MUNINN

MUNINNJournal of HistoryVolume 22013ISSN 2167-8391

The Story of MUNINN(MOON · in) and commonly (MYEW · nin)Grand View University, with Vikings as our mascots, is thefinal university celebrating its Danish-American roots.The Viking god, Odinn (or Woden), had two ravens that hesent forth to earth: Huginn who reported on human thought or intentions, and Muninnwho reported the memory of human events and actions. Additionally, the Vikings wereguided by ravens on their voyages by releasing an under-fed raven that wouldinstinctively sore high into the sky in search of land by which the Viking longshipcould navigate. Viking longships often displayed the raven flag seen above in theirmany raids.“I fear that Huginn may not return, yet more anxious am I for Muninn.” -OdinnGrimnismál of the Poetic Edda, Codex Regius, c. 1270MUNINN: Journal of History is a journal of the Grand View University HistoryDepartment that welcomes article and book review submissions from its undergraduatestudents, alumni, faculty, and friends of the journal and department. All periods andsubjects of history are welcome. There is special interest in article submissions thatutilize either the Danish-American records of the Grand View University Archive inDes Moines, Iowa, or the Danish-American Archive and Library in Blair, Nebraska.All undergraduate article submissions will be sent to referees for recommendation ofpublication. Editors will do their best to match article submissions with referees whohave expertise or insights in those fields. Book reviews may be of new history,important historiography, and novels or non-fiction that reveal the social context of anera or people. Short essays are also considered for publication. Submission guidelinesare inside the back cover of this journal.Disclaimer: The opinions and accuracy of facts in the articles and book reviews ofMUNINN are the sole responsibility of the contributors and do not represent thejournal, its referees, the History Department, or Grand View University. This journalaccepts no legal responsibility for errors or omissions. The reader’s critical judgmentmust be exercised with care.Permission: All rights reserved. The use of the MUNINN logo or the seal of GrandView University is expressly prohibited. For permission to reproduce an article, bookreview, or advertisement from this journal beyond traditional academic fair use, pleasecontact mplowman@grandview.eduAcknowledgments: The MUNINN staff thanks the Student Viking Council for fundingthis journal with student publication fees and thanks the History Department forfunding postage.Printed by Carter Printing Company, 1739 East Grand Ave, Des Moines, Iowa 50316

MUNINNJournal of HistoryVolume 2, 2013Refereed ArticlesChurchill amd the Atlantic Charter (1941): The SpecialRelationship with FDR and the United StatesGabby (Detrick) Breheny 1Lincoln v. Douglas: The Illinois Senatorial Debates of 1858Kayla (Gaskill) Jacobson and Austin Bittner 10The Treaty of London (1838): Its Reinterpretation andImpact on the Outbreak and Conclusion of the First World WarMicheal Collins 25Analyzing the Role of General Fellgiebel in the July 1944Plot to Kill HitlerDanika Stadtlander 33Ireland’s 1937 Constitution: De Valera’s Hold on Divorce,Abortion, and IrishnessSadie Fisher 41Short EssaysThe Origins of Al-Qaeda and the War on TerrorismHeidi Torkelson 51Hamas: One Man’s Terrorst is Another Man’s Freedom FighterQuinton Clark 57Book Reviews 65Conferences, Calls for Papers, and Advertisements 77History DepartmentJensen Hall, Grand View University1200 Grandview AvenueDes Moines, Iowa 50316

Referees for 2012-2013 article submissions:Professor Nicole Anslover, University of Indiana Northwest20 th Century America, US Foreign PolicyProfessor Douglas Biggs, University of Nebraska-KearneyMedieval and Military History, Associate Dean of Natural & Social SciencesProfessor Kevin Gannon, Grand View UniversityColonial & 19 th Century America, Latin AmericaProfessor Kurt Hackemer, University of South Dakota19 th Century American Military HistoryProfessor Mary Lyons-Carmona, University of Nebraska-OmahaModern Irish, 20 th Century America, Child Labor, Migrant Labor-Commercialized Agriculture HistoryJim Rogers, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MinnesotaManaging Director of the Center for Irish StudiesManaging Editor of the New Hibernia Review.Evelyn Taylor, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, State of IllinoisEditor of the Journal of Illinois HistoryCopyeditor of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln AssociationProfessor Evan Thomas, Grand View UniversityContemporary America and World, Modern East Asia.Professor Katharina Tumpek-Kjellmark, Grand View UniversityModern Europe, Germany, Holocaust, Women’s History.Mike Vogt, Iowa Gold Star Military Museum, Camp Dodge-Army National GuardMuseum CuratorThe MUNINN staff would like to thank all of the referees for their time in making thisjournal successful and academically rigorous. Many of the referees reviewed multiplesubmissions this year.Editor in Chief:Editor:Research:Graphic Design:Faculty & Managing Editor:Christopher MillerAustin BittnerJoelle DietrickPaige KlecknerProfessor Matthew Plowman

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Churchill and the Atlantic Charter (1941):The Special Relationship with FDR and the United StatesGabby (Detrick) BrehenyGrand View UniversityThe impact of the Atlantic Charter, as a joint declaration byBritish Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) and USPresident Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945) on August 14, 1941, shookthe world and global order during and long after the Second WorldWar. Although Britain had for a long time extended home rule to someof the white settler colonies such as Canada, Australia, and SouthAfrica, few expected Britain to be drawn into the journey of releasingthe Empire itself as the sacrifice for saving the kingdom of the BritishIsles. Why did Churchill agree to the Charter? By summer of 1941,Germany had taken nearly all of western and central Europe and had afull invasion of the Soviet Union progressing towards Leningrad,Smolensk, and Kiev. Britain had to rush forces to Egypt to defend itsprotectorates in the Middle East from Italian Libya. By the time of theAtlantic Charter, there was also a threat from Japan in the Pacific.Imperial Japan controlled the most populous parts of China and hadtaken French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), thereforethreatening British control over Burma, India, Singapore, and HongKong. Why did FDR agree to the Charter? Although the President wassuccessful in helping Britain through some war matériel, the AmericaFirst Committee was a strong lobbying force keeping American out ofthe war. FDR needed the Atlantic Charter to win the propagandabattle. Unlike WWI that expanded empires, the Atlantic Charterpromised real progress on self-government, freedom of the seas,reduction of trade restrictions, and global cooperation. DespiteChurchill making statements just weeks after signing the AtlanticCharter that it did not directly apply to all of Britain’s colonies, it wasdifficult for Britain to maintain a minimalist interpretation once theAllies, who increasingly called themselves the United Nations, madepledges to the Charter in their “Declaration of United Nations” onJanuary 1, 1942. 1 Churchill was locked into this gamble to save the1“The Governments signatory hereto, having subscribed to a common program ofpurposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the UnitedStates of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,” in Declarationby the United Nations, 1 January 1942. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History,and Diplomacy, Lillion Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School.1

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Kingdom by what most considered an eventual release of the Empire. 2All of this was made possible by the relationship and friendshipbetween Churchill and Roosevelt; without it, the world may not haveseen the same outcomes of the war. The Anglo-American alliance ofWorld War I was not as deep as the “special relationship” that thesetwo leaders built during World War II, which carries on today.Although Britons were exposed to more and more antiimperialism,especially among their left wing parties, after conflicts andcomplications in Ireland, South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, andPalestine, during and after World War I, the majority of Britons simplytook the existence of the Empire for granted and even consideredhaving an Empire as being a Briton. Certainly this was the case forChurchill, who never fully grasped the potential implications of thisagreement if it were taken to its fullest measure. 3 Usually thearticulated common outcome is the focus an agreement, but in the caseof the Atlantic Charter much value was placed upon the cooperationitself. The special personal relationship of Churchill and Rooseveltbeing made into a special relationship between their nations was theimmediate outcome. 4To fully appreciate this, one needs to understand how thepersonal relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill began. As faras we know from declassified documents, they exchanged at least 1,700letters, messages, and telegrams in the five and a half years between theoutbreak of the war and Roosevelt’s death in 1945. The President andPrime Minister also spent over 120 days together in person during thewar, with the meeting for the Atlantic Charter being their first officialface-to-face opportunity. 5 The written correspondence between thembegan a year earlier, even before Churchill was prime minister. InAvalon.law.yale.edu/20 th _century/decade03.asp (Accessed September 4, 2013) Thedeclaration was signed by the US, UK, USSR, China, Australia, New Zealand, SouthAfrica, Canada, India, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, as well as the governments-in-exile of AxisoccupiedCzechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Poland,and Yugoslavia. Mexico, Philippines, Ethiopia signed later in 1942. Iraq, Iran, Brazil,and Bolivia signed in 1943. Liberia, France, and Ecuador signed in 1944. Peru, Chile,Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria signedin 1945.2By the end of the war, Churchill’s Conservative government lost to the British LabourParty under Clement Attlee, who immediately embraced the maximalist or anti-imperialinterpretation of the Atlantic Charter.3It should be noted that Britain made conflicting promises to Jews, Arabs, and the Frenchduring World War I in order to secure their support, so Churchill may have felt somefreedom to minimize the Atlantic Charter.4Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, Roosevelt and Churchill: Their SecretWartime Correspondence. Edited by Francis L Loewenheim, Harold D Langley andManfred Jonas (New York: Saturday Review Press/E.P. Dutton & Co, 1975), 3.5Churchill and Roosevelt, 4. Churchill was head of the Royal Navy during WWI butstepped-down after the failure of the Battle of Gallipoli.2

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Army one-fourth of the way to Paris.Churchill understood FDR’s political difficulty with Congressand public opinion over the official position of neutrality, but requesteddirect American aid anyway. In the May 15 th letter: “Mr. President, thevoice and force of the United States may count for nothing if withheldtoo long…. All I ask now is that you should proclaim nonbelligerency,which would mean that you would help us with everything short ofactually engaging in armed forces” 9 The Prime Minister requested aloan of forty or fifty of America’s older destroyers to help them whilethey awaited the construction of their own that were begun at thebeginning of the war. Churchill also proposed an advance on “severalhundred of the latest types of aircraft, of which you are now gettingdelivery,” i.e. have the US Air Corps send their own planes to Britainimmediately in exchange for planes still being built in Americanfactories for the RAF. There were more requests, all of which had asolution by Churchill as to repayment. With the situation desperate inEurope, Churchill needed all of the resources he could musterimmediately. Churchill later recalled: “No man ever wooed a womanas I wooed that man for England’s sake.” 10 Roosevelt responded thevery next day: “I have just received your message and I am sure it isunnecessary for me to say that I am most happy to continue our privatecorrespondence as we have in the past. I am, of course, giving everypossible consideration to the suggestions made in your message. I shalltake up your specific proposals one by one.” 11 Roosevelt described thedifficulties with Congress for such actions, but said he would make hisbest efforts. The US Ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy (1888-1969, father of JFK), further pressured FDR by indicating that Britainmight surrender at any time due to the fall of France in June and theintensified Battle for Britain happening in the skies. On September 2,1940, FDR gave the Royal Navy fifty US destroyers in return for USbases or airfield rights on many British territories in the Atlantic. FDRalso went around Congress and the neutrality laws when he sent largeamounts of ammunition to the British Army that he claimed wereobsolete. This was risky just two months before a presidential electionand it was not until February 1941, three months after the election, thatGallup indicated a majority of Americans were in favor of aid toBritain.The Axis powers were seeing an apex of power in Europe in1941 as Britain stood alone against them until the Axis invasion of theSoviet Union in June. 12 In a matter of weeks, German blitzkrieg gained9Churchill and Roosevelt, 94.10Carlo d’Este, Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945 (New York:HarperCollins, 2008), 497.11Churchill and Roosevelt, 95.12U.S. Department of State, Making the Peace Treaties: 1941-1947 (Washington D.C.:4

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)an area greater than France and the Low Countries combined, as Sovietforces retreated to the defenses of Leningrad, Smolensk, and Kiev.While the Axis invasion of the USSR took much of the direct threataway from the British Isles, the British had taken a pounding from theGerman Luftwaffe and British supply lanes were deeply constrained byGerman U-boats. Britain was exhausted. Also, there were British fearsthat potential American aid might be diverted to the more activeEastern Front in Russia. 13 Churchill and FDR planned on having aprivate meeting in person. On July 25, 1941, Churchill wrote toRoosevelt:Cabinet has approved my leaving. Am arranging if convenient to youto sail August 4 th , meeting you some time 8 th -9 th -10 th . Actual secretrendezvous need not be settled till later. Admiralty will propose detailsthrough usual channels.Am bringing First Sea Lord Admiral Pound, CIGS, Dill, and ViceChief of Air Staff Freeman. Am looking forward enormously to ourtalks, which many be of service to the future.” 14The meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt on August 9-12, 1941, isconsidered the first wartime conference between the two. They draftedthe Atlantic Charter in a series of meetings aboard the British battleshipHMS Prince of Wales and the United States cruiser USS Augusta inNewfoundland’s Placentia Bay. The charter was released to the publicon August 14, 1941. The United States and the United Kingdom basedtheir hopes for a better future for the world on the following eightprinciples:1) No material gains out of the war.2) No territorial changes, except those which are desired by the peoplesconcerned.3) All peoples to have the right to choose their own form of government.4) All peoples who were forcibly deprived of sovereign rights and selfgovernmentto havethose losses restored.5) A peace guaranteeing the safety of all nations and enabling the peoplesof those nationsto be free from fear and want.6) A wider and permanent system of general security.7) All nations to have access, on equal terms, to the trade and raw materialsof the world.8) Fullest economic collaboration between all nations toward improvedlabor standards,economic advancement, and social security. 15United States Government Printing Office, 1947), 1.13Paul Dukes, "The Rise and Fall of the Big Three," History Review no. 52 (September2005): 42-47. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16, 2012)14Churchill and Roosevelt, 152.5

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)They each had some explaining to do back home—especially PrimeMinister Churchill over the third and fourth principles that maximalistsinterpreted as decolonization. The very idea of Britain giving theEmpire not only created lamentations over ground held for decades orcenturies through the blood of Britons, but also created consternationover what Britons would be in the future without an empire. Wouldthey still be just as great? The Charter plunged Britons into uncertaintyand fear over the future even if they were victorious over the Axis.Churchill sought to alleviate these fears and argue for a minimalistinterpretation that left the Empire intact, as he reported to the House ofCommons:At the Atlantic meeting we had in mind primarily the extension of thesovereignty, self-government, and national life of the states and nationsof Europe now under the Nazi yoke and the principles which shouldgovern any alterations in the territorial boundaries of countries whichmay have to be made. That is quite a separate problem from theprogressive evolution of the self-governing institutions in regions whosepeoples owe allegiance to the British crown. We have made declarationson these matters which are complete in themselves, free from ambiguityand related to the conditions and circumstances of the territories andpeoples affected. They will be found to be entirely in harmony with theconception of freedom and justice which inspire the joint declaration. 16A charity worker in London, Vere Hodgson (1901-1979), expressed thesentiment of most Britons that she expected a declaration of an Anglo-American alliance and was disappointed that the Charter was simply aset of war objectives that were “all very laudable in themselves—theonly difficulty will be in carrying them out.” Hodgson describedherself as depressed over the matter. This feeling was common.Churchill sent a cable to FDR’s Lend-Lease negotiator, Harry Hopkins:“I ought to tell you that there has been a wave of depression through[the] cabinet and other informed circles here about [the] President’smany assurances about no commitments and no closer to war….If 1942opens with Russia knocked out and Britain left again alone, all kinds ofdangers may arise….Should be grateful if you could give me any sortof hope.” 17By comparison, FDR’s maximalist interpretation of the chartergained ground in America as the war progressed, especially afterAmerica’s entry after Pearl Harbor in December 1941. On February15U.S. State Department, 2.16Committee on Africa, the War, and Peace Aims, Phelps Stokes Fund, The AtlanticCharter and Africa from an American Standpoint (New York: Haddon Craftsmen, Inc,1942), 31.17Max Hastings, Winston's War: Churchill, 1940-1945 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,2010), 170. Editor’s note: Hastings used a well-known diary of Vere Hodgson that isused by many historians to demonstrate the common Briton’s view of the war.6

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)23, 1942, President Roosevelt informed the American public in one ofhis radio broadcasts that the Atlantic Charter applied to every nation orcolony: “The Atlantic Charter applies not only to parts of the worldthat border the Atlantic, but to the whole world; disarmament ofaggressors, self-determination of nations and peoples and the fourfreedoms: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom fromwant, and freedom from fear.” 18 Questions and concerns surfacedimmediately regarding its universal application, since the US had itsown protectorates including the Philippines that were occupied byJapan since December 1941. In 1942-43, the US was already workingwith Vietnamese and Filipino rebels against Japanese forces on thepremise that their independence would be the result of winning thewar. 19Whether or not FDR wanted to avoid further complications inthe special relationship with Churchill, the president allowed otherpoliticians to take the leading voice for his maximalist vision for theAtlantic Charter. Some even saw the charter as an opportunity toextend statehood to American territories such as Hawaii and PuertoRico. On February 13, 1943, New York Congressman Joseph ClarkBaldwin (1897-1957) gave a speech on the implementation of theAtlantic Charter in front of the Foreign Policy Association ofPennsylvania, and said:Probably at no time in the history of this country has our Congressfaced so grave a responsibility as confronts it today. In theRevolutionary War we fought to create the Union. In the Civil War,we fought to preserve the Union, and in this war, as in the last war,we are, in my opinion, fighting to extend the Union. 20Baldwin emphasized that he was not an imperialist, and even suggestedthat the United Nations, although only a name for the alliance againstthe Axis at this point, might become another mechanism towards globalunity and democracy. By the time of Baldwin’s speech, twenty-ninenations had signed the Atlantic Charter since August 14, 1941.Congressman Baldwin stressed the necessity and centrality ofdemocracy as the main principle of the Charter and that democracyneeded to be made efficient and available to these new states thatwould emerge: “Democracy must be streamlined if it is to hold itsown. [Yet it need not] lose one iota of its democratic effectiveness in18Committee on Africa, 30.19The Philippines observed their independence from the US on the Fourth of July, 1946.The French ignored FDR and reoccupied Vietnam and fought a bitter colonial war, 1945-54.20Joseph Clark Baldwin, "Implementing the Atlantic Charter," Vital Speeches of the Day9, no. 12 (April 1943): 380. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16,2012)7

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)the process.” He said that Congress needed to work together andquickly so that the Atlantic Charter did not lose its opportunity ormomentum. Baldwin also made the point that the Atlantic Charter wasthe only document signed by the United Nations that contained any sortof concrete peace aims. 21 Other Americans continued to press theCharter’s outcomes deeper into the war, such as New York MayorFiorello LaGuardia (1882-1947), who gave a speech at the OpeningCeremonies of Free World House just days before the Battle ofNormandy in June 1944. La Guardia took it upon himself to explain thepsychology of Britain’s agreement to the Charter:I am going to talk this evening about the Atlantic Charter. Whenmen are in great sorrow they speak from the innermost of their soul.When men are in great danger they think clearly and act unselfishlyfor their own safety as well as that of others…. While there were somepeople in our country who perhaps could not or would not evaluateproperly and fully on our own situation and our common interest withGreat Britain, and the inevitable attack which would follow a Nazivictory in Europe, the military and naval minds of our country wereworking frantically to utilize every second of time while our Presidentwas pleading and begging Congress for necessary appropriations.” 22La Guardia emphasized the desperate situation of the British military in1940 and that without this US aid to Britain in 1940, Britain wouldhave fallen—and the Germans would be off the American coast with aforeign threat not seen since the War of 1812. LaGuardia said that theAtlantic Charter was a pledge on the parts of the United States andGreat Britain that they would do whatever was necessary to fight theAxis and that it was a promise of hope to the rest of the world. 23Both Churchill and FDR had a healthy personal sense of“historical purposefulness.” 24 Churchill needed to save his Britain,which had not been so threatened by invasion in centuries. For Britain,the central aim was simply the survival of the United Kingdom. Bycontrast, Roosevelt wanted to save and arguably spread democracy—even making it a central aim of the war. 25 Despite their competingminimalist and maximalist positions over the Atlantic Charter, thespecial relationship was sustained between these men and even grew tonational levels. Even today we hear of this special relationshipbetween the US and UK in matter of foreign policy. As early as 1940,Churchill had little doubt as to the success that could be gained if he21Baldwin, 381-382.22F. H. LaGuardia, "Interpreting the Atlantic Charter," Vital Speeches of the Day 10, no.18 (July 1944): 555. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16, 2012)23LaGuardia, 555.24Joseph P. Lash, The Partnership that Saved the West: Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941 (New York: W.W. Norton., 1976), 179.25LaGuardia, 556.8

Churchill and the Atlantic Charter MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)became prime minister and had close relations with the President of theUnited States: “I wish to be Prime Minister and in close and dailycommunication by telephone with the President of the United States.There is nothing we could not do if we were together.” 26 He believedan Anglo-American alliance to be the winning force. If we see theAtlantic Charter as the beginning of this special relationship, we maybe left disappointed in its outcomes at least in the short-term as Britainfought many wars to keep its empire in the 1940s and early 1950s fromAden to Malaya, before embracing decolonization in the late 1950s and1960s. The US also retreated from its maximalist position on selfdeterminationwhen so many of the anti-colonial rebels turned to theSoviet Union for assistance and promised socialist or communist formsof government. Ironically, the US and the UK exchanged their originalpositions. In the end, the outcomes of the Charter may not have beenas significant as the special relationship itself between these nationsthat was fostered by this personal relationship and the Charter. Thisrelationship, despite some moments of diplomatic tension, has endured.26D'Este, 497.9

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Lincoln v. Douglas:The Illinois Senatorial Debates of 1858Kayla (Gaskill) JacobsonandAustin BitterGrand View UniversityOn June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) deliveredhis famous “House Divided” Speech in Springfield, Illinois. This cameat the close of the Republican state convention, after which he wasnamed the Republican candidate for the United States Senate. Thoseattending were not aware of the events that would unfold in the monthsfollowing. In this speech, Lincoln said “A house divided against itselfcannot stand,” suggesting that the nation with regard to slavery “willbecome all one thing, or all the other.” 1 This became the focal point ofseven senatorial debates that later took place between Lincoln andDouglas throughout the state of Illinois. The purpose of this paper willbe to examine the conflicting platforms of Abraham Lincoln andSenator Stephen Douglas (1813-1861) on the issues of slavery, itsexpansion, and popular sovereignty. This article will first explore thepolitical atmosphere of the mid-nineteenth century, the careers of thesetwo politicians leading up to the debates, and then proceed to analyzethe Lincoln-Douglas debates held in Illinois during 1858.The issue of slavery permeated the political climate of theUnited States from the very establishment of the nation until the end ofthe Civil War—and arguably even further. 2 It manifested itself as earlyas 1787 with the signing of the Northwest Ordinance, which prohibitedslavery from expanding to the north and the west beyond the OhioRiver. 3 Thus the nation was divided north and south over slavery—andparticularly with regard to its expansion westward—even before ourfirst president took office. This political atmosphere was, in manyways, an extension of the British imperial policies which haddominated North America for many centuries. As imperial theorist andeconomic historian John A. Hobson (1858-1940) later articulated,imperialism embodied “nationalism, internationalism, and colonialism”1Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832 – 1858, ed. Roy P. Basler(New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1989), 426.2Adam Rothman, Slave Country: American Expansion and the Origins of the Deep South(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), xi.3Leonard L. Richards, The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War (NewYork: Vintage Books, 2008), 66.10

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)that often led to the subjugation of other people under the falsejustification of actually helping them. 4 Slaves were consideredcommodities to be exploited, traded, bartered, sold, and used. Theywere not considered free individuals but under laws concerningproperty rights. This dehumanization justified slavery in the minds ofmany Americans, just as the subjection of peoples in African and Asiawere justified to the British. Yet, there have also been opponents ofslavery from the beginning of this nation.Tensions between proponents and opponents of slaverybecame more acute with the Louisiana Purchase (1803). Although seenby some as a potential reservation to send Indians from eastern states,American settlement quickly followed the flag across the MississippiRiver. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the land of the United Statesand offered very cheap land opportunities to those who could mobilizethe labor to develop it. Though the actual costs of slavery are higherthan wage earners, slave labor could be moved quickly into the west,especially in areas with profitable cash crops such as cotton. 5 Thiswestward expansion of slavery accelerated the ideological divide andpolitical tension. The expansion of the United States yet again in thewake of the Mexican War (1846-1848) only added fuel to the fire.Organized abolitionist movements became common in the North by the1850s, which led to more and more political confrontations over thefuture of the Union.Compromises had been won between the free and slave statessince the framing of the constitution. By the mid-19 th century, the finalcompromise strategy was popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty leftthe matter of slavery in the hands of the people of each state, ratherthan a decision made by people of the United States as a whole throughtheir representatives. Both methods are democratic, but popularsovereignty placed slavery squarely in the hands of statists rather thannationalists. Yet the issue over what was to be done with territoriesbefore and as they became states was still being debated. 6 In the shortrun, popular sovereignty led to the Free Soil movement (a politicalparty opposed to the expansion of slavery), the expansion of fugitiveslave laws (which called for Northerners to return runaway slaves totheir Southern owners), and the 1850 Compromise (which resulted inthe easing of a deadlock between Northern and Southern states by asomewhat mutually beneficial piece of legislation). 7 The long term4J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, reprint of the 1905 edition (New York: CosimoClassics, 2005), 3, 368. Editor’s note: Adam Smith made a similar conclusion on slaveryin his Wealth of Nations (1776).5Rothman, 70.6Richards, 66.7See William Harris, Lincoln’s Rise to the Presidency (Kansas: University Press ofKansas, 2007), 49; and Resolution introduced by Senator Henry Clay in Relation to theAdjustment of all Existing Questions of Controversy between the States arising out of the11

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)result of all of these pieces of legislation was simply a deepeningdivide.In order to better understand where Lincoln and Douglas wereon slavery in 1858, it is helpful to examine their careers prior to thedebates. Even as a young man, many viewed Lincoln as an effectiveand inspirational leader and orator. This was evident when electedcaptain of the local volunteers that fought in the Black Hawk War(1832). Major John Todd Stuart (1807-1885) encouraged Lincoln topursue law and enter into politics. Though self-taught in law andpolitics, Lincoln’s political career began early when he was elected tothe Illinois Assembly in 1834. Two years later, he received his licenseto practice law and was re-elected to the Assembly as the minorityWhig Party floor leader. Lincoln joined the free soil faction of his partyand also supported ending property requirements to vote. 8 Lincoln latersaid of his early positions: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong…I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel.” 9 Lincoln waselected to the US House of Representatives in 1846, just in time to voteagainst the Mexican-American War and its further westward expansion.On the national level, Democratic expansionists prevailed against Whigopponents like Lincoln. Also, Lincoln had to face hostility in thesouthern half of his state, let alone nation, with his abolition and antiexpansionrhetoric.Lincoln faced a formidable opponent in Stephen Douglas.Douglas also became interested in law at a young age, and unlikeLincoln, had a formal education in law beginning in 1833, at the age oftwenty. Douglas struggled with both money and recognition until hevolunteered his services to an auctioneer in Illinois. While working as aclerk for the auctioneer, he decided to open a school for clerks in orderto make extra money. In 1834, after about a year, he saved up enoughmoney to finish his formal education in law and was licensed topractice in the state of Illinois. That same year, Douglas was elected asstate’s attorney for the First Judicial Circuit. In 1836, Douglas won aseat in the Illinois Assembly and was appointed to the position ofregistrar of the federal land office in Springfield, Illinois. 10 Two yearsafter that, he ran for the US Congress on a platform opposing corporatecharters for “railroads, canals, insurance companies, hotel companies,steam mill companies &c., &c.” 11 He lost the election by a narrowInstitution of Slavery (“Compromise of 1850”), January 29, 1850; Senate SimpleResolutions, Motions, and Orders of the 31 st Congress, ca. 03/1849-ca. 03/1850; RecordGroup 46, Records of the United States Senate, 1789-1990; National Archives.www.ourdocuments.gov/ doc.php?doc=27&page=transcript (accessed June 7, 2013).8Harris, 9-18.9Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas: the Debates that Defined America (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2008), 32.10Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 3-6.11Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 6.12

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)margin to John Todd Stuart—Lincoln’s mentor. Douglas settled forbeing the state’s secretary of state and took a seat on the IllinoisSupreme Court. In 1843, Douglas finally took his place in the USHouse of Representatives and three years later was a US Senator. 12 Allof this was by the age of 33. This fast-track career earned the shortpolitician the nickname: “Little Giant.”Douglas was passionate about western expansion and thecentrality it offered for Illinois, and especially Chicago, in trade,manufacture, and transportation. While western expansion and thepopular sovereignty compromise of slavery created anxiety for manynorthern politicians, Douglas was unconditional in his desire for theWest to be developed. It soon became apparent that “the realquestion…was not whether Douglas could be trusted to keep Northernhands off slavery in the South but whether he would be willing to givethe South what, in the 1850s, it really wanted, which was a free ticketto legalize slavery in the western territories.” 13 This can be seen inDouglas’ grand idea for expansion in his Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)that organized the territories of Kansas and Nebraska based upon theidea of popular sovereignty. 14 Douglas defended this platform all theway into his senatorial election debates with Lincoln in 1858. AsDouglas campaigned for re-election in the later part of 1857, Lincolngave speeches of his own against Douglas’ remarks on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and popular sovereignty. By October, Lincoln’sappearances and responses were so close behind Douglas that it had theperception of a debate. This prompted U.S. Senator Norman Judd(1815-1878) to arrange for Lincoln and Douglas to face one another onthe same stand. 15Encouraged by Judd, Lincoln wrote to Douglas on July 24,1858, asking him “to make an arrangement for you and myself todivide time, and address the same audiences during the presentcanvass.” 16 Douglas refused initially, but later agreed with somespecific conditions. They agreed each congressional district in Illinoisshould hear them, so they arranged for seven debates since the districtsthat included Chicago (Second District) and Springfield (Sixth District)were already saturated with their appearances and positions. Douglaschose the cities and the dates of the debates. The first debate took placein Ottawa (Third District) on August 21 th , the second in Freeport (FirstDistrict) on August 27 st , the third in Jonesboro (Ninth District) on12Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 6.13Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 12.14Gerald M. Capers, Stephen A. Douglas: Defender of the Union, ed. Oscar Handlin(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1959), 93. Editor’s note: The Dred Scott decision(1857) of the US Supreme Court inflamed most northern politicians by nullifying federalprohibition of slavery and prohibiting blacks from becoming legal citizens.15Guelzo Lincoln and Douglas , 35, 90.16Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 91.13

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)September 15 th , the fourth in Charleston (Seventh District) onSeptember 18 th , the fifth in Galesburg (Fourth District) on October 7 th ,the sixth in Quincy (Fifth District) on October 13 th , and the finalappearance in Alton (Eighth District) on October 15 th , 1858. The ruleswere simple: The first speaker had an hour, followed by a responsefrom the other that lasted for an hour and a half, concluding with arebuttal by the first man lasting a half-hour. 17 Unlike other politicaldebates, the debates between Lincoln and Douglas did not focus oneconomics, trade, or other commonly debated topics. Rather, thedebates between these men focused on expansion of slavery in theWest. 18Ottawa was an interesting first venue as a predominatelyRepublican city. 19 Douglas took to the podium first with his speechthat was allotted to last for an hour. In his opening statement, Douglasaddressed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which he had helped pass throughCongress with the compromise of popular sovereignty—the standardstates’ rights defense: “It is the true intent and meaning of this act notto legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulatetheir domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to federalconstitution.” 20 Douglas continued by directing a statement towardLincoln himself involving his stance on the admission of a new state:“I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union,even if the people want them.” 21 With this accusatory statement,Douglas attempted to make it obvious to the audience that Lincolnwould do what he wanted regardless of the desires of his constituents.He proceeded by stating that he wondered if Lincoln stood to prohibitslavery in all territory of the United States, something that manyindividuals opposed. In referencing Lincoln’s now famous “HouseDivided” speech, Douglas questioned “Why can it not exist dividedinto free and slave States? Washington, Jefferson…and the [other]great men of that day, made this Government divided into free Statesand slave States.” Douglas used the Founders to argue: “I believe it[this government] was made by white men, for the benefit of white menand their posterity forever.” 22When Douglas concluded his hour long speech, it was up toLincoln to defend himself against such critical remarks by “Judge17Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 92.18David Zarefsky, Lincoln, Douglas and Slavery (Chicago: The University of ChicagoPress, 1990), 52.19Zarefsky, 55.20Lincoln, 496-497.21Lincoln, 499.22Lincoln, 503-504.14

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Douglas”—Lincoln’s own playful nickname for the Senator. 23 Heoffered the olive branch: “I will say here, while upon this subject, thatI have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institutionof slavery in the States where it exists.” But he also challenged hisaudience (and the US Supreme Court’s decision of the prior year) thatthere was no reason why blacks were not entitled to the same rightsstated in the Declaration of Independence. 24 It seemed Lincoln avoideda nationalist response to Douglas’ states’ rights position, by provokinga libertarian ideal. Concluding with more than fifteen minutesremaining of his allowed time, Lincoln seemed nervous anddefensive. 25 His definition of popular sovereignty was a very key pointin his speech. He stated that popular sovereignty “does allow thepeople of a Territory to have Slavery it they want to, but does not allowthem not to have it if they do not want it.” The way he phrased thiscaused many laughs and applause to erupt throughout the crowd ofspectators. 26With constant interruptions from the audience and Lincolnhimself, Douglas used his half hour rebuttal to further accuse Lincolnof avoiding the questions posed to him in his first statement: “I askedhim to answer me and you whether he would vote to admit a State intothe Union, with slavery or without it, as its own people might choose.He did not answer that question. He dodges that question.” 27 Douglascontinued, throughout the remainder of his speech, to point out toaudience members Lincoln’s inability to answer the simple questionshe posed for him. The Illinois State Register, a paper that favored theDemocratic candidate, cast Lincoln as having “stumbled, floundered,and, instead of the speech that he had prepared to make, bored hisaudience by using up a large portion of his time reading from a speechof 1854, of his own.” The Chicago Times had such headlines as“Lincoln’s Heart Fails Him! Lincoln’s Legs Fail Him! Lincoln’sTongue Fails Him!” 28 While it may have seemed like Douglas had themomentum coming out of the first debate in Ottawa, Democratic paperswere at fault for providing such biased remarks while other papers hadmixed reviews. Papers such as the Alton Weekly Courier and theWeekly North-Western Gazette had different perspectives. The former:“The Republicans of Ottawa are in high glee. The triumphant mannerin which Lincoln handled Douglas this afternoon has filled them withspirit and confidence…the Little Giant is doomed.” 29 The Weekly23Lincoln, 508.24Lincoln, 512.25Zarefsky, 55.26Lincoln, 515.27Lincoln, 530.28Zarefsky, 55.29See George T. Brown, “The Great Debate between Lincoln and Douglas,” AltonWeekly Courier, August 26, 1858, Alton, Illinois, in the Northern Illinois University15

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)North-Western Gazette: “We think Mr. Lincoln has decidedly theadvantage. Not only are his doctrines truer and better…but he statesthem with more propriety, and with an infinitely better temper.” 30 Thefirst round seemed inconclusive.Just a few days later, Douglas and Lincoln debated inFreeport—another Republican stronghold. 31 This time, Lincoln wasthe first to address the audience, and he used this to his advantage.Douglas had issued a series of questions in the Chicago Times, towhich Lincoln responded in concise responses that agitated Douglas,who continued to be frustrated with Lincoln’s refusal to be corned intohard positions. Regarding the fugitive slave law, Lincoln stated that hedid not favor a repeal of the law. Lincoln even stated that he did notstand against the admission of slave States into the Union.Furthermore, when questioned about the admission of a new state intothe Union, Lincoln agreed that the people of the state had the right to astate constitution that they saw as fit for them. When asked if he wouldabolish slavery in the District of Columbia, Lincoln once again statedthat he did not “stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in theDistrict of Columbia.” Lincoln seemed to escape Douglas’ trap onstates’ rights and even the federal district under Congressionaljurisdiction. But over the new settlement to the West: “I am impliedly,if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress toprohibit slavery in all the United States Territories.” Lincoln seemed toposition himself as a senator that would fight the good fight inWashington by allowing the acquisition of new territory, even if it“would or would not aggravate the slavery question amongourselves.” 32Then, Lincoln did the questioning. Lincoln targetedcontroversial Kansas: “If the people of Kansas shall…adopt a StateConstitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before theyhave the requisite number of inhabitants…will you vote to admitthem?” In the second question, which proved to be quite complicatedfor Douglas, Lincoln asked was whether “the people of the UnitedStates Territory… [can] exclude slavery from its limits prior to theformation of a State Constitution?” The third question, dealing withthe Judiciary branch of the United States government, was on whetherDouglas would follow the decisions made by the Supreme Court if itsmembers decided that states cannot exclude slavery from their limitsLibraries Digitization Projects, for coverage of the Ottawa debate on August 21 st .lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgibin/philologic/ getobject.pl?c.2271:1.lincoln (accessed June 3,2013).30H. H. Houghton, “Lincoln and Douglas,” Weekly North-Western Gazette, September 7,1858, Galena, Illinois, in the NIU Libraries Digitization Projects. lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgibin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2581:1.lincoln(accessed June 3, 2013).31Zarefsky, 56.32Lincoln, 538-539.16

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)And finally, Lincoln requested to know if Douglas was in favor ofacquiring new territory even if it would affect the slavery question ofthe nation? 33 While Lincoln labored around the questions of Douglas,Douglas went straight to the point. He would not make Kansas anexception to the rule. He would not vote to admit Kansas into theUnion until the correct population was reached:I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856…in a bill providingthat no territory of the United States should…apply for admissionuntil it had the requisite population. On another occasion I proposedthat neither Kansas, or any other territory, should be admitteduntil it had the requisite population. 34Lincoln may have lured Douglas into overplaying his popularsovereignty strategy, as Douglas responded: “[I]n my opinion thepeople of a territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from theirlimits prior to the formation of a State Constitution.” 35 This alarmedSouthern Democrats. Douglas seemed confused by Lincoln’s thirdquestion and merely stated that it would be nearly impossible for thatsituation to occur since the Supreme Court would to follow theConstitution. Finally, Douglas said that he was in favor of acquiringnew territory as long as the people who inhabit that territory are free tochoose if they will admit slavery in their state or not. 36 Upon returningto the stage to conclude the debate, Lincoln was greeted with manycheers from audience members. Lincoln used his half hour rebuttal totell the listeners that he believed he answered the questions posed forhim at the Ottawa debate clearly and precisely. He continued byarguing the point he made in the “House Divided” speech—that theUnion cannot survive half slave and half free. 37 There were againmixed reviews. Democratic papers amused themselves over theFreeport debate with cynical remarks about Lincoln: “The LionFrightens the ‘Dog’!” and “Lincoln Routed! He can’t Find the Spot!” 38Republican papers, like the Weekly North-Western Gazette, made theirown headlines “Lincoln Defnines His Position” and “The Little GiantCornered” with their analysis: “Yesterday was a great day in our State,as it witnessed the full and complete triumph of our noble champion33Lincoln, 542. Editor’s note: President Franklin Pierce refused to recognize the FreeSoil government in Topeka in 1856, the same year that pro-slavery elements fromMissouri also burned the Free Soil stronghold of Lawrence as well as the physical attackon Free Soil Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber by pro-slavery congressmen.34Lincoln, 550.35Lincoln, 551.36Lincoln, 554-555.37Lincoln, 573, 576.38Zarefsky, 57.17

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)over Senator Douglas.” 39 The Quincy Daily Whig and Republicanstated: “Mr. Douglas, at every step, becomes more and more entangledin inconsistencies and contradictions. The ‘Russian Bear’ has beencaught in the net of his own weaving.” 40The third debate, on September 15 th , brought the two men toJonesboro, a town in the middle of a Democratic territory and astronghold for President James Buchanan (1791-1868). This district,located near the southernmost tip of the state, held the greatest aversionto the black population. 41 Taking to the stage first, Douglas opened hisspeech by referencing the Compromise of 1850, in which it was statedthat the people of the State should be allowed to regulate their owninstitutions subjected to no other limitation other than that in theConstitution. During the period in which the compromise was created,there was great unity between the Democratic Party and Whig Party—who Douglas claimed were united to the principles established in theCompromise of 1850. Douglas then claimed that the Whig Party hadbeen turned into a sectional party, due in part to Lincoln and otherRepublicans trying to eliminate the Whig Party all together. In aneffort to draw in former Whigs, Douglas remarked: “All Union-lovingmen, whether Whigs, Democrats…ought to rally under the stars andstripes in defense of the Constitution, as our fathers made it, and of theUnion as it has existed under the Constitution.” 42 Douglas once againused his popular sovereignty argument as a defense of democracy bystating that Lincoln would not allow new states that wanted to be slave.He continued by saying that Lincoln and his followers want the fugitiveslave law to be repealed, slavery in the District of Columbia to beabolished, and the end of the slave trade between different States of theUnion. 43 Then, Douglas took a step back and addressed Lincoln’s“House Divided” speech, and replied, “Why can it not last if we willexecute the government in the same spirit and upon the same principlesupon which it is founded.” 44 In his next point, Douglas decided todiscuss the Dred Scott ruling of the prior year. Douglas accusedLincoln of opposing the decision because it denied blacks the rights ofcitizenship—something that Lincoln appeared to be advocating.39H. H. Houghton, “The Great Debate at Freeport,” Weekly North-Western Gazette,September 7, 1858, Galena, Illinois, in the NIU Libraries Digitization Projects.lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2612:1.lincoln (accessed June 7,2013).40John T. Morton, “Lincoln and Douglas at Freeport,” Quincy Daily Whig andRepublican, September 1, 1858, Quincy, Illinois, in the NIU Libraries DigitizationProjects . lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2517:1.lincoln (accessedJune 7, 2013).41Zarefsky, 583.42Lincoln, 587-588.43Lincoln, 589.44Lincoln, 596.18

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Douglas mimicked the majority decision: “I hold that a Negro is notand never ought to be a citizen of the United States.” He once againreiterated his belief that the government was made for the benefit of thewhite people. 45 Douglas went further than white supremacy to outrightimperial vision in his final point. He noted that if the Union adhered tothe principles established in the Compromise of 1850, the Union wouldexpand and extend until it covered the whole continent. Making Cubaa point of interest, and later Mexico and Canada, Douglas statedarrogantly: “When we get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leavingthe people to decide the question of slavery for themselves.” 46When Lincoln took the stand for his hour and a half responseto Douglas’s opening statements, he once again gave his reasons whyhe does not believe the Union could survive if it were to be split in two:I say when this government was first established it was thepolicy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into thenew Territories of the United States, where it had not existed.But Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that policyand placed it upon a new basis by which it is to becomenational and perpetual. 47Then turning to address the issue of the compromise negotiated byHenry Clay (1777-1850) in 1850, Lincoln pointed out how Douglasthought it was his duty to organize the territory above the lineestablished as the border between slave and free. Lincoln argued thatthe Compromise of 1850 did not break the Missouri Compromise(1820), but when Douglas decided to step over that boundary andorganize the Kansas-Nebraska territory, he broke the MissouriCompromise. 48 In Jonesboro, Lincoln accused Douglas of notanswering the questions that were directed towards him in Freeport.With regard to backing a Free Soil Kansas, Lincoln told the audiencethat Douglas never gave a “yes or no – I will or I won’t.” WhenDouglas responded to Lincoln’s second question at Freeport on whethera territory could exclude slavery before it was a state, Douglassuggested that there were ways that Congress could influence thisbefore a state constitution was written by “withholding…indispensableassistance to it in the way of legislation” or “by unfriendly legislation.”Lincoln was quick to point out that the Supreme Court, in the DredScott decision (1857), had just made unconstitutional such federal45Lincoln, 598.46Lincoln, 600-601. Editor’s note: While Spain abolished slavery in most of its coloniesin 1811, slavery existed in Cuba until 1886.47Lincoln, 603.48Lincoln, 606. Editor’s note: There was general debate over whether the MissouriCompromise line (Missouri’s southern border) extended across the new territories to theWest, dividing slave and free.19

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)interference. 49 Now Douglas was cornered by the Constitution asinterpreted by the current Supreme Court. Then Lincoln skipped pastpopular sovereignty arguments and humanized the issue by a directconfrontation over property rights: “If the slaveholding citizens of aUnited States Territory should need and demand Congressionallegislation for the protection of their slave property in such territory,would you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against suchlegislation?” This question posed political liabilities for Douglasconflict. A negative answer would infuriate his Southern Democraticallies and positive answer might alienate any Free-Soilers or formerWhigs that he was attempting to woo.” 50 Douglas approached the standand simply rang-out his party’s platform: “It is a fundamental article inthe Democratic creed that there should be non-interference and noninterventionby Congress with slavery in the States or territories.” 51This, of course, was already in dispute with his earlier answer thatCongress could intervene. After the third debate at Jonesboro,newspapers again offered mixed, partisan reviews flooded the paperswith such comments as “Poor Lincoln was greatly embarrassed,” or“Mr. Douglas rehearsed his stereotyped harangue already deliveredwhenever he has made a political speech; while Mr. Lincoln cameforward with a number of new points.” 52Three days later, Lincoln and Douglas met in Charleston, adistrict whose population predominately favored the old Whig Party. Inthe previous three debates the opening speaker touched on manydifferent points, which allowed the following speaker an opportunity toanswer them. However, after reassuring audience members that he wasnot in favor of racial equality, Lincoln turned the main topic of hisspeech into charging Douglas with conspiracy in depriving Kansas ofthe opportunity to vote on whether their state would be free or slave. 53This greatly angered Douglas. When he approached the stand to givehis response to Lincoln’s opening remarks, he pointed out that “the ruleof such discussion is, that the opening speaker shall touch upon all thepoints he intends to discuss in order that his opponent, in reply, shallhave the opportunity of answering them.” 54 In keeping with the newtheme that seemed to have emerged at that debate, Douglas used theremainder of his hour and a half long response to charge Lincoln andLyman Trumbull (1813-1896), the current senior United States Senatorof Illinois, of conspiring to “abolitionize the old political parties.” 5549Lincoln, 616-617.50Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 178.51Lincoln, 632.52Zarefsky, 59.53Zarefsky, 60.54Lincoln, 651.55Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 203.20

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Douglas once again went on to accuse Lincoln of favoring racialequality, which Lincoln denied. He used this opportunity to state hisstance on racial equality saying: “I say to you in all frankness,gentlemen, that in my opinion a Negro is not a citizen, cannot be, andought not to be, under the constitution of the United States.” 56 InLincoln’s rebuttal, he used his time to deny the accusations madeagainst him by Douglas. Lincoln responded to the allegation that heconspired with Trumbull to rid the old parties with: “I have twice toldJudge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not oneword of truth in it.” 57 He further denied his favoritism towards racialequality and offered a correction that he did not vote against troopsupplies for the Mexican War—which Douglas had accused him of inhis speech. 58 Like the previous three debates, assessments differedgreatly among newspapers in the area. The Weekly North-WesternGazette noted that “Douglas has changed front so often that the peoplecannot place any reliance upon him.” 59 A similar reaction came fromthe Prairie Beacon News, which noted in their paper: “At theconclusion of the rejoinder, the applause was so great that there was nomistaking the fact that an overwhelming majority of that large audiencewere for Lincoln.” 60Less than a month later, the fifth debate took place inGalesburg, a Republican stronghold, in front of approximately fifteento twenty thousand individuals, which was the largest crowd yet. 61 Inhis opening statement, Douglas used the beginning of his time to againannounce that the Republican Party was a sectional party. “But nowyou have a sectional organization, a party which appeals to the northernsection of the Union…[in the] hope that they will be able to unite thenorthern States in one great sectional party.” 62 Once again, Douglasannounced that Lincoln, and the Republican Party, were for racialequality, and that Lincoln had said one thing in the northern part of thestate and another in the southern part: “[I]n one part of the State hestood up for negro equality, and in another part for political effect,56Lincoln, 673.57Lincoln, 678. Editor’s note: Since the Democratic and former Whig parties both hadNorthern and Southern factions, Douglas’ accusation is that Lincoln’s Republican party isattempting to destroy their opponents by using slavery as a sectional issue merely to winthe election.58Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 203.59H. H. Houghton, “The Charleston Debate,” Weekly North-Western Gazette ,September28, 1858, Galena, Illinois, in NIU Libraries Digitization Projects, lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgibin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2592:1.lincoln(accessed June 7, 2013).60John T. Morton, “Lincoln and Douglas at Charleston,” Quincy Daily Whig andRepublican, September 23, 1858, Quincy, Illinois, in NIU Libraries DigitizationProjects, lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2513:1.lincoln (accessedJune 7, 2013).61Zarefsky, 62.62Lincoln, 693.21

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)sovereignty or states’ right strategy: “This government was made uponthe great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State toregulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself.” 73 He criticizedLincoln for misunderstanding the intentions of the Founders. 74 Healleged: “For this reason this Union was established on the right ofeach State to do as it pleased on the question of slavery.” 75 Lincolnattacked popular sovereignty in his final argument. He believed that itstates’ rights over the slavery issue threatened the Union. He alsonoted that “popular sovereignty grants slaveholders an advantage insettling the territories.” He concluded by reiterating his belief that theruling in Dred Scott was contradictory to popular sovereignty. Lincolnseemed to paint the picture of eventual conflict in the “house divided.”Douglas, on the other hand, simply repeated the claim in his finalrebuttal that “the Founders adopted popular sovereignty as the means ofdealing with slavery.” Douglas painted a different picture of the futurethat “popular sovereignty is the only guarantee of peace.” 76 Althoughno clear winner emerged from the final debate, the Chicago Timesnoted that “this last effort of Mr. Lincoln’s is the lamest and mostimpotent attempt he has yet made.” Conversely, the Illinois StateJournal state: “All accounts agree that Mr. Douglas was badly whippedout…Lincoln’s sledgehammer arguments have been entirely too muchfor him.” 77 On January 5, 1859, Stephen Douglas was reelected by avote of 54-46 along mainly north-south lines in the state.Although the debates have been widely scrutinized byhistorians for importance, Albert J. Beveridge (1862-1927) noted in hisfamous but posthumous 1928 biography of Lincoln that based “solelyon their merits, the debates themselves deserve little notice. For themost part each speaker merely repeats what he had said before.” 78 Yet,as a historical marker, the Lincoln-Douglas debates carried an on-goingargument to a perceived threshold in public discourse. These debatesalso serve as a historical marker offering insights into Lincoln’sdevelopment over the issue of slavery. Had Lincoln lost the presidentialelection a year later to Douglas in 1860, the debates may not beremembered. Since Lincoln lost the US Senate seat but later won theUS Presidency, these debates are worthy of investigation. The opinions73Lincoln, 776.74Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 269.75Lincoln, 777. Editor’s note: The Founders agreed not to debate the issue of slavery fortwenty years, which was more of a delaying tactic than a definitive claim as Douglassuggests. Upon leaving Philadelphia at the end of the Constitutional Convention, GeorgeWashington was asked how long the Union would last, to which he responded: Twentyyears.76Guelzo, Lincoln and Douglas , 269.77Zarefsky, 66.78Allen C. Guelzo, "Houses Divided: Lincoln, Douglas, and the Political Landscape of1858," Journal of American History 94, no. 2 (2007): 393.23

Lincoln v. Douglas MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)and statements made by Lincoln during these debates show us histendency towards abolition, but hesitancy to break with the status quoof the era. Lincoln revealed that he believed all men to have the right to“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” that slavery was immoral(at least in legal terms), that the expansion of slavery into the Westshould be stopped, and that the issue of slavery could be decided as anation by Congress. 79 In the end, Douglas won a state race with a statistplatform, while Lincoln would win a national race with a nationalplatform.79Roy Morris, Jr., The Long Pursuit (New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 2008), 109,114.24

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)The Treaty of London (1838):Its Reinterpretation and Impact on the Outbreak andConclusion of the First World War†Micheal CollinsGrand View UniversityFrederick the Great (1712-1786) once said: “All guaranteesare like a watermark, more to satisfy the eyes than utility.” 1 This mightcertainly be the case with guarantees based upon jus gentium, or the“law of nations,” which is a concept left over from the height of theRoman Republic. Jus gentium is a legal and political framework, or aset of expectations and norms, common for all. 2 This ideal isfoundational for European diplomacy with regard to generalexpectations of behavior while respecting differing sovereign law codesof individual nations. The London Treaty of 1839 provides an excellentexample of jus gentium and its complications in diplomacy. In 1914,Great Britain used the treaty as justification in coming to the defense ofBelgium’s neutrality by declaring war on Germany. Just as theGermans invaded, British scholars and legal authorities quickly camewith books and articles on the Treaty of 1839 and its application byeither reinterpreting or redefining its words and utility. One inparticular stands out: England’s Guarantee to Belgium andLuxembourg, written by scholars Charles Sanger (1871-1930) andHenry Norton (1886-1937) in 1915. 3 Like many other publications ofthe period, this book looked at the core of the Treaty of 1839 focusingon the meaning of two words: “guarantee” and “neutrality.” Exploringfurther than other publications, these authors also reviewedinterpretations of the intent and meaning behind those same words asunderstood in every crisis in Europe involving pre-1914 Belgium.Sanger and Norton concluded that the force of the words and status ofBelgian neutrality were being interpreted by the British governmentcorrectly in 1914, thus legitimizing its declaration of war on Germany.Yet, there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. There was no clear†This paper was presented at the 56 th Missouri Valley History Conference, March 2013,Omaha, Nebraska.1Charles Sanger and Henry Norton, England’s Guarantee to Belgium and Luxembourg,with the Full Text of Treaties (New York, Scribner’s and Sons, 1915), Title Page.2Gordon E. Sherman, "Jus Gentium and International Law," American Journal ofInternational Law 12, No. 1 (1918): 57.3Sanger and Norton, 25-48, 77, and 93-113.25

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)consensus between the original signatory powers of 1839 that offereduniversally accepted interpretations that “guaranteed” Belgianneutrality in the 1914 context. In fact, it was widely known that in1887, British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil,1830-1903) “had been prepared to sacrifice” the 1839 treaty. 4Considerable shifts of the meaning of “neutrality” and “guarantee” hadtaken place between signatory powers like France, Britain andGermany. At every major crisis that directly threatened Belgian“neutrality” between 1839 and 1914, reinterpretations of “guarantee”and “neutrality” were made and remade. This paper argues that Belgianneutrality as guaranteed under the 1839 treaty may no longer have beenunderstood the same way by any of the signatory powers in 1914,including Great Britain. Yet, the 1839 treaty was dusted off and usedfor a declaration of war and at the Treaty of Versailles in thepunishment of Germany. It should be noted that this paper does notdefend German aggression nor will it seek legitimacy for the Germaninvasion of Belgium, but it merely questions the manner in which the1839 treaty was used against Germany.Treaties are often viewed as “expression[s] of conditions andrelationships of power in existence at the time of their making” and yet,“they cannot hope to freeze forever the status quo of any particularmoment of time.” 5 The Treaty of 1839 is no different, so in order tounderstand the impact of the burden of responsibility that the Treaty of1839 placed on the signatory powers, a concise historical backgroundof its origins is necessary. Knowing the circumstances that led to thecreation of this treaty helps us to understand its misapplication in 1914.We need to know the intent behind Article I of the Treaty of 1839 thatheld the “guarantee of their said majesties,” as well as Belgium’s“independent and perpetually neutral state” as established within theannex portion of Article VII. 6The origins of the Treaties of London 1839 can be traced backto the end of the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) with the Congress ofVienna. 7 In 1815, Holland and Belgium were combined into onenation. 8 Continual strife led to a Belgian revolt on August 25 th 1830. 94Max Montgelas, “The Case for the Central Powers Article 16,” The Outbreak of WorldWar I: Who Was Responsible? Dwight Lee, ed. (New York, Random House, 1977), 7-8.5Rene Albrecht-Carrie, A Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna(New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 7.6Treaty of London 1839, Article I, quoted in Sanger and Norton, 126.7The Napoleonic wars were a series of wars and or other conflicts that was primarilyfought on the European continent and on the high seas, involving such belligerents asFrance, Britain, Russia and Prussia.8The Congress of Vienna was convened to deal with the aftermath of the Frenchrevolution and the Napoleonic wars which resulted in a drastic restructuring of Europe.9Sanger and Nelson, 7-8. The irony is that the Belgium revolt happened because of theFrench revolt, and the timing also affected the Polish revolution.26

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Because of the failure of King William I (1772-1843) of theNetherlands to successfully end the revolt coupled with other pressureson him, King William turned to the prevalent powers of the time,asking them for help in resolving this conflict. He could do this becausethe powers were “obligated to come to [his] assistance” as the result ofstipulations from the Congress of Vienna. 10 Although tensions existedbetween Britain and France, the likelihood that war would recommencebecause of another revolt in the Lowlands was not there, due to a“Europe, sickened with war”. 11 By January of 1831, certain protocolswere established in setting the ground work for creating the nation ofBelgium. 12 The interested parties involved in the creation of thetreaties included, Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria and later France. 13Various agreements and annexes would become the body of the Treatyof 1839. Thus the treaty’s first utility was to serve as a peacefuldissolution of the union between Holland and Belgium while providingthe foundation to a process that would eventually define Belgium’sborders. 14 The larger picture, often missed, is that the treaty preventedanother continental war that none of the current powers wanted.Within this context, let us look at the word “guarantee” as itwas interpreted in the Treaty of London 1839. The intent behind themeaning of the word “guarantee” was to bind those who signed thetreaty in a collective guarantee. 15 The real power of the treaty lay inthis collective guarantee. Should one of the signatory powers, such asFrance, decide to invade Belgium, the others would be obligated tointervene on Belgium’s behalf. Yet, this is where the conundrumemerges. There was no word or explanation that the agreement wascollective in nature. The word collective was never used, and it wasassumed in the spirit but not the letter of the treaty. Multipleinterpretations emerged about how a signatory should act if and whenthey were called upon to fulfill the “guarantee” which created by thetreaty.10William L. Langer, Political and Social Upheaval: 1832-1852 (New York: Harper &Row, 1969), 283. King William was the ruler of the Netherlands at the time of theBelgium Revolt. The prevalent powers of the time were Austria, Britain, Russia and theGerman Confederation. Editor’s note: He should not be confused with William ofOrange-Nassau (1650-1702).11L. G. Redmond-Howard, Belgium and the Belgian People (London: Simpkin,Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Company, 1914), 31.12Albrecht-Carrie, 34.13France may have participated much sooner had they not been dealing with their ownrevolts or if the king had not issued the assurance that France did not have any interest inBelgium at that time.14See Sanger and Norton, 126, for Article III of the Treaty of London 1839; and 127, forAnnex Article I.15Frederick E. Smith (Earl of Birkenhead) and James Wylie, “Treaty of London 1839,”in International Law, 4 th edition (Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1911).27

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)This state of neutrality was nothing new to the powers ofEurope in 1839. In many ways it acted as a buffer to keep both statesand citizens out of the line of fire. Belgium took the stance ofneutrality and sought freedom from the threat of military influence. Thetreaty did not bar Belgium from building a military or constructinggarrison forts. However, there was one main exception to that ability.Article XIV of the treaty stipulated that the port of Antwerp shallremain “solely a port of commerce,” and, by extending the concept ofneutrality further, Antwerp could not be a port of call for any militaryforces, including those of Belgium itself. Belgium is thus “bound toobserve such neutrality towards all other states,” the same as any othersignatory of the treaty. 16In the decades that followed 1839, there was one crisis afteranother, coupled with armed conflicts that spread across Europe andhad an impact on the balance of power in Europe. This was especiallytrue about the Luxembourg Crisis of 1867. The Prussian ChancellorOtto von Bismarck (1815-1898), with both diplomatic and militarymeans at his disposal, was fresh from military victories over Denmark(1864) and Austria (1866). When French Emperor Louis Napoleon III(1808-1873) offered to purchase Luxembourg from the King of theNetherlands with the hope of incorporating it into France, it was withNapoleon III’s expectation that Prussia would allow it as“compensation” for “France’s neutrality during the Austro-Prussianconflict.” 17 Bismarck’s response “made it perfectly plain that Francecould not have an inch of German territory nor aid in acquiringBelgium and Luxembourg.” 18 In an attempt to avert another war thatcould encompass all of Europe, the other powers stepped-in with theTreaty of London in1867.The Treaty of London 1867 was believed at the time to releasethe tension between France and Prussia. The status quo of the GrandDuchy of Luxembourg had changed with the “dissolution of the ties bywhich it was attached to the late Germanic Confederation.” 19 Afteraffirming this dissolution, Luxembourg became an independent statealong the lines as Belgium, but with some rather significant changes.Perhaps the biggest change was that Luxembourg was only allowed tohave enough troops to maintain domestic order, no more, no less. This16See Sanger and Norton, 135, for Annex Article XIV of the Treaty of London , 1839,and 130 for Annex Article VII.17Harold Talbot Parker, and Marvin Luther Brown, Major Themes in Modern EuropeanHistory: An Invitation to Inquiry and Reflection (Durham, N.C.: Moore Publishing,1974), 572.18Parker and Brown, 573. Editor’s note: Luxembourg was part of the Prussian customsunion and was seen by many to be in Prussia’s sphere of influence. It had also beenattached to German states during the period of Napoleon Bonaparte’s GermanConfederation., 1806-1813).19See Sanger and Norton, 145, for Treaty of London, 1867, Article VI.28

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)demilitarization with neutrality was similar to the 1839 treaty regardingAntwerp being demilitarized. The difference was that Belgium couldstill determine the size of its own army. Furthermore, in Article V ofthe 1867 Treaty, Luxembourg agreed not to build fortifications or haveany military establishment. 20The 1867 treaty contained the same two key words from the1839 treaty, “guarantee” and “neutrality.” But there is a key differenceas Article II of the 1867 Treaty has a “collective guarantee.” 21Ironically, the collective part of the guarantee was important toBismarck’s understanding of neutrality, while British Prime MinisterLord Derby (Edward Smith-Stanley, 1799-1869) took an oppositestance that the 1839 treaty was a collective guarantee, while the 1867treaty was a singular guarantee—ignoring the specific language of thearticles. As for the word “neutrality,” this 1867 treaty would bearwitness to changes in Europe that were taking place. For Luxembourgthe meaning behind the word neutral took on a different intent than thatof Belgium’s 1839 neutrality guarantee. The intent was that ifLuxembourg wished to remain neutral, other states were obligated toprotect them in conjunction with one another.Though the tension abated between France and Prussia for ashort period, war between the two states seemed inevitable. When theFranco-Prussian War (1870-1871) erupted, it demonstrated that Britishconfidence in the treaty of 1839 was starting to buckle. There wasfierce debate in the British Parliament on how to keep Belgium frombeing invaded. From the British point of view, the word “guarantee”meant entirely different things depending on the viewpoints of thosewho were in power at a given point in time. Even the form and type ofneutrality was brought into question and there were cases in whichthere were at least two opposing viewpoints of what a neutral nationcould and should do. So, the British feared that it was only a matter oftime before Belgium’s neutrality would be violated either by Prussia orFrance. The British devised a way to reinforce the treaty of 1839 bydrawing up a new treaty. The intention can be surmised in Article IIthat whoever should violate Belgium’s neutrality, Britain will comeinto the conflict to ensure that Belgium independence is protected.Unlike other agreements of neutrality, this treaty had a time limitimposed on it, which was only in effect as long as the conflict“continued and for twelve months after the ratification of any Treaty ofPeace concluded between those Parties.” 22After the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), Belgium becameone of the most prosperous countries in Europe. Some would go as far20Sanger and Norton, 144.21Sanger and Norton, 143.22See Sanger and Norton, 147 and 150, for the Treaty of London, 1870, 147. There aretwo separate and distinct treaties for both Prussia, and France.29

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)as to say Belgium was among the strongest, economically, in Europe.This was perhaps due to the advantages being a neutral state, but thisprosperity strained the treaty to its limits. Britain’s parliament hadbeen having some pretty heated discussions reevaluating the usefulnessof the 1839 treaty, especially given Belgium’s good fortune that wascontesting Britain for colonies in Africa. At one point “Lord Salisburypursued a line of logic to that Belgium violated the treaty on its ownaccord with the aggressive polices of King Leopold II [1835-1909].These policies included the “conquest and economic exploitation” ofthe Congo. 23 King Leopold had incorporated the Congo Free State intoBelgium against the wishes of a reluctant Britain. Until 1908, there hadbeen no changes to Belgium’s boundaries as stipulated in 1839. 24 Anargument could have been made that Belgium had expanded beyond itsboundary, into Africa, using the 1839 treaty as the shield. The otherpowers did not want to contest Belgium for central Africa in order toavoid larger war in Europe. But Britain missed the opportunity to voidthe 1839 treaty. This was may have been due to the fact the British feltthere benefits beyond the immediate situation, for instance later whenthe Belgians began fortifying their frontier with Germany. GermanField Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen (1833-1913) called into questionBelgium’s apparent lack of neutrality since it made defensivefortifications opposite of the German border while it had no suchplacements on the French side. 25This brought up the question of the Hague Conventions of1899 and 1907, which led to sweeping changes in the world. It wouldrepresent what the civilized world considered jus gentium. It wasthrough these conventions that standards on how treaties are formedand how they would be “guaranteed”. In the case of the 1907convention, the duties of neutral powers and persons where established.This would change the meaning of the word “neutral” into a moreconsistent and specific meaning that impacted both Belgium andLuxembourg. It replaced previous or older views about how a neutralstate would react when a belligerent nation crossed their borders inorder to wage war on another state. These older views held that as longas they did not interfere, hinder, or engage the hostile force, then thebelligerent state would pay reparations for damages incurred by theircrossing. The two best examples of this were when NapoleonBonaparte (1769-1821) crossed Prussia in order to attack Russia, and23Niall Ferguson. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and theLessons for Global Power (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 196. Editor’s note: LordSalisbury occupied the front bench of the Conservative Party as Foreign Secretary andPrime Minister several times during the late 19 th century.24Oron J. Hale, The Great Illusion, 1900-1914 (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 8.25Samuel R. Williamson and Russell Wyk, July 1914: Soldiers, Statesmen, and theComing of the Great War: A Brief Documentary History (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's,2003), 89.30

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)when Russia crossed Prussia to put down the Polish revolts. In eithercase, Prussia remained neutral and let the armies pass unmolested.Now, under Article II of the 1907 Hague Convention; “Belligerents areforbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war orsupplies across the territory of a neutral power.” 26 This was a gamechangerfor Belgian neutrality in 1914.No matter how one approaches the debate of Belgium and the1839 treaty, there is no denying that the treaty was officially endedunder Article 31 of the Treaty of Versailles 1919. 27 Under that samearticle Germany was forced into confirming that the Treaties of London1839, which “established the status of Belgium before the war,” isabrogated and will conform to the 1919 treaty. 28 If the originalargument behind the outbreak of the war rested entirely upon theviolation of Belgium’s neutrality as guaranteed under Article II of theTreaties of London 1839 then why was it necessary to get rid of it? 29Perhaps this was done to show that the original points of the Treaty ofLondon 1839 had changed so much that it no longer held the power, theutility, it once did. Another point of view of the British, which isoverlooked, is that “if the Belgians were to resist, Britain wouldintervene.” 30 In other words, even if Belgium did not stay neutral, butfought Germany, Britain would intervene all the same. In either case,the act of nullifying this 1839 treaty at Versailles in 1919 towards thedirection of the 1907 Hague Convention, but then using the 1839 treatyas an artifact to demonstrate German responsibility for the war, seemssuspect. 31 This brings up another interesting point under Article 40 inthe Treaty of Versailles. It again forced Germany to recognize that thetreaties which protected Luxembourg's own state of neutrality ceased toexist and takes it a step farther by having Germany relinquish any andall legal rights it had with Luxembourg. 32 Thus, it ensures thatLuxembourg shared a similar fate to that of Belgium. Yet, Luxembourgdid not have the same protection as Belgium, nor did Luxembourg do athing to raise the alarm that Germany had violated the 1867 treaty bycrossing it into France—not even the British raised the alarm to this.Many knew that Luxembourg would be crossed in a German invasion26Hague Convention, 1907: Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers andPersons in Case of War on Land, Human Rights Library, University of Minnesota.www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1907d.htm27"The Versailles Treaty, 28 June 1919," Avalon Project: Documents in Law, Historyand Diplomacy, Lillion Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School.28Versailles Treaty, Article 31.29Sanger and Norton, 126.30Joachim Remak. The Origins of World War I, 1871-1914 (New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, 1967), 12631See Sanger and Norton, 130, for Annex VI and VII.32Sanger and Norton, 130; Treaty of Versailles, 1919, Article 40.31

The Treaty of London (1838) MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)of France. 33 No matter what the reasoning was behind eliminating theseprevious treaties at Versailles in 1919, one thing is clear that the treatiesthat “guaranteed” the “neutrality” of Belgium and Luxembourg nolonger had a voice at the peace table.In conclusion, Belgium was clinging to an illusion that thetreaty which protected them since 1839 could be matched to a fortifiedborder with Germany and an expanded empire in Africa that would beenough to keep them from invasion. The reality of the matter is thatutility of the Treaties of London had no power left to guaranteeBelgium’s neutrality. Lord Salisbury, who was then British primeminster, thought that the treaty was no longer viable in 1887, and wentas far as contemplating the termination of the treaty, largely due toBelgian expansion of territory in Africa. 34 The Germans were“convinced that Belgian neutrality had been forfeited long ago,” withtheir fortifications. Even France, for a time, entertained the notion of aplan to invade Belgium as late as 1912. 35 Sadly, in the end, everyoneknew the treaty was nothing more than a piece of paper. But no one hadthe courage to acknowledge this prior to the invasion. It did not matterif the neutrality guaranteed by the 1839 treaty was no longer there.Because, under the first article of the Hague Convention of 1907: “Theterritory of neutral Powers is inviolable.” It would in effect end theneed of having treaties that guarantee neutrality from that pointforward. 36 But the Edwardian Hague Convention did not have the sameinsistence that Britain save Belgium as the Victorian London Treaty, sotherefore the latter was twisted into new utility in 1914 and 1919. Thelessons learned from these events showed us that jus gentium is able tobe redefined in each generation. However, the point is that thesetreaties have a finite shelf life, especially within the context of wordslike “guarantee” or” neutrality.” In the end, what killed the treaty of1839 was not the invasion by Germany in 1914 or the HagueConvention of 1907, or even the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. It was thefact that powers like Britain, France, and Germany no longer heldconsensus over its use after Belgium used it to perpetuate an economicand military advantage. When that happened, the treaty became a pieceof paper.33Remak, p 127-129. Schlieffen truly felt there would be “no important consequencesother than protests”34Montgelas, p 7.35Albrecht-Carrie, 189-190. The plan was proposed by Joffre and eventually rejected;also see student paper, “The Alleged Military Alliance between Belgium and GreatBritain,” University of Virginia, n.d., for further discussion.http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/jcs/neutrality4.html;36International Humanitarian Law: Hague Convention V, 1907. International Committeeof the Red Cross. www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/200?opendocument32

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Analyzing the Role of General Fellgiebel in the July1944 Plot to Kill HitlerDanika StadtlanderGrand View UniversityBeginning in December 1940, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)oversaw most operations of the Eastern Front from his “Wolf’s Lair”(Wolfsschanze), a secret headquarters outside Rastenburg, Germany. 1On July 20, 1944, a bomb exploded in one of the command buildingswhere Hitler and his high command staff (Oberkommando derWehrmacht, or OKW) were looking over situation maps of the front. Atfirst, most officials on the military base believed a low-level worker onthe property was behind the assassination attempt. It was not until laterthat they realized Colonel Count Claus von Stauffenberg (1907-1944)was missing and many German officers were involved in this bombingas part of a larger operation called Valkyrie to overthrow the Nazigovernment and make peace overtures to the western allies. 2Due to the exhausting war against the British Empire, theUnited States, and the Soviet Union, Colonel Stauffenberg and somehigher-ranking German officers wanted to rid their country of the man,whom they believed, was leading Germany to ruin. One of these keyindividuals was General Erich Fellgiebel (1886-1944), who was thehead of military communications and also Chief over the specialArmed Forces Signal Liaison System. 3 General Fellgiebel wasentrusted by Hitler and the OKW with the greatest of military secrets,although Fellgiebel was already secretly involved with an earlier planto assassinate Hitler even before the war. 4 For the July 20 Plot, General1Editor’s note: Adolf Hitler called himself “Wolf” and had several secret headquartersacross Europe. Hitler mainly used the Wolfsschanze in Rastenburg, Germany (nowKętrzyn, Poland) for the Eastern Front, although he also used Werwolf in Vinnytsia,Ukraine, when he wanted to meet with German commanders deeper inside the SovietUnion.2Peirre Galante, Operation Valkyrie (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), 10, 15.3Erich Zimmermann, Hans Adolf Jacobsen, and Hans Royce, Germans against Hitler:July 20, 1944 3rd Edition (Bonn: Press and Information Office of the FederalGovernment of Germany, 1960), 288. Editor’s note: This is the official accountaccepted by the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) . Also note: The signalliaison system mentioned included several versions of the Enigma code machines for theArmy (Heer), Navy (Kriegsmarine), Air Force (Luftwaffe), and the SS.4Peter Hoffmann, The History of the German Resistance (Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press, 1977), 128. Editor’s note: The planned Oster Conspiracy of 1938 includedGeneral Fellgiebel along with General Ludwig Beck, former chief of the German Army33

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Fellgeibel’s task was to destroy all radio or telephone contact betweenthe Wolf’s Lair headquarters and the rest of Germany. In his book,History of the German General Staff (1954), historian Walter Goerlitzpoints out that General Fellgiebel and his deputy Major General FritzThiele (1894-1944) were crucial to Operation Valkyrie because theycontrolled communications that would ultimately determine the successor failure of Valkyrie. 5 Despite history running the latter course, thispaper contends that Fellgiebel was given an unrealistic task and that hedid the best he could under circumstances that left him largely on hisown.Interestingly, Hitler had not acted on earlier suspicions ofFellgiebel and others. Four days after the bomb exploded, GeneralAlfred Jodl (1890-1946), chief of operations for the OKW, spoke toofficers of the high command: “Persons have been suspected before,but the Fuhrer has always passed over the incidents good-naturedly,and has held his hand over the making of any disclosures. So it was, forinstance, with General Fellgiebel, who had already becomeconspicuous earlier by his remarks.” 6 Albert Speer (1905-1981), headof the German war economy and a chief advisor to Hitler, later wrotethat he was never aware of Operation Valkyrie in July 1944, but he sawin officers the discontent about Germany and its chances to win thewar. Speer recalled a July 9, 1944, meeting with General Fellgiebelalong with Quartermaster-General Eduard Wagner (1894-1944),General Fritz Lindeman (1894-1944), and Brigadier General HelmutStief (1901-1944) at Berchtesgadener, Hitler’s headquarters and retreatin the Alps: “My Office Journal records my astonishment at the waythey belittled the desperate situation at the front.” 7 Fellgiebel wasconcerned about the fact that there was a separate communicationsnetwork for each branch of the army, which he felt caused thesquandering of materials and men. In his memoir, Speer believed thislack of concern over the front was because Fellgiebel and others had bythis time become fully committed to the plot to kill Hitler. Speer saidthey appeared to be a bit reckless. 8Operation Valkyrie had set-backs from the beginning.Colonel Stauffenberg was promoted to full colonel in June 1944 andgeneral staff, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris who was head of German counter-intelligence(Abwehr), and other high ranking officers who were involved with the later July 1944Plot. The Oster Conspiracy would have been attempted if Germany had gone to war withCzechoslovakia in 1938, which it did not.5Walter Goerlitz, History of the German General Staff (New York: Frederick A. Praeger,1957), 437.6Zimmermann, 187.7Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (New York: MacMillan, 1970), 379-380. Editor’snote: One of the structures near Berchtesgadener was referred to as the Eagle’s Nest,which may be more familiar to readers as the general nickname of the area.8Speer, 379-380.34

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)became chief of staff to General Friedrich Fromm (1888-1945), theCommander-in-Chief of the Reserve (Home) Army. This finally gaveStauffenberg the chance to get in close enough to Hitler. Yet, days afterStauffenberg’s promotion, the Allies landed in Normandy. Theconspirators plan hinged on a belief that the western allies would accepta peace with a new government led by General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944) and may even allow Germany to continue its war with the SovietUnion, if the overthrow of Hitler happened before an Atlantic front wasestablished. With the Normandy invasion, some conspirators lost theirhope for the conspiracy having the effect that they desired. EvenGeneral Beck had his doubts. It was General “Henning” Tresckow(1901-1944), the ringleader of Valkyrie, who moved the conspiracyforward as evident in a letter to Stauffenberg: “The Assassination mustbe attempted, at any cost. Even should that fail, the attempt to seizepower in the capital must be undertaken. We must prove to the worldand to future generations that the men of the German resistancemovement dared to take the decisive step and to hazard their lives uponit. Compared to this, nothing else matters.” 9Another blow to conspiracy plans occurred when FieldMarshal Erwin Rommel (1891-1944) was injured by British planesstrafing his car. Rommel was important to the conspiracy because ofthe fame and trust he earned with the German people due to his daringcommands of the 7 th Panzer Division in France (1940) and the AfrikaKorps (1941-1943). He was the legitimacy and popularity that theconspirators needed. Rommel was also trusted by Hitler and the Nazileadership, since he was in charge of Hitler’s personal security whenthe war began. By the time of the conspiracy, Rommel was in Francecommanding Army Group B in Normandy. On July 15, just five daysbefore the assassination attempt, Rommel told a friend that FieldMarshal Günther von Kluge (1882-1944) and he were going to askHitler to end the war since Germany could not win. Rommel confidedto his friend that if Hitler would not agree to their advice, he wouldsurrender the Western Front. 10 This was part of the larger Valkyrie planto make peace with the western allies, while continuing the struggleagainst the Soviets. But any hopes of the conspirators using the popular9 Roger Mannell and Heinrich Fraenkel, The Men Who Tried to Kill Hitler (New York:Coward-McCann, 1964), 90; Fabian von Schlabrendorff, The Secret War against Hitler(New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1965), 277. Editor’s note: These twoauthors have slightly different translations of this quotation.10Peter Hoffman, ed., Behind Valkyrie, (Montreal, Canada: Mcgill-Queens UniversityPress, 2011), 353-354. Editor’s note: Field Marshal Kluge replaced Field Marshal Gerdvon Rundstedt as Commander-in-Chief (OB West) of the Western Front on July 5, 1944;Rundstedt’s dismal was due to his comments on the need to negotiate with the westernallies after the Normandy invasion. Kluge later committed suicide for his part in the JulyPlot and was replaced by Field Marshal Walter Model who committed suicide near theend of the war, thus prompting Rundstedt to return as OB West at the end of the war.35

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Rommel were dashed when he was injured on July 17, just three daysbefore the assassination attempt on Hitler. 11 Rommel’s skull wasseverely injured and would not be on the Normandy front when theassassination attempt took place. 12 July 20 may have ended differentlyif the conspirators had Rommel that day.Despite the setbacks, Operation Valkyrie was executedaccording to the inspiration of the plan’s leader Tresckow “at any cost.”In his book, History of the German Resistance, Peter Hoffman wrotethat Colonel Kurt Hahn—General Fellgiebel’s chief of staff—began theevent by a telephone call to the military signal center in Zossen, justsouth of Berlin. Though there is some disagreement among historiansas to the exact time that the codeword was given, measures were takenfor a communications blackout before the assassination attempt to killHitler that day. Fellgiebel had positioned either conspirators or at leastthose he trusted across the communications network that day to keepthe blackout quiet before the bombing. As Hoffman points out: “TheGestapo never found out about this advance warning, Fellgiebel [andothers involved with communications] saved the lives of otherconspirators, by keeping their mouths shut.” 13 Fellgiebel, like many ofthose involved in the plot, was feeling tense on the morning of July 20.When Stauffenberg arrived at the signal corps bunker at the Wolf’s Lairto check on him, Fellgiebel laughed nervously. “Everyone is laughingtoday, General,” said Stauffenberg, “What a happy place.” A fewwords were exchanged. Each knew that there was not much left to besaid. After they shook hands and wished each other good luck,Stauffenberg soon left to go to the office of General Walter Buhle(1894-1959), the Chief of the Army Staff for OKW. 14 Good luck wasnot something the conspirators were going to have that day.What was Fellgiebel doing during those few minutes beforethe bomb exploded? It appears that around noon, Fellgiebel wasdiscussing communication affairs in the office of Lieutenant ColonelRudolf Gerhard Sander, a signals officer. 15 Fellgiebel and Sander thenwent to discuss radio issues with Colonel Heinz Waizenegger, a seniorstaff officer to OKW chief Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel (1882-1946).Both Fellgiebel and Sander spotted Field Marshal Keitel and ColonelStauffenberg walking toward the bunker for the briefing session withHitler. After some time, Sander called into the conference room torequest that Stauffenberg come to Bunker 88, away from the bomb, totalk to Fellgiebel. Stauffenberg appeared and started talking to11Kenneth Macksey, Without Enigma (England: Ian Allan Publishing, 2000), 131-132.12Mannell and Fraenkel, 65.13Hoffmann, German Resistance, 338, 407.14Hoffmann, German Resistance, 107.15Hoffmann, German Resistance, 344. Hahn involved Sander in the resistance withSander tracking Hitler’s actions and movements for Fellgiebel .36

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Fellgiebel about the Eastern Front as a car was readied for Stauffenbergto leave the Wolf’s Lair. The bomb exploded between 12:40-50PM. Areport indicated that Fellgiebel asked what the noise was, and Sanderassured him that it was some mine or gun going off. 16 It would seemfrom this official report that Fellgiebel was not yet known to be aconspirator in the plot, as Fellgiebel clearly knew the plan. Yet at thismoment, few could imagine that over seven thousand would eventuallybe arrested in this plot.Fellgiebel was the first to witness the conspiracy’s bad luckwhen a few minutes after the bomb exploded and Stauffenberg left,Fellgiebel saw the terrible sight of Hitler coming out of the destroyedbuilding, leaning on Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. He was burnt andinjured, but nothing life-threatening. Fellgiebel was confused on whatto do now that Hitler was alive. 17Historians are in some disagreement on their assessment ofwhat Fellgiebel accomplished after he saw Hitler. British historian, SirJohn Wheeler-Bennett, recorded in his Nemesis of Power (1953) thatFellgiebel’s confusion caused him to not call other rebel leaders as soonas he could have and was a simple failure. In Walküre: 20.Juli (1953),German historian Veit Osas offered a more benevolent assessment thatFellgiebel was able to cut some communication wires and that heneeded far more men to prevent all orders from coming out of theWolf’s Lair. Osas also pointed-out that the SS took control ofcommunications in Zossen near Berlin before Fellgiebel had a chanceto make the needed call around 1PM, which was only twenty minutesor less after the bombing. 18 In other words, Fellgiebel’s role may havebeen doomed from the beginning. American historian William L.Shirer wrote in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960) thatFellgiebel was at least able to prevent an order for the arrest ofStauffenberg from getting to Berlin, thus preventing Stauffenberg frombeing arrested earlier than he did. 19 Hans Bernd Gisevius (1904-1974),who was the liaison between the conspirators and anti-Hitler elementsinside Abwehr (German counter-intelligence), as well as a secretcontact for Allied intelligence, wrote in his 1946 account that Fellgiebelwas able to get a message to General Friedrich Olbricht (1888-1944) onthe status of Hitler being alive, or at least that is what Olbricht toldColonel-General Friedrich Fromm when he came into his office after2PM. 20 Fromm was the commander of the Home Army reserve that16Zimmermann, 130.17Mannell and Fraenkel, 110.18See Mannell and Fraenkel, Author’s Note, on 11-13.19William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1960), 1055.20Hans Bernd Gisevius, Valkyrie: An Insider’s Account of the Plot to kill Hitler(Cambridge, Massachusetts: De Capo Press, 2009), 177. Editor’s note: Olbricht wasarrested at 9PM and later executed, against Hitler’s order to keep the conspirators alive.37

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)was already arresting SS personnel in a few locations across Germanyand Austria to help the coup. Fromm did not believe Olbricht and triedcontacting the Wolf’s Lair himself, and to their surprise General Keitel,the head of OKW, answered.Fromm: What in the world is going on at headquarters? Here inBerlin the wildest rumors are afloat.Keitel: What is supposed to be going on? Everything is all right.Fromm: I have just received a report that the Fuehrer waskilled by assassination.Keitel: Nonsense. There was an attempted assassination, butfortunately it failed. The Fuerhrer (sic) is alive andreceived only superficial injuries. Where, by the way, isthe chief of your staff, Colonel Stauffenberg?Fromm: Stauffenberg is not here yet. 21It was a call that should not have gone though. In his book, WithoutEngima (2000), historian Kenneth Macksey blamed Thiele for thefailure to prevent the call from going through from Berlin to the Wolf’sLair. 22 This call assured that General Fromm and the Home Army’srebellion would be short-lived, as Fromm feared for his own life nowthat his chief of staff, Colonel Stauffenberg, was suspected.As we might expect, more recent historiography contains moredetails from more sources becoming available. Historian KennethMacksey provided more details on what Fellgiebel did that afternoon asFellgiebel contacted Berlin through his own chief of staff, Colonel KurtHahn, to tell him that the bomb successfully exploded but the Führerwas alive. Hahn received these orders from Fellgiebel as relayedthrough Sanders: “Attempt on Fuhrer’s life. Fuhrer is alive and ordersyou to send for the Reichsmarschall and Reichsfuhrer. Not a word is toleak out.” 23 Macksey pointed-out that although Fellgiebel was uncertainon what to do, he did promptly follow Hitler’s orders and send theinformation out, which was actually what he needed to do so theconspirators could be informed as well. Fellgiebel then disconnected alltelephone calls and stopped all deliveries by postal personnel, againseemingly following the orders of Hitler “not a word is to leak out,” butin doing so also isolated the Wolf’s Lair from receiving news. Timesimply ran out for Fellgiebel who tried to isolate the Wolf’s Lair on hisown. Fellgiebel had trouble contacting his assistant General FritzThiele, who was missing from his office at the signal corpsheadquarters in Berlin, and it was impossible to prevent high rankingGeneral Fromm, who tried to cover his own involvement, ordered the execution. Alsonote: Author Gisevius went into hiding after the plot and was later a key witness at theNuremberg Trials when this book was first published in 1946.21Gisevius, 177-178.22Macksey, 138-139.23Macksey, 137.38

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)officers, such as Keitel and Jodl from eventually reestablishingcommunication through their own units. 24 According to Macksey,Fellgiebel did not give up while the Wolf’s Lair was still in confusion.Fellgiebel finally did reach Thiele, he told him in guarded language tocontinue with the plans as if Hitler was dead. He then contacted a radiostation called Anna to talk to his chief of staff Hahn:Fellgiebel: Something terrible has happened, the Fuhrer is alive!’Hahn: What shall we do?Fellgiebel: Block Everything. 25Fellgiebel did everything short of blowing-up the Wolf’s Laircommunications center. 26 But Fellgiebel could not personally controlcommunications at the Berlin end.Historian Macksey pointed to another communication problemoutside of Fellgiebel’s control that involved the specific Enigma codeused by the conspirators that day. Olbricht discovered that while hisassistant, Colonel Ritter Mertz von Quernheim (1905-1944), hadalready issued the order for Operation Valkyrie, the Home Army troopswere still on stand-by because of the wrong communication codes andauthorization. This made things difficult and wasted precious time as ittook hours to re-encode the numerous vital messages and get them out.Nobody wanted to use the telephone for fear of a security breach. 27Due to the failure to stop orders coming from the Wolf’s Lair, Germanofficers received conflicting orders from Hitler in the Wolf’s Lair andthe conspirators at their headquarters in the Bendlersblock in Berlin. 28This caused some Home Army officers who were willing to followorders from Bendlerblock to hesitate if there was any doubt that Hitlerwas dead. To follow the orders from Bendlerblock could be deadly. 29While the Home Army hesitated and made only limited moves againstthe SS, the Military Governor in Paris, Heinrich Von Stülpnagel, didnot hesitate and ordered the arrest of thousands of SS officers andGestapo in France. The French Resistance even stopped their actionsagainst the German army since they observed them shooting andarresting SS. But this did nothing for the cause in Berlin. By 11PM,24Macksey, 138.25Macksey, 137-138.26Hoffman, 411.27Macksey, 139.28Editor’s note: Bendlerblock was a building complex in Berlin that housed manyoffices of the OKW and military elements, including the counter-espionage Abwehr. Amemorial to the July 1944 Plot remains there today.29Helena P. Schrader, “20 July 1944: The Final Throw of the Dice,” The ValkyrieConspiracy, at: valkyrie-plot.com/july201944.html (Accessed 9 September 2013)Editor’s note: This is Schrader’s website for the historical facts that she used in her selfpublishedbook: Hitler’s Demons: A Novel of the German Resistance, Tuscon, Arizona:Wheatmark Publishing Services, 2012.39

Fellgiebel and the 1944 Plot MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)German troops loyal to Hitler seized Bendlerblock and the rest ofBerlin, the Home Army was ordered to stand-down, and many of theconspirators such as Olblbricht and Stauffenberg were alreadyexecuted. 30Fellgiebel’s time ran out as he was arrested on the night ofJuly 20th. Albert Speer wrote that Hitler was furious when he foundout that General Fellgiebel was involved in the plot and used him as anexcuse of why his war was failing: “Now I know why all my greatplans in Russia had to fail in recent years. It was all Treason! But forthose traitors, we would have won long ago. . . . Now we will find outwhether Fellgiebel had a direct wire to Switzerland and passed all myplans on to the Russians. He must be interrogated by every means!” 31Hitler’s wish was carried out all too well as Fellgiebel was cruellyinterrogated. 32 After being convicted in the People’s Court, he wassentenced to death on August 10, 1944. Fellgiebel reportedly told thejudge after being sentenced: “Then hurry with the hanging, [YourHonor], otherwise you will hang earlier than we.” 33 Fellgiebel was notashamed of what he had done. He knew what was in store forGermany—a horrible defeat and more death for the people ofGermany. 34 Nearly five thousand conspirators were executed.General Fellgiebel was a brave man who lived during a darktime in Germany’s history. He did not have many options on how tofight against the Nazi Party and the dictator that was leading thecountry to ruin, so he chose a desperate option in an attempt to save hiscountry. Though issues arose, which hurt the conspirator’s plot,Fellgiebel did not give up. He played an important part in OperationValkyrie, and, though given an impossible task, he followed through onhis part in the plot. He did block communication from the Wolf’s Lairas best he could, but since Hitler was not killed, he could not preventHitler and higher ranking officers from getting orders out. To do that,he would have had to blow up several communication centers, whichwould have been impossible for one man. Fellgiebel’s story and thestory of any other Germans who fought against Hitler and the NaziRégime deserves to be told and retold as new historiography encountersnew evidence.Further Sources Consulted:Forman, James. Code Name Valkyrie. New York: S. G. Phillips, 1973.Prittie, Terence. Germans against Hitler. Boston: Little Brown, 1964.30Macksey, 139-140.31Speer, 390. Editor’s note: The reader is reminded that Fellgiebel was in charge of allcommunications, including the Engima codes themselves, and had access to all Germansecrets including that of advanced weaponry.32Macksey, 141.33Zimmermann, 196, 201: also see Macksey, 140.34Macksey, 118, 140.40

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Ireland’s 1937 Constitution:De Valera’s Hold on Divorce, Abortion, and Irishness 1Sadie FisherGrand View UniversityIn 1991, a fourteen year-old girl was raped and impregnatedby a friend’s father. She threatened to take her own life unless shereceived an abortion despite it being illegal under all circumstancesunder the Irish Constitution. In 2005, the Irish Supreme Court faced achaotic divorce case involving a couple that lived apart for nine yearsand were feuding over who would gain ownership to their estate,business, and other assets accumulating to a net worth equal to thirteenmillion US dollars. 2 Abortion and divorce cases face legal and ethicalchallenges in the Irish Constitution of 1937 that have shaped modernIreland and the essence of the identity of “Irishness” for the people ofIreland. Yet, the “Irishness” of this constitution has producedconsequences and costs for Irish society. In particular, Irish womenhave borne the weight of this Constitution with its social and gendercontrols against divorce and abortion.Where did this begin? Why is so much Irish identity investedin the 1937 Constitution? Ever since 1801, when Britain strippedIreland of its Parliament, there were efforts to demand Home Rule oreven independence as well as resist Anglicization. After a century offrustration, rebellion, and several attempts to restore the IrishParliament, the British government finally authorized Irish Home Rule,only to have it delayed indefinitely by the outbreak of World War I. 31 This paper was presented at the 55 th Missouri Valley History Conference, March 2012,Omaha, Nebraska. Editor’s Note: One referee of this article suggested that the authorexamine the influence of other Irish leaders, including those of the Roman CatholicChurch, in the making of the 1937 Constitution as well as examine parallels in otheryoung Catholic republics such as Poland. The author did find developments in both ofthose areas that would bear fruit with further investigation. The editors concur but alongwith other referees believe the article stands on its own. Additionally, some of the linkedsources to the website Carrow's Irish Law Links are no longer active, but were at the timeof submission in 2012. The reader will find that most of those broken links were todocuments on the University College Cork, Faculty of Law, website atwww.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/law/irishlaw/.2Irish Legal Information Initiative (IRLII.org), University College Cork, Faculty of Law,11 Oct. 2010, Web, www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/index.php.3Alan J. Ward, The Irish Constitutional Tradition: Responsible Government and ModernIreland, 1782-1992 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1994). TheBritish prime minister tried to pass Home Rule for Ireland two times in 1866 and 1893both passed through the House of Commons but denied by the House of Lords. The41

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Thus frustration exploded in the Easter Rising of 1916, when a group offifteen hundred rebels, including twenty-eight women, seized parts ofDublin and declared Ireland an independent republic. 4 The IrishWomen’s Franchise League contributed to the Rising by carryingsupplies and messages to the outposts. This was largely due to the factthat the leaders of the Rising promised an independent Ireland withequal rights and opportunities to every citizen. 5 After six days ofintense fighting, involving armed cars, gun boats, and heavy artillery,the rebellion was put down, resulting in the death of 508 people andleaving 2,520 wounded. 6 Éamon de Valera (1882-1975), a future leaderof Ireland, barely escaped execution by the British. 7 After World War Iended, the Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) or the Irish War ofIndependence erupted, which propelled De Valera into leadership. Thebrutality of the British Constabulary, known as the “Black and Tans,”against civilians disgusted most of the world and forced Britain intonegotiation. On December 6, 1921, Éamon de Valera sent the Irishmilitary and intelligence leader, Michael Collins (1890-1822), to signthe Anglo-Irish Treaty. The Anglo- Irish Treaty established the IrishFree State as a self-governing dominion of the British CommonWealth, much like Canada and Australia. 8 Collins and British PrimeMinister David Lloyd George (1863-1945), drafted a Free StateConstitution, which recognized the people of Ireland as supreme lawgiversunder the British monarchy. 9 The Irish Free State Treaty alsoParliamentary Act of 1911 then reduced the power of the lords and if a bill was rejectedthree times and passed again in the House of Commons then it would become law. BritishPrime Minister H.H. Asquith then passed the third Irish Home Rule Bill in 1912 and itpassed.4S.J. Connolly, The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1998), 487-488.5June Hannam, Mitzi Auchterlonie, and Katherine Holden, International Encyclopedia ofWomen's Suffrage (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000). Prominent leaders of theIWFL during the rebellion were Margret Cousins and Constance Markievicz. Cousinslater moved to India and became the founder of the Women’s Indian Association andhelped convince Indian legislature to support women’s suffrage and Markievicz becamethe first woman to be elected to Westminster.6Connolly, 488.7Ward, 239. De Valera, one of the seven leaders of the rising escaped execution due tohis dual American citizenship and was able to hide away in the United States. Also seeSean Cronin, Irish Nationalism: A History of its Roots and Ideology (Dublin: TheAcademy Press, 1980), 63. Editor’s note: De Valera was the declared leader of thedisbanded Dail while in exile, returned to Ireland as one of the leaders in the Irish CivilWar, 1922-23, was Taoiseach, over the government 1932-48, 1951-54, 1957-59, andbecame Ireland’s third president 1959-1973.8Connolly, 488. The Black and Tans were a private police force that emerged due toBritain’s lack of soldiers; the British recruited 9,500 ex-soldiers and sailors. A shortageof RIC uniforms meant that recruits were issued with khaki military trousers and darkgreen police tunics.9Robert Kee, The Green Flag: A History of Irish Nationalism (London: Penguin, 1972),721-726; “The Irish Free State (1922-1937),” General Michael Collins, Web (Collins 2242

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)recognized Irish women, between the ages of twenty one and thirty, fortheir contributions to the war and they earned full citizenship includingthe right to vote. 10 Yet, De Valera immediately rejected the Treatybecause this constitution was an imposition “rather than a documentworthy of a free and proud people.” It is more important to note thatDe Valera felt that the Free State Constitution (1922) would not benefita young state that wanted to play a part on the world stage. 11 De Valerawas involved with the assassination of Michael Collins and spent the1920s regrouping anti-Treaty forces. He returned to politics in the 1927election and five years later was Taoiseach (head of government inIreland). In the mind of De Valera a recreation of Irishness wasnecessary and defined as a return to a self-sufficient, traditionalCatholic, and quasi-mystical or neo-Gaelic society. His 1937Constitution reflected this vision. 12In many legal areas, De Valera’s 1937 Constitution wassimilar to the 1922 Irish Free State Constitution, but varied on issuessuggesting Irish identity and values, such as in Article I: “The Irishnation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign rightto choose its own form of government, to determine its relations withother nations, and to develop its life, political, economic, and cultural,in accordance with its own genius and tradition.” 13 In his 1937Constitution, De Valera renamed the Irish Free State to be Eire, orIreland in English, and the national flag to be the tricolor of green,white and orange. 14 He made Irish the first national language andEnglish the second official language. His Constitution also differedfrom the Irish Free State Constitution because it ensured Catholicprinciples that were influenced by the declarations of Popes Pius VII (r.1800-1823), Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903), and Pius XI (r. 1922-1939). 15Society), www.generalmichaelcollins.com/Fine_Gael/Saorstat_Eireann.htm10Hannam et al, 151.11Éamon De Valera, "God's Given Rights," Dublin, 30 April 1937, Speech.12Robert Lentin, "'Irishness', the 1937 Constituition, and Citizenship: a Gender andEthnicity View," Journal of Sociology 8 (1998): 5-24. EBSCOhost.13Josef L. Altholz, Selected Documents in Irish History (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2000),72. “The Irish Free State Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles ofAgreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the SecondSchedule hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheduled Treaty’) which arehereby given the force of law, and if any provision of the said Constitution or of anyamendment thereof or of any law made there under is in any respect repugnant to any ofthe provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of such repugnancy, beabsolutely void and inoperative and the Parliament and the Executive Council of the IrishFree State (Saorstát Eireann) shall respectively pass such further legislation and do allsuch other things as may be necessary to implement the Scheduled Treaty.”14Altholz, 12815 Editor’s note: Pius VII declared Irish clergy independent of the state; Leo XIIIsupported states using Christian principles to resolve capital and labor tensions with somereferring to this as center-right Christian Democracy; Pius XI in 1933 declared thatChristian conscience is safe in many various forms of government including a republic.43

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)These symbolic and general Vatican statements laid the ground workfor much more substantive additions in the 1937 Constitution. DeValera stated in a speech regarding his new constitution that: “In myjudgment a constitution ought to do more than merely define thecharacter of the legislature, of the administrative, executive or judicialregime, and it should be based on the democratic principle.” 16 DeValera went on to say that every citizen is entitled to individual rightsas a human being; that these are God-given rights and the protection ofthese rights produces moral integrity and the continuance of organizedsociety itself. In his judgment, it is the government’s job to protect theinstitution of marriage, family, and Christian politics because they werebeing challenged in the modern world. 17De Valera was traditionally Catholic in the issue of marriageand the structure of the family. His ideals limited the freedom ofwomen, minority groups and “limited the freedom of the Oireachtas tolegislate in those areas without constitutional amendments referenda.” 18Although the Constitution formally entitled women to become citizens,have the right to vote and hold elected office, Article 41 returned therole of modern Irish women by effectively reducing them to domesticservants under the protection and control of the government: “Inparticular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, womangives to the State a support without which the common good cannot beachieved.” Gender boundaries were further defined: “The State shall,therefore, endeavor to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged byeconomic necessity to engage in labor that neglect of their duties in thehome.” While De Valera was constructing Article 41, members of theDáil Éireann disagreed with the provisions affecting women. De Valerareassured the House that “ninety nine percent of women would agreewith the Constitution if they read and understood it...women are moreconcerned with the price of flour than they are with the Constitution.” 1916De Valera, 30 April 1937, Speech; Cronin, 63.17De Valera, 30 April 1937, Speech.18Ward, 253. Oireachtas are the houses of the National Parliament created by theConstitution and consist of the President and two Houses. In order to remain in office themembers of the Oireachtas were required to make a formal declaration that they woulduphold the new constitution in order to be permitted to remain in office once it had comeinto force. The Amendment Process is further complicated by the 1937 Constitution. Anypart of the Constitution may be amended, but only by a referendum . This procedure islocated in Article 46. An amendment must first be passed by both Houses of theOireachtas, then be submitted to a referendum, and then finally must be signed into lawby the President. Editor’s Note: The Senate was disbanded in 1936 on the grounds ofobstruction, thus briefly establishing the Dáil Eireann as a unicameral until passage of thenew 1937 constitution.19Carrow’s Irish Law Links. Members of the Dàil Éireann that voiced concerns withArticle 41 included: Deputy Professor John Marcus O’Sullivan of Kerry, Deputy HelenaConcannon of National University of Ireland, and Deputy Cecil Patrick Lavery of Dublin.The Dáil voted 62% in favor of the 1937 Constitution. Editor’s Note: The publicreferendum was 56% in favor. Some of the broken links were to documents on the44

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)These were the same women that helped fight for independence andbelieved their own liberation was intertwined with that of the nation.De Valera’s Constitution of 1937 betrayed them with a constitutionalIrishness that marginalized them.It is important to note that a sizeable portion of the populationwas and is not Catholic, yet De Valera banned divorce for all Irishcitizens in Article 41: “The State pledges itself to guard with specialcare the institution of Marriage, of which the Family is founded, and toprotect it against attack. No law shall be enacted providing for the grantof dissolution of marriage.” 20 Divorce had been around since thesixteenth century, and the twentieth century witnessed few restrictionsin the United States and the majority of Europe. 21 Nearly a half centuryafter the 1937 Constitution, Irish feminist groups helped to push for anamendment to dissolve by referendum the divorce ban in the subsectionof Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution. In April 1986, Ireland’s Fine Gaeland Labour Party coalition government invested themselves to holdinga constitutional referendum to permit divorce. 22 Irish public opinionexpressed positive support for divorce and was backed by their threenational newspapers. Even the Catholic Church, which does not allowdivorce, did not prevent its communicants from voting in favor. 23 Incontrast, there were also women who were strongly against divorce notbecause of Catholic idealism, but because they feared “poverty”,“desertion” and the complete destruction the family.” 24 In June, theresults were more conservative with a voting outcome of 63.4% againstthe lift on the ban and 36.5% in favor. 25 Opposition to divorce targetedmarried women, claiming that women were the main “losers” ofdivorce because their husbands would leave them, remarry, and havelegal obligations to assist their second family and therefore fail to meetmaintenance obligations of his former family. 26 Yet, several women feltthat the restriction of divorce was hindering their value. Ten years laterUniversity College Cork site, www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/law/irishlaw/. Editors recommend“Referendum Results, 1937-2012,” Department of the Environment, Community, andLocal Government, Republic of Ireland, p. 19, for voting results at:www.environ.ie/en/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1894,en.pdf. The debates are available at: Dáil Debates, Houses of the Oireachtas, Republic ofIreland, Website: debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/20Altholz, 129.21Alex De Mostafa. "The History of Divorce in the US." Article Intelligence, 05 July2009. Website: www.articleintelligence.com/Art/83000/59/The-History-Of-Divorce-In-The-US.html.22R. Darcy Laver and Michael Laver, "Referendum Dynamics and the Irish DivorceAmendment," Public Opinon Quarterly 54 (1990): 1-20. Referendums are routinely usedin many countries both to amend constitutions and as an alternative to legislative process.23Laver, 2.24Lentin, 12.25Carrow’s Irish Law Links.26Laver, 5.45

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)in 1996, the Fine Gael party, with the support of a considerable amountof women, campaigned for another referendum to attempt to pass theFifteenth Amendment. After tense public debates over the amendment,the divorce ban was lifted by a slim margin of 50.2% in favor and49.7% against. 27 The Fifteenth amendment deleted Article 41.3.2 andsubstituted it with these strict provisions:A Court designated by law may grant dissolution of Marriagewhere, but only where, it is satisfied that (i) at the date of theinstitution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apartfrom another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at leastfour years during the previous five years. (ii) There is noreasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,(iii) such provisions as the Court considers proper havingregard to the circumstances exists or will be made for thespouses, any children of either or both of them and any otherperson prescribed by the law, and (iv) any further conditionsprescribed by law are complied with. 28Today, divorce is permitted under specific circumstances, but the IrishSupreme Court is still limited in jurisdiction and the appellate courtsare annually flooded with messy divorce cases. Examples include thepreviously mentioned case dealing with an estate and business equalingthirteen million US dollars, but complexities exist in smaller suits,especially those with children. Before the referendum was even passed,the Supreme Court was faced with a case regarding a man who waslegally separated from his wife for ten years, but filed for a divorce inOhio; the man later remarried another woman for seventeen years. Thecouple had two children before deciding to end the marriage and filefor divorce. The Irish Supreme Court, under strict provisions, ruled thatthe Ohio decree was issued without proper jurisdiction was thereforenull and void. This left the Irish Supreme Court with the difficulty ofdeciding whether the other woman was technically his wife, if theirchildren were born out of wedlock, and if the other woman should belegally compensated. 29 This just another example of the ways the legalrestrictions on divorce impact Irish women and society.Women are also struggling with the ban of abortion in DeValera’s 1937 Constitution. The campaign for legalizing abortion hasbeen a long and controversial process in Ireland, just as in othercountries. A majority of Irish women believe in order to have true27Carrow’s Irish Law Links.28Carrow’s Irish Law Links; Robert Clarkson, Divorce 101: Divorce Procedure inNorthern Ireland. Find UKLaw.com. August 27, 2009. Website:findlaw.co.uk/solicitor/2009/08/divorce-101-divorce-procedure-in-northern-ireland-10.html. In comparison, Northern Ireland has three less lengthy stages: Divorcepetition, decree nisi, and decree absolute.29Carrow’s Irish Law Links.46

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)gender equality, women need to be able to control their fertility andhave the right to refuse motherhood even though this contradicts DeValera’s idea of family and the initial role of women. 30 Hope formoderation came with the passing of the 1979 Family Plan Act. Thisact made the use of contraceptives somewhat legal, if proscribed by adoctor and used for the purpose of family planning (basically onlyallowed for married couples). 31 Followed by this Act, was the EighthAmendment Referendum in September 1983, which bitterly passed and“acknowledges the right to life of the unborn” but with “regard to theequal right to life of the mother.” 32 Yet, up into the early nineties, theIrish High Court did not allow student groups to distribute informationabout the possibility of abortions in other countries, or the sale ofcontraceptives to anyone under the age of eighteen without aprescription. Any business selling contraceptives that was not apharmaceutical center or family clinic received a large fine. 33 Chancesin amending the legalization of abortion appeared to be goingbackwards until 1992 with the case of Miss X.The case of X came to the Supreme Court when a fourteenyear-old girl was raped and threatening to take her life if she was notpermitted to obtain an abortion. The Supreme Court controversiallygranted her an abortion on the grounds that Article 40.3.3 requires theState to have “due regard to the equal right life of the mother.” 34 As aresult of the X case, the Irish government tried to pass three possibleamendments to De Valera’s Constitution. The two of the threesubstitutions passed as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.These amendments to Article 40.3.3 established the right of freedom totravel from state to state, and also the freedom “to obtain or make30Irish Legal Information Initiative.31Patricia McCarthy, "Abortion in Ireland: Historical Perspective and CurrentCampaigning," Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer, September 1992, Website:flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/abort_irl.html.32Irish Legal Information Initiative; Ms Keogh, Dáil Éireann Debate, 464, no. 7, 1 May1996. debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1996/05/01/00020.asp. Government's approach to theseproblems is a comprehensive one, with two objectives — to reduce the incidence ofunwanted pregnancies and to reduce the extent to which these end in abortion. Emphasisplaced by the Government on the importance of counseling for women with crisispregnancies. Deputies will be aware that it is now a requirement that any doctor orcounselor who is asked to provide abortion information may do so only in the context offull counseling on all of the alternative courses of action open to the woman. In addition,the Government has this year provided £700,000 to a range of voluntary agencies tosupport the provision of free pregnancy counseling, in addition to funding provided to thehealth boards for the same purpose.33"Ireland’s Sexual and Reproductive Health History: Hot Topics." Home - Irish FamilyPlanning Association, Sexual Health| Pregnancy Counselling, Training, 15 November2010, Website: www.ifpa.ie/eng/Hot-Topics/Ireland’s-Sexual-and-Reproductive-Health-History.34Ward, 254.47

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)available information about abortion services outside the State.” 35 TheTwelfth Amendment, which did not pass, attempted to establish suicideas grounds for abortion in Ireland, but was rejected with 65.4% of thevotes. 36 After the failure to pass the Twelfth Amendment, the DáilEireann passed the Regulation of Information Act of 1995. This Actfinally allows a doctor or advice agency to provide full counseling andabortion information to pregnant women. There are specific issuedguidelines regarding this act. They are primarily based on twoprinciples that the information is truthful and objective, and thatinformation provided is guided by sound scientific evidence. 37 Yet, thewomen of Ireland were still unsatisfied with their limited reform.In 2002, the issue of the risk of suicide being grounds forabortion was proposed again but this time as the Twenty-fifthAmendment, but was also rejected. 38 Not only are Irish womenfrustrated with the strict abortion laws, but in 2005, the UN Committeeon the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women criticized Ireland“for its persistent stereotypical views of the social roles andresponsibilities of women, restrictive abortion laws, and high level ofviolence against women during the consideration of Ireland’s combinedfourth and fifth report under the Convention on the Elimination of allforms of Discrimination Against Women.” The UN Committee alsodiscussed the possibility of Ireland’s removal from the European Uniondue to this issue. 39 Although, Ireland’s abortion laws remainedcomplacent, in 2008 the UN Committee of Human Rights again35IRLII.org-Irish Legal Information Initiative.36IRLII.org-Irish Legal Information Initiative; M. Higgins, Dáil Eireann Debate, 549, no.1, 20 February 2002. debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2002/02/20/00038.asp. The proposalswhich will be put to the people in the referendum on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of theConstitution follow a detailed process of consideration and consultation. This includedthe preparation of the Green Paper and the detailed hearings held by the All-PartyOireachtas Committee on the Constitution at which the issues were explored in detailwith many of those who had made submissions. In the course of this the all-partycommittee met representatives of the medical profession, including a number ofpsychiatrists, the churches, legal experts and a range of other interested parties to explorein detail the complex medical, legal and social issues involved. The Government believesthat the evidence considered in the preparation of the Green Paper, and also the testimonyand conclusions in the report of the all-party committee, do not support the maintenanceof suicide risk as a ground for abortion in Ireland and would not justify the enactment ofa legal basis for abortion to avoid such a risk.37G. Mitchell, Dáil Eireann Debate, 602, no. 1. 10 May 2005.debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2005/05/10/00057.asp38Ward, 254.39Don Lydon, Joint Committee on European Affairs, Debate, 10 March 2005.debates.oireachtas.ie/EUJ/2005/03/10/member1951.asp . Commisioner Wallström: Theleaders of the European member states would have to sit down and analyze the situation.They would examine if there is there an ad hoc solution, as there has been on previousoccasions, and the reasons there was a “No” vote in that particular member state. I cannotimagine a European Union where 24 member states would say that the 25th would haveto leave the Union. There is no such provision in the current treaty.48

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)criticized Ireland for their restrictive abortion laws and “constitutionalentrenchment of gender inequality.” Ireland has yet to lift the ban onabortion, but as of 2010, a national opinion poll revealed that 78% ofIreland’s population wanted liberalization from the abortion laws and87% supported legalized abortion when it severely endangers thewoman’s life. 40Yet, as Irish women battle for their independence, in NorthernIreland women have had the opportunity for abortion as early as 1945.Before De Valera’s constitution was even created, Great Britain hadpassed the Infant Life (Preservation) Act which was later extended toNorthern Ireland in 1945. This act allows abortion to preserve amother’s life, something that was not granted to Irish women until the1990s. 41 Great Britain also extended the 1967 Abortion Act toNorthern Ireland, which legalized abortion under restrictedcircumstances, to prevent unsafe back alley abortions. Yet, whenNorthern Ireland’s parliament was granted the decision of the issueover abortion, it never took the matter up. 42 Irish women in theRepublic and in Northern Ireland have both been under restriction.So what are we to conclude from this? After the constructingof the 1937 Constitution, Éamon de Valera stated that “no one expectswith the adoption of the constitution that the goal has beenreached...there are many injustices in the existing political situationwhich this constitution cannot directly remove.” 43 Yet, De Valera’schanges created several more political injustices for women byalienating them from De Valera’s definition of “Irish” and reducingthem to domestic servants of men. Over the years, both Catholic andProtestant women agreed that due to the Constitution of 1937; womenare undervalued in Irish society. 44 De Valera’s gender-biasConstitution has led to several hardships for women with his outlaw ofdivorce and abortion. Women are caught between the reality of failedmarriages and the upholding of the Catholic ideal of the institution of40See Irish Family Planning Association for quotation and statistics.41Julian O’Neil, “Questions and Answers in Northern Ireland,” BBC News, 13 June 2001,Website: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1386450.stm. Very fewabortions are allowed legally in Northern Ireland today: around about seventy per year.These are mostly in fairly extreme cases, where the mother’s physical or mental health isseverely and permanently endangered.42Editor’s note: The Northern Ireland parliament was suspended in 1972 and abolishedthe following year. The Northern Ireland Assembly was created by the Good FridayAccords of 1998 and after a rough start of suspensions between 2000 and 2007, is nowthe legislative voice of Northern Ireland. Unionist and nationalist parties that dominatethe Assembly seem united on not extending reforms to abortion restrictions.43De Valera, 30 Apr. 1937, Speech.44Florence Craven, "Determinants of Attitudes Held by Irish Catholic and ProtestWomen towards Gender Roles, Maternal Employment and Social Perceptions of Womenin Irish Society," International Review of Sociology 14.3 (2004): 293-307.49

Ireland’s 1937 Constitution MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)the family. The prohibition of abortion has caused complications forwomen who find themselves in problematic pregnancies due to medicalconditions, finances, or rape and incest. Although there have beenseveral attempts to amend both the divorce and abortion laws, Ireland isstill caught between the ideal of “Irishness” and the realities of anindustrial society. De Valera’s constitution of 1937, which wasoriginally drafted by men, has shaped modern Ireland and provided afalse identity of “Irishness” for the people of Ireland. These concepts of“Irishness” have deteriorated in contemporary society and createdconsequences and costs for Irish society. The Irish womenunfortunately have bore the weight of this Constitution, but the hope isthat they are slowly breaking free from De Valera’s domestication.50

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Short EssayThe Origins of Al-Qaeda and the War on TerrorismHeidi TorkelsonGrand View UniversityAl Qaeda is a terrorist organization whose antecedents formedin the 1980s, which have wreaked havoc on the world for almost threedecades. Eventually, this movement was organized and led by Osamabin Laden (1957-2011), who became one of the deadliest men in theworld. Bin Laden devoted his organization to Islamist extremism in aholy war against the West, with an ideology of restoring the trueIslamic faith and annihilating anyone who gets in their way. Al Qaedahas made threats, killed thousands, and created propaganda that haveaffected the lives of millions all over the globe.Osama Bin Laden was born to a wealthy Yemeni architect andSyrian mistress in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this relationshipbetween his mother and father, who were never married, may havecaused Bin Laden to harbor feelings of hate and vengeance. From ayoung age, he was very involved in Islamic religion and tradition. As ayoung man he had an interest in groups that opposed secular regimes,such as the Syrian Muslim Brothers who launched an uprising againstSyria’s Baathist government in the 1980s. 1 Bin Laden donated moneyto the Muslim Brothers.During the 1980s, Bin Laden also wanted to make his mark inthe Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989). During this time, many men weredrawn towards Bin Laden’s leadership. These men came from all overthe Middle East, and had their own individual stories of oppression orpoverty. Bin Laden had worked with, Abdullah Azzam (1941-1989)—sometimes nicknamed the father of global jihad—to create a recruitingservice bureau and movement that would challenge the Soviets. Thiswas the beginning of the group that would later be called Al Qaeda. 2 Inthe mid 1980s, Azzam and Osama parted ways, but Osama’s leadershipand finances continue to attract recruits: “Al Qaeda brought togethermany repentant born-again Muslims, militants who had broken withtheir former organizations, but also men who had been close to Azzamand now threw in their lot with this group and its lax, even soft,1Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli, eds. Al Qaeda in Its Own Words (Paris: PressesUniversitaries de France, 2005), 2.2Kepel and Milelli, 2. Editor’s note: Early in Al Qaeda’s history, the name wastranslated by themselves to mean “the List” of recruits.51

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)ideology, and its far greater clout.” 3When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the United States usedthe opportunity to create a proxy war arming the Afghan men to fightthe Soviets. Bin Laden and other Afghans fighting the Soviets wereconsidered allies by the CIA during this time and received not onlyweapons but training from the Americans. Little did the US know thatthey were helping the man who would later bring destruction tothousands of civilians around the world: “Osama bin Laden’sexperiences as a logistical coordinator and financier for the Afghan andArab resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980sare thought to have provided the backdrop for his belief that Muslimscould take effective military action inspired by select Islamicprinciples.” 4 Bin Laden was enraged by US military forces enteringSaudi Arabia during the Gulf War and used his ideologies to announcea jihad against the western powers. By the 1990s, Bin Laden hadbecome aware of the power of his voice in international affairs. Hedeclared:For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in thefight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans,but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers. I discoveredthat it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had tofight on all fronts against communist or Western oppression. Theurgent thing was communism, but the next target was America ...Thisis an open war up to the end, until victory. 5Bin Laden publicly denounced the leaders of Saudi Arabia and theirties to America considering it a “betrayal of the global Islamiccommunity.” 6 Bin Laden had to leave Saudi Arabia due to his remarksand outspoken aggression, and found sanctuary in Sudan. Bin Ladenhad his Al Qaeda begin targeting US personnel in Saudi Arabia,Yemen, and East Africa, along with many murder plots in the 1990s. 7Bin Laden publicly denounced that he played any part in thesebombings, but he stated that the men who committed these acts aremartyrs.Bin Laden announced jihad against the United States in the3Kepel and Milelli, 20.4Christopher M. Blanchard, “Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology,” Report forCongress, 16 November 2004, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2.www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21973.pdf (Accessed April 22, 2013)5 “Osama bin Laden v. the U.S.: Edicts and Statements,” Frontline: Hunting Bin Laden,Public Broadcasting System, Iowa Public Television, 2013.www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html (Accessed April 10,2013).6Blanchard, 2.7Editor’s note: Islamists attacked the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996;al-Qaeda attacked the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, and the USS Colewas attacked in 2000.52

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)mid 1990s. “The statement also announced the formation of ‘TheWorld Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders,’ or aUnited Front between Bin Laden and a number of regional Islamicmilitant groups, including Egypt’s Islamic Jihad and Pakistan’s Jamiatul-Ulema.”8 Bin Laden had taken Al Qaeda and moved theirheadquarters to Sudan in Northern Africa. From al Qaeda’s newheadquarters in Sudan, “Bin Laden began synching up with groupsfrom all over the Middle East and Northern Africa, and began layingthe groundwork for his jihad against the West.” 9 In the late 1990s, Binladen was compelled to leave Sudan and head back to Afghanistanwhere the emergence of the Taliban strengthened Al Qaeda’s effortseven further. Al Qaeda would soon forge ties with other Islamicextremist groups in the Middle East: “By this time, al Qaeda hadmerged with the Egyptian Islamist Jihad, headed by Ayman al-Zawahri(b. 1951), who would become number two in command to BinLaden.” 10The psyche of an extremist terrorist organization is hard tounravel. Al Qaeda was not the first fundamentalist organization tomake a name for themselves. Before them, the Muslim Brotherhoodwas established in Egypt, and their ideology also contained feelings ofhatred and animosity towards those who did not believe in their cause.These Islamic extremists all have different ideas about what jihadmeans to them and who their enemies are—Al Qaeda is no different. AlQaeda “has revealed new modes of militant mobilization, whileapparently reviving ancient codes that were believed to have becomeobsolete: the quest for martyrdom and the process of religiousindoctrination spontaneously evoke the Middle Ages more readily thanthey do the age of information technology.” 11 What remains unclear ishow these modern ideologies and motives began. The Qur’an, the basisfor all law for Muslims clearly states that certain modes of violence arenot permitted. What these terrorist organizations, specifically Al Qaeda,do is to make up their own version of the Qur’an and interpret it in amanner that suits them.Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, like other extremists, knew theimportance of social media in terms of spreading their fear across theglobe, and maintaining influential power within the Middle East. AlQaeda wanted to create a network of terror throughout the Middle East.8Blanchard, 3.9Bill Moyers, “Brief History of Al Qaeda,” Bill Moyers Journal, Public BroadcastingSystem, Iowa Public Television, 2008.www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07272007/alqaeda.html (Accessed April 5, 2013).10Moyers. Editor’s note: Al Qaeda left Sudan in part due to the US airstrike of1998against Khartoum in response to the embassy bombings in Africa. Also, some of AlQaeda’s Egyptian connections included those who planned the first World Trade Centerbombing in 1993.11Kepel,and Milelli, 20.53

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)The media has been complicit in this: “Bin Laden and his deputies havepersonally stated their belief in the importance of harnessing the powerin international and regional media for Al Qaeda’s benefit, and AlQaeda’s central leadership structure has featured a dedicated media andcommunications committee tasked with issuing reports and statementsin support of the group’s operation.” 12 The media has been an outlet forBin Laden and Al Qaeda in relaying their anti-western messageinternationally. They are trying to strike fear into the hearts ofeveryone. Mass communication gave them the means for mass fear ofmass destruction.Al Qaeda has used online videos depicting their organizationoften assassinations of anyone who they deemed a threat. Yet, the useof this technology typically did not happen until post 9/11. When AlQaeda first started, their communications and propaganda only reachedthose who were in close proximity to the members of the organization.What happened before 9/11 in terms of the medium that deliveredworldwide propaganda were online texts set up on websites created byAl Qaeda. 13 The internet proved to be a serious advantage to thisterrorist organization, who before, couldn’t spread their ideologyworldwide. Now, a huge audience could be reached without having toaccept the distortion effect.” 14 These texts were written by Al Qaedaauthors who submitted their works online for the masses to see. Theiruse of the internet has allowed men and women all over the world toview the group and hear about their ideology, thus creating a greaterfollowing.Al Qaeda needs money to support their propaganda andoverall cause. They receive money from donors, those who sympathizewith their cause, and even charities. 15 Al Qaeda not only needed thesefunds to operate and carry out their mission, but also to provide moneyto those who are a part of Al Qaeda for living expenses: “Before 9/11 alQaeda’s money was used to support its operations, its training andmilitary apparatus, the Taliban, and, sporadically, other terroristorganizations.” 16 This group has managed to divert governmentoperatives from learning where and how they are receiving this money:“The CIA estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to12Blanchard, 1.13Kepel and Milelli, 20.14Philipp Hauner, The Voice of Al Qaeda: An Analysis of its Propaganda and MediaStrategies (Norderstedt, Germany: GRIN Verlag, Books on Demand, 2007), 7.15John Roth, Douglas Greenburg, and Serena Wille, “Al Qaeda’s Means and Methods toRaise, Move, and Use Money,” Staff Report to Commission: Monograph on TerroristFinancing, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,Washington, DC, 2004, 17.govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Ch2.pdf (Accessed April 22,2013).16Roth et al, 17.54

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)sustain its activities before 9/11, an amount raised almost entirelythrough donations.” 17 Although not every Muslim is an Islamist and notevery Islamist is Jihadist, but there are still plenty of people who areeither willingly donate to a cause like this or who are duped intodonating.After obtaining enough financial and human resources, AlQaeda had a run of attacks on the US that was impressive—and itremains surprising that American intelligence or politicians did notappreciate the linkages. In 1992, just three years after the Sovietspulled out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda attacked American troops inYemen while they were traveling as peacekeepers to Somalia. 18 In1993, Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on US troops in Somalia.Also in 1993, the first attack on the World Trade Center in New YorkCity occurred. In 1996, Bin Laden praised the blowing up of the USbarracks in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, Al Qaeda had carried-out bombingson US embassies in East Africa, thus killing hundreds and injuringthousands. 19 In January 2000, Al Qaeda planted a ship with heavyexplosives to hit the USS Sullivans, but the explosives failed to reachthe US ship. 20 Yet, Al Qaeda succeeded in October 2000 by bombingand damaging the USS Cole in the Yemeni harbor, killing more than aseventeen sailors. 21 Osama Bin Laden even wrote a poem about theattack for his son’s wedding:A destroyer, even the brave might fear,She inspires horror in the harbor and the open sea,She goes into the waves flanked by arrogance, haughtiness,and fake might,To her doom she progresses slowly, clothed in a huge illusion,awaiting her is a dinghy bobbing in the waves. 22Al Qaeda also plotted a handful of assassination attempts againstpolitical figures in the 1990s. Al Qaeda attempted to assassinate thePope John Paul II (1920-2005) in 1994, as well as President BillClinton (b. 1946) in 1995 while on a visit to the Philippines. 23 In 1998,Osama held a press conference where he called for jihad once again,and announced the formation of the “World Islamic Front for the Jihad17Roth et al, 19.18Ruth Wedgwood, “Al Qaeda, Terrorism, and Military Commissions,” AmericanJournal of International Law 96:2 (April 2002): 328-337.19Audrey Kurth Cronin to House Government Reform Committee, Memo: “TerroristAttacks by Al Qaeda,” 31 March 2004, Congressional Research Service, Washington,DC., 2. www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf (Accessed April 2013)20Rohan Gunaratna. Inside al Qaeda: Global Network or Terror (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 2002), 49.21Wedgwood, 328-337.22Guaratna, 49.23Cronin to House Government Reform Committee, 2.55

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)against the Jews and the Crusaders.” 24 Other top Al Qaeda leadersattended this conference, where they passed out a card that was “callingall Muslims to attack Jews and Christians: ‘Divide their nation, tearthem to shreds, destroy their economy, burn their companies, ruin theirwelfare, sink their ships, and kill them on land, sea, and air…MayAllah torture them by your hands.’” 25 Unfortunately, this jihad wouldprove tragic for the United States as Al Qaeda hit on September 11,2001, and shocked America to its core. The World Trade Center inNew York was gone and the Pentagon in Washington DC wasdamaged. Finally, the US saw itself at war with Al Qaeda after this. 26Al Qaeda attempts to maintain its strength but has been greatlydiminished with the US eliminating many of its leaders, includingOsama bin Laden. Today, Al Qaeda works with other Islamic extremistterrorist organizations, supporting and coordinating with them. Theseinclude Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other extremistmilitant groups in Syria and Iran: “Al-Qa'ida to Hamas interacts andsupports one another in a matrix of international logistical, financialand sometimes operational terrorist activity.” 27 Osama bin Laden’spersonal jihad was ended by US Navy Seals on May 2, 2011. Aweakened Al Qaeda is still around, still urging Jihad against the West’sinfidels and Middle Eastern apostates. They were a group designed todestroy and taunt their enemies. They accomplished that, but they alsocapitalized on the very modernity that they oppose, using technologyand propaganda themselves. Its legacy and ideology have unfortunatelycaused a domino effect of terrorism and hate.24Gunaratna, 47.25Gunaratna, 47.26Editor’s note: Al Qaeda also attacked London on July 7, 2005.27Matthew A. Levitt, “The Political Economy of Middle East Terrorism,” Middle EastReview of International Affairs, 6:4 (December 2002): 50.56

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Short EssayHamas: One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’sFreedom FighterQuinton ClarkGrand View UniversityWhile the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis hasbeen continuous since 1948, the current government of the Palestinianshas not had such continuity. During the 2006 elections, a new groupnamed Hamas won the majority of seats in parliament of the PalestinianAuthority. Their rival, the Fatah Party, had controlled the Palestinianorgans of diplomacy and government, and refused to give-up control intheir strongholds of the West Bank. Through more bloodshed, Hamaswas eventually able to take complete control of the Gaza Strip. 1 Theresult today is a Fatah-led government in the West Bank and a Hamasledgovernment in the Gaza Strip, both claiming to represent the will ofthe Palestinian people. While the U.S. considers Hamas a terroristorganization, they were legally elected by the Palestinians. In order toanalyze why this is so, a short history of Palestine is necessary.The true beginning of modern Palestine began almost onehundred years ago after the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference. TheVersailles conference gave a mandate, via the power of the new Leagueof Nations, for Britain to control Palestine, while France received amandate over Syria and Lebanon. Britain then became publicly caughtfor making conflicting promises to the French, the Arabs, and the Jewsduring World War I. The secret Sykes-Picot agreement (1916) withFrance envisioned French control of Syria, Lebanon, and the Tarsusregion of Turkey, with the British controlling Palestine eastward intoIraq. The Balfour Declaration (1917), which was a letter that promiseda homeland in Palestine to Zionist Jews, had been made to garner favorfrom the United States as well as Lord Rothschild (1868-1937) inBritain. Arab riots broke-out when they heard news of this, since theBritish government had promised Arab independence from theOttoman Turkish Empire through the connections and guerilla activitiesof T. E. Lawrence (1888-1935) with Arab Emir Faisal (1885-1933).Lawrence even helped Faisal establish a provisional Arab government1Mark J. Stern, "How Did Hamas Come to Power in Gaza?" Slate Magazine (November19, 2012), online.www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/11/hamas_in_gaza_how_the_organization_beat_fatah_and_took_control_of_the_gaza.html57

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)in Damascus in 1919—which the British abandoned to a French Armytaking over. In Palestine, the British government continued effortsafter the war to please both Arabs and Zionist Jews with various“White Paper” policies. These included the British attempt to limit thenumber of Jewish immigrants into Palestine as a way to satisfy both theArabs and the Jews. Yet, this policy worked in stopping the Jewishimmigration so well that the timing of the 1939 White Paper is thoughtto have entrapped millions of Jews in Europe. By the end of World WarII, the Nazis killed over 6 million Jews in Europe. The Zionistmovement blamed the British government for trapping the Jewishpopulation in Europe. Those who survived the Nazis and wanted to goto Palestine, now came as devastated war refugees shocked by theHolocaust rather than as immigrants. With all of these competing andcomplex issues, the newly established United Nations stepped in andrevealed what it thought was the answer to the Jewish homelandproblem, where the League of Nations had failed. 2On November 29, 1947, the UN passed Resolution GA 181which declared that Palestine was to be divided into an Arab state and aJewish state with Jerusalem falling under an InternationalAdministration. Just like the 1917 Balfour Decision, the Jews acceptedthe UN decision, but the Arabs did not. This disagreement started the1948 War, which saw both Zionist underground fighters andPalestinian irregulars fighting with terrorist tactics. As the Israeligovernment developed, more standardized military units fought againstthe Palestinians, and their allied countries. These other Arab nationswho opposed the Jewish homeland came together to invade Israel. Thethree main countries were Egypt, Syria, and Jordan with support fromIraq and Saudi Arabia but even with overwhelming numbers, the betterarmed Israelis were able to push them back. 3 Part of this was due tothe fact that the Israelis gained control over left-over British militaryequipment including armored cars, tanks, and even Spitfire fighteraircraft.Even though the Jewish War for Independence—thatestablished the state of Israel—was over, new problems developedbetween the Arabs and the Jews. Over 726,000 Palestinians fled thearea that became Israel to the neighboring countries of Egypt, Jordan,Syria, and Lebanon. The issue of Palestinians in these refugee campshas created not only been used by Palestinians, such as Hamas today,as justification for their terrorist attacks against Israel, but the issue hasalso caused many problems for the neighboring countries. Most of2Ami Isseroff, "Israel, Palestine, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Brief History-Part1," MidEastWeb History of the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab Conflict, MiddleEast Web for Coexistence RA, 2009. Editor’s note: This is the website of a non-profitpeace organization that is based in Israel.3Isseroff.58

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)these Palestinian Arab refugees have retained their Palestinian nationalidentity and have not integrated into their fellow Arab communities,nor have the host Arab countries helped to integrate these refugees.The refugee issue aside, the next problem to come up for the regionwas the 1967 War. While the war was between Israel and the Arabnations (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan again), the newly formed Palestiniangroup Fatah had a role to play as well. Even though the PalestinianLiberation Organization (PLO) was already in existence to provideleadership and support for the refugees and Palestinian people, theFatah faction was formed in 1957 by Yasser Arafat (1929-2004) as themore militant wing that eventually dominated the PLO. While Syrianarmy intelligence recruited Palestinians for terrorist attacks againstIsrael even after the Six Day War that left Israel triumphant once again,the Fatah faction was critical of Egyptian President Gamal Nasser(1918-1970) for not continuing the campaign against Israel. Israel hadmanaged to enlarge its borders to occupy the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt,the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank that had beenadministered by Jordan since the 1948 war. In this process, over onemillion Palestinians fell under the rule of Israel. 4In order to counter the Israeli occupation of yet morePalestinian territory, the PLO was taken over by Fatah under theleadership of Yasser Arafat that would last nearly four decades. UnderArafat as chairman of the PLO, the Fatah and PLO merged into nearlyone organization. Even though the Fatah and PLO were recognized bythe Arabs, the state of Israel did not recognize them because of theirown grievances against them. The Israelis hated and feared the PLObecause of their terrorist attacks against them and because their Charteraims to destroy the state of Israel. This is the same reason why Israelrefuses to accept Hamas as a legitimate government. 5After the 1967 war, Palestine and Israel would spend the nextforty five years exchanging violence that ranged from war (1973), toshootings, to suicide bombings, to rocket strikes in the country. Thesewere offset by peace accords with Egypt and Jordan which affectedPalestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank who had relied on moreeasily obtained supplies from both countries. The more recentoutbreaks of violence that sparked the Hamas movement, however,started as the Intifadas (the Uprisings). The first Intifada started in theGaza Strip and West Bank in 1987 when young Palestinians began tothrow rocks at the Israel soldiers over problems that they had facedbecause of the Israeli occupiers. The revolt ended in 1991, but due to abrutal crackdown by Israeli troops a second Intifada began inSeptember 2000. Part of the trigger for the second Intifada was the4Isseroff.5Isseroff.59

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)visit of Ariel Sharon (b. 1928), a former Israeli general who wouldbecome prime minister the following year, visited the Temple Mount.This was a major insult to the Palestinians because of Sharon beingdefense minister in the slaughtering 1982 Israeli invasion of southernLebanon to halt the Syrians and expel the PLO from there. Israel’sresponse to these new attacks was to build a Security Fence around theWest Bank and the Gaza Strip. This fence only caused furtherproblems with the Palestinians because it cut off many of the refugeeswho had been working in Israel and became a symbol against the Rightof Return that so many Palestinians demanded after being displaced in1948. Even though the Intifada officially ended on February 8, 2005,the violence between the new generations of Palestinians and Israelishad just begun. 6On August 22, 2005, Israel removed the last of the Jewishsettlers and protestors from the Gaza Strip in an agreement with thePalestinian Authority (which had replaced the PLO, but remained underFatah control). The Israeli government also cleared out four smallJewish settlements in the West Bank as well. Although only parts ofthe Gaza Strip and West Bank were physically controlled byPalestinians, the Israeli withdrawal gave administrative control overthese areas to the PA. During this crucial moment of administrativeoversight over the Palestinian areas, the radical Islamic movementHamas came into existence. Many Palestinians wanted more than thePA delivered. On January 26, 2006, Hamas won 76 of the 132parliamentary seats over the Fatah government located in the WestBank. Even though the PA president Mahmoud Abbas (b. 1935), whowas Arafat’s successor in control of Fatah and went through severaltitle changes, was still at the head of the PA, he no longer had controlof the parliament. Unwilling to give up their power, Fatah supportersrose up in the West Bank and attacked Hamas elements, while Hamassupporters rose up in the Gaza Strip by attacking Fatah. The IsraeliDefense Force (IDF) was fighting with Hezbollah in Lebanon at thetime and was reluctant to intervene on either side. The newly declaredHamas government took over a presidential compound in Gaza City, atwhich point President Mahmoud Abbas to declare a state of emergencygovernment on June 17, 2007, that no longer had to seat the Hamasdominatedparliament. In effect, Palestinians were split into two withIsrael having to negotiate with each element separately. 7The fighting between the Fatah and Hamas spilled over intothe Israeli civilian zones as well. On June 19, 2008, Israel and Hamas6Isseroff.7"Historical Timeline: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Pros and Cons of ControversialIssues, 2012. Editor’s note: This is the website of a non-profit, non-partisan organizationbased in Santa Monica, CA. Editor’s note: Available at:http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=00063560

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)signed a six-month truce to stop rocket and mortar strikes coming fromthe Gaza Strip. At the same time, this peace agreement also stoppedIsrael’s return fire of rocket strikes and partially eased the economicblockade that Israel imposed on Gaza Strip ever since Hamas tookover. Unfortunately for both sides of the cease-fire, it only lasted thesix month period that was agreed upon and the fighting resumed. 8On December 27, 2008, Hamas began to bombard Israel withrocket strikes again. In response to the seven days of attacks, Israelbegan to shell the Gaza Strip in an attempt to blow up any mines thatthe Palestinians might have laid. On January 3, 2009, Israeli troopsinvaded the Gaza Strip to stop Hamas from rocketing Israelpermanently. While Israel managed to kill several Hamas fighters, theattack still wasn’t enough to stop Hamas from launching fifteen rocketsinto Israel. The goal of Israel essentially was not to wipe out theHamas government, but rather to convince them to agree to a new ceasefire. The occupation of the Gaza Strip lasted for three weeks until theIsraeli forces withdrew on January 21, 2009. A ceasefire was drawnbetween Israel and Hamas, but Israel still continued their blockade ofthe Gaza Strip. 9 Because of the blockade, almost 90% of thePalestine’s potential GDP is lost each year. The lack of economicgrowth and humanitarian aid forced the people of the Gaza Strip to becompletely dependent on the Hamas Government. 10During this interlude between Israel and Hamas, the latterturned to their conflict with their brother government, the Fatah. OnMay 4, 2011, the Fatah and Hamas signed a landmark reconciliationpact to end their four year civil war. The agreement between the twogroups required that an intermediate government would be formed torun the Fatah-controlled West Bank and the Hamas-controlled GazaStrip. This momentary peace, as usual, did not last for very longbecause of new conflicts erupting between Hamas and Israel. 11On November 14, 2012, the IDF invaded the Gaza strip toonce again stop rockets fired at Israel. The offensive began when theIDF killed the commander of the Hamas’s military wing, Ahmed Jabari(1960-2012), who was accused of organizing the terrorist activitiesagainst Israel from the Gaza Strip over the last decade. By November18, the IDF had destroyed more than 1,350 terrorist targets as well ascapturing numerous weapon caches. The Hamas military managed tofire 1,128 rockets towards Israel, with 324 of those being intercepted by8“Historical Timeline,” ProCon.org.9“Historical Timeline,” ProCon.org10“The Economic Costs of the Israeli Occupation for the Occupied Palestinian Territory”(Jerusalem: Palestinian Ministry of the National Economy and Applied ResearchInstitute-Jerusalem, September 2011). Editor’s note: Available at:www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/docs/2012Cairo/p2%20jad%20isaac%20e.pdf11“Historical Timeline,” Pro-Con.org61

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)the new Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system. 12 The fighting thattook place in November of 2012 is the most recent conflict betweenIsrael and Hamas. The resulting actions caused the blockade to betightened even further on the Gaza Strip, consequently causing evenmore dependence on the Hamas government for help. If it weren’t forthe slim amount of UN humanitarian help as well as funds from Egyptand Iran, over 80% of the population would starve on the Gaza Strip. 13The history of Palestine is very important to look at becausemany people have forgotten what happened almost one hundred yearsago. With the experience of the United States with 9/11, theAfghanistan war, and the Iraq war; we tend to see groups like Hamas asonly terrorists groups who are attacking Israel for no reason instead oflooking at their grievances they still carry. Yet, the history of Palestineisn’t enough to completely understand the Hamas movement, which iswhy it is necessary to look at their goals as a controversial government.In covenant of Hamas, there is a manifesto comprised ofthirty-six separate articles that all promote the basic goal of destroyingthe state of Israel through jihad. In their preamble, it says that, “Israelwill exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just asit obliterated others before it.” In Article 6, one Hamas goal is that theywant the banner of Allah to cover every inch of Palestine. Hamas alsorejects the idea of a negotiated Peace Settlement, saying that the idea ofpeace is a contradiction to their principals because they believe the onlyway they can solve the Palestinian problem is through jihad 14 Theother articles in their covenant deal with how they intend to rid thepromised land of the infidels, especially the Jews. In Article 7, it saysthat “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fightJews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees,and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hidingbehind me, come and kill him’.” 15 With articles like this in theircovenant, it is no wonder that the US considers them a terroristorganization and the Israeli government has no desire to work withthem. It is also because of these stated goals that Israel and manywestern nations feel that they are a dangerous organization. They haveabsolutely no intention of creating peace with Israel when their entiregoal is to destroy it. Even though Hamas only controls the Gaza Strip,they have much more influence and power than the West may givethem credit.12“Historical Timeline,” Pro-Con.org13“Economic Costs,” Palestinian Ministry of National Economy.14John Pike, The Covenant of the Hamas - Main Points. Federation of AmericanScientists, Intelligence Resource Program, 2010. Editor’s note: This is a translation ofthe Hamas Covenant offered by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Information Division,Jersusalem. Available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm15Pike, Covenant of Hamas.62

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)The Hamas government holds so much power because of thepeople’s desperation in the Gaza Strip. Because of the Israeliblockades, people are struggling to find jobs, make a living, find food,and get the necessary health benefits that they need. This dependencehelps Hamas because when a government gives the masses what theyneed, they control the masses. If the people who are giving you food,water, education, and medical care then tell you to blow up an infidel,you might be more willing to listen. So, if the Gaza Strip economy ispractically ruined, where is Hamas getting their financial backing?According to Hamas’s leader, Ismail Haniyeh (b. 1963), it wasIran and Egypt’s support of Hamas that enabled them to “defeat” theIDF operation of November 2012. While Israel was able to inflict hugenumbers of casualties on the Hamas organization, they were unable todefeat them entirely. Haniyeh thanked Iran for their money andweaponry support, while he also thanked Egypt for their aid to thePalestinians during the conflict. 16 It is no secret that Iran and Egypt donot like Israel, so it should not be a surprise that they would be thebiggest supporters of Hamas. With Iran trying to obtain nuclearmaterials and Egypt receiving advanced U.S. military hardware, theconflict between Israel and the Arab world will surely only escalate.While many Arab and some Western countries blame thesituation in Palestine on Israel, many of these same people forget whoreally caused the problem with Palestine: Britain. The first mistakethat Britain made was in 1922 when they gave all of the land east of theJordan River to Transjordan (now Jordan). By cutting off this area,whose Arab population adjusted quickly to the Jordanian nationalidentity, Britain squeezed the Jews and Arabs of Palestine into an arearoughly the same size as New Jersey. The second mistake that Britainmade was in 1930 and 1939 when they issued their White Paperpolicies in an attempt to stop Jewish immigrants from enteringPalestine. By doing this, they trapped millions of Jews in Europe,many of whom were killed by the Holocaust. The Holocaust in turnplayed a heavy influence on the UN after WWII for creating a Jewishstate in Palestine. Britain made a third mistake in 1948 in the mannerby which they pulled out of Palestine, leaving the Zionist undergroundmovement and Palestinian irregulars to fight it out since there was notransitional phase. If Britain would have fulfilled their part of the 1920Mandate of transitioning to effective government(s), Israel andPalestine may have been created together. The 1948 war, as a directconsequence of this failure, is yet another British failure with almostseven hundred and fifty thousand Palestinian refugees. These same16"Hamas Acknowledges Iran's Support." Global Research News, November 22, 2012,Centre for Research on Globalization. Editor’s note: This is an article posted to thewebsite of a non-profit media research group in Montreal, Canada. Available at:http://www.globalresearch.ca/hamas-acknowledges-irans-support/531271963

Short Essays MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)refugees are at the root of many different problems that have happenedin the Middle East, such as Lebanon’s 1975 Civil War. 17 Lebanon hadits own strains between the Christian, Sunni, Shia, and Druzecommunities. Once large numbers of Palestinian refugees and PLOfighters began to swarm into Lebanon, tensions finally boiled over andleft Lebanon destabilized.In conclusion, while the US might see the Hamas governmentas a terrorist organization, the Palestinian people see them as theirjihadist fighters for their Palestinian state. At the same time, Hamasdepends upon this image, because if it was not for the Israeli blockade,they may not be in charge. For as long as the people look to them forassistance and help from the same common enemy, Hamas will controlthe masses in the Gaza Strip. It is no wonder why Hamas continues tostrike at Israel when they know such actions will never achieve peace.17Iseroff.64

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Book ReviewsNew HistoryThomas Fleming. A Disease in the Public Mind: A NewUnderstanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. New York: DaCapo Press, 2013. Reviewed by Christopher Miller, Grand ViewUniversity, 1963 alumnus.Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc: Thomas Fleming is a prolificauthor whose histories cover many eras of American history, thoughprimarily that of the revolutionary period. In A Disease in the PublicMind, he brings his talent to the antebellum period. This challengingand difficult period has been subject to a variety of interpretations froma wide range of perspectives. What Mr. Fleming has attempted to add,is a look at the role of abolitionism and its supporters as a cause of theAmerican Civil War. Unfortunately, he picks sides in a way that doesnot present the facts evenhandedly but simply promotes his thesis.Perhaps, because of his work in the Revolutionary Period, he hasbecome so enamored of the young Jefferson’s views, that he is unableto deal with the older, less likable man. For example, while giving himcredit for banning slavery in the Northwest Ordinance, he does not takehim to task for not supporting that model for the admission of all newterritories.In his demonstration of the early issues dealing with slaveryhe does lift up some good, if derivative material. The NorthwestOrdinance, George Washington as an emancipator, Thomas Jefferson’swords if not action, the changes wrought by Denmark Vesey and laterNat Turner, and the occasional Southern black slave who prosperedunder the system, are all deserving of coverage but his overall effortsare disappointing. He has built his thesis around one particular sourceand then bent his story to increase the significance of that source.Trying to create “a new understanding” of a period that has had somany books and monographs written about it, requires deeper thoughtand research than Mr. Fleming has given to it.To set up the bogeyman of abolitionism, he uses the prologueto describe John Brown’s Raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. It is athorough review, including the murder of a black freedman, to getacross the idea that Brown and his ideas were dangerous to everybody.What he neglects to say anywhere in the book was that abolition was65

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)not a major factor in most political discussions of the antebellum years.Most abolitionists were treated as outcasts, or incendiaries, and fewpeople in the North or South wished to be associated with their ideasand ideals. The white support of the idea of colonization of freed blackswas much greater than that for abolition. The ideas that the abolitionistsput forward were used during and after the war for other purposes andthe omission of these facts weaken his work.Early on, he tells the story of two of the founding fathers thathe may be more comfortable with, George Washington and ThomasJefferson. While it is no stretch to agree that Washington’s freeing ofhis personal slaves is laudable, Fleming’s adoration of ThomasJefferson is awkward. He makes no effort to describe Jefferson’sefforts following the creation of the Constitution and the establishmentof the new government to assure control by the slave states. Somehowthe writer of the “all men are created equal” and the NorthwestOrdinance that banned slavery in that area, is given a pass as he turnsinto one of greatest apologists for the peculiar institution in its strugglewith a government he never really liked. The mastermind of theKentucky and Virginia Nullification Acts is credited with striving forgood government instead of covering up for slavery in this view. TheVirginia axis of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were just “the people”speaking their minds with the 3/5 compromise being simply a sidedetail that provided the majority for their view.By this time, one begins seeing only the problems with thebook rather than any point Fleming is trying to make. He continues hispraise of Jefferson as he fears the “[F]ire bell in the night,” over theMissouri Compromise. By now Jefferson’s “nightmare” of race warbecomes simply another excuse for keeping slavery. While heraldingWashington’s emancipation, Fleming excuses Jefferson’s “reversedcircumstance” that kept Jefferson from following his lead, uh, exceptfor Sally Hemmings and her children. Somehow the fact that theNorthwest Ordinance provided the model for adopting new states intothe union gets lost in the moving of this human “property” to Texas andelsewhere. Jefferson and Madison become enthralled with the idea ofsolving the problem of slavery with dispersion, opening new territoriesto slavery to spread the danger out and lessen the opportunities forservile eruptions and would eventually lead to abolition without anycritical comment from Mr. Fleming.Fleming seems to have drunk the “Lost Cause” Kool Aid,submitting that slavery wasn’t all that bad and if the bad oldabolitionists had just butted out the South would have solved its slavematters without having to secede. He attacks the abolitionist point ofview throughout, retelling stories about them as if it were new material.He attacks Harriet Beecher Stowe’s work in Uncle Tom’s Cabin,hinting that she didn’t know what she was talking about and relying onoutside sources and attacking her characterizations, but never actually66

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)saying that what she wrote was in error.While admitting that there were harsh owners and overseers,he seems to want to show that if slaves had had a little gumption theycould have been successful. He uses Josiah Henson as an example ofthe “real Uncle Tom.” To Fleming, Henson is how a slave should beseen: Eager, enthusiastic, helping the “massa” with his wisdom andwork, and then being rewarded for it. He asserts that this is a better wayto view slavery than the traditional, or an abolitionist view, thatFleming sets up as a straw man. Speaking of Henson compared toStowe’s Uncle Tom he says:The difference was and is profound. The real Tom should promptmodern readers to reevaluate slavery’s impact on Americanblacks. The traditional story runs something like this: Slaverywas a degrading, humiliating, demoralizing experience. Any blackman or woman who endured it was reduced to subhuman status.Therefore they and their descendants, even when emancipated,would have to be treated like children, at best, or creatures fromanother planet at worst. Before and after the Civil War this ideaplayed no small part in poisoning the idea of black equality in theAmerican public mind, North and South.This one paragraph shows the lack of judgment and scholarship byFleming. Aside from his acceptance of a Southern view ofreconstruction and attempting to bring current political issues into play,his support of this reactionary view relies on one Cliometric study,[Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross:The Economics of American Negro Slavery, (Boston, MA, 1974)] thathas been criticized by a number of scholars, and two other narrowstudies. Using the results he proposes that the South should beconsidered the real dynamic area of the country prior to the Civil War.The problem is not the data he selects to use but his uncriticalacceptance of it. He uses production and value figures withoutqualification. He asserts property values without taking into accountloans, liens or other arrangements that were used to promote theplantation life style. He doesn’t mention that slaves were often sold offto save the property. He doesn’t address economic downturns, forexample, 1819, 1837 and 1857, and their effects on the value ofproperty. It ignores the reality of the South as a self functioning colonyfor the mills and markets of the North and Europe. It is disappointingwhen someone of Fleming’s reputation produces a work like this that ismore deserving of opprobrium than acclaim.67

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)HistoriographyTacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome, Michael Grant, trans. NewYork: Penguin Books, 1996. Reviewed by Cory DiCesare, GrandView University, History alumnus of 2013.Publius Cornelius Tacitus (c. a.D. 56 – 117) wrote majorhistorical works on the early Roman Empire, of which only half survivetoday. The Annals of Imperial Rome covered the period beginning ina.D. 14 with the death of Augustus and culminating in 66 with the ruleof Nero. This work provides insight for historians today into thefunctions and format of Roman history, setting the fundamental stagefor the historiographical thought process. A work from this periodoften blends myth and truth, as well as political and personalcommentary, thus making it hard to distinguish historical fact fromexaggeration. Historian Michael Grant helped the reader to sortthrough this in his introduction. Tacitus utilized the Greek oraltradition in his writing, incorporating both storytelling and myth alongwith historical sources. The Annals seem to send a clear message aboutthe effects of the foundations of Roman imperial government that seemto sow an inevitable, but distant, downfall of Rome.Tacitus described the imperial household through a thoroughrecollection of imperial emperors. His commentary on the plots andschemes of past emperors paints a vivid picture of the persistent palaceintrigue. Tacitus explained the reigns of Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula),Claudius, and Nero were described poorly for fear of consequences forthe writers. (p. 31) It was Tacitus’ intention to provide a more accurateaccount for their debauchery, which he felt led Rome down a dark path.For example, Tacitus often described Tiberius’ rule as ineffectual andinept, since he often sent unclear or cryptic instructions to the Senate inRome from a great distance away at his island home of Capri. Duringthe time of all of these emperors, prominent members of the Senateoften feared for their lives, since it was common for those who spokeagainst the emperors to be sentenced to death. Bloodshed continuedwith the rule of Claudius who murdered both citizens and members ofhis own household. Tacitus explained the murder of Claudius’ thirdwife Messalina for plotting against him, yet his new and last wifeAgrippina worked to murder him for her own son Nero to rule. Nerobrought with him youthful excess to the city, worrying more about hisentertainment than the governing of Rome. Tacitus described thisperiod as a time of crime and lawlessness. For Tacitus, the true courseof the downfall of Rome started with this succession of emperors.Tacitus demonstrated the importance of capturing imperialhistory by tying the personal history these emperors with governmentthe actions and decisions of their governments and looking deeper into68

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)the roles of the consuls and proconsuls. Tacitus also took the time toroot out not only the cause, but also the lasting effects of the decisionsof the empire. Even when talking about natural disasters, Tacitusexplained the effect it had on the Roman treasuries. (p. 101) Tacitusalso discussed the importance of many prominent citizens beyond thepalace and their affect on government and society. This encouragedfuture historians to widen their scope in analyzing power. Tacitus sawthe role of writing history to be lessons for the future: “It is from suchsituations from experience of others that most men learn to distinguishright and wrong, advantage and disadvantage.” (p. 173) Post-modernhistorians today still receive a lot of influence from ancient writers suchas Tacitus. New methods of recording history developed from thisstyle to redefine historical writing.Tacitus was passionate that that these first century emperorsand events began Rome’s inevitable decline which deserve beingrecorded with accuracy, but also remembered into the future. Thecombination of traditional storytelling and the use of historical sourcesoutline Tacitus’ work. The contribution of this work lies with thefuture use of the historical process to develop a modern way to recordhistory, for the benefit of humanity.Ernst Jünger. Storm of Steel, Michael Hofmann, trans. London:Penguin Classics, 2004. Review by Heidi Torkelson, Grand ViewUniversity, History major.Ernst Junger’s book, Storm of Steel (1920), is a magnificentportrayal of a young German private turned officer in World War One,whose memoir is not one of an enemy during the war, but a young manlike any other soldier trying to survive. Junger discusses daily life in thetrenches, starting from the beginning of war; him as a patriotic andexcited private, through an exhausting yet intense four years of despair.Junger’s memoirs are so fluid and causal, it’s as if he is talking directlywith you over a cup of coffee; he doesn’t leave out a single detail,giving the reader an inside look at the devastation, death, and peril wargives. This book depicts a man who is fighting for his country; a uniqueperspective which in turn provokes a new sense of historical identityfor the reader.At the beginning of his memoirs, Junger describes himself as avery eager young man who volunteered for the army in 1914 at the ageof 19. He was excited at the prospect of war and was looking for anadventure, like most of the other young men volunteering. “Grown upin an age of security, we shared a yearning for danger, for theexperience of the extraordinary.”(5) He starts from the very beginning;his first day of war. This day, like each and every other day hedescribes, is never mundane but vehement. His first day of war he69

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)makes contact with the devastation war brings; injured men, “blunt[ing]the enthusiasm for war.”(7) However, the young private, althoughuneasy at the start, gets his bearings and remains quite casual and calmthroughout the remainder of the war.He takes us through his first battle at Les Eparges, and nodetail or morsel of death was spared as he describes the first casualty hesees. “Bloody scraps of cloth and flesh had been left on bushes aroundthe crater-a strange and dreadful sight that put me in mind of thebutcher-bird that spikes its prey on thorn bushes.”(23) Junger portraysdeath in a very poetic way while painting a picture for the reader thatseems beautiful, yet haunting. He is a very anxious, yet excited at thethought of battle, but no amount of fear is felt by the reader. There healso explains trench warfare in detail, right down the design of thetrenches themselves. He gives the reader a blueprint of where the menlived, fought, and died. He includes that some trenches were “dug to adepth of 10-20 feet,” and often dug like a maze, “a dream of alabyrinth.”(40, 190) He explains that even though these trenches are tohide the soldiers from the enemy, there is no safe place, as manycasualties occurred in them. This gives the reader historical brevity ofwhat daily life in the trenches was like for WWI soldiers, regardless ofwhose side they were on.Junger takes us through one of the fiercest battles in the GreatWar, the Battle of the Somme, where he is no longer a private, but anofficer. He describes the first gas attack he encounters, and as hehimself is trying to hold his breath when his mask doesn’t functionproperly, the reader likewise is breathless in anticipation of what mighthappen next. He manages to escape the deadly affects of the poisongas, and always seems to be inches from death. It’s as if you werewatching a movie; anxiously rooting for the main character to stayalive, when he is constantly surrounded by danger.Page after page, shelling after shelling, casualty after casualty,this kind of war leaves the reader feeling weak, yet still excited to seewhat happens next. Junger often discusses the morale of his men, as itis very important to keep high after such attrition. He gives details ofhis comrades; their quirks and personalities, all of whom are fromdifferent walks of life. He makes the reader so aware of who they are,it’s as if you know them personally, and when one dies, it gives youthis awful feeling of loss. Along with the author’s thoughts of hisfriends, he gives the reader his thoughts on the enemy. “It was alwaysmy endeavor to view my opponent without animus, and to form anopinion of him as a man on the basis of the courage he showed; neverdid I entertain mean thoughts of him.”(58) This quote gives the readerinsight into how some soldiers in WWI had no personal vendettaagainst the enemy, but just trying to survive and win the war. This is animportant notion to pick up on, because in war society can become sobogged down by hatefulness, we forget human goodwill.70

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Nearing the end of the book, Junger discusses him leading hismen into the German Spring Offensive in 1918, Germany’s last-ditcheffort to win the war. The men and he were physically and mentallyexhausted at this point, but prepared and confident that this plan wouldlead to German victory. As the reader realizes that the war is nearing anend, Junger is still determined to win the war, and through his rhetoric,this offensive was the most important and decisive moment of hismilitary career. “The decisive battle, the last charge, was here…herethe fates of nations would be decided, what was at stake was the futureof the world.”(231)During this offensive, Junger is gravely wounded; his comradenoticing blood on his shirt; he had been shot through the chest andhead. However, to the reader’s surprise, you would never know of suchan enormous blow;”I took courage, picked myself up, and trottedon.”(253) From this point, his realization of the outcome was broughtto light for the reader. “The great battle was a turning point for me, andnot merely because from then on I thought it possible that we mightactually lose the war.”(255) Junger’s wound he sustained from the greatbattle would grant him his ticket out of the trenches and back home; hewould survive the war.These memoirs made the reader exude a dozen differentemotions shared with the author, anger, fear, stress, happiness, calm,etc… Junger does not skip a beat, he explains his ordeal in full, andwhat’s most thrilling is that his point of view is not from an ally whowon the war, but from the perceived historical enemy; who lost. Itgives the reader a completely new perspective on war; showing asoldier fighting for his country. This detailed, poetic masterpiece willbe one to share with anyone looking for a more full perspective of howthe war, a great historical event, was fought.Byron Farwell. The Great War in Africa: 1914-1918. New York:W. W. Norton, 1989. Reviewed by Heidi Torkelson, Grand ViewUniversity, History major.In the book, The Great War in Africa, author Byron Farwellgives the reader not only an informative historical look at Africa’sinvolvement in the Great War, but a riveting portrayal of heroism,resilience, and artifice. This balance between an analysis and narrativebrings the war to life as you read. He invites the reader to be activeparticipant in the events he depicts. With each battle and major eventthat took place in Africa in the Great War, there are detailed tacticalmaneuvers, itemized ship and artillery uses, and diary excerpts fromsoldiers and generals that give you a detailed account of what life waslike throughout the war. Farwell makes you feel as though you arepresent on each ship encountering heavy fire, including the famous71

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)German Konigsberg, or on the ground facing one of the most geniuscommanders at the battle of Tanga.The first shot of WWI is widely thought to have occurred inEurope signaling the start of the war. However, lesser known is thatthis is indeed a falsehood. The first shot of the war rung out in Africa inTogoland, where the first battle in WWI on the African front would befought. The location of the first shot and the fighting in Africa duringthe Great War are drastically underplayed in the teachings of WWI.Farwell enlightens us by shedding light on this underplaying ofAfrica’s role in WWI and how it is not only a very interesting piece ofhistory but one that impacted much of the world, even today.The battle in Togoland lasted approximately three weeks; oneof the shorter campaigns in the war. Togoland was a German colony onthe west coast of Africa. In Togoland, the Germans had a very strategicand important telecommunications wire. These wireless stations wereof great concern to the British, since they “provid[ed] directcommunications with Germany and cable connections to SouthAmerica.”(25) They also provided communications with Germanintelligence in the western hemisphere, and communication with theirU-boats in the Atlantic Ocean. The British fought for three weeks todestroy this line of communication, however, the Germans destroyed itthemselves when hope for victory was dismal. Farwell points out thatthis campaign was forgotten about, even weeks after it happened,however, it was one of the first battles fought in WWI.Farwell discusses the colonies in Africa pre-WWI that weredivvied up between the Germans, British and French, with the Germanshaving the least amount. The areas that were occupied by the Germanswere to be taken by the British and French, and thus were where themajor campaigns and battles in Africa occurred. The first being inTogoland, the second in the Cameroons, also off the west coast ofAfrica, the third in southwestern Africa, (present day Namibia), andfinally in eastern Africa in German occupied Tanzania. Farwell does anexcellent job of detailing these battles and campaigns and giving thereader an inside look at the conditions the soldiers faced in thesesometimes treacherous terrains. Climate and terrain were ofconsiderable importance during the war in Africa, as soldiers were nothunkered down in trenches but moving throughout the jungleencountering wildlife, bees, and excessive heat. Farwell even points outthat soldiers would simply cease fighting when they were viciouslyattacked by bees or in urgent need of water due to the heat. It’simportant to understand the difference in location where battles werefought in the war in Africa because of the different tactical maneuversused. In Africa, the terrain and the tactics used by both the allies andthe Germans caused for movement and advancing, as opposed to thewar on the western front where soldiers remained in trenches for longperiods of time. Farwell makes this distinction, because of how widely72

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)unknown this fact is.On the eastern front in Africa, one of the most significantbattles occurred, the battle of Tanga. The German General involved inthe campaign, was Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck, who is arguably one ofthe greatest military commanders in history. Farwell paints a nicepicture of the man who famously never surrendered to the allies. Heand his African soldiers, or Schutztruppe and Askaris, fought valiantlyagainst the British and French. Farwell denotes the battle at Tanga as a“cat and mouse game” fought between Lettow-Vorbeck and the British,where Vorbeck’s cunning and intelligent tactics were no match for theBritish and Indian troops. The troops in the British army were, asFarwell puts it, raw. Most of the troops under British command inAfrica were Indian, who were unable to eat the rations due to religiousreasons, and could not swim when faced with having to. They hadspent weeks isolated upon a ship before setting foot in Africa. Theywere underfed, sick, and restless. As opposed to the GermanSchutztruppe and Askaris who were all black, very well trained,disciplined, loyal, and held the advantage of knowing the terrain better,and being more well equipped to handle the climate. The British alsomade the grave mistake of drastically underestimating their enemy.While Lettow-Vorbeck was getting to know the terrain and the peoplewithin it, the British were deciding where to land their boats. Eventhough the odds were stacked in Britain’s favor, 8:1, the Germansbrutally defeated the British. Farwell emphasizes that the battle ofTanga was “one of the most notable failures in British military history.”(178) This battle was incredibly important because it brought moreconcern to the German African colonies during World War One.Another great event and portrayal affixed by Farwell was thatof the fight for the Konigsberg in the Rufiji delta. The Rufiji deltalocated in Tanzania is considered the “safest haven in Africa.”(132)With a width not much larger than a state county, and many smallislands within with thick brush; the delta was considered a great hidingplace. Which is precisely what the Konigsberg did, hid amongst thethick brush in the delta. Farwell gives the reader a wonderfully vividand detailed description of the Konigsberg and her crew. He describesthe ship in all her glory while also detailing her prowess andcapabilities to finally examining her eventual downfall. Farwell alsodenotes other ships used during naval warfare in WWI, giving you aninside look at each weapon aboard and the details of the ship used,noting their size, speed, and how they fared in and out of combat.However, the Konigsberg is amongst the most incredible tales withinthe book. For her magnitude and expertise were to be no match for anyallied ship. However, due to lack of resources, and an interceptedmessage locating her whereabouts, the Konigsberg had no choice but togo into hiding in the delta, where she was eventually found anddestroyed. But the Konigsberg would live on in pieces. Lettow-73

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Vorbeck would dismount her guns and use them in battle for the rest ofthe war. Her weapons would “play responsible roles in the East AfricanCampaign.”(128) She fought on until the bitter end.Farwell continues his story detailing the quest and search forLettow-Vorbeck and his German Askaris. Lettow-Vorbeck, however,was never caught, and never surrendered; the only commander not tosurrender to the allies. However, the campaign in Africa had beengoing on long enough. “The campaign in East Africa has been of themost prodigal nature in money and in lives and constitutions.” After thewar ended, Lettow-Vorbeck returned home to receive a hero’swelcome. He “attributed his warm welcome in Germany to the feelingthat ‘everyone seemed to think that we had preserved some part ofGermany’s soldierly traditions, had come back home unsullied, and thatthe Teutonic sense of loyalty peculiar to us Germans had kept its headhigh even under conditions of war in the tropics.’”(320)This book has great significance to present day teachings ofAfrica. Post WWI, Africa’s continent had changed. The Germancolonies were split up amongst the allies who in turn couldn’t afford orprovide social services due to the costliness of war, thus creating amore defined sense of nationalism for Africans. Economic devastationalso occurred, as the fields and crops were neglected for years due towarfare. The campaign in Africa would ultimately hinder its futuregrowth and “seriously damage the existing social structure throughout”certain African territories.(361) Farwell’s book reminds us all thatAfrica did not lay idle during the Great War, but played a significantrole. The continent would be forever changed afterward and Farwellgives the reader an inside look into why and how that occurred. Thisbook is an important read for anyone who wants to study history ofAfrica and/or history of how conflicts can produce change andcausality.HumanitiesThe Epic of Gilgamesh. N. K. Sanders, trans. London: PenguinGroup, 1972. Reviewed by Michael Cortez, Grand ViewUniversity, History major.Translating the oldest story or epic that we have in writing isnot for the faint of heart. The odds of completely botching thetranslation and ruining thousands of years of history appears, notsurprisingly, abundantly easy to do. Thankfully, N.K. Sanders does aneffective job, especially given the fact that the first written version ofThe Epic of Gilgamesh was written on clay tablets in cuneiform (wedgeshaped writing marks on clay tablets). Because of Sanders’ translation,74

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)we have access to a tale that touches upon a quest many throughouthistory and even now pursue: The search for power and immortality.To understand the context and setting of The Epic ofGilgamesh, one must first be given a background into the story. N.K.Sanders offers the reader a long introduction that explains the timeperiod during which this epic was written. I feel it necessary to thankthe Assyrian leader, Assurbanipal, because had he not scouredMesopotamia for written works while plundering, there is a fair chancewe would not have the story in the form it is in today. The thirty toforty thousand tablets that the mostly intact epic are written on mentionthat they all originated from Assurbanipal's palace (pg. 8). According toSanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh has earned its place in history becauseit is at least more than a thousand years before Homer's The Iliad yetdeals with human emotion, the thrill of adventure, facing yourmortality, and experiencing the pain of tragedy (pg. 7). Certainly, asSanders puts it, Gilgamesh is a hero even for our own era because thetrials he faces inspire wonder even into the 21 st century. He is a manthat is sympathetic, pursues the mystery of life, and experiencestragedy in his great quest.Like any historical story worth remembering, there is a truth tothe tale even after the story has gone through thousands of years ofediting for literary effect (although Sanders speculates that the story weread today is more or less the same as from how it was over 4000 yearsago). A king by the name of Gilgamesh did in fact exist and ruled inUruk around 2700 BC. The historical Gilgamesh was credited withbringing timber from the North and being a “great builder” (pg. 21).The literary Gilgamesh of our story has origins that are very similar tothat of Achilles. At the beginning of the tale, we learn that his mother isa goddess and from her, he inherits traits such as strength and beautywhile his father is mortal and gives him the trait of mortality (pg. 61).Apparently Gilgamesh took advantage of his unique lineage becausewhen he visits Uruk on page 62, we learn that “his lust leaves no virginto her lover.” The gods then lead Gilgamesh on a journey where he willhave to face his own limitations of power and life.The most striking part of this story is that it follows the patternof almost any story you can think of that involves some sort of epic orglorious quest. You have the hero that is brash and hot-headed go on aquest to defeat the mythical creature and prove to their countrymen thatthey have what it takes to be a leader and along the way learn of seldomknown language and many a riches. I cannot but help be amazed of thisfact because this is the very first story to be written down and thusknown to man. It exhibits everything you come to expect in a novel orfilm: Setting, symbolism, irony, and a lesson that the hero learns onlytoo late. Despite the fact that he was a king of power and might,Gilgamesh was still a mortal and thus: “Ever-lasting life was not hisdestiny” (pg. 118). There is rising action when he pursues Humbaba in75

Book Reviews MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)the Cedar Forest of Lebanon and the climax when he slays bothHumbaba and the Bull of Heaven and becomes king. Finally, we reacha nadir when the death of his companion Enkidu scares Gilgamesh andleads him on a tragic journey for immortality (pg. 97).This story is one that is, and will most likely remain,incomplete. N.K. Sanders points out the version requested byAssurbanipal is for the most part complete, the more accurate Sumerianaccounts only exist in fragments and are thus lost forever (pg. 13). As itturns out, we historians have much difficulty distinguishing betweenwhat is legend and what is true. In any case, The Epic of Gilgameshremains an important artifact in world literature because it is the firstone physically recorded as well as having a hero that exemplifiesqualities we have come to expect in our modern day protagonists inbooks, novels, poems, TV shows, movies, and even songs.76

Advertisements MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)CALL FOR PAPERS57 th Annual Missouri Valley History ConferenceMarch 6-8, 2013Omaha, NebraskaThe MVHC accepts papers on any historic topic. Send your 1-2page proposal/abstract and a short CV by November 4 th to theprogram chair:Dr. Dennis SmithMVHC Program ChairDepartment of HistoryUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha6001 Dodge StreetOmaha, Nebraska 68182-02134OREmail: mvhc.coordinator@gmail.comThe MVHC does accept proposals for papers by students, andthere are awards for best graduate and best undergraduatepapers with cash prizes offered by theMVHC, the Society for Military History, and(for its members) the Phi Alpha Theta honorsociety.If you are an undergraduate, in addition toan abstract and your vita, please include aletter of recommendation from the professor for whom thepaper was originally written. If this is not possible, a letter fromanother professor familiar with the paper will be perfectlyacceptable.Conference website: www.unomaha.edu/mvhc/index.php

Advertisements MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)DANISHIMMIGRANTARCHIVESGRAND VIEW UNIVERSITYA wide variety of books, manuscripts, photographs, and moreare found in three main collections:The N. F. S. Grundtvig Collection, Center for Grundtvig StudiesThe Danish-American Immigrant Experience CollectionThe Founding of Grand View CollectionHours: Monday-Friday, 8:30-4:30PM, or by appointment.Searches may be done through the Grand View Library websiteat www.grandview.eduSheri Muller, Archivistsmuller@grandview.edu or librarian@grandview.edu(515) 263-6199Student Internships are available.

Advertisements MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)1738 Washington Street (402) 426-7910Blair, Nebraska 68008info@danishamericanarchive.comOur collection, consisting of approximately 1,000 cubic feet ofunpublished written materials, recordings, and photographs, plusmore than 10,000 books, starts with some of America’s earliest Danishimmigrants and continues through present day Danish Americans.Included among the 375 collections are documents related to operagreat Lauritz Melchoir, great Danish authors, organizations such as theDanish Brotherhood and the Society of Danish Engineers, businessrecords of farms, ranches, and corporations, correspondence amongpioneers, the accounts of veterans in wars and the Danishunderground in World War II. Records of Danish Lutheran churches,Trinity Seminary, Dana College, Grand View University, Oaks IndianMission in Oklahoma, Danish missionaries to India, and the DanishBaptist church exist here. Tens of thousands of pages of letters,diaries, and periodicals are an invaluable aid to research the regularcorrespondence of Danes with families in Denmark and across 19 thand 20 th century America. The Archive also contains Den DanskePioneer (now The Danish Pioneer), first published in Omaha thenChicago from 1872-present, as the oldest Danish newspaper in NorthAmerica that was once banned in Denmark during the 19 th centurydemocratic revolutions. An exhibit for this newspaper was on tour in2012, funded by the Nebraska Humanities Council and the NebraskaCultural Endowment. Visit: www.danishamericanarchive.comJill Hennick, Executive DirectorHours: Monday-Friday, 8AM – Noon, or by appointment.Student Internships are available.

Advertisements MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)Iowa Gold Star Military Museum200 Years of Iowa Military HistoryAircraft, vehicles, weapons, artifacts, photographs, anddocuments detail the stories of Iowa veterans since the days ofLewis and Clark, from a working submarine periscope to theopen cockpit of an F-16 fighter jet.In addition, the Museum housesa 6,000 volume military historyreference library for those doingresearch on Iowa militaryhistory.Photograph and documentarchive holdings include maps,DirectionsFollow Merle Hay Road from I-80 Exit 131 three miles to NW70 th Street, then turn left (west)to Camp Dodge south gate.Current photo identificationrequired by gate guards who cangive you directions to museumon base.posters, artwork, diaries, letters, manuals, and unit historiesfrom the Mexican War to the present.8:30 AM – 4:30 PM, Mondays - Fridays, and 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM, Saturdays,except for holidays.Michael Vogt, Museum Curator(515) 252-4531GoldStarMuseum@iowa.govStudent Internships are available.

Advertisements MUNINN Volume 2 (2013)MUNINNJournal of HistoryGrand View Students & Alumni!Do you wish to publish a Book Review or Article?Do you want experience as an Editor?The Grand View University History Department and editors ofMUNINN invite all GVU students and alumni to submit articleson any era or topic in history, which also includes intellectualhistory, scientific history, church history, and culturalstudies.†Read a great history book, new or old? Read a novel thatdemonstrates the era, conditions, or culture of a society?Consider writing a book review for us!†History students and alumni may also apply to become aneditor on the MUNINN staff. Beef-up your resume or vita!†Submission Guidelines inside back cover.

Submission GuidelinesThe Chicago Manual of Style (or Turabian, A Manual for Writers) will be the basis ofthe writing format and documentation for articles in MUNINN. Please usebibliographic footnotes of the CMS rather than in-text methods. Authors shouldconsult the citation format of special collections or archives when citing unpublisheddocuments. The National Archives, the FBI, Hansard Parliamentary or SessionalPapers, and other collections generally have their own style-sheets posted. When indoubt, consistency is best.Use the serial comma, a.k.a. Oxford comma (x, y, and z).Spell numbers less than twenty, unless used in sets of data.Avoid slang, over-use of jargon, and be as clear as possible.Unless a common Latin phrase such as non sequitur or quid pro quo, or commonlyused foreign terms such as Luftwaffe or jihad, please provide a translation in the notesfor lesser-known foreign terms or phrases.For clarity with foreign numerical systems and finance, please avoid billion or trillion,but instead use thousand-million (= US billion) or million-million (= US trillion),unless the paper is strictly on an American subject without global references.Tables, black/white maps, and black/white illustrations may be embedded into theWord document, but in-text wrapping should be squared tightly. Otherwise these canbe sent as separate attachments. A citation of source and permission of use forillustrations should be provided when applicable.Although the universal use of active voice is rarely achieved, the author should refrainfrom passive voice when the subject of the action becomes unclear to the reader.All submissions should be sent as a softcopy in the .doc or .docx format in an emailattachment to mplowman@grandview.edu Authors should make sure they includeupdated contact information in their email.Article submissions should be less than 10,000 words unless special permission isgranted by the editors. Book reviews should be less than 1,000 words.Contact Information:Professor Matthew E. PlowmanHistory DepartmentGrand View University1200 Grandview AvenueDes Moines, Iowa 50316 USAOffice: (+1) 515-263-6153Fax: (+1) 515-263-2980mplowman@grandiew.edu

MUNINNexploro omniISSN 2167-8391