Culture Warrior (Broadway Books, New York, 2006), 89
[3] Frommer, Frederich, Associated Press, Ellison Uses Thomas Jefferson’s Quran http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan08/0,4670,EllisonQuran,00.html

The Link Between Early Transcendentalists and Christians

2007-11-01T00:00:00.001-05:00

There various parallels between the views of early American Transcendentalists and those of Christian followers. Some are more subtle than others, but each can be examined in a historical sense to compare their core beliefs and try to understand the way they wished society to operate. Both groups typically chose to live with very few possessions and adopt a communal way of life marked by interdependency among neighbors. However, there was disagreement when it came to having a structured society or a hierarchy. Either way, both the early American Transcendentalists and Christian followers had similar goals, but contrasted on the means to achieve them.

The Transcendentalists had a very critical and revolutionary way of thinking about society. They believed in few personal possessions and were primarily against any kind of establishment, however were overtly in favor of law and order. At a point there was disagreement internally about the type of social reform that they desired. Some wanted socialism or anarchism, yet some wanted anarchism.[1] Christians thought in a very similar way and most of them were very much pro-democracy. This led to such social reform movements such as better conditions for workers and various philanthropic causes.

The Transcendentalists at the time created a way of thinking that would eventually lead to the formation of the Progressives during the early twentieth century. Their central efforts were primarily focused on that of temperance and prohibition. This was one of the few, if not only cause that the Transcendentalists and Christians really agreed upon. They were very much a part of Christian tradition in America in a sense of protecting the values of the American family. The Transcendentalists were ahead of their time due to their outspoken petition for woman’s suffrage and educational reform.

With all of these efforts, it became difficult to effectively project their ideologies to the masses. Their most effective means of advertising was through that of literature. The majority of Transcendentalists were very active in writing poetry and meaningful short stories that amplified their point. These stories usually contained a natural setting and almost always have a philosophical tone. This was also convenient for these thinkers because an increasingly large amount of the population was now becoming literate. This allowed for their ideas not to be spread only to the already educated and enlightened, but rather to the middle or working class who have the capabilities of understanding their level of philosophy.

Perhaps the largest similarity between the Transcendentalists and the Christians is the origin of the Transcendentalists and the current practices of the Christian faith. Both were against the established Unitarian church, regardless of the fact that most of the prominent Transcendental thinkers were previous Unitarian ministers. The Transcendentalists resented the Unitarians because they didn’t share the idealist mindset that so many of the Transcendentalists had come to acquire. Such ideas included rationalism, but with a focus more on the human feelings. Transcendentalists argued that rationalism from the Bible wasn’t enough. They argued that the soul could be a source of truth as well. Emerson argued that the best source for divine inspiration was the self.[2] Therefore, the traditions and teachings of the existing churches, and of society, are a barrier to human development. The Christians, in turn, resented the Unitarians because they were not Christians, in a sense that they focused on Christ and followed his teachings, but they were still a monotheistic faith and believed in the Christian God.

Many can argue whether or not the Unitarians were in fact Christians. This is important to examine because it is the source of the largest similarity between Transcendentalists and Christians. Both of these groups do not consider the Unitarians as Christian, as previously stated, but many comparisons can be determined. The Unitarians do believe in Jesus mainly as a moral figure, but deny any divine influence or ability. They do read the Bible and follow all of the Christian virtues; however the society that Transcendentalists and Christians would like to see encompasses the teachings of Christ in addition to the usual Christian values. There is no doubt that the early Transcendentalists and Christians shared many of the same goals and employed the same methods to achieve their influence. They both questioned the divinity of oneself and made biblical comparisons to reinforce their claims, and like many other enlightened thinkers from earlier Europe, they used writing and poetry to spread their messages and social criticisms. With the enlightened ideas of the Transcendentalists referring to God existing in all things coupled with the organization and following of Christian churches of the time, they planted an influential seed that spread, not only throughout America, but throughout generations.

[1] Transcendentalism. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073185
[2] Lawrence Buell. The American Transcendentalists. The Modern Library. New York, New York. 2006

Book Review: Candide

2007-10-31T23:56:00.000-05:00

Voltaire created Candide as an outlet to spread his social criticisms about religion and government. It came at a pivotal point in the Enlightenment when people were starting to ask questions about society and looking for substantial change between social classes. Voltaire cites his major inspirations for writing Candide in the book itself. He compares various evils to the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 and the Seven Years War. The exact date that Voltaire has written Candide is sketchy, but nevertheless, it provided an influential vehicle for enlightened thinkers to push for change.

Dr. Pangloss is a crucial character in Candide that Voltaire created to use as an example as to what he believed Philosophy really meant. Pangloss was a very optimistic individual and as Candide’s tutor, was certainly a force that ultimately taught Candide to argue his philosophy, even if someday he didn’t believe it. We see this on page 115 when Pangloss says to Candide that he “still holds his original opinion.” He continues to explain “For after all, I am a Philosopher, and it is not appropriate for me to take back my word.” (Voltaire 115). This same event shows how optimistic he was because this came after Pangloss and Candide were reunited in Constantinople and Pangloss told of his story where he escaped execution and was taken care of by the wife of a surgeon who wanted to dissect his supposedly dead body. Pangloss continues this mindset throughout their journey and he constantly tries to find the good in all things.

Voltaire uses ridicule throughout the story as a humorous way to criticize nearly every religion. He was an admitted atheist, although did participate in few religious activities. He also used satire and ridicule to criticize corrupt government. Voltaire distrusted democracy and believed that only enlightened Monarchs were suited to rule. He makes his first stab at religion by having a the Orator defend the Pope once Candide, in Chapter 4, made reference to the Pope being the antichrist. The Orator said “My friend, do you believe the Pope is the antichrist?” Candide answered, “I never heard anyone say so, but whether he is or not, I have no bread.” (Voltaire 47). Voltaire was not outwardly accusing the Pope of being the antichrist, but the topic was still raised in the story and left it up to the reader to argue whether they believed it was true or not.

Voltaire continued to criticize the clergy, nobility, war, and slavery throughout Candide. Voltaire lessens the importance of the clergy and reinforces his transcendental views on page 79, when Candide enters El Dorado and the old timer mentions that they are all priests and saw no importance to monotheism. The old man also made not that El Dorado has no monks or clergy and they would be crazy if they did. He said they were useless since everyone in El Dorado has the same beliefs.

Voltaire touches briefly on the evils of war and slavery. Candide served in the Army where he was whipped an nearly killed in the Lisbon Earthquake. Voltaire overtly used the earthquake as a symbol of God’s cruelty towards mankind. He also used it as an example of devastation without any purpose, cause, or reason. Voltaire continues with a theme of slavery when Candide returns to the baron’s castle and discovers that Cunegonde was raped and stabbed and used as a slave by a Jew and an Inquisitor, as seen on page 67.

Voltaire describes a country called El Dorado. He wrote it to be an ideal civilization in his own mind. In El Dorado, there was a relaxed attitude towards religion. El Dorado has only one religion and there is no clergy. The King and every head of the household will sing psalms every morning and thousands chant along with them. Candide thought that El Dorado was a utopian society once he found out that since all citizens believed the same thing, there was no need for monks. Voltaire also created El Dorado as a constitutional monarchy, where the King was only in power at the consent of the governed. (Voltaire 78). This paired nicely with Voltaire’s philosophy of government where all monarchs should be enlightened, or otherwise rule with the permission of the citizens. Voltaire largely thought that the nobility was only out for their best interests and not the interests of the State. The old man reinforces this idea when he describes that El Dorado is safe from the “greed of European nations”. (Voltaire 79)

Various values and lessons can be learned from reading Candide. The primary lesson that Voltaire expresses is optimism. By following Dr. Pangloss’ philosophy of trying to find the best in everything would ultimately make everyone happier and, on a larger scale, make society better. There are also several examples throughout the story where Voltaire is trying to express a more relaxed view of religion. It appears that Voltaire is expressing that people follow whatever belief works best for them and to not be intolerant towards conflicting faiths. Perhaps the biggest lesson that can be taken away from Candide is to follow your philosophy, even if at one point you stop believing it. Dr. Pangloss is firm on this idea. He sees it as his duty as a Philosopher to practice what he preaches despite his internal belief that it no longer applies or is socially wrong.

There is no doubt what Voltaire’s intentions were when he wrote Candide. He used the book as an outlet to convey his philosophy to those who were educated enough to read at the time, whether they were enlightened or traditional thinkers. He wanted an indirect way show people how to ask questions and to make an effort showing people that it was okay to want something better for yourself and to obtain it. Voltaire also saw value in optimism and obviously had a hope that more people would share this virtue and that more could be achieved within society because of it.

Further Reading: (citations to come)
The Enlightenment
American Trascendentalists

United States Military Intervention in Vietnam

2007-10-02T09:53:00.000-05:00

The Vietnam War carried much controversy during its span and is still used as a negative comparison to unnecessary military action today. There were strong arguments on both sides of the issue and although most of the population voiced support in the beginning, many began to steer away from the conflict as it progressed. It was a boom to our nation’s economy through the military industrial complex and gave every politician a win or lose issue to voice their opinion. This conflict took millions of lives, destroyed families and villages, and left a scar on America’s history.

Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Communist movement in North Vietnam, began as an ally of the United States. He fought against the Japanese during the occupation of Vietnam during World War 2. He was supported by the United States through the Office of Strategic Services, predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency. The French also supported him during the re-occupation by the Vietnamese after the war had ended. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam its own sovereign state. He formed an alliance with Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong of China, and the spread of communism in Asia was on the rise.

The current United States policy towards communism at this time was containment. They would use foreign policy and saber rattling to prevent the spread of Communism and contain it in one part of the world. During the escalation and initial development of the Communist nation of Vietnam, the United States and the United Nations were actively combating Communism in the Korean peninsula. This battle, which ultimately ended in stalemate, would determine our success in battling Communism in Southeast Asia.

The conflict in Vietnam began as covert military campaigns against the North. The United States used their covert intelligence agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, to give indirect support to the South Vietnamese. The French also gave assistance to guerilla fighters in the South. This would ensure that both nations could “keep their hands clean” with regards to Foreign Policy and effectively work to hold their position in the region.

When the United States began to put “boots on the ground” they did so with our Special Forces. They consisted of Army Green Berets, Air Force Forward Air Controllers, and the newly formed Navy SEALs. The responsibility of these teams at the time was to train the South Vietnamese forces to combat the insurgency, report intelligence to Washington D.C., and to advise intelligence officials to the situation in the country. The whole idea was that Americans would not engage in direct fighting. An effort was made to ensure this, but the best training in any field is hands on, and this proved true in warfare. The Americans would train and then command South Vietnamese in battle to ultimately give them the ability to fight for themselves. The North was just too determined and more forces were needed.

The Vietnam conflict received a full-scale military commitment from the United States between 1965-1973. The amount of troops in the country escalated slowly from 1965 to 1968. It would ultimately near 500,000 Americans serving in Vietnam. The first group of American servicemen arrived in Da Nang. The United States government began with the United States Marine Corps when considering conventional military forces. The mindset on Capitol Hill was that this conflict could still be solved with a small group of Americans leading the South Vietnamese troops and training them to fight. Politically, by sending in the Marine Corps, it gave a statement that more forces in the country would not require a long timetable. Since the Marines are known for being amphibious and can be easily withdrawn back to the sea, they seemed the best option to reassure the rest of the world that there was no significant escalation of military forces. This would be the beginning. Certain Army units would soon be mobilized. These specialized units included the 82nd and 101st Airborne, the 7th Cavalry, and various Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals. Armies of conventional troops and various Marine Expeditionary Forces would soon follow them.

The first Marines to enter Vietnam were inserted using the standard amphibious advance with the aid of Amtrak vehicles and surplus Higgins Boats. India Company, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines stormed Red Beach in Da Nang on March 8th, 1965 with weapons armed only to be engaged by over a hundred local women and photographers welcoming them to Vietnam. Their reception lasted a day before they were fighting bitter Communist forces just north of Da Nang. (Ermey’s Vietnam)

With a secured American base in Vietnam, the United States had several critical decisions to make that would ultimately determine the outcome of the war. They had several strategies to examine that would be used to reach victory. One strategy was being strongly endorsed by the United States Army, the other, by the United States Marine Corps. The Army’s strategy was a Search and Destroy mission. It would involve relying on an increase in American troops and using our mobility. More specifically would setup a blocking force on one side of a village and a sweeping force will advance and clear the village building by building. They adopted this strategy from the British, who had used it very effectively in Burma during World War II. (Recruit Knowledge) (Ermey’s Vietnam) The strategy endorsed by the Marine Corps was referred to as an Ink Blot operation. This would involve securing coastal bases around the country, such as Da Nang, and gradually spreading out and conducting “clear and hold” missions. (Recruit Knowledge)

Looking in hindsight with a historical perspective, the Marine Corps had the more advantageous strategy. Their operational ideas would slowly corner the Communists into a confined region and make surrender easier to negotiate. This would also be beneficial to the Americans because when fighting an insurgency, the enemy usually has the better mobility and knowledge of the terrain. By enacting an Ink Blot campaign, the Communists would have no place to maneuver.

There was several blunders that the United States performed that ultimately led to defeat. The first one was to enter a war without having any understanding at all of the Vietnamese culture and their history. If there was a better knowledge of Vietnam, they would quickly realize that the Vietnamese do not respond well to foreign occupiers, especially those from the West. If the CIA had taken the time to research, they would have learned of the Trung Sisters, Lady Trieu, and their thousand yearlong struggle against outside influence.

Other factors that influenced the loss of the conflict was that the United States made no effort to win hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese or those of the rest of the world. The United States could have easily gained allies in this effort, but scoffed at the ability and reliability of foreign military forces. The only ally the United States had in active combat was that of the South Vietnamese Army. They lacked discipline, training, and had outdated and inadequate equipment. The commanders in the field were also guilty of failing to control their men when it came to interacting with indigenous peoples. There was a profound amount of collateral damage from ground forces. Villages were burned, civilians were executed, and livestock was butchered.

Another policy that eventually left a smear on the reputation of the United States was the practice of establishing free fire zones. A free fire zone is an area or territory where a senior intelligence commander declares that all friendly civilians and personnel have been removed from the area and that anyone left is an enemy and is suitable for elimination in the field. This proved to be a negative policy because given the confusion in Vietnam about who was the enemy, many friendly Vietnamese were still occupying an area when forces would move in and either capture or kill them.

Most of the confusion or “fog of war” was due to the fact that the Americans were fighting a guerilla force in the South. These fighters were referred to as the Viet Cong or VC. They would use very unconventional methods of conducting war where they would execute very fast and calculated hit and run attacks. This allowed them to fight the Americans only when the Viet Cong believed they had the advantage. Most of the American conventional forces were not accustom to this style of combat. To make things worse, the Viet Cong were not uniformed soldiers. They were dressed as civilians and blended in with society, therefore making it easier to maneuver around the country.

The political effort in Vietnam was lacking due to a weak government in Saigon. Military action alone cannot guarantee a victory in any conflict. The United States needed a firm ally in the South, however, the leaders in the South were incompetent, corrupt, and severely lacked credibility. The United States had failed to create a way to measure success in Vietnam. The only form of measurement was body count. Before this, we would map out how much territory was gained throughout the course of the war. This didn’t work in Vietnam because the front line was 360°. Our forces were too mobile and never settled in a captured territory, leaving it open for enemy occupation.

The turning point in the Vietnam War that eventually turned the public against the war effort was the Tet Offensive. This was where the United States and the North Vietnamese had a scheduled cease-fire during the holiday of Tet, the Vietnamese Lunar New Year. The United States halted offensive operations during this time, but was strongly on the defensive. This decision proved beneficial because the Communist forces had executed simultaneous attacks on American forces throughout South Vietnam. This is considered a climax in the war where public opinion changed and demand that our forces be withdrawn grew louder. This seems strange to many tacticians, because militarily, the Tet offensive was a victory. The United States suffered a surprise attack and battled the Communists for four months after the initial strike and defeated them in their attempt to capture major South Vietnamese cities. The fact that we were actually on the defensive was unacceptable to the mainstream public and news media.

One of the most profound factors affecting the opinion of the war was the fact that the Vietnam War was the first televised war. Previously, the United States government could very effectively control the message released to the public and only broadcast patriotic media. This was a huge culture shock to the folks back home when they would view photos and newsreels of young American servicemen dying in the jungle. The public was not desensitized as most of us are today as far as news coverage goes. One positive note is that we were provided with a vast cache of historical footage and documents. This allows tacticians to study previous blunders, allow historians to examine the course of the war, and give scholars the material to draft educated opinions for debate.

The amount of offensive operations and troop escalation reached maturity and would begin to decline toward the end of the decade. It would ultimately lead to the retreat of American forces and our withdrawal from Vietnam. Many scholars and veterans still alive say in response to Vietnam, we won all of the battles, but we lost the war. I think that has a lot to say about the political importance occurring in every major military conflict even those today.

Saigon fell in 1975. America had no foothold in the country and began to evacuate diplomatic staff and maneuver our forces to their awaiting transport home. Operation Frequent Wind was the iconic mission where helicopters resting on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon would board employees and refugees and take them to a waiting aircraft carrier. America’s presence in Vietnam ended in April 30th, 1975.

References

"VIETNAM WAR,." 2007. The History Channel website. 17 Feb 2007, 09:10 http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=225210.

Vietnam and the Premises of Intervention
Michael Leifer
Pacific Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 2. (Summer, 1972), pp.
268-272.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-851X%28197222%2945%3A2%3C268%3AVATPOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

The First Domino: Eisenhower, the Military, and America's
Intervention in Vietnam. (Review)
Chester J. Pach, Jr.
James R. Arnold
The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 2. (Apr.,
1993), pp. 606-607.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28199304%2998%3A2%3C606%3ATFDETM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia: An Appraisal. (Review)
Wolf Mendl Yung-hwan Jo
Pacific Affairs, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Autumn, 1979), pp. 508-509.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-851X%28197923%2952%3A3%3C508%3AUFPIAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V

The First Domino: Eisenhower, the Military, and America's Intervention in Vietnam. (Review)
David L. Anderson. James R. Arnold
The Journal of American History, Vol. 79, No. 3,
Discovering America: A Special Issue. (Dec., 1992), p. 1245.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28199212%2979%3A3%3C1245%3ATFDETM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

United States Marine Corps. Marine Corps Recruit Depot-San Diego. Recruit Training Regiment. Support Battalion. Instructional Training Company. Recruit Knowledge. January 2001

Marine Corps Association. Guidebook for Marines. 18th Revised Edition. 2nd Printing. Quantico, Va. November 2003.

Ermey’s Vietnam. The History Channel. 6 May 2007. 1:00 PM. Duration: 2 hours.