Declaration of Independence

Calvin Coolidge’s “Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence” not only celebrates America’s Declaration of Independence but its greatest gift to humanity; that our Creator endowed us with certain unalienable Rights: “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Excerpt from Coolidge’s speech:

“…No…theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people.”

“…it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced…This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.”

Coolidge’s Full Speech:

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgement of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.

It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be underestimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

But if these truths to which the Declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our Declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Connecticut, as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that—

“The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.”

“The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance.”

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled “The Church’s Quarrel Espoused,” in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise. It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his “best ideas of democracy” had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that “All men are created equally free and independent.” It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, “Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man.” Again, “The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth. …” And again, “For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine.” And still again, “Democracy is Christ’s government in church and state.” Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven.”

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government — the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that “Democracy is Christ’s government.” The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Source: Calvin Coolidge, 5 July 1926, Teaching American History. National Archives. Graphic: American Flag.

Pericles-Funeral Oration:

At the end of first year of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC Athenians held the customary public funeral to honor the soldiers who gave their lives in the war against Sparta. As Thucydides records in his “History of the Peloponnesian War” the funeral was a procession of citizens that ushered ten cypress coffins representing the ten Athenian tribes plus one more for the soldiers not recovered from the field of battle to the public graveyard at Ceramicus.

Thucydides further states that “When the bodies had been buried, it was customary for some wise and prudent notable and chief person of the city, preeminent in honor and dignity, before all the people to make a prayer in praise of the dead, and after doing this, each one returned to his House. That time to report the praises of the first who were killed in the war, Pericles, son of Xanthippus, was chosen; who, having finished the solemnities made in the tomb, climbed on a chair, from where all the people could see and hear him, and gave this discourse.

Pericles’ speech was given not only as a tribute to the fallen, but a celebration of the Athenian citizens’ patriotism and urged them to honor the dead by continued support for the city and its democratic ideals.

The following is the first paragraph of the speech recorded by Thucydides:

Most of those who have spoken here before me have commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other funeral customs. It seemed to them a worthy thing that such an honor should be given at their burial to the dead who have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have preferred that, when men’s deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperiled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice, I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavor to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me.

Source: Richard Hooker, 1996, University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library. Graphic: Pericles Funeral Oration by Philipp Foltz, 1877, Public domain.

The Most Unkindest Cut of All

Mark Anthony opens his famous, but fictional, eulogy to Julius Caesar with 7 words of endearment and authority; Aristotelian pathos and ethos, that have become as familiar as blue sky to fans of Shakespeare and English lit students everywhere: “Friends, Romans, countrymen lend me your ears”.

Julius Caesar, a tragedy by Shakespeare, written around 1599, was based on Caesar’s life and death as documented in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.

With pathos, logos and a chariot laden with irony, Anthony turns initial honor for Brutus and Caesar’s ambition inside out. He brings honor to Caesar and lays ambition on Brutus, along with Cassius. He brings condemnation to the conspirators and love for Caesar.

The first few lines of Anthony’s Eulogy:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Source: “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene II. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Graphic: Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in the 1953 film “Julius Caesar”

The Roman Jewish Wars

During the first and second centuries AD there were 3 major Jewish revolts against Roman rule in Judea: The first war from 66-73 AD, the Kitos War from 115-117 AD, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt from 132-135 AD. Roman taxation, financial exploitation, religious persecution, oppression, extrajudicial executions, and the plundering of the Second Jewish Temple all contributed to the conflicts.

Roman punishment increased with each successive war eventually leading to wholesale depopulation of Jewish communities by enslavement, death, and exile. It is believed that upwards of 1.3-1.4 million Jews were killed during these revolts, which would have been about one-third of the total worldwide Jewish population. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt the Romans renamed the area Palestina after the Philistines who populated the general area before the 6th century BC.

Source: Josephus. Wikipedia, Heritage-History, WorldHistory, Alchetron, Britannica. Graphic: Roman Triumphal panel from Beth Hatefutsoth showing spoils from the Jewish Temple. Max Morris 2016.

Nothing Against the State

The title to this post is from Mussolini’s quote: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”  The phrase is assigned to fascist ideology, but it is right at home within any authoritarian government.

Below is a partial listing of 20th century sanctioned murder by governments:

  • Mao’s Great Leap Forward: 15-55 million deaths. Chinese communism. 1958-1962
  • The Holocaust: 5-17 million deaths. German Nazis. 1939-1945
  • Ukrainian Holodomor: 1.8-7.5 million deaths. Russian communism. 1932-1933
  • Soviet WWII Prisoners: 3.3-3.5 million deaths. German Nazis. 1941-1945
  • Khmer Rouge Killing Fields: 1.3-3 million deaths. Khmer Rouge/Cambodian communism 1975-1979
  • Polish Genocide: 1.8-3.0 million deaths of non-Jews. 3.0 million Jews included in the Holocaust post above. German Nazis. 1939-1945.
  • Bangladesh Genocide: 300,000-3 million deaths. Pakistani military dictatorship. 1971
  • Polish Gentile Genocide: 1.2-1.8 million deaths. German Nazis. 1939-1945
  • Kazakh Genocide: 1.3-1.75 million deaths. Kazakh communism. 1931-1933
  • Russian Gulag: 1.6 million deaths (possibly more). Russian communism. 1920s to 1953
  • Armenian Genocide: 700,000-1.5 million deaths. Young Turks/Ottoman Empire. 1915-1922
  • Greek and Pontic Genocide: 300,000-1.2 million deaths. Ottoman Empire. 1914-1922
  • Rwandan Genocide: 500,000-1 million deaths. Rwandan dictatorship or totalitarian state. 1994
  • Ustasha Genocide: 357,000-600,000 deaths. Croatia fascists encouraged by the Nazis. 1941-1945
  • Dafur Genocide: 100,000-500,000 deaths. Sudanese Arab dictatorship and Arab militia. 2003-Present
  • East Timor Genocide: 85,000-200,000 deaths. Indonesian military dictatorship. 1974-1999

Source: Wikipedia, Independent, History.com, News.Stanford, Hoover.org. Graphic: Nyamata, Rwanda Memorial Site, by Fanny Schertzer, 2007, GNU Free Documentation License.

Where the Money Was:

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow of Bonnie and Clyde notoriety were Texas born bank robbers, bandits, and murderers who were ambushed and killed by the police on a rural road in Bienville Parish, Louisiana on 23 May 1934. Six police officers, acting on information provided by a father of one Barrow Gang member, waited along the road for Bonnie and Clyde’s Ford to come along and when it did, they perforated the vehicle with all the ammunition they had, a total of 130 bullets. The coroner’s report stated that Bonnie received 26 bullet wounds and Clyde 17. Others claimed that they were shot more than 50 times each.

Bonnie and Clyde, during the Great Depression, roamed Texas, and its adjoining states, preying upon any establishment that had money on the premises, banks, gas stations, small stores, and for the ultimate in depravity, funeral homes. During prison breaks and robberies, they murdered at least nine police officers and four civilians.

Source: All That’s Interesting, FBI. Graphic: Bonnie and Clyde by the Barrow Gang, c. 1932, Library of Congress.

Jewish, Roman, Historian

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish scholar and historian wrote four extant works:

  1. The Jewish War. (Jewish Revolt) 75 AD – The first revolt against the Romans from 66-73 AD
  2. The Antiquities of the Jews. 95 AD – From Adam to the death of Herod’s sons
  3. Against Apion. 97 AD – A defense of Judaism
  4. Vita or The Life of Flavius. 99 AD – Biography

These works provide significant source material and insight into first-century Judaism and Christianity.

Josephus was born into the Jewish priesthood on his father’s side and of Hasmonean royal descent maternally. He served in the Jewish military during the Jewish War but surrendered to the Romans and he was considered a traitor to Jews ever after. While waiting to be executed by the Romans he predicted that Vespasian would eventually be crowned emperor of Rome. Vespasian, because of the prophecy, spared his life and made him a consultant, but still a slave, to the Roman army. Josephus gained his freedom when Vespasian became emperor in 69 AD, at which time he changed his name to Flavius Josephus. Flavius was the family name of the emperor Vespasian.

Source: Josephus: The Complete Works, 2003. Jewish Virtual Library. World History Encyclopedia.

It Rhymes

The adage, History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes, or less succinctly, historical, and current events may not unfold in the same manner, but they often follow similar patterns or themes. As an example, the rise of authoritarianism usually follows, and rhymes, with the erosion of democratic norms, intolerance of dissent, animosity towards religious or ethnic minorities, economic instability, isolation of true democratic countries, and war.

This quote is often attributed to Mark Twain but no collaborating evidence for him saying exactly this has ever been found. He did say something similar, in a novel he wrote with Charles Warner, the 1874 The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day that “History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.” The quote in its entirety is sentence that Twain could never write, it had to have come from his co-author.

Austrian American psychoanalyst Theodor Reik, a student of Freud, published an essay in 1965, “The Unreachables” where he wrote: It has been said that history repeats itself. This is perhaps not quite correct; it merely rhymes. There are recurring cycles, ups and downs, but the course of events is essentially the same, with small variations. It has been said that history repeats itself. This is perhaps not quite correct; it merely rhymes.

Regardless of whomever said, History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes were astute observers of history and life.

Source: Quote Investigator, 2014. Graphic: Publicity photo of Reik, 1920s, public domain.

Gol Stave Church

 

At the Scandinavian Heritage Association’s Heritage Park in Minot, North Dakota there is a full-size replica, built in 2000, of the Gol Stave Church. The original was constructed in Gol, Hallingdal, Norway (~100 miles NW of Oslo) around 1250 AD. It was moved to Bygdoy Park in Oslo, Norway about 100 years ago.

According to Valebrokk et al, inside the church, the corner posts are essential. They are often accentuated and are heavier and more richly decorated than the other structural elements. “They represent the four gospels whose teachings are the supporting foundation of all Christianity” is the description given in a sermon in the thirteenth century. This sermon was held during a church consecration, in which each section of the stave church’s structure was related to spiritual values. The beams upon which the columns rest “signify God’s apostles, the foundation of all Christianity.” The floorboards represent “the humble men who bow in honour; the more they are exposed to the trampling feet of the congregation, the more support they provide.”

The roof surface which protects the church from snow and inclement weather “represents the men…whose prayers protect Christianity from temptation.”

In addition to the replica in Minot, additional replicas exist in the Gordarike Family Park in Gol, which was built in 1995 and in the Norwegian Pavilion in EPCOT, Orlando which was built in 1984.

Source and graphic: scandinavianheritage.org. Excerpts above from Norway’s Stave Churches by Eva Valebrokk and Thomas Thiis-Evensen. Wikipedia.

Paul Revere Rides

On the evening of the 18th of April 1775 Paul Revere galloped through the countryside of Massachusetts to warn the populace that British were coming by water: one if by land, two if by water.

The next day the British, after crossing the Charles River from the Boston side, marched on Concord to try and capture colonial military supplies that had been stored there. The patriots knew of the British plans and moved most of their military equipment elsewhere.

The British had to pass through Lexington as they marched their way to Concord. The first shots between the British and Americans were fired at sunrise at Lexington, signaling the beginning of the Revolutionary War. After a minor skirmish in Lexington the British continued on their way to Concord.

The British marched to Concord with 700 troops and the Americans were eventually able to muster about 3500 militiamen although they only had about 77 at Lexington. During the Battles of Lexington and Concord on that day the British suffered 273 losses and the Americans 95.

Source: History.com and “The Many Rides of Paul Revere” by James Giblin published 2007. Photo of a painting showing Paul Rever’s Midnight Ride by Office of War Information http://www.archives.gov.