Usury in the Middle Ages

The "fall" of the Roman Empire not only marked the end of a powerful geo-political entity of stability for most of Europe, but it also ushered in the demise of an economy that had dominated the continent for centuries.  With the dawn of the "Dark Ages," Europeans of all stripes were forced to start from scratch and to establish new rules to govern the newly emerging political, social and economic practices that were emerging in the post-Roman world.

Among the many issues dealt with at this time was the practice of usury (interest practices on monetary loans).  During the height of the Roman Empire, usury had been, by and large, an approved practice, though it was almost exclusively a privatized enterprise.  Wealthy citizens could, if they so chose, grant loans with fixed interest rates (though the empire did, at times, place certain restrictions on those rates), thereby allowing a quasi-privatized banking system to arise.  With the rise of the Catholic church in the early 4th century, however, the practice of usury was met with stern disapproval by early Christian leaders.  For these early Christians, the teachings of Jesus, and of the Bible itself, made the practice of usury not only undesirable but downright sinful.  From the Book of Deuteronomy:

19.) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

20.) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thous settest thine hand to in the land...

This clear commandment against the practice of usury (with the exception given in bold for a "stranger," a loophole that Medieval Jews found quite useful) served as more than sufficient ammunition to criminalize the practice for the majority of the Middle Ages.  The elimination of Usury was unanimously accepted during the 325 Council of Nicea.  In the eighth century under Charlemagne, usury was, under the law, considered to be a general criminal offence.  In 1179, at the Third Council of the Latean, anyone found benefiting from the practice of usury was prohibited from taking the sacraments and could eventually be excommunicated entirely.  Later, Pope Sixtus V would call the practice of usury, "most detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."

So, if the practice of usury was so deplorable to Medieval Christians, how did it eventually become standard operating procedure?  And how are Christians today (along with capitalism in general) able to so gleefully support its continued existence?

The answer rests primarily with the rise of trade and (eventually) Mercantilism in Europe.  As European society continued to progress through the Middle Ages, the growth of trade and finance forced change upon a society that was, for centuries, operating on a set of rules that issued divine punishment for certain practices (such as usury).  But these divine punishments eventually had to give way to the sweeping tides of change. 

Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialization, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow.  Nobles and other elites of European society quickly discovered that the practice of usury was virtually a gold mine waiting to be tapped.  As trade and commercialization began to spread its roots further out into the Middle East and the Orient, European powers saw greater opportunities to increase their wealth.  Even holy religious orders like the famous Knights Templar got into the act by taking advantage of their complex network of members that were branched out all across the European countryside.  

But not everyone was in favor of this new justification on an old sin.  Both Martin Luther and John Calvin, along with their followers, expressed severe disappointment with what was taking place, going so far as to claim that those who practice usury were carrying the "mark of the beast" mentioned of in the Book of Revelations.  In many ways, this conflict between the pro and anti-usury crowds helped to spark much of the Antisemitism that began to permeate Europe at the latter portion of the Middle Ages.  

In the end, the economic and social revolutions taking place throughout Europe, coupled with the eventual discovery of the "New World" made the conversion to an acceptance of usury a virtual guarantee.  The new demands for goods from all across the globe created an environment that was simply too rich for the practice of usury not to flourish.  This, of course, eventually contributed to the rise of market capitalism, which is essentially married to the practice of usury.  As a result, the long-held prohibition on usury had gone the way of the Dodo Bird.  

Early Mormon Leaders on the "Evils" of Wealth (Warning: Glenn Beck's Head is About to Explode)

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (1875) 

THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force. 

ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State, and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin. 

YEARS AGO IT WAS PERCEIVED that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the Church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one. 

A UNION OF INTERESTS was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co-operation among us. 

CO-OPERATION has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But it is now time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain co-operation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local co-operative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that in union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs. 

Your Brethren: 

Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., George A. Smith, John taylor, Orson Hyde, Charles C,. Rich, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Albert Carrington 1875

Source: Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt Lake City [1886], pp. 728-732.

The Medieval Origins of Capitalism

I've never been a huge fan of economics.  In my opinion, the difference between most economic theories and practices is predominantly one of semantics.  In the end, all systems of exchange can be reduced to their common denominator: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. No one system is really all that preferable to another (in my opinion). With that said, studying the history and evolution of economics does help to shed light on the changes and advances that have been made in society, and the efforts to even the playing field for all of humanity.

And when it comes to the study of economics, no system is more important to the modern Western world than capitalism.  For many Americans, capitalism is every bit as important of a component to the founding of their nation as is the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (even though the Founding Fathers never really put capitalism on their radar).  And though there is much to say for the more modern conceptualizations of capitalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Max Weber, etc.) the original origins of capitalism hail back to a time before the "New World" had even been discovered.  

The world that was 14th century Europe was a world in constant flux.  Severe political, religious, social, economic and health problems plagued (literally) the landscape.  These mitigating factors brought with them sweeping tides of change that helped to redefine European society.  For instance, the Black Death, along with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, had ravaged the countryside, claiming at least 1/3 of the populace in the process.  The massive loss of laborers caused a dramatic change to the Manorial and Feudal systems in almost all of Europe.  This lack of laborers created new opportunities for the peasantry to move about and benefit from additional markets.  In addition, the development of newer agricultural technologies revitalized the markets of a suffering Europe.  Eventually, the emergence of Calvinist doctrines, particularly regarding worldly success as a symbol of God's favor, encouraged further growth, all of which gave rise to the earliest embryonic form of capitalism known as Mercantilism.   Needless to say, these advances fit nicely with the discovery of the "New World" in the following century, and eventually evolved to become a staple in the Western world. 

Of course, I am not suggesting that our modern understanding of capitalism existed in the Middle Ages.  Far from it.  But it is fair to say that an infant form of the system was beginning to emerge during the middle part of the 14th century.  Improvements in naval travel helped to augment the trade markets to and from Europe, and increased the demand for goods.  As a result, an emerging class of specialized laborers found themselves having access to a measure of wealth that had never before existed under feudalism.   Skeptics will, of course, point out that improvements in trade and the emergence of new markets don't necessarily equate to capitalism and they are right.  But there is a large body of evidence for commercial activity in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Mediterranean, which deserves to be recognized for its enterprise and sophistication.  Mediterranean, and particularly Italian, merchants traded in high-value luxury goods, like spices, gems, dyes, and exotic metalwork. And although goods like these had circulated the seas for centuries, the volume and value of this trade increased dramatically in the wake of the struggles of the 14th century.  And it is very unlikely that such an expansion would have occurred under the old systems of manorialism and feudalism, which insisted on being self-reliant and relatively localized in scope.  Therefore, the expansion that took place in the 14th century should be seen as the result of the many social and economic changes that had taken place.

As you can see in the map above, European and Middle Eastern traders were active across a wide swathe of the Mediterranean world. To this end, the major Italian cities established trading colonies, to protect their interests abroad and monopolize the sources of desirable goods. These cities included, Amalfi, Naples, Genoa, and of course, Venice. The merchant-imperialism of these cities went hand in hand with the complex ways of investing and launching trading missions organised by the merchants themselves.  In addition, it was this expansive trade system that eventually allowed Arabian literature, architecture, mathematics, etc. to make their way into the European heartland, thus helping to ignite the Renaissance.  It's not a stretch to suggest that without these advances, Europe may never have had its De Vinci.

 In conclusion, what we can glean from the history and origins of capitalism (or any other economic system for that matter) is that it didn't come into existence overnight.  It took a great deal of time to evolve into what we have today, and frankly, it's still evolving.  Economic systems are static, unchangeable concepts, but rather are fluid and ever-changing.  This is certainly the case with capitalism.  From its birth in the Middle Ages to its existence today as the predominant means of exchange in the Western World today, capitalism has had a long and interesting history.  Will it last?  I have no idea.  As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't believe there is all that much difference between rival economic systems to begin with, but then again, I never lived in Feudal Europe.  

The Reality of "Reaganomics"

We've all heard it before. Crazy uncles at family reunions, co-workers around the water cooler, and fellow worshipers you sit next to in your church's congregation all invoke his name. "I'm not a Republican" they say, "I am a Reagan conservative." The declaration is usually followed up by a lecture on the evils of taxation, government spending and the overly-complex economic policies of Washington. "Reagan was for the people" they say, as they speak his name with reverence and conclude with the petition: "I want my country back." Yes, it is safe to say that the most conservative elements of modern day conservatism have a love affair with all things Reagan.

Or do they?

As crazy as it might be to suggest, I maintain that most "Reagan conservatives" know next to nothing about the actual presidency of Ronald Reagan (I have blogged about it before here). Reality is that Ronald Reagan was far from your modern day Tea Party disciple. Reagan opposed torture, was against military action against terrorists, and actually supported amnesty for illegal aliens. But setting all of those points aside for now, I want to focus on what is arguably the most popular component of "Reagan conservatism", that being "Reaganomics."

If you were to ask your average Reagan disciple what "Reaganomics" or "Trickle Down" economics are all about, chances are you would hear a lot of rhetoric about cutting taxes, eliminating government oversight, creating jobs, privatizing industry, experiencing indescribably Utopian prosperity, yadda, yadda, yadda. In short, you'd get a lot of hot air with little actual history behind it, almost like a talk radio pundit. Funny thing about those political pundits, isn't it. They really don't like ACTUAL history, do they?!?

The truth about "Reaganomics" is that Ronald Reagan didn't have a whole lot to do with it. Ronald Reagan’s tax plan actually had its roots in the 1970s, with economist Arthur Laffer. Laffer originally drew up his ideas on a restaurant napkin and shared them with an advisor to President Ford. His idea outlined the obvious paradoxes that exist whenever tax rates approached 0% and 100%. Laffer suggested that raising taxes too high would reduce business activity, while lowering taxes would result in dangerously low revenue (really nothing all that profound, even to the layman). Ronald Reagan liked Laffer’s basic approach to economics, and consulted with him and others on his staff regarding how best to implement it. The difference, however, was that Reagan (unlike many on his staff) pushed for a much lower tax rate initially than did his advisers. According to many member of his staff, Reagan seemed to be oblivious to the idea of needed tax revenues, and enchanted with the idea cutting them. In David Stockton’s words, it seemed as though Reagan “had only the foggiest idea of what supply side was all about.” Stockton warned Reagan repeatedly that a large tax cut would spell doom to the national deficit, unless cuts in spending could be implemented. Even during the campaign of 1980 George Bush, Reagan’s opponent for the Republican nomination and eventual vice-president, called Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics.” Eventually, Reagan would realize the error of keeping such low tax rates in place, and as a result, raised taxes on four different occasions during his administration. Not exactly the type of facts you hear from self-proclaimed "Reagan Conservative" Sean Hannity!

Reagan’s economic philosophy embraced the idea that by lowering taxes, the people would end up with more money in their pockets. Reagan called his plan a “new beginning” for Americans, and a sure-fire way to economic recovery. This idea was, in part, fulfilled. While the majority of Americans experienced little or no actual economic prosperity, the top 1% of Americans blossomed. The net worth of the 400 richest Americans quadrupled under Reagan's presidency, and corporate CEO’s made, on average, 93 times as much money as did the common American.

While it is true that Reagan’s economic policy gave relief to the problems of the 70s (a fact that Republicans should be very proud of), Reagan also managed to impact the federal deficit as well, which soared from 700 billion to 2.7 trillion during his eight-year tenure. Reagan’s commitment to military buildup created a conflict with his desire to lower taxes. Many began questioning where Reagan planned to find the money. To increase revenue, Reagan signed legislation that created “sin taxes” on alcohol and tobacco (isn't Glenn Beck against those taxes?). Reagan also increased social security taxes, and forced the burden of funding various programs onto the states, who in turn raised taxes as well to fund the programs. In essence, “Reaganomics” was hardly the tax-cutting phenomenon that so many conservatives celebrate today. In fact, President Clinton had a lower tax rate than did Reagan!

Despite many of the problems he faced, Ronald Reagan should still be celebrated for the many successes he enjoyed. Though managing to raise the deficit, Reagan also helped the nation overcome the financial problems of the 70s, and build up a military that the Soviet Union was incapable of matching. Reagan’s ability to relate to the common man inspired many, who, despite never really benefiting from “Reaganomics” rallied behind their Commander-in-Chief. Reagan became the epitome of patriotism and American greatness. No matter how far the gap between the rich and the poor grew, he will probably be remembered, for many years to come, as one of America’s most beloved leaders, and as proof that a successful modern presidency, at least in the eyes of the masses, rests more with presenting a pretty picture than actual facts and figures.

Occupy Wall Street and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

This rhetorical rhyme, made famous by the English Medieval Lollard Preacher John Ball, illustrates what many throughout the course of human history have believed: the rich get richer while doing less while the poor get poorer while doing more. Whether this is true or not is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, the fact remains that history is replete with examples of those who have challenged the social and economic divisions of their time in an effort to balance the scales of justice.

Of course, the obvious example for us today is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is presumably operating under the assumption that the current economic state of affairs in the United States are unacceptable. Whether the "99%" has a legitimate argument or not has become a hot topic in today's political discourse and is likely to be an issue in the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. Do the "99%" have a case to be made? Who knows. Again, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I am not a fan of either the Occupy movement or the Tea Party movement (for personal reasons) but the fact remains that protests over alleged economic inequality is a big deal to a lot of people

And America is far from unique when it comes to protest. As stated before, humans have long argued over issues of economic inequality and perhaps one of the best examples of this phenomenon is a surefire Hollywood script in the making: the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

To understand the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 we need to place it within the context of its time. In 1350, England (and most of Europe as a whole) was finally beginning to emerge from the devastation left behind in the wake of the Black Death, which had claimed the lives of at least 1/3 of the continent. In addition, the Black Death created serious and severe economic problems for almost all survivors. Church resources were severely drained as were the pockets of the noble classes. With the labor force dramatically reduced, peasants were able to (in some cases for the first time ever) demand higher wages and better working conditions from the ruling class. Nobles, who before the Black Death were able to exploit the working masses, were forced to temporarily acquiesce to the demands of the peasantry.

This temporary (and relatively small) empowerment of the peasantry was not destined to last. Urged by the complaints of the nobles, King Edward III (and later his successor, Richard II) increased poll (census) taxes while at the same time passing laws that restricted peasant demands and fixed wages to pre-Black Death levels. In addition, nobles who belonged to large groups like the Knights Hospitilar, which controlled vast amounts of wealth and capital, were given tax breaks by the king, who depended on these nobles for his support.

Of course, this blatant show of favoritism for these elite, noble "corporations" did not sit well with the peasantry. In consequence, men like John Ball, Wat Tyler and Jack Straw emerged from the working ranks to inspire resistance against the ruling elite. These men, and thousands of others like them, staged public protests throughout England. No doubt inspired by the works of early Lollards like John Wycliffe, and having felt the horrific pressures of the Black Death, these peasants stood defiant to a ruling class that they believed no longer cared about their needs. This Medieval "99%" (a far more oppressed 99% than that of today) would eventually storm different locations that represented oppression in their eyes. For example, on June 14, 1381 a mob of nearly 20,000 stormed the Tower of London and executed Simon Sudbury (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and Robert de Hales (the Grand Prior of the Knights Hospitilar). These men, who were essentially the Medieval equivalent of corporate CEO's, had been some of the most vocal supporters of increased poll taxes and peasant restrictions. Needless to say, this "Occupy London Bridge" movement was meant to send a clear message. These sentiments would later be captured by Medieval Writer John Gower, who in his work Vox Clamantis, called the protesters "heathens", "angels of anti-Christ...who according to foolish ideas...believe in a world with no Lords." In his work Geoffrey Chaucer in his Nun's Priest's Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer immortalized one of the peasant leaders (Jack Straw) when he wrote:

Certes, he Jakke Straw and his meinee
Ne made nevere shoutes half so shrille,
Whan that they wolden any Fleming kille.

And though the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 ended with the murder of its leaders and the suppression of the masses (King Richard II actually lured men like Jack Straw and others into meeting with him in London only to have them executed), most agree that the revolt marks the beginning of the end for Medieval serfdom. Though it would take centuries, the upper class nobles were made to understand that they could not treat commoners as chattel. Slowly but surely a sweeping wave of change (in the shape of the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution and further economic opportunity brought on by Mercantilism) overcame Europe. Medieval kings and lords no longer maintained their monopoly on the "99%."

Is the same likely to happen today? Who knows. Only time will tell. Certainly today's economic oppression is not the same as that of our Medieval ancestors. Perhaps John Ball's poetic lines are as meaningful today as they were more than 600 years ago:

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

To Bee or Not to Bee

"Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue." ~Songs of Solomon 4: 11

"The pedigree of honey does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him is aristocracy." ~Emily Dickinson

"And thy Lord taught the bee to build its cells in hills, on trees and in men's habitations...there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for mankind. Verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought." ~Al Quran 16: 68-69

"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth." ~Psalms 119: 103

"For so work the honey-bees, creatures that by a rule in nature teach the act of order to a peopled kingdom." ~William Shakespeare

"Like the honeybee, the sage should gather wisdom from many scriptures." ~Bhagavad Gita.

"Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price." ~2 Nephi 26: 25

One of my closet ambitions in life is to be a professional beekeeper. In my opinion, bees are one of the most beautiful, hard working and interesting forms of life on this planet. The ability of these tiny little insects, to work tirelessly together towards a common goal is an inspiration to even us who reside at the top of the food chain. And make no mistake, the role of bees is fundamental to our food chain.

Most people don't realize that bees and their hives are much more than simple little honey factories. In fact, honey is far from the most important function these little guys perform. Bees are nature's most proficient pollinators, and as such, they are directly responsible for the continued prosperity of literally thousands of forms of plant life. And many of these plants are of huge importance to humans. Whether it is kiwis, onions, cashews, almonds, strawberries, celery, beets, broccoli, cabbage, papaya, peppers, watermelons, blueberries, cranberries, raspberries, cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, zucchini, lemons, carrots, figs, soybeans, apples, mangos, avocados, lima beans, kidney beans, cherries, plumbs, peaches, pears, eggplant, cocoa, vanilla, tomatoes or grapes (and those are just a few), bees are fundamental to the survival of these plants. In short, roughly half of everything you and I put into our mouths to eat is the direct result of a bee's efforts. That's right, these tiny little guys (actually gals, since 95% of a hive is female including 100% of the workers) are of paramount importance to humanity. Crazy to think that we big, bad Homo Sapiens, with all of our technology, knowledge, and dominance of this planet rely so heavily on a simple little insect!

And just what would happen if these little bees died off? Well, we may get to find out sooner than we thought.

Ever since the dawn of civilization, mankind has looked to bees for their sweet nectar. Ancient cave dwellers drew pictures of bees and their honey, hailing them as the workers of the gods. In Egypt, bees were seen as great soothsayers. The location of their hives were graced with worship and awe, and the bee's honey was so special that only those of Pharaoh's court could partake of the liquid gold. Medieval Europe, having still not discovered sugar, saw honey as the nectar of the gods; a substance that demanded great appreciation from all of society. Yes, it is safe to say that human history is replete with stories of respect and reverence for the mighty little bee.

That is, until today. Sadly, the bee has been introduced to a modern world where corporate interests and the capitalistic quest for continued consumption and production have forced our little yellow and black friends into uncharted waters. Now days, bees are shipped across the world to large corporate farms who need these bees to pollinate their crops.

And sadly, this is the least of the bee's concern. Modern pesticides have made their way into the bee's precious nectar, causing the hive to succumb to disease. Their brood is often born with weaker immune and nervous systems. And as American farms become more oriented to a single crop (often spanning over acres of land) pests are able to find all the food they need, thus increasing the need for pesticides. In consequence, the bee's job is made even harder to accomplish. In short, the mass corporate agenda of our modern food industry has forced beekeepers to ship their bees further, to farms with even more pesticides, thus causing the bees far more stress than they have ever experienced before.

So what's the big deal? Why should we care in the first place? Because our bees are dying...by the BILLIONS. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has become a new phenomenon that the American beekeeper is having to face on a daily basis, and the consequences have been disastrous. Literally thousand upon thousands of hives have simply gone extinct all across the United States leaving the beekeeper virtually destitute, and the American farmer in a real pickle. The blueberry and almond farms of California have suffered huge losses, as have the cranberry fields on the east coast and the farms in the American heartland. If Colony Collapse Disorder continues, chances are we will see serious losses to American farms that will have real and long-lasting consequences for all of us.

So what is causing Colony Collapse Disorder and how do we stop it? There have been literally hundreds of suggested causes ranging from cellular phones to a supposed Soviet plot. And though these suggestions are provocative, you don't have to look for the dramatic to see what is killing our bees. The increased stress to produce goods in order to fulfill the hunger of the capitalist markets has fueled the need for more bees to do their job faster, longer, harder and better than ever before. Farms that were normally producing 80 bushels of goods per acre are now being forced to produce 150 bushels. Economic pressures to compete with other countries who aren't required to meet the standards of our FDA have pushed farmers and food companies to find any way possible to cut corners in order to turn profits. And as can be expected, the bee is taking the brunt of the work.

But unlike the American worker, bees don't care about capitalism or other economic pressures. And as the bee is shipped further to stranger farms, full of pesticides, mites and diverse climates, the bee has reached its limits. Being confused due to geographic relocation, gathering pollen from plants infected with pesticides and fed with synthetic sugars as opposed to their rich and natural honey has caused the bee to die in numbers we have never seen before. And can any of us be surprised? Just imagine how each of us would handle being shipped across the country, given synthetic food, forced to work is a strange climate and exposed to foreign chemicals. It's no stretch to suggest that we too would get very sick and possibly face death. Now just imagine what this must do to the little bee.

We can save the bees, but unfortunately it requires change on our part. As Albert Einstein stated: "We can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created." We must change the way we think and operate before we can effect real change, and such is the case with our bees. Eliminating the ridiculous corporate mentality that permeates our food industry along with the pesticides that infect these hives is of paramount importance. We must quit seeing the food industry as a way to magnify the corporate drive for further consumption and production. We eventually need to recognize that we will never be able to eat money! Taking care of our bees (and our farms/environment in general) is a priority that will forever transcend corporate interests.

That is, assuming you want to keep half of the food you now enjoy!

Edmund Genet and the "Conspiracy" to Destroy America

One of the few consistent truths throughout the course of United States history has been that Americans of all generations have believed that conspiracies to thwart their freedom lurk around every corner and under every rock. Whether it takes the form of Catholic incursion or McCarthy communist witch hunts, Americans have always been on the lookout for the next big threat to our seemingly fragile republic.

And our founding generation was no different.

During the early years of the new American republic, scandals and conspiracies against the infant republic were a regular fixture in the halls of government. Divisions between those who supported a strong federal government (the Federalists) and those for limited centralized power (the Democratic-Republicans) created a rift in the political arena that seemed to grow with each passing day. Issues such as the Jay Treaty, which created an economic alliance with Britain over France, had caused an uproar amongst Democratic-republicans that only intensified with the later election of Federalist John Adams. For Democratic-republican leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the cause of France was the cause of America. They passionately believed that America needed to throw its weight behind the French cause, which was rapidly moving toward revolution itself. In their minds, to deny the French would be treasonous against the very ideals of the American Revolution itself. And as war between England and France continued to become more of a reality, America's economic and political preference with the British made relations with the French extremely tense.

The arrival of Edmond Genet as French ambassador to the United States in 1793 only intensified the ongoing political battle. Genet had been sent to America in an effort to garner support for the French cause. Democratic-republicans like Jefferson were initially ecstatic over Genet's arrival. As Gordon Wood points out in his book, Empire of Liberty:

He [Genet] landed in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1793, and in his month long journey north to Philadelphia he was everywhere greeted with warmth and enthusiasm. Americans sang "Marseillaise," waved the French revolutionary flag, and passed liberty caps around. Some Federalists thought the French Revolution was being brought to America. Later in his life John Adams still vividly recalled the frenzied atmosphere of "Terrorism, excited by Genet," that ran through the nation's capital in the late spring of 1793. "Ten thousand People in the Streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his office and effect Revolution in the Government, or compel it to declare War in favour of the French Revolution, and against England" (185-186).

Perhaps nobody was as excited to see Edmund Genet as was Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson attacked President Washington's quest for neutrality, stating that Genet's intentions (and the larger French intentions) were as pure as the driven snow:

"It is impossible for anything to be more affectionate, more magnanimous, than the purpose of Genet's mission. He [Genet] wishes to do nothing but what is for our own good and we should do all in our power to promote it." (Jefferson to Madison, May 19, 1793).

For Federalist leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Genet's arrival was not met with the pomp and circumstance afforded it by the Democratic-republicans by instead with a deep sense of concern. As Ron Chernow points out in his autobiography on Hamilton:

Where others saw camaraderie and high spirits, Hamilton detected an embryonic plot to subvert American foreign policy. The organizers of Genet's reception "were the same men who have been uniformly the enemies and the disturbers of the government of the U[nited] States."

[...]

In private talks with George Hammond, Hamilton promised that he would vigorously contest efforts to lure America into war alongside France. He also predicted that the United States would extend no large advances to the revolutionary government, and he delayed debt payments owed to France. In a dispatch to London, Hammond noted that Hamilton would defend American nutrality because "any event which might endanger the external tranquility of the United States would be as fatal to the systems he has formed for the benefit of his country as to his...personal reputation and...his...ambition." (Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 439).

And Hamilton wasn't alone in his disdain for the French ambassador. After observing Genet's antics, President George Washington commented:

"Is the Minister of the French Republic to set the Acts of his Government at defiance, with impunity? and then threaten the Executive with an appeal to the People? What must the world think of such conduct, and the Government of the U. States in submitting to it?"(Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism, 351).

For the Federalists, Genet's arrival was seen as a precursor to an even deeper plot to undermine the sovereignty of the new American republic. In a very real sense, Hamilton (and other fellow Federalists) saw Genet's presence in America as a possible foreshadowing of the French guillotine, which would sever not only the heads of Federalist leaders, but would destroy everything the revolution had created. As historian Paul Newman, author of the book, Fries's Rebellion points out:

"The Republican leadership, men like Jefferson and Madison, were not the Hamiltonians’ greatest fear. What frightened them most was the popular following the two Virginians and their newfound French ally attracted, and the fact that citizens had begun to publicly criticize and directly oppose Federalist policies" (52).

The following clip from HBO's John Adams miniseries helps to illustrate some of the tensions that Genet's arrival had caused:


In the end, it would be Genet's arrogance and lack of foresight that would be his undoing. The harsh tone in both his letters and speeches against the American government ended up costing Genet not only his American allies but his French support back home as well. Instead of coming off as the great "citizen of world liberty", Ambassador Genet became a liability. In addition, the American populace was beginning to see that the French Revolution was not as similar to their own as they had once thought. And as the French Jacobins seized power in 1794 (and demanded the return of Genet to France to face execution) the former French ambassador was forced to plea for asylum from the very government officials he had once opposed. Coincidentally, it was Hamilton, Genet's fiercest opponent, who advocated for Genet's asylum in the U.S. Genet lived out the rest of his life as a humble New York farmer.

And the republic, despite all of the threats to its security, lived on...happily ever after.

Why do we Celebrate Labor Day?

"Labor Day differs in every essential from the other holidays of the year in any country...All other holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of man's prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day...is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race, or nation."

These words, spoken by Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of labor, help to sum up why Labor Day is a unique celebration in the American canon of federal holidays. And though in our current era Labor Day tends to signify the unofficial end of summer, the origins of this unique holiday are quite complex to say the least.

The first official Labor Day celebration in the United States was held on September 5, 1882, primarily in New York City. During its first few years, Labor Day was not recognized as a national holiday but was held as a local day of celebration to honor the labors of the common workers in various urban areas throughout the country. In fact, the idea for a day to honor laborers had been tossed around during the Civil War, as a way for the Union to pay homage to the superiority of the free labor system v. that of slave labor. For this reason, many northern urban centers began holding unofficial labor days, but nothing on a national scale ever came to fruition.

Over the next decade, however, a number of public uprisings resulting from labor disputes and economic crises caused the federal government to rethink its position. For example, on May 4, 1886, striking workers and other supporters gathered at the Haymarket Square in Chicago to protest the efforts being made by big business to block the implementation of the standard eight-hour work day. Just four days earlier, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions had unanimously voted to accept and support the eight-hour work week as a standard practice. However, several large businesses including the McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. challenged the decision and refused to cave in. Both sides grew impatient and several protests irrupted into violence. As a result, protesters to the May 4th gathering at Haymarket Square were urged to, "Arm Yourselves and Appear in Full Force!", which they did. As the crowds grew, police responded to prevent and violence. In the midst of the excitement, an overzealous member of the crowd threw a large bomb at police, killing at least three officers and several protesters. What became known as the Haymarket Affair sent shock waves throughout the country and furthered the divide between common laborers and big business.

A few years later, economic depression took tensions to an even higher level than ever. The Panic of 1893, which was the result of th over expansion of the nation's railroads and questionable bank financing, caused tensions between workers and big business to reach a boiling point. In the same way that hosing expansion and foolish bank practices have caused much of our economic troubles today, the over expansion of railroads caused the industry to come to a screeching halt. As a result, jobs were lost and wages decreased.

In the wake of the Panic of 1893 came the Pullman Strike of 1894. As the Pullman Palace Car Company (a railroad company) began cutting jobs, decreasing wages, and increasing the daily work hours of its workers, more laborers began organizing. Eventually they began to strike in Pullman, Illinois. Initially there were only 3,000 workers who refused to work, however, that number soon increased to over 200,000 and spead to over 27 states, thus effectively causing the nation's railroad system (and much of its economy) to become stuck in the mud. In response, President Grover Cleveland dispatched the U.S. Marshals and over 12,000 U.S. soldiers under the command of Lt. General Nelson Miles, to break up the strike and return the laborers to their work. Long story short, General Miles' efforts were effective, but over 50 people were killed and over $300,000 dollars in damage was caused.

In response to this event, which was obviously received in a negative fashion by the American public, legislation was quickly created to make Labor Day a national holiday. Only a mere six days after the end of the Pullman Strike, President Cleveland asked Congress to pass a bill that officially recognized Labor Day throughout the nation, which they did on June 28, 1894. Obviously this was done in an effort to appease the masses who were already infuriated over the dwindling American economy and the president's decision to sent troops to break up a lawful strike. Sadly for Cleveland, his efforts were in vain, as he was easily beaten by William McKinley in the election of 1896, thanks in part to his handling of the Panic of 1893 and the Pullman Strike.

So here we are in the 21st century, and like our predecessors we too face an economy that is on the skids (though let's not be dramatic here. The Panic of 1893 was MUCH worse). But unlike our forefathers, we live in a time when the rights of the working class are in a far better state...

...

...At least in some respects.

Yes, we too have many who work for low wages, endure long hours, receive terrible benefits, etc., etc., etc. Yes, like the J.P. Morgans of the 19th century, we too have corrupt corporations who suck the wealth from the people, use their money irresponsibly, fall on hard times, ask and receive a bailout from the government and then turn around and create jobs in China so that their stock goes up a few points. I guess greed knows no limits, no matter the era.

I guess I can't help but wonder if Labor Day is just like those peasant holidays from the Medieval era. Are the nobles of society simply appeasing us rabble peasants by giving us a free day from the fields where we can indulge ourselves in various forms of entertainment? Sure smells like it.

All hail Caesar!

Here's a brief video on the history of Labor Day from the History Channel:

The American Revolution: A Blessing for the British?

Is it possible that the American Revolution was just as beneficial -- if not more beneficial during the 19th century -- for Great Britain as is was for us? Surely not! After all, we're the ones who triumphantly and gloriously won independence. The "Mother Country" suffered a huge blow by losing her precious American colonies.

Right?

Not so fast.

In his book "Rise and Fall of the British Empire" historian Lawrence James devotes an entire chapter to this very question. He claims that during the years immediately following the war with the American colonies, Great Britain actually reaped huge rewards; rewards that far exceeded those made by the newly established United States of America -- which, by the way, actually struggled more than it did prosper in its infancy.

For the British, the reality of parting ways with its former American colonies was better than most expected. Yes, the burden of humiliation that came with such a loss was staggering, but it wasn't crippling. Instead of limping away with their tail between their legs, Britain actually experienced more prosperity than ever before. Trade between the former mother nation and its now independent child actually increased after 1783, particularly cotton exports, which augmented from 15.5 million pounds in the 1780’s to 28.6 million pounds in 1800 (James, 119). Along with an increase in trade, the British Empire benefited by not having to pay for the protection of its American colonies, which had proven very costly in the past (The French and Indian War should come to mind). In essence, the American Revolution aided Britain in becoming the economic world juggernaut of the 19th century.

American colonial independence also added a measure of credence to Adam Smith’s assertion that the American colonies were more of a liability than an asset. In his book Wealth of Nations, Smith claimed that colonies were beneficial to empires, so long as control could be maintained. The American colonies, however, had become “less in the view and less in the power of the mother country,” and were therefore a liability. Maintaining control while being separated by an ocean was, in Smith's mind, a dangerous illusion.

The reality of the post-war period was that the American colonists needed the British more than the British needed the colonists. As James points out in his book:

Naturally there were alarms about the commercial consequences of a break between Britain and America,” but those fears subsided as British experts came to the realization that the infant American republic, 'could not survive economically without Britain (119).

The fact that the United States joined in an economic accord with their former rival is also indicative of how powerful the British economy really was. This economic agreement between America and Britain (known as the Jay Treaty) helped to deliver the former colonies from economic ruin (not to mention the fact that it made Britain a lot of money). As historian Joseph Ellis points out in his book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation:

The Jay Treaty, in effect, bet on England instead of France…as being the hegemonic European power of the Future, which proved prophetic (136-137).

We often look at the American Revolution from the perspective of the colonists and rightfully so. When we take a step back, however, and examine the revolution's impact on everyone else involved, we can see just how "revolutionary" it really was. Not only did it benefit the colonies, but it also greatly improved conditions for Great Britain. In a very real sense, the American Revolution also helped the former "Mother Country" become the premiere world power of the 19th century.

At least it didn't hurt!

Do "Reagan Conservatives" Follow Reagan?

Another Example of History
Being Misrepresented

Let's get right into it. Do "Reagan Conservatives" actually follow Ronald Reagan?

The quick answer: NO! Very few "Reagan Conservatives" today would be able to tell you very much about the man and his policies as president. Of course they are more than able to spew the rhetoric they've gleaned from their "Holy Trinity" of conservative doctrine (the Limbaugh, the Hannity and the Holy Beck), but beyond that, few have bothered to take an honest look at what "Good Ol' Dutch" actually stood for.

Why? Because if they did they would realize that Reagan himself would detest the tea-bagging, Paul Revere wannabe, doomsday rhetoric of 21st century neo-conservatism, which is more interested in twisting history, inflating a false sense of patriotism and making simple-minded stupidity a virtue (remember Joe the Plummer?). The conservatives who summon Reagan’s ghost for use in today’s arguments usually use him as a stand-in for doctrinal purity. Why? Because they have no real doctrine themselves.

Now, before you de-friend me on Facebook or start labeling me an evil, fascist, Nazi, Obama socialist hear me out. I am not trying to level an attack on Reagan here, nor am I saying that conservatism is a bad thing. As a person who generally favors conservative principles (i.e. fiscal responsibility, limited government, etc.) I believe that most RATIONAL Republicans embrace sound government principles that are far superior to those of their tax and spend, larger government opponents. Now, I say this in the general sense because I realize that there are Dems who favor less taxation and government, just like there are Republicans who are downright insane and stupid (Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.). In addition, I also recognize that Ronald Reagan was a successful president who did a lot of good for this nation. However, I do NOT believe that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I share the sentiments of the "Reagan Conservatives" who embrace the man as the Messiah of truth, justice and the American way. I also think it's silly for these "Reagan Conservatives" to hold the man up as something he was not. How do I know they are wrong? See for yourselves:

When speaking with a "Reagan Conservative" you will typically hear something in line with the following:

"I am not a Republican. I am a Reagan Conservative who stands for the principles which Reagan embodied, those being lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, a strong military, zero tolerance for terrorism, Christian values and immigration reform. In short, I believe, with Reagan, that government isn't the solution to problems; government is the problem." ~Sean Hannity, Conservative Victory, 2010

Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in American history...He slowed the growth of domestic spending by vetoing spending bills and by shutting down the federal bureaucracy. In fact, Ronald Reagan proved something that to this day economists, elite economists do not believe. Ronald Reagan lowered inflation during the midst of one of the most unbridled economies and its growth period in history. No economist thought that possible, but he did. He brought inflation down to 4.8% from its double-digit figure when he took office, and significantly. ~Rush Limbaugh, June 7, 2004.

Well, that sounds good to me too. Only one problem: It's not really true. Ronald Reagan didn't embrace these things like the "Reagan Conservatives" think he did. Here's what Reagan really believed:

Taxation and Spending
We've all heard the rhetoric about how AMAZING Reagan was with taxes. If you listen to the pundits its almost as if nobody paid any taxes of any kind during the "Glorious 80s." Sadly, the truth is something very different. As economist Paul Krugman points out:

Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

[...]

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility; or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was a huge increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent more in taxes than they did under JFK, Johnson and Carter.

In short, the man actually RAISED taxes when he knew it would benefit the country. That is one major reason he was a successful president. Reagan, like his idol FDR, knew that you had to be flexible with the economy. Sometimes you need to spend, other times you need to save. In short, Reagan understood that no fixed political position would solve problems. One needed to be willing to admit that the "other guy" had a point as well.

And how about fiscal spending? Wasn't Reagan the most fiscal president in the history of history? Isn't that was Rush and the like tell us?

Not so fast. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, Ronald Reagan's presidency incurred the third highest level of deficit spending in American history:
And though I recognize that Reagan's deficit spending was not as bad as some might think (Reagan and his advisors knew that they could outspend the Soviets into oblivion) this chart illustrates the fact that Reagan was not the anti-spending guy that the tea-nut "Reagan Conservative" crowd believes. Anti-spending? Anti-taxes? Not ol' Dutch!

Military and Terrorism
Ok, on this one we need to clarify a few things. One of the main reasons Reagan spent so much $$$ was to create a strong military. That's a reality. Sadly, the "Reagan Conservatives" seem to believe that this simple fact means that Reagan was for increasing ALL aspects of the military. Not so.

On page 222 of his "book" Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity, the self-anointed founder of "Reagan Conservatism":

We must be committed to retaining our position as the world's greatest superpower, by maintaining the world's strongest military and supporting our troops on and off the battlefield. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons and must persist in perfecting our strategic missile defenses. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons, we can never return to a world without them.

So "brave"; so "Patriotic", Sean. Only one problem. Here's what Reagan had to say on the issue:

Let's make no mistake. Reagan HATED war. He was from the WWII generation and knew first hand the horrible nature of it. In consequence, one of his primary goals was the complete eradication of all nuclear weapons. In December 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, which "requires destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force." Not only did Reagan want to control the Soviet nuclear stockpile but of ours as well!

As for terrorism, "Reagan Conservatives" are usually the first to uphold torture as a responsible, reliable practice:

On nearly every issue since the war on terror bean, Democrats have stood for the wrong principles and policies and have proved incompetent in carrying out their own policies as well...They [terrorists] have declared war on us and we're fighting a war and we know there is about 60-some odd detainees that have gone back to the battlefield. Why for the first time ever would we give rights to enemy combatants?...Waterboarding is a safe and effective tool for intelligence gathering." ~Sean Hannity on Fox's Hannity, broadcast Mar. 10, 2009.

Waterboarding is not torture. It's a horrible experience that does no harm." ~Glenn Beck, January 17, 2008.

Now let's see what Reagan had to say about torture. When speaking of the United Nations convention on torture he said:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Reagan was admant about prosecuting torture; a practice he detested. In fact, Reagan prosecuted those who were found to be practicing waterboarding, including this Texas Sheriff. So clearly it is impossible for a "Reagan Conservative" to approve of torture...that is...if they truly want to emulate Ronny boy.

These are just a few of the MANY obvious differences that exist between Ronald Reagan and the "Reagan Conservatives." If you want to see more, follow this link (which was one of the many sources used for my post).

In conclusion, I want to make something clear. Ronald Reagan was an effective president not because he clung to some rigid political dogma like the tea-baggers, but because he understood that different situations require different solutions. Reagan could effectively read America's economic and political barometer better than most, and as a result, he knew when to spend and when to save; when to tax and when to not tax. In short, he knew when to be more conservative and more liberal. Contrary to today's idiotic political division, which insists on complete and total subjugation to one rigid form of government (all of which claims to be the supreme guardian of American patriotism), Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism knew when and how to adjust. It was a living, breathing and evolving idea, not a cold, dead and rigid fiction.

So, to the "Reagan Conservatives" out there I only ask one thing: will you follow the REAL Reagan? Or will you continue to believe the myth? Perhaps Reagan's own words best apply. Instead of the word "liberal" I will use "Reagan Conservative":

The trouble with our Reagan Conservative friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Tea Parties: 18th Century v. 21st Century

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are aware of the sudden emergence of the "tea party" movements that have captured the attention of many "super conservatives" this past year. In the spirit of the original tea party of old, many of these new activists fancy themselves as revolutionaries who are crying out in the dark for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

But just how similar are the "tea parties" of today with those of old?

Comparing the Boston Tea Party to the various tea parties that have taken place across the nation in recent months is complex to say the least. After all, we're trying to compare 18th century America with today's society. Most of the social, cultural, and technological norms are completely different now. The majority of early Americans wouldn't even recognize modern America as being their "stomping ground." This is probably the most important (and obvious) distinction to make, especially when we consider just how much tea party pundits (most notably Glenn Beck) have tried to cast the founders in a modern light.

With that said, here are a few specific differences between the tea parties of today and the original tea party of 1773:

1. First off, the legacy of the Boston Tea Party (1773) has been used on a number of occasions. In fact, Mahondas Gandhi (not Mahatma Gandhi) invoked the legacy of the Boston Tea Party in 1908 by inspiring his fellow Indians to burn British registration cards. In the early 1970s there were a large number of gatherings that called themselves "tea parties." At one “I Love America” rally led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, followers were asked to burn bags of tea, symbolizing the people’s anger over the newly-enacted Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the 200th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, protestors gathered at the White House to call for the impeachment of then President Richard Nixon by throwing bags of tea on the White House lawn. In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor. And finally, in 2006 a breakoff of the Libertarian Party called the “Boston Tea Party” was founded.

2. The motivations behind today’s tea parties and the original tea party of 1773 are completely different. The Boston Tea Party (1773) was actually a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut, as opposed to today’s tea parties which protested rising taxes and an increase of government spending, etc. In 1773, The British East India Company was nearly bankrupt and instead of providing a "bailout" or government loan, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which eliminated for this company the duty on tea exported to America. As a result, smaller merchants in the colonies were expected to suffer, since they didn’t received the same tax cuts as the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the peak of a boycott against a company that got huge corporate tax cuts granted to them by the government. Once the ships from the East India Company arrived in Boston’s harbor, men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock were quick to seize the opportunity and turn it into a political advantage by rallying local Boston merchants to their cause. On December 16, after assembling at the Old South Church to express their grievances, Samuel Adams stood and gave the “secret message” to his devout “Sons of Liberty” (and Masons) to assemble at the docks, where they had their “tea party.” 342 chests of tea (property of the East India Company) were seized and dumped into Boston Harbor.

Now, this is often contrary to what many people know about the Boston Tea Party. After all, most Americans believe that the American Revolution was the result of taxes being levied against them by Britain. This isn’t 100% accurate. To understand the role that taxes played in the American Revolution we must go back to 1765. The British Empire, fresh of its complete rout of the French in the French and Indian War, was faced with a mounting debt as a result of that war. As a result, Parliament decided to levy a small tax (roughly one percent) against the colonists in America. Parliament believed that the colonists needed to play off a small portion of Britain’s debt, since the war had been fought to protect the colonists in the first place. As a result, the STAMP ACT was passed. However, the colonists exploded in anger and protested the act. Led by Boston Revolutionary Samuel Adams, the colonists succeeded in having the Stamp Act repealed. One of the main reasons for their success was their usage of the old propaganda phrase, “No taxation without representation,” which had been coined in 1750 by Reverend John Mayhew. By repealing the Stamp Act, the colonists believed they had succeeded and that everything would be ok.

The colonists’ excitement, however, was to be short-lived. In 1766 Parliament passed the often forgotten DECLARATORY ACT, which stated that Parliament had the right and power to govern its colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.” In essence, this became the catalyst for the revolution. It created a “showdown” between the legitimacy of Parliament’s rule and the sovereignty of the colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would quote the Declaratory Act several times in the Declaration of Independence.

So, while taxes were an issue early on, it is important to recognize that they played a very limited role in bringing about the American Revolution.

3. The Boston Tea Party was an illegal action of a mob that committed assault, theft, destruction of property, etc. The tea parties of today did no such thing (at least to my knowledge). The Boston Tea Party was literally an act of defiance to the laws of the British. The participants were willfully and knowingly being insubordinate to the will of King and country. The results of their actions caused the British to impose a complete blockade of Boston Harbor. Today’s tea parties, while an expression of anger/intolerance of current government decisions, do not invoke the same response nor do they take the same radical steps of defiance.

4. Today’s tea party participants claim that their petition was a “grass roots” movement led and organized by the people, a claim that is hotly debated by many. The Boston Tea Party, however, was not. It was led by prominent and influential Bostonians like Samuel Adams and the VEEEERY rich John Hancock, who, interestingly enough, stood to lose a fortune by the East India Company. His motives were not as pure as we are often taught.

5. The Boston Tea Party was NOT assembled out of a growing concern over the size of government, government spending, etc. Instead it was assembled on issues like colonial sovereignty v. Parliamentary rule, corporate tax breaks, and a lack of government funding for the development of the American merchant class. In fact, this last point (the development of the American merchant class) was a fundamental issue for Thomas Paine in his extremely influential pamphlet, “Common Sense.” It’s worth noting that political activist Glenn Beck has quoted Thomas Paine on several occasions, especially during the tea parties of the last year. However, Beck neglects to recognize the fact that Paine was IN FAVOR of bigger government, more government spending, higher taxes, welfare programs, etc.

And while the differences between the tea parties of today and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 are vast, it’s important to remember that at the heart they share the same basic principle: that the people are where sovereignty and power ultimately reside…at least that is the hope of its participants, whether in the 18th or 21st century. And it’s likely that we haven’t seen the end to the legacy of the Boston Tea Party!!!

Revisiting Salem: Part I

The Economics of Witchcraft
by Brad Hart

Over the past week I have had the wonderful opportunity of delving into the July, 2008 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, which is almost exclusively dedicated to a reexamination of the Salem Witch Trials. Though the history surrounding Salem during the latter part of the 17th century has received an incredible amount of attention, I believe that anytime the “flagship” journal of early American history decides to revisit a topic, we would all do well to follow suit. With this in mind, I hope to dedicate the next couple of my posts on this blog to a review of the Salem historical record and the assessment offered by various historians on this topic in the WMQ.

As mentioned before, the history surrounding the Salem Witch Trials is one of the more popular events in all of American colonial history. Literally hundreds of books and articles have been written over the centuries, making 17th century Salem one of the most publicized events in our nation’s past. While this overabundance of scholarly literature may discourage some historians from engaging in a revision of the Salem saga, other devout students of early American history remain undeterred. As historian Richard Latner of Tulane University states:

The 1692 Salem witchcraft outbreak has had an enduring capacity for attracting popular and scholarly attention…Richly complex and layered, it is continuously amenable to fresh investigation. Thus, though the harvest of books and articles on Salem may deter researchers from this well-trodden terrain, ample rewards may result not only from formulating new interpretations but also from reexamining prevailing conceptualizations. [1]

It is this fresh perspective, a desire to challenge the traditional historiography of the Salem story, that demands our attention. For too long Salem and its witchcraft legacy have been oversimplified to the point that its participants are hardly recognized. The traditional Salem scholarship of the past, most of which portrays the witchcraft “outbreak” as a virtual plague centered in the Puritan “age of superstition,” causes us to see these early Puritans as quasi-madmen, bent on eradicating even the smallest trace of witchcraft.

In Richard Latner’s analysis of Salem, however, we are presented with a colonial society deeply divided by factionalism. During the 1690s, Salem was a community immersed in transition. The traditional covenant community based exclusively on a subsistence agricultural system was rapidly being replaced with the emerging forces of merchant capitalism. As a result, Salem’s population was thrown into a world of economic instability and transition. As Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum point out in their groundbreaking book, Salem Possessed, “the prosaic, everyday lives of obscure and inarticulate men and women…were being shaped by powerful forces of historical and economic change.” [2]

Due in part to these economic changes, the poorer segments of the Salem population found themselves in a state of financial instability. In addition, the ecclesiastical leaders of Salem, still awaiting a new royal charter from England, began to see their authority erode from underneath their feet. The increased level of factionalism between Salem Town and Salem Village – which had remained divided for decades – began to coalesce into rival economic segments of society. Contrary to popular belief, it was the witch-hunters, not the common citizen that were “in retreat” from the “oppressive” advances of those in Salem Town, where merchant capitalism was at its strongest.[3]

It was this internal division, argues Richard Latner that helped to create an atmosphere in which witchcraft accusations could flourish. The initial accusation of Reverend Samuel Parris’ daughter and niece are perfect case studies of how factionalism played out during the witch-hunt fiasco. The accusers, mostly consisting of paranoid clergymen bent on regaining their authority, preyed upon the economic plight of the poorer segment within Salem Village. As a result of their efforts, the overzealous clergy of Salem Town found all the support they would need to levy their accusations of witchcraft. As Christine Alice Young points out:

The powers of witches, were associated with mercantile activity within Salem Town, not the agricultural hinterland of Salem Village…it was impossible in seventeenth-century Massachusetts to simultaneously be a merchant and a leader of the orthodox, anticommercial party in colonial politics. [4]

With the backing of the economically downtrodden, Salem became a haven for radical accusation and religious over zealotry. The opposition, most of which was centered in Salem Town, found themselves virtually helpless against the “brainwashed” – intolerant is probably a more appropriate label -- masses of Salem Village.

While Latner’s economic explanations for Salem’s transgressions are convincing, it is important to remember that economics is but one of many factors that led to the witchcraft accusations of 17th century Salem. In the next few days, I hope to provide additional perspectives, the majority coming from the most recent edition of the William and Mary Quarterly, which I hope will provide an overall historical "landscape" of the Salem saga.

Notes:
[1] Richard Latner, “Salem Witchcraft, Factionalism, and Social Change Reconsidered: Were Salem’s Witch-Hunters Modernization’s Failures?” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. LXV, no. 3, Pp. 423.
[2] Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), xii.
[3] Ibid, 425-426.
[4] Christine Alice Young, Good Order to Glorious Revolution: Salem, Massachusetts, 1628-1689 (Ann Arbor, Mi., 1980), 7.

Religion and Capitalism in Early America

One of my favorite books during my time in graduate school was, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 by Charles Sellers. In this book, Sellers attempts to discover the roots of American capitalism by analyzing first the roots of the American subsistence and bartering economy, which was both highly localized and an extremely intimate means of tying neighbors together in a communal relationship of trust. However, Sellers argues that this communal system of economics was quickly replaced by the emergence of market capitalism during the early years of the 19th century. He writes:

By 1815 the combined influence of Federalism and entrepreneurial Republicanism had completed an essential stage of the market revolution by committing the commercial states to the political economy of capitalism (40).

As a result, the means by which goods were bought, shipped, sold etc. had been changed, catapulting the new nation into a frenzy of capitalist expansion. States like New York were quick to take advantage of this capitalist explosion. The completion of the Erie Canal for example, illustrates just how much the United States had changed in the ways in which it conducted business since the founding era. Goods were now being shipped across the nation and the Atlantic as farmers, merchants, etc. converted from their traditional bartering system by embracing a capitalist mindset to the production and sale of their goods.

Not everyone, however, was happy with this change. After all, the communal/bartering system of economics, which had literally tied neighbors and towns together in a web of mutual dependence, was being pulled out from under their feet. Scores of impoverished families who had fallen victim to the swift changes brought on by market economics sought refuge and understanding in the wake of their local disaster.

As is often the case during difficult times, these downtrodden masses sought the security and reassurance of religion to alleviate their troubles. And since the American religious landscape was already caught up in a storm of Christian revival -- i.e. the Second "Great Awakening" -- citizens did not have to look far to find a pastor that was ready and willing to hear their plea. As a result, many pastors resorted to castigating the Market Revolution as being the fruits of greed and personal selfishness. Originally spawned by the passionate late 18th century pastors like Johnathan Edwards, Samuel Hopkins and others, the "New Divinity" hoped to capture the minds and hearts of its followers by presenting a creed based on "disinterested benevolence," which shunned personal gain in favor of communal security. As Sellers states:

For intensely pressured Yankees, the New Divinity's apocalyptic utopia was an irresistible fantasy of surcease from market pressures. Amid "universal peace, love, and general and cordial friendship." Hopkins (and others) promised "no unrighteous persons" would "invade the rights and property of others." Invoking one of the subsistence culture's favorite Biblical images, he declared that "every one shall securely sit under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." Lawsuits, luxury, and waste would cease. There would be "such benevolence and fervent charity" that "all worldly things will be in great degree common, so as not to be withheld from any who may want them" (207).

For a people caught between the "tug-o-war" of capitalist economics and religious communal Utopianism, this division became extremely personal. As could be expected, those who reaped success from the newfound opportunities of the Market Revolution saw their personal gain as the result of hard work, dedication, and divine intervention. Those on the "losing" end of the equation, however, were quick to accept the new doctrine of communal economics that pointed the finger at emerging Market forces as being, "the Biblically predicted time of rampant discord and worldliness that would immediately precede the Millennium" (207).

Of course this cultural "back-and-forth" between personal economic gain v. the prosperity of the community was nothing new in early America. For decades, Americans had argued that the personal greed often associated with capitalism would lead to the undoing of the whole by eventually concentrating the majority of wealth into the hands of the few. Even Adam Smith, the so-called "father" of capitalism understood just how polarizing the ideals of capitalism could be on the masses when he wrote:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

In a letter to Benjamin Vaughn, Benjamin Franklin also pointed out his distrust of the elite having too much money and power in their hands. Using an analogy to prove his point, Franklin writes:

When by virtue of the first Laws Part of the Society accumulated Wealth and grew Powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their Property at the Expense of Humanity. This was abusing their Powers, and commencing a Tyranny. If a Savage before he enter’d into Society had been told, Your Neighbour by this Means may become Owner of 100 Deer, but if your Brother, or your Son, or yourself, having no Deer of your own, and being hungry should kill one of them, an infamous Death must be the Consequence; he would probably have prefer’d his Liberty, and his common Right of killing any Deer, to all the Advantages of Society that might be propos’d to him.

And while the early years of American capitalism were clouded in a fog of religious and popular skepticism, it is clear that today's American capitalism has been "piggy-backed" with the belief that God sanctions capitalism above all others. When and how this transition occurred is, well, another topic for another day.

***Tomorrow's Post: What the emergence of market economics meant to the early Mormon Church.***