Browsed by
Category: History

The History of Early Military Airplanes (2005) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The History of Early Military Airplanes (2005) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 29, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2005 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay received over 600 views on Associated Content / Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 29, 2014

**

In 1900, the first Zeppelin airships made their successful flights in Germany, and, in 1903, the Wright Brothers designed the first airplane powered by an internal combustion engine. Not long after, the military advantages of aircraft became evident.

The first use of airplanes in combat occurred in 1911, when the Italian Army used a German monoplane to drop grenades on Turkish fortifications in Libya. In 1912, the Italians also initiated the practice of using Zeppelin airships as bombers. In November, 1912, the Vickers company in Britain equipped its “Experimental Fighting Biplane 1” with a Vickers machine gun, thus creating the first fighter plane.

Despite these advancements, the value of aircraft was greatly underrated at the beginning of the First World War, when great powers such as France only had 140 functional aircraft, most of them serving only reconnaissance roles and not equipped with any weapons powerful enough to engage in air-to-air combat.

During the course of the war, this would change dramatically. By the end of the war, France had produced some 68,000 aircraft, 52,000 of which had been lost in battle, giving an indication as to the immense danger of early air combat and the pitiful life expectancy of early aircraft pilots.

During the war, the British began to field the first efficient bombers, the Handley-Page O/400 planes, which could carry 900 kilograms of explosives and fly at 156 kilometers per hour for as long as eight hours, rendering these planes immensely useful at bombarding strategic German positions and even cities far beyond the front lines.

The early air wars required immense dexterity, marksmanship, and luck on the part of the pilots, and expert pilots were prized by all sides. An “ace,” or someone who had downed five planes or more, was given immense honors and publicity, no matter what side he fought on, and names such as that of Manfred von Richthofen, the “Red Baron,” who had shot down 80 Allied planes during the war, achieved the status of legend.

Despite the extreme dangers of piloting aircraft, the task became seen as an extremely prestigious assignment by soldiers, especially given the “clean” nature of the fighting and the prospects of each night returning to comfortable accommodations near the airfields. Compared to the muck and mass carnage of trench warfare, as well as the expendability of individual ground troops, the daily lives of aircraft pilots were indeed far more pleasant, if only relatively so.

Sources:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmachineguns.htm

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi694.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbertha.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_%28weapon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/bigbertha.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/K/Krupp.asp

http://www.fluxeuropa.com/war/evolution.htm

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blgrenade.htm

http://va.essortment.com/handgrenadeh_rgor.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/summary.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/aces.htm

http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/ryn/projects/inventors/gatling/gatling.html

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowning.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/mgun_mg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

The History of Mortars, Hand Grenades, and Tanks During the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries (2005) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The History of Mortars, Hand Grenades, and Tanks During the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries (2005) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 29, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2005 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay received over 3,600 views on Associated Content / Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 29, 2014

**

Innovations in weapons technology produced improved designs of mortars and hand grenades during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The tank emerged as a weapon during World War I and, from its modest beginnings, would emerge as a formidable force on the battlefield.

The Mortar

Though mortars, muzzle-loading cannons firing low-velocity projectiles at short ranges, had been used since the 15th century, early mortars were primitive, unwieldy (often too heavy to move), and fired at impractically slow rates.

The first portable mortars saw action in the American Civil War, especially in defense of Union railroad and supply lines. During World War I, the mortar’s size was further adjusted to enable a single individual to carry and operate it, thus leading to mass production, distribution, and use of these weapons. Due to their high angle of fire, mortars could often penetrate into narrow trenches close by, which artillery had no chance of hitting, thus being effective means of capturing enemy positions without sending infantry in costly head-on assaults.

Hand Grenades

Primitive hand grenades first saw use in the 15th century, but their employment largely ceased after 1750, as they were quite cumbersome to manage and damaged their users as often as their enemies. As the objectives of war became more closely identified with the infliction of mass casualties in close combat, the grenade was reintroduced and used on a large scale during the Russo-Japanese War and in World War I.

At first, the grenade’s safety record remained atrocious, as there was no mechanism to protect the thrower, and early grenades were even nicknamed “jam bombs,” as they were often constructed by soldiers on the front lines from tin cans formerly holding jam, which the soldiers then filled with stones and gunpowder and attached a fuse at the end. In 1915, the Englishman William Mills invented the Mills Bomb, the first grenade with a safety pin to protect the user. During World War I, the French also invented the “pineapple” design of the grenade largely prevalent today, while the Germans manufactured the “stick” grenade, elongated for more effective throwing.

The Tank

During World War I, the tank was not an optimally efficient weapon, due to the early tanks’ lack of firepower, armor, and maneuverability in the rough terrain of no man’s land. However, the basic concept of the tank was devised during that time and later improvements in tank equipment, speed, and armor would render trench warfare obsolete. The first tank, the Mark I, was developed by the British Army in 1915 and saw action in the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916. The first French tank, the Schneider CA1, was developed in 1917.

The British and French first used a mass combination of tanks in a successful attack during the Battle of Cambrai on November 20, 1917. Germans did not extensively pursue tank technology in World War I, but did design armor-piercing bullets that could demolish the flimsy metal coverings of early tanks. Early tanks also lacked the gun turrets typically associated with them and usually had several smaller guns embedded in their main body. Later Allied tanks were given a rhomboid shape and stronger armor to allow them to deflect or stop German bullets with greater ease. Tanks were part of an emerging new technological paradigm that transformed wars of stalemate and attrition to wars of maneuver, speed, and even greater mechanization during the mid-20th century.

Sources:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmachineguns.htm

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi694.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbertha.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_%28weapon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/bigbertha.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/K/Krupp.asp

http://www.fluxeuropa.com/war/evolution.htm

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blgrenade.htm

http://va.essortment.com/handgrenadeh_rgor.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/summary.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/aces.htm

http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/ryn/projects/inventors/gatling/gatling.html

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowning.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/mgun_mg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

Tim O’Brien’s Collectivist Psyche as His Arch-Nemesis in “The Things They Carried” (2004) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

Tim O’Brien’s Collectivist Psyche as His Arch-Nemesis in “The Things They Carried” (2004) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 29, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2004 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 1,400 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 29, 2014

**

Why does an avid opponent of the Vietnam War, with the opportunity to flee from fighting it, voluntarily succumb to the draft? Why, being so close to the Canadian border, does he lack the courage to jump into the water and swim across? Tim O’Brien’s moral opposition to the Vietnam War is clouded by his desire to be accepted by others in his community, and this demon of adherence to the collective will is his prime antagonist in The Things They Carried, and the source of all his further woes and crises.

Had O’ Brien dodged the draft, this would have been a sign of moral fortitude, rather than the weakness it is commonly portrayed to be. O’Brien clearly recognizes this at the time of his attempt to flee to Canada. He knows that the motives behind the war are questionable, and states his belief that “when a nation goes to war, it must have reasonable confidence in the justice and imperative of its cause” (41).

Moreover, O’Brien recognizes himself to be physically and psychologically unfit for war, referring to himself as one whom “the sight of blood made… queasy, and [who] couldn’t tolerate authority” (41). Enlisting in the U.S. Army is a betrayal of O’Brien’s objective self-interest and his own recognition of the nature of his individual character. Consenting to the draft is O’Brien’s tacit allowance of a great moral evil perpetrated by the United States government, a government that would claim the right to employ him as cannon fodder and subject him to all of his subsequent shocking experiences during the Vietnam War. Thus, such a decision is at the root of all of his further struggles.

O’Brien recognizes that his decision to obey his draft notice is a moral travesty on all counts, and, even twenty years later, describes it as a shameful act, which had tarnished his very belief in man’s capacity for heroic, principled action. Rather than adhere to his own understanding of morality, O’Brien gives in to the prevailing perception in his community of draft dodging as cowardly, unpatriotic, and scandalous. When imagining the entirety of his community staring at him as he tries to swim for Canada, O’Brien’s psyche magnifies the impact of this collective superstition far beyond the ability of the people espousing it. O’Brien is physically distant from the ignoramuses who would wantonly sacrifice his life, and they cannot affect his decisions, if he does not let them. O’Brien, however, is so maniacally afflicted with the desire for acceptance at any cost that his very physiology revolts against him. He recalls, “I did try. It just wasn’t possible” (59).

Despite O’Brien’s professed disgust with the simplistic platitudes of the collective with which he lives, his collectivist psychological malady is pervasive enough to place these platitudes in full control of even this, the most critical decision he would ever face. O’Brien’s desire for acceptance is irrational, suicidal, and perverse. His safety, his intellect, his understanding, and his future all stand in opposition to his society, yet, he selects his society over them. There is neither excuse nor justification for this act of moral weakness. O’Brien’s community, the draft board, the Viet Minh, and the routine physical hardships of war, would never have harmed him at all, if only he had the internal consistency to follow the course dictated by considerations of reason and justice.

Because O’Brien’s perceived exaggeration of the importance of the opinions of others in his community motivates his decision to heed his draft notice, O’Brien’s greatest foe is that part of him which impels him to act against himself.

How Collectivism Destroys Friendships and Relationships: Examples from India (2003) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

How Collectivism Destroys Friendships and Relationships: Examples from India (2003) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 28, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2003 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 900 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 28, 2014

**

Collectivism is not only a primary motivation for oppression and persecution; it also precludes friendship among people despite their individual compatibility. Caste-based prejudices in India provide an optimal illustration of this tendency.

In his memoirs, Indian author Shashi Tharoor recalls, upon a childhood visit to an ancestral village, an untouchable boy by the name of Charlis, who was eager to converse, engage in athletic activity, and share sweets with the higher-caste boys. However, the latter rejected Charlis’s company and threatened Tharoor with a beating to relinquish to the confines of the dirt heap the dessert that Charlis had generously provided him with.

Collectivism curtails both an already existing mutual affinity between two individuals, such as the one between Tharoor and Charlis, and one that would have flourished absent the stereotype, such as that between Charlis and the village boys.

Even the most intimate bonds of all, marriages, are tragically disrupted by the Indian caste system. Several cases have emerged in recent years when upper-caste females married lower-caste males without parental consent. The parents of the upper-caste females responded by lynching the newlyweds and encouraging their village neighbors to publicly humiliate their corpses.

Parents, who would have normally approved of a partnership between two people decently endowed and capable of fending for themselves, are impelled by collectivism to monstrously cut short young lives due to the absurdity of collectivist perception.

Caste is thoroughly ingrained in the general culture of India and in the power-mongering calculus of Indian officials. Hence, despite laws prohibiting caste-based hate crimes, enforcement is scant, and violators of individual rights are granted tacit government sanction for their misdeeds. As violence flares up, the government, instead of coordinating an extensive police and judicial effort to bring the criminals to justice, merely augments the multilateral resentment of India’s caste conflict by reserving further strategic positions for one group at the expense of another.

The atrocities for which the absurdity of collectivism can be held liable extend to stifle the realms of individual aspiration, interpersonal relationships, and  justice, all due to the perception of individuals as entirely determined by circumstantial group status and incapable of altering any of their “inclinations” via volitional efforts.

It is essential for the residents of a peaceful, harmonious, and rights-respecting society to comprehend that, just as a circumstance cannot think for an individual, it cannot deterministically manipulate his actions, that birth or skin color are just as irrelevant to an individual’s character and potential as the color of a building’s bricks is to its structural integrity. Only then can each individual achieve the utmost heights within his capacity and establish profound and productive relationships with others. Justice and liberty are possible where even a single individual carries the rejection of collectivism to its logical extreme.

 

How Collectivism Leads to Violence: Examples from India (2003) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

How Collectivism Leads to Violence: Examples from India (2003) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 28, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2003 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 1,500 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 28, 2014

**

A devastating effect of the collectivist mindset is the emergence of massive societal turmoil and heinous crimes. Collectivists often unleash brutal force against people who are not of “their” kind and instead belong to some “inferior” group.

In the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, an untouchable man once slapped a higher-caste thief for stealing beans from his field. The self-righteously offended community responded by stripping the man’s mother and parading her through the village amid a hail of stones and mud hurled in her direction.

In a society which upholds the collectivist premise, even when a hierarchically-designated inferior is legitimately wronged, he will not be dealt justice, and his attempt to obtain it on his own accord will be met with vehement reprisal.

This tragic event also portrays another element of collectivist perception: the delusion that all members of a group are accountable for an alleged misdeed of one, with no link of those individuals to the “crime” but the accident of their birth or relation. Since one untouchable had “wronged” a higher-caste member, thought the villagers, all untouchables must be seditious vermin. Hence the fact that the brutal punitive humiliation was directed at the man’s mother instead of the man himself.

More widespread turmoil based on caste occurs throughout modern India. In Bihar state, skirmishes between lower-caste peasants and landlords have resulted in over one hundred deaths on both sides in 1998. The peasants involved considered themselves perpetually oppressed by the merciless group on top, and hence perceived no means of resolving their land dispute peacefully.

Likewise, the landlords involved approached the peasants in arrogant contempt, perceiving every single one of them as unintelligent vermin whose grievances are to be suppressed rather than addressed. The economic antagonism between the two groups was not irreconcilable, but the caste-based antagonism, so long as it festered in their minds, was. When one is viewed as inherently evil due to circumstantial characteristics, naught but the brute employment of force can be directed toward one.

Yet some grounds exist for the hope that the menace of collectivism might play less of a role in India’s future. In modern India, individuals involved in high-tech urban professions are beginning to act on the profit motive instead of age-old stereotypes and to regard caste as irrelevant in a marketplace where professional skills and a dedicated work ethic are the overwhelming considerations. Where institutional compulsion does not prohibit individuals from associating across circumstantially erected lines or damage their livelihoods for doing so, courageous persons of sound moral premises will rise to dethrone the behemoth of collectivism and lead to a more peaceful, tolerant society.

The Brotherhood’s Anti-Individualistic View of History in Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” (2005) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

The Brotherhood’s Anti-Individualistic View of History in Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” (2005) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 28, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2005 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 11,500 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 28, 2014

**

In Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, the Brotherhood subscribes to a view of history that inherently and deliberately disregards the individual personalities and interests of the Narrator and the people of Harlem whom the narrator seeks to inspire to action.

The Brotherhood’s theory of history is that of an impersonal force, in which individuals are mere actors fulfilling purposes far larger than themselves. Upon introducing the Narrator to the Brotherhood, Brother Jack explains this theory to him: “So it isn’t a matter of whether you wish to be the new Booker T. Washington, my friend. Booker Washington was resurrected today… He came out from the anonymity of the crowd and spoke to the people” (307).

According to Jack, the Narrator was speaking not for himself, but as a mouthpiece for Washington’s historical legacy, which “the people” continue to require under the present circumstances. The speech, suggests Jack, was made not with the narrator’s private interests in mind but as a response to “the people’s appeal” (307). Thus, the Brotherhood theory states that history is shaped by an enormous collective agent, “the people.” Somebody has to provide a “scientific” understanding of this determining force, however, and such a role is conveniently fulfilled by the Brotherhood itself.

Jack reveals the true implication of this role when he states of the Brotherhood committee’s purpose, “We do not shape our policies to the mistaken and infantile notions of the man in the street. Our job is not to ask them what they think but to tell them” (473). The Brotherhood defines history as a force shaped by the people’s will, while the Brotherhood defines “the people’s will” and thereby shapes history. Due to the strict hierarchical organization of the Brotherhood, its central committee, by this theory, is the principal definer and mover of history. Thus, the Brotherhood’s theory of history is doubly layered. On face, it seems to reflect the people’s desires, but, in its underlying essence, it is but a means of asserting the committee’s power over the people.

If history is whatever the committee chooses it to be, all others, be they working for the brotherhood or outside it, are mere instruments to this end. Once the Narrator dares challenge this view by taking initiative to organize Clifton’s funeral, Brother Jack unapologetically reveals the idea’s core: “For all of us, the committee does the thinking. For all of us. And you were hired to talk” (470). Jack and the committee do not permit their subordinates even a marginal degree of autonomy in actually determining the goals and purposes which the people, and thus history, will be animated by. The Narrator is only allowed to shape means, not ends, and only to a highly limited extent.

By inculcating the creed of sacrifice and denouncing “opportunists” and “petty individualists” (400-1), the committee hopes that its subordinates will voluntarily and systematically forego their personal ambitions and ideas, no matter how justified, in favor of the committee’s wishes, simply because the committee wished them. Since others are not allowed to shape history, the committee is thus able to hold firmly onto its reins and convince its Brotherhood minions that the only way to be “within history” is to follow the Brotherhood. The Narrator falls fully into this trap when questioning the motives for Clifton’s departure from the Brotherhood, asking, “Why should a man deliberately plunge outside of history and peddle an obscenity… Why should he choose to disarm himself, give up his voice and leave the only organization offering him a chance to ‘define’ himself?” (438).

The very notion that the only manner in which an individual can define his identity and act efficaciously within the context of history is to serve the Brotherhood can only follow from the Brotherhood’s own idea of history as defined by the Brotherhood. The irony that befalls the Narrator and other loyal Brotherhood subjects is that, in thinking that serving the Brotherhood’s idea is the sole way to preserve their historical agency, they in fact renounce the only true historical agency anyone can have, the agency of autonomous, self-directing individuals.

Superstitions Kill: An Analysis of Witch Hunts in Europe During 1480-1700 (2005) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

Superstitions Kill: An Analysis of Witch Hunts in Europe During 1480-1700 (2005) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 28, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2005 and published on in six parts on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 21,500 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 28, 2014

**

The Factors, Motivations, and Superstitions Behind Witch Hunts

 

The persecution of “witches” in Europe was a horrid practice during a time when the modern values of toleration, reason, due process, and gender equality were far more seldom manifested than today.

When examining the causes of the witch craze from 1480 to 1700, consideration must be given to those attitudinal conditions which, in later eras of European history, were far less prominent. Among these were the expectation of religious orthodoxy and behavioral uniformity, the lack of restraints on politicians’ desires to thrive at the expense of their subjects and competitors, and a widespread distrust of women and the aged.

During the Pre-Enlightenment era, the ideas of individual intellectual and religious freedom were largely anathema to mainstream thought, and opposed by a both a Catholic church striving to re-assert its temporal authority and the leaders of the Protestant Reformation attempting to aggressively gain control over mass followings.

Pope Innocent VIII wrote “The Witch Bull” in 1484, during the late Renaissance, when the Catholic Church was infamous for its pomp, love of worldly wealth, political scheming, and economic corruption. Part of the motive for this edict may have been the restoration of the Church’s prestige in the eyes of many fervent Christians, who held great disappointment and frustration at the Church’s perceived departure from spiritual matters.

By embarking the Church on a quest to purge spiritually “tainted” individuals, the Pope might have hoped to restore the image of his organization’s intense religiosity, while the Church’s political and worldly authority only increased. Indeed, the Holy Inquisition, which was just beginning to arise during this time, was greatly empowered by The Witch Bull to spread its physical power to all places where suspicions of witchcraft were present, effectively giving the Church the doctrinal means to implement a near-absolute ideological stranglehold over the Catholic world.

The tremendous success of both the Catholics and the Protestants at using the fear of witches to entrench their domination over the masses could only have been made possible by the masses’ tremendous susceptibility to such irrational superstition. A diary from a young Protestant boy illustrates a child’s fear of supernatural terrors, such as the devils that perpetually tormented his mind. Children, not yet having had adequate exposure to the workings of reality, are even today often pervaded by fears of monsters and other bizarre harms emerging from the unknown, but this boy lived in an age when the adults did not discredit such worries.

Indeed, because one church or another exerted a monolithic control over people’s intellectual lives, an individual would grow up in an environment where his childhood fears would only be further fed and fueled by the messages emanating from the religious orthodoxy. Entire generations would grow up in this manner, convinced since their earliest days that any individual oddity, coincidence, or uncommon occurrence was a sign of supernatural evil. Such masses were willing audiences to whatever ideological craze churches would concoct to extend their authority over individuals’ lives.

Anti-Female Prejudices Displayed in The Malleus Maleficarum

 

The 1486 book, The Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches) was among the most violently prejudiced writings in history; it claimed the inferiority of women to males in every respect and blamed on this inferiority women’s alleged susceptibility to witchcraft. This book’s teachings inspired a bloody series of witch hunts that ravaged Europe for the next two centuries.

According to Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger in The Malleus Maleficarum, female susceptibility to superstition and witchcraft has among its causes women’s excessive credulity. The devil prefers to target the more credulous since “the chief aim of the devil is to corrupt faith, therefore he rather attacks them” (1). Kramer and Sprenger thus imply that the devil seeks to destroy religious integrity in the largest number of souls, and that his odds of success at this are greatest when targeting women. Women’s impressionability, defined by Kramer and Sprenger as the readiness “to receive the influence of a disembodied spirit” (1), renders their souls wide open to the devil’s manipulations.

Moreover, according to Kramer and Sprenger, women’s general inability to keep a secret, illustrated by their “slippery tongues” (1), is claimed to be a cause for the frequent public exposure of their witchcraft. Continuing their presentation, Kramer and Sprenger assert that women are intellectually inferior to males, and in this respect analogous to children, devoid of the knowledge of such fine disciplines as philosophy, which could have shielded them from maleficent influences. Furthermore, women are portrayed as being more motivated by bodily lust than males, and are, throughout the text, characterized as having insatiable carnal demands. This is derived from the inherent nature of woman, who obtained this defect as a result of her formation from an improperly bent rib.

Kramer and Sprenger claim that “The Malleus Maleficarum portrays the vices of deviousness and envy as pervasive in women. Kramer and Sprenger contend that women’s displays of emotion are insincere, since “[w]hen a woman weeps, she labours to deceive a man” (2). Women’s constant conniving and treachery are due to the jealousy that even the best women exhibit toward both their female counterparts and males. Even among the holy women of the Bible, Kramer and Sprenger find numerous examples of this trend, and assert that its harm will be magnified even further if it is directed against males. Female witchcraft, then, is the material manifestation, by means of manipulation and treachery, of the rampant envy that women exhibit.

Though Kramer and Sprenger assert that women are susceptible to irrational superstition, it is they, the authors of The Malleus Maleficarum, who fell prey to the most disastrous of superstitions: superstitions that enabled the killing of thousands of innocent people.

Witch Hunts as a Form of Anti-Female Discrimination

 

The witch hunts that took place from 1480 to 1700 were in part facilitated by the negative perceptions of women during the time period of their occurrence. Alan Macfarlane’s statistics reveal that females typically comprised about 80% of the total amount of “witches” executed, implying that, for every male victim, four females lost their lives.

Writing The Hammer of Witches (Malleus Maleficarum),the monks Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger entrenched this misogynist bend into official witch-hunting doctrine. Kramer and Sprenger describe a woman as inherently more fallible than her male counterpart, and from her very nature as one originating from an improperly bent rib, prone to evil. However, Kramer and Sprenger also write that, though women are susceptible to evil influences, they can also be “very good” when they use their impressionable qualities in a certain manner.

Given the heavily patriarchal nature of their time period, the monks may have been suggesting that the proper place of a woman is to obey male influences, so that her imperfections may be compensated for by the males’ lack of such fallibilities. The threat of being branded a witch more readily than a male would be might have served as a deterrent for women from defying the commonplace expectations imposed on them by the social and religious paradigms surrounding them.

Women like Alice Prabury, who diverged from the expected role of a woman as a mundane housekeeper and instead obtained uncommon skills to cure people and animals of diseases, were targets for persecution. The Churchwardens of Gloucestershire may have filed their accusation of witchcraft against Prabury due to their disapproval of the excessive independence that the woman manifested, as exemplified in her refusal to tell others, including the representatives of the dominant paradigm, the unique means by which she went about to performing work.

Additionally, women, like Walpurga Hausmannin, who exercised initiative in romantic relationships, were suspect of being in league with the Devil. In the patriarchal society of that age, romantic advances by females were considered highly improper and threatening to the social order. Perhaps Hausmannin’s death was a result of the dominant paradigm’s attempt to criminalize such behavior under the guise of witchcraft, but with the true purpose of enforcing male domination in relationships.

The creative, individualistic, and independent women were most often the targets of the two-century-long spree of witch hunts. Such persecution unfortunately destroyed many talented individuals who could have lived fulfilling lives and made tremendous advances in the arts and sciences.

How Martin Luther and John Calvin Conducted Witch Hunts and Persecuted Dissenters

 

The early 16th-century Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin were not enlightened, forward-thinking individuals. They were brutal, superstitious, intolerant, and repressive individuals who exploited popular stereotypes of “witches” in order to persecute those who disagreed with their views.

The Protestants’ use of the witch craze to enforce religious orthodoxy was no less dramatic than that of the Catholics. One of Martin Luther’s tools for attracting a mass following to his breakaway movement from the Catholic Church was the use of powerful emotional imagery. Just as he compared Rome to Babylon and the Pope to the Antichrist following his rejection of papal authority during the Leipzig debate in 1519, Luther was ready to brand eccentric or ideologically divergent individuals as “the Devil’s whores.”

Luther, in his 1522 sermon, charged the “witches” with a litany of supernatural behaviors, including transformation into different animals, accusations which, to the rationally thinking mind, would be ludicrous indeed. This further demonstrates that Luther’s motive for breaking away from the Catholic Church was not to defend freedom of individual thought, but to establish a religious orthodoxy of his own.

Luther, in addition to his intense anti-Semitism, strived to encourage the adoption of his version of Protestantism as the state-sponsored religion of numerous German principalities, at the expense of the religious freedoms of those principalities’ citizens. His intolerance extended even to the Zwinglians in Switzerland, with whom he exhibited only a minor disagreement over transubstantiation. Luther would undoubtedly have been eager to use the fear of witches as yet another weapon to direct mass hostility against those whose views diverged with his own.

John Calvin’s description of witches in the Institutes of the Christian Religion even more transparently revealed his true motives of combating dissension from his version of Protestantism. Calvin draws, from his passage on witchcraft, the conclusion that “we have to wage war against an infinite number of enemies.” Calvin might have included under this category anyone who did not conform to the dicta of his strict church government in Geneva.

Calvin’s policy was to stringently oversee people’s private lives, church attendance, and intellectual expression, and ensure that nothing they said or did would displease God. It should therefore come as no surprise that Geneva experienced a far larger number of witch hunts than most other major European cities. H.C. Erik Midelfort’s statistics show Geneva as having experienced 95 cases of witch persecution over 125 years, almost two and a half times more than had occurred in the entire Department of the Nord in France during 137 years.

Calvin was frank about his use of the witch craze to enforce the power of his own theocratic order, stating in the Institutes that he had brought up the entire issue “in order that we may be aroused and exhorted,” i.e., rallied behind Calvin’s religious movement.

The Political Motives Behind Witch Hunts

 

Aside from religious motives, the witch hunts that took place from 1480 to 1700 were made possible by the time period’s lack of restraint for political practices that provided only a flimsy cover for outright theft of property and politicians’ wanton attempts to destroy both their subjects and each other.

The personal avarice of many politicians of the time period impelled them to seek to thrive at the expense of others’ lives and suffering. The canon Linden, in his account of the persecutions in Trier, Germany in 1592, describes many of the city’s prominent magistrates as victims of the witch hunts, while others, including numerous political officers and the men hired by them, grew wealthy off the confiscated possessions of victims.

Indeed, Linden’s description suggests that witchcraft was “mass produced” and that the furnishing of accusations was a profitable industry for those on the receiving end of the property. The vehemence of a large segment of the population in supporting the witch executions might have been reinforced by the material gains those people would expect to obtain from them, gains that Linden personally witnessed when observing such men as the executioners.

Linden, himself a canon, saw many of his fellow canons lose their lives in the witch-hunting frenzy, and evidently considered himself at risk as well. His critical attitude toward the persecutions further illustrates that the witch hunts were an attempt of one class of people to prosper at the expense of others, and recognized as such by their victims.

Political rivalries, too, were motives for accusations of witchcraft. Among the victims of such ploys was Mayor Johannes Junius, who, though entirely innocent, was confronted with a trial whose proceedings were clearly not aimed toward an objective determination of guilt or innocence, but rather at causing Junius to “confess something, whether it be true or not.” The trial was rigged against Junius, and there was to be no possible outcome but his death. Such a case could not have existed had Junius not possessed rivals who wanted him eliminated at all costs. A vacancy in the post of mayor could, after all, assist someone’s political ambitions, either to occupy the position or place into it a man acceptable to some religious or political faction with the means to carry out witch hunts.

Roger North’s account also shows that witch hunts were often approved of by officials who themselves feared persecution by the masses. North, the brother of a chief justice, clearly sympathizes with those judges who were intimidated by mass fervor into condemning individuals accused of witchcraft, lest the judges themselves became targets of mass rage.

Even though most judges and officials, especially in the late seventeenth century, toward the end of the witch-hunting period, were sufficiently educated and rational to recognize the belief in witchcraft to be an “impious vulgar opinion,” those who stood on their principles could often find their careers, reputations, and even lives at risk.

Hatred of the Elderly as a Motivation for Witch Hunts

 

The era of witch hunts (1480-1700) exhibited a noticeably smaller life expectancy than the modern age, and living until an age even as advanced as sixty was extremely rare. Older individuals were seen as abnormal and thus, to the conformist mindset prevalent at the time, a threat.

W. Fulbecke expressed this view in writing, claiming that the bodies of the old become increasingly decayed and impure, and thus susceptible to corruption and evil. Having no rational, scientific explanation for the aging process, Fulbecke suggests that people senesce because they are “by the Devil whetted for such a purpose.”

The scientific ignorance of the witch-hunting period thus provided fuel for the creation of severely negative stereotypes on the basis of which aged individuals were persecuted. H.C. Erik Midelfort’s statistics show that the median age of accused witches across Europe was most frequently sixty, and at least fifty-five.

Given a general state of physical incapacitation among the elderly of the pre-modern era due to the lack of adequate medical knowledge, another reason for the frequent witch hunts against the senile may have been the inability of many of the latter to support themselves independently.

An English householder, as described by Thomas Ady, had a reputation for accusing of witchcraft those elderly beggars who had come to his door asking for assistance. The householder considered it his religious duty to give his aid to the poor, and would ask God’s forgiveness for denying it to an elderly woman, but would subsequently accuse the same woman of witchcraft. Perhaps, by the invention of such charges, the householder attempted to eliminate those elderly beggars whom he would otherwise have been compelled to support out of his Christian principles, likely to the detriment of his own economic well-being.

But even in such a time, more scientifically oriented individuals, such as the physician Johan Wier, had attempted to “fight with natural reason” the cruelties inflicted upon the aged. Wier refers to commonsense observations regarding the harmlessness of old individuals and the natural origins of the diseases which often clouded their reasoning.

Wier’s ideas were progressive for his time, and were used to argue for the humane treatment of the elderly. Nevertheless, the pervasive dominance of religious dogma over rational thought during his era left a mark even on Wier, who attributes witches’ false confessions to devilish influence, as opposed to the physical, this-worldly threats of torture they were faced with.

As the Enlightenment swept through the Western world during the early 18th century, the attitudinal conditions facilitating the persecution of witches were steadily moderated or eliminated. Religious orthodoxy gave way to greater toleration for a variety of faiths, and even strains of thought such as deism and atheism, whose advocates would not be accused of witchcraft.

The ideas of universal natural rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property made due process a legal priority and rendered it tremendously difficult for politicians to employ transparently artificial charges to wantonly expropriate the population or eliminate their competitors. The belief in the limitless potential of the rational faculties of all individuals, male or female, young or old, rendered misogyny and hatred of the elderly far less prevalent than previously. Along with the ideas that fostered it, witchcraft was relegated to the dustbin of history.

The Differences Between Neanderthals and Their Early Human Contemporaries (2004) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The Differences Between Neanderthals and Their Early Human Contemporaries (2004) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 27, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2004 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 13,000 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 27, 2014

**

Popular myth holds it that modern humans are descended from Neanderthals. This is demonstrably false. Neanderthals were a different hominid species from Homo sapiens, or modern man. The two species existed side by side as late as 24,000 B. C., but the Neanderthals lacked either the technical sophistication or the cultural and artistic dispositions of their human contemporaries. In essence, Homo neanderthalensis was a “dead end” species in the scheme of evolution; both the Neanderthals and modern humans had the same common ancestor, but are divergent branches of the evolutionary tree.

Neanderthals did not display any signs of a symbolic life. Though they buried their dead, they did so haphazardly. In contrast, throughout the past 50,000 years, modern men buried their dead with great care and ceremony, indicating their value for human life and their grief over its loss. In the realm of tool-making, Neanderthal technology was far more primitive and less efficient. Neanderthals wielded heavy stabbing spears that did not require any fine craftsmanship to manufacture and possessed a far smaller range than the versatile throwing spears of modern men, which often required great mastery and time to construct.

Whereas there is no evidence of systematic teaching in Neanderthal communities, and it was likely that every generation had rediscovered the same primitive technologies, modern humans, from their beginnings, passed on to their offspring the technical skills that would eventually dominate the planet. This communication of skills and techniques also contributed to the evolution of language and firmer social bonds, as those facilitated more effective creation and use of tools.

The significance of shell beads and ornamentation from 35,000 to 43,000 years ago in Turkey, the oldest decorations of this manner, is that they were not created with any explicitly utilitarian purpose. Not usable in hunting or gathering, they were an expression of individual creativity and identity unseen in any other animals, including the hominids that preceded modern man. Their existence signified an evolution of a hitherto nonexistent facet of consciousness. Homo sapiens created such works of art, whereas their ancestors and hominid contemporaries could not have.

Though they were genetically close, Neanderthals and modern humans were a wide gulf apart in terms of their mental faculties and creative abilities. This dramatic difference explains the natural selection that occurred in favor of modern humans, whose increased adaptability to hostile environments and ability to improve upon their surroundings proved a decisive advantage over the Neanderthals.

The History of Big Guns in World War I (2005) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The History of Big Guns in World War I (2005) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 26, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2005 and published  on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 5,400 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 26, 2014

*

Perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of the increase in the sheer force that could be unleashed on the battlefield due to technological improvements of the early 20th century can be seen in the development of the large-scale artillery pieces up to and during the time of World War I.

The “big guns” of the time period were immensely heavy, needed to be transported in multiple parts (each part often occupying the equivalent of several train wagons), and time-consuming to assemble on the site of firing. Nevertheless, their range, far exceeding the extent of a human being’s sight and reaching many kilometers past the enemy’s front line, as well as the sheer impact wrought by their massive shells, was thought to compensate for their size and awkwardness.

The most famous of the big guns of World War I were employed by the German Army and manufactured by the Krupp family firm, the largest German weapons producer, owned by one of the wealthiest families in the world. The Krupp firm produced numerous models of howitzers, or long-range, large-caliber artillery capable of firing both at high and low trajectories.

The famous howitzer, Big Bertha, was designed 1904 for the Krupp firm by the inventor Louis Gauthmann. The Big Bertha was a movable siege mortar capable of firing projectiles weighing 820 kilograms for as far as 15 kilometers, at as high a trajectory as 80 degrees (thus explaining the mortar designation). Four Big Berthas were produced in all, and used in the German offensive of 1914. Their most distinguished use, however, was in August of 1916, during the German assault on the twelve-ringed fortifications at Liege, Belgium. Over the course three days (from the 12th to the 15th of August) two Big Berthas were installed within firing range of the fortress and inflicted such massive devastation as to bring about either the destruction or surrender of all the Belgian defensive positions in the area.

While the Big Bertha was renowned for its sheer mass and firepower, other German big guns of the time period also focused on achieving firing distances that far exceeded that of Big Bertha. These weapons were called “railway guns,” as they were designed to be mounted on and supported by railroad tracks for greater stability and more efficient assembly, since their parts were delivered to the battlefield by train and could be put together on the precise spot of arrival.

A common railway gun design was known as the “Long Max,” which the Germans used to shell French positions some 25-30 kilometers behind the front lines. However, the Germans were able to modify the Long Max design to create a far longer-ranged weapon, the famous Paris Gun (or the Kaiser Wilhelm Gun), which could fire on the city of Paris itself from the German front lines. Though its shell was substantially smaller than that fired by the Big Bertha, weighing only 92 kilograms, it could be hurled 130 kilometers from the gun, and reached heights as far as 40 kilometers above ground level, thus making the shells fired by the gun the first man-made objects to reach the stratosphere and there encounter minimal air resistance, enabling them to travel at supersonic speeds.

ParisGunThe Paris Gun was first installed on March 21, 1918, and required some 80 crewmen to assemble and operate. It fired some 320-367 shells during its lifetime, killing 250 people, injuring 620, and causing considerable property damage in Paris. Though its shells were fairly small and could not be aimed precisely at targets smaller than city size, the gun’s primary purpose was psychological, to convince the French government and citizens that they were not safe from the German army even in their capital. The gun proved powerless to stop the Allied advance of 1918, however, and the Germans destroyed it during their retreat, to prevent its design and parts from falling into Allied hands. The Paris Gun was the largest weapon ever built up to its time and would only be exceeded in caliber by German railway guns of World War II.

Sources:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmachineguns.htm

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi694.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbertha.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_%28weapon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/bigbertha.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/K/Krupp.asp

http://www.fluxeuropa.com/war/evolution.htm

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blgrenade.htm

http://va.essortment.com/handgrenadeh_rgor.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/summary.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/aces.htm

http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/ryn/projects/inventors/gatling/gatling.html

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowning.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/mgun_mg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

Thomas Jefferson versus John Marshall on the Nature of the American Union (2006) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

Thomas Jefferson versus John Marshall on the Nature of the American Union (2006) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 26, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2006 and published in two parts on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay earned over 1,900 page views on Associated Content/Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 26, 2014

*

Thomas Jefferson’s Views on the American Union as a Compact Among the States

***

Early American political thought about the Union’s nature was divided into two radically different perspectives. One of these was expressed by Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, which viewed the Union as a loose compact of the states, whose legislatures could overrule and judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s actions. The South Carolina Declaration of Causes (1860) and the Mississippi Resolutions (1861) developed this position-using Jefferson’s premises to justify Southern states’ secession from the Union.

Jefferson portrayed the Union as voluntarily entered into by the states; the states were “not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” (KR, 153). The Union was created by the ratification of the Constitution, which served as a “compact” by which the states “delegated… certain definite powers” to the general government (KR, 154). The government’s exercise of powers not expressly granted to it by the Constitution was thus illegitimate. For Jefferson, the Constitution both defined and limited the Union’s nature and essence.

To keep the national government one of limited and expressly delegated powers, Jefferson warned that it should not be “the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself” (KR, 154), since that would allow the government to define the scope of its powers and dissociate these powers from their original source – the states. The states – as parties to the Constitutional compact – have no common judge among them; hence, “each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infractions as of the mode and measure of redress” (KR, 154). Jefferson acknowledged state legislatures’ right to judge federal actions’ constitutionality.

The South Carolina and the Mississippi legislatures agreed with Jefferson that the Union was a compact among the “free and independent states,” whose sovereignty was asserted in the 1776 Declaration of Independence (SCDC, 310). In 1787, deputies sent by the states affirmed the “Articles of Union”-the Constitution-which defined the Union and required the states’ consent to take effect (SCDC, 311). The South Carolina Declaration emphasized that – while only nine out of thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution for it to be adopted-those that refused to ratify it would have remained “separate, sovereign states… exercise[ing] the functions of… independent nation[s]” (SCDC, 311). Via the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution assured that all powers not expressly delegated to the national government were left to the states or the people, while the federal government remained “limited to the express words of the grant” (SCDC, 311).

In the Southern legislatures’ view, the Constitution established the “law of compact” (SCDC, 311), which required mutual reciprocity of obligations on behalf of all parties to the Union. If any party – such as the Northern states – refused to fulfill its Constitutional obligations and infringed on the rights of the other parties, the Union was dissolved and “the ends for which this government was instituted have been defeated” (SCDC, 312). The Mississippi Resolution asserted that whenever the compact is thus destroyed, “parties to the compact have the right to resume, each state for itself, such delegated powers” (MR, 314) as they had formerly granted the national government. According to the Mississippi Resolution, the Northern states’ explicit unwillingness to enforce the Constitution’s fugitive slave clause justified the Southern states’ secession from the Union (MR, 315). Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions and the declarations of the South Carolina and Mississippi legislatures viewed the Union as a compact of sovereign states that retained broad powers and could exercise them to counter federal abuses.

John Marshall’s View of the American Union as a Direct Association of the People

***

John Marshall’s McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) decision stated a view which directly contradicted Thomas Jefferson – a view of the Union as a direct association of the people – not of the states. Marshall denied states the ability to overrule federal actions. Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (1861) reinforced this view and argued that the Union was perpetual and could not be dissolved by individual states.

Marshall’s vision of the Union differed sharply from Thomas Jefferson’s. According to Marshall and contrary to Jefferson, the Union was not a compact between the states, but an association created directly by the people. Although the Constitutional Convention’s delegates were elected by state legislatures, the Constitution itself was “submitted to the people” (MMD, 149) for ratification. The Constitutional Convention’s delegates ordained that special conventions in the states – not the state legislatures – ratify the Constitution. Marshall emphasized that “from these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority” (MMD, 149); thus, “[the] government proceeds directly from the people” (MMD, 149). The states were only instrumental to the Union insofar as their legislatures “called a convention, and thus submit[ed] that instrument to the people” (MMD, 149).

Marshall believed that the national government was granted enumerated powers by the people and was hence free to exercise those powers “directly on them, and for their benefit” (MMD, 149), without states’ interference. Marshall’s view, unlike Jefferson’s, does not permit the states to overrule an act of Congress or to declare it unconstitutional. Marshall interpreted the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause to mean that “the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action” (MMD, 150); it could use any means necessary to fulfill powers expressly delegated to it, and the states could not legitimately overrule its actions.

Abraham Lincoln challenged claims that the Union was founded via the Constitution. Lincoln traced the Union’s origin back to the Articles of Association in 1774; the Constitution’s purpose was not to create the Union, but merely to “form a more perfect” one (FIA, 121). The Union is not conditional; it “is perpetual,” since “no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination” (FIA, 121). The Constitution provides no terms under which the Union might be destroyed; therefore, it will continue to “endure forever” if the Constitution is followed (FIA, 121). Lincoln developed this argument to claim that “no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union” (FIA, 122); any attempt at secession amounts to insurrection. Secession would only set a highly negative precedent for any minority that did not acquiesce to the majority’s decisions. Lincoln saw it necessary for the Union to maintain itself by all constitutional means-though he initially hoped to avoid bloodshed in reconciling the states.

John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln saw the Union as a perpetual association of the people – incapable of being overruled or dissolved by individual states’ actions. This view, incompatible with the ideas of those who saw the Union as a compact among the states, fueled disputes that would eventually culminate in the Civil War.