What Higher Education Administrators do not Understand about Budget Cuts and Furloughs

The poet Walt Whitman, visiting army hospitals along the Potomac River in 1862, came upon “a heap of amputated feet, legs, arms, hands, &c., a full load for a one-horse cart,” hospital waste of soldiers of the Army of the Potomac. Amputation was a last resort to save the life of a human being. Likewise, institutions find themselves forced to cut away appendages to save the core body.

I was a professor at a small liberal arts college that has for many years been facing institutional death due to financial disaster. Often, the approach of administrators to financial crises is to amputate the limbs—by means of budget cuts, retirement cuts, and furloughs—of those who sustain the body of the college: the faculty.

The administration, because they are paid to do so, and have a worldview that is increasingly separate from the day to day job of interacting with students in the classroom, devise strategies, plans, budgets, forecasts, and so on, by which to anticipate how many students will attend, what the retention and graduation rates will be, and how to keep the institution afloat. All the while the teacher engages the student in the sine qua non of higher education: thinking, learning, reading, writing, analyzing, hypothesizing, concluding, growing.

To keep the body alive sometimes requires amputation. But the quality of life diminishes over time. If there is an alternative to drastic cuts, perhaps the quality of educational life will not be sacrificed according to the mentality of “the end justifies the means”.

I am a historian. The value of historical study is that it provides a long term perspective of the past to the present, which often helps suggest guidance for the future. The history of my experience in higher education convinces me how wrong-headed the modern administrative approach to college education is, and how colleges can save the limbs along with the body to continue to grow into the future.

The small private college where I taught once had a modest endowment, but no more. The college is completely tuition driven, and has to compete with a variety of less expensive state schools in the region. At one time the college was directed by an outside missionary organization with a clear sense of purpose. But a half century ago, the college was turned over to an independent board of trustees that had more flexibility in decision-making but lacked the same mission-centered drive, and had far fewer resources. Henceforth, the college has limped along, remarkably able to open its doors every year, but lacking the financial resources to make disinterested decisions to put higher education above the ever-present concern of “keeping out of the red.”

Like many small colleges, athletics and professional programs have come to dominate the once single-minded concern to graduate students with a good liberal arts education. Athletic programs (such as football) keep the doors open, though of (apparent) necessity athletics must come before academics. This is an unworkable situation for a college. It is like increasing debt: as the debt and interest rates rise the debtor can scarcely get out of debt without taking on more. As the college grows ever more dependent on athletics it can scarcely rid itself of this non-academic encumbrance and indeed must continue to recruit and take on more. As more college resources go toward athletic programs and staff, academics by comparison suffer.

Likewise, the old liberal arts focus of the college slowly became lost in a morass of income-generating professional programs. Students were taught that a degree in business or nursing would get them a job fast. Whether or not students would be educated people who loved learning throughout their lifetime, contributing to a larger society with their thoughts and ideas, became a secondary concern.

This small college trying to make ends meet has had no realistic, workable strategic plan. Such a plan must be based on set, established academic programs that are consistent and comparable in order to attract a pool of students. Caught between professional and academic programs, something like a split personality has developed, and the tug-of-war between professional programs and academic programs has led to a Robert Frost situation of facing two paths in a wood without knowing which to take. A college that focuses its resources on athletics and professional (job-getting) programs sacrifices academic programs that can prepare students for graduate school; hence top-notch students who want to pursue academics beyond the bachelors degree eschew such a place. A college that has a shotgun approach to majors will find it hard pressed to attract serious students—hence the reliance upon athletics. There are many professional schools all over the region that compete with this small private school’s professional programs; the state school programs cost less, hence bring in more students.

The keys to college success are not athletics, clubs, stylish dorms, a wonderful dining experience. Success resides in the faculty. Faculty have to feel invested, central to planning and decision making, because they are the ones who ultimately can attract students and bring students forward to degree completion to ensure continuous successful enrollment, year after year. College administrators typically embrace a top down administrative model in which faculty are very little, and rarely, directly involved.

Rather, faculty must be equal to the administration in terms of planning and decision-making because the faculty, in their day-to-day interaction with students—and not the administration—are ultimately in charge of academics. This is why successful schools have some sort of means of embracing faculty and making them feel central to the academic experience without the fear of cut-backs, demotions, furloughs, reduction of benefits. Students do not after all obtain a degree in football or debate club. Faculty must feel invested and central to the college without having to fear for their jobs. Successful schools have active and forthright faculty governance that is engaged equally to the administration.

In time anesthetics, cleanliness, and antibiotics allowed for fewer limbs to be severed from mangled soldiers’ bodies. The discovery of long-term approaches to health, rather than short-term techniques to save a life, meant that people survived to live longer and happier. Likewise, in higher education institutions, the short-term solution of making the annual enrollment goal at the expense of the body’s many appendages might allow for another year of survival, yet the quality of the experience will always suffer until the end.

Posted in General Essays | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Anglicans on the Frontier

ANGLICANS ON THE FRONTIER:

 THE GREAT COMMISSION AND THE EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION OF NORTH AMERICA[1]

Russell M. Lawson

Captain John Smith was arguably the greatest of the English explorers, discoverers, and colonists of America. He was as well the first American historian. His human and natural histories include: A True Relation of Such Occurrences and Accidents of Noate as Hath Hapned in Virginia Since the First Planting of that Collony, published in 1608; A Map of Virginia, published in 1612; the Description of New England, published in 1616; New Englands Trials, published in 1620; The True Travels, published in 1629; the Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England, published in 1631; and his most ambitious effort, The General Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, published in 1624. The General History has quite a story to tell, of journeys and battles, of harrowing escapes from enemies intent on torturing their captives, of explorers penetrating lands and waters hitherto unseen by Europeans, of dramatic episodes involving the American Indians. With so many possible themes—of adventure, romance, discovery—with which to open his book, it is instructive to see how Smith chose to open his General History.  The first paragraph reads:

“This plaine History humbly sheweth the truth; that our most royall King James hath place and opportunitie to inlarge his ancient Dominions without wronging any; (which is a condition most agreeable to his most just and pious resolutions:) and the Prince his Highness may see where to plant new Colonies. The gaining Provinces addeth to the Kings Crown: but the reducing Heathen people to civilitie and true Religion, bringeth honour to the King of Heaven.”[2]

            Contained in this first paragraph of the General History are the three fundamental assumptions that guided the life and activities of John Smith, and indeed of all the English explorers who journeyed to America in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, during the Elizabeth and Jacobean ages. Smith identified himself—as well as the English—as conqueror, colonizer, and commissioner: a conqueror who will “reduce heathen people,” a colonizer who will “plant new colonies,” and a commissioner who will “bringeth honour to the King of Heaven.”

            To use civilization and conversion as the ultimate ends to justify conquest and colonization seems disingenuous to say the least, a crass example of an expedient moral system that defends evil because it results in an ultimate good. Forcing others to convert to Christianity was not Smith’s style, and English discoverers anyway tended not to force religion down the throats of disbelieving Indians. Even so, it often appears that, of the three apparent reasons for European colonization, God, Glory, and Gold, God was least important, mere window-dressing, something that sounded good in theory but was in reality little practiced.

            If, however, the words of the English are allowed to explain their motives and assumptions, it appears that the narratives of English colonization repeatedly cite the Great Commission as the ultimate end for the means of conquest and colonization.

Captain Smith was not, of course, ordained and commissioned by the Anglican or any other Church to spread the Gospel according to the tenets of the Great Commission. But Smith did believe that Jesus’s commandment to his disciples to go, and spread the Gospel to all nations, applied to English colonizing efforts. Smith was an ad hoc commissioner who, because of his Anglican beliefs, felt compelled not only to journey to America and colonize the land, but to do so because the Great Commission commanded it, and, as a consequence, to bring knowledge of the teachings of Christ to the American Indians. Smith was joined in this endeavor by other explorers, colonizers, and scientists, such as the voyagers who founded Roanoke in the 1580s, and the men of the Martin Frobisher, Humfrey Gilbert, and George Waymouth voyages. Smith is the best known of the early American explorers, and a person that on the surface would not appear to be inclined toward the concerns of the missionary to spread the knowledge of Christianity to others. But the Anglican worldview had quite an impact on Smith, and he responded with a strong sense of the importance of the Great Commission in the work of colonization.[3]

            During Smith’s time, scholars and theologians took the words of the Great Commission literally, at face value. Jesus’s Commission required commissioners who were willing to travel, explore, discover, and engage the peoples and places of hitherto unknown lands. Commissioners spread the word to an unknown people in an unknown world of unknown geography, flora, fauna, and natural history. Some were commissioned by monastic orders or church agencies. Others were ad hoc, commissioners who in the process of exploring, discovering, fighting, investigating, and studying also spread the teachings of Jesus.[4]

            The Church of England was involved in the Great Commission from the true beginning of English activities in North America under Queen Elizabeth I. The Church commissioned some missionaries to go to America in an official capacity; yet many other missionaries were self-appointed, commissioners simply because they were Anglicans.[5] Martin Frobisher, for example, soldier and adventurer, made three voyages to North America in the 1570s seeking the Northwest Passage. He made contact, and had pitched battles, with the native Inuit people. One contemporary account of his second, 1577, voyage, explained that Frobisher and his men sought, “that by our Christian study and endeavour, those barbarous people trained up in paganism, and infidelity, might be reduced to the knowledge of true religion, and to the hope of salvation in Christ our Redeemer.” The ordained agent in this goal of spreading the Christian message was Robert Wolfall, an Anglican priest, who was chaplain and missionary with the Frobisher voyage to Canada in 1578. Wolfall, according to contemporary chronicler Richard Hakluyt, “being well seated and settled at home in his owne countrey, with a good and large living, having a good, honest woman to wife, and very towardly children, being of good reputation amongst the best, refused not to take in hand this paineful voyage, for the onely care he had to save soules and to reforme these infidels, if it were possible, to Christianitie.” Wolfull was busy on the voyage with homilies, prayers, and communion: “Wolfall,” Hakluyt wrote, “made sermons, and celebrated the Communion at sundry other times in severall and sundry ships, because the whole company could never meet together at any one place.” There is no record that Wolfull actually converted any of the Inuit to Christianity, though he did counsel Frobisher’s men and performed the “divine mystery” for the crew.[6]

            Wolfull was by and large a chaplain, and the relations between the English and the Inuit were more of conflict than peace. A decade later, however, in another part of North America, another commissioner, not ordained but ad hoc, had friendlier relations with the Native peoples, and enjoyed more positive results. Scientist Thomas Hariot accompanied the Grenville voyage, sponsored by Walter Raleigh, to Roanoke Island, off the coast of North Carolina, in 1585. Hariot wrote A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia, of the Commodities and of the Nature and Manners of the Naturall Inhabitants: Discouered bÿ the English Colony there seated by Sir Richard Greinuile Knight In the yeere 1585. Hariot was a naturalist and mathematician, a learned man who communicated, through interpreters, with the native Algonquians about their religious beliefs and tried to impart his knowledge of Anglicanism in turn. He described the Indians as intelligent, having an anthropomorphic and a polytheistic system, including a belief in Heaven and Hell. They were, he wrote, quick to abandon their beliefs in the face of more compelling ideas. Christianity and the Bible fascinated them. “Through conversing with us,” Hariot wrote, “they were brought into great doubts of their owne [religion], and no small admiration of ours, with earnest desire in many, to learne more than we had meanes for want of perfect utterance in their language to expresse.” Hariot, not a priest but devoted to the Great Commission, wrote:

manie times and in every towne where I came, according as I was able, I made declaration of the contentes of the Bible; that therein was set foorth the true and onelie GOD, and his mightie woorkes, that therein was contayned the true doctrine of salvation through Christ, which manie particularities of Miracles and chiefe poyntes of religion, as I was able then to utter, and thought fitte for the time. And although I told them the booke materially & of itself was not of anie such vertue, as I thought they did conceive, but onely the doctrine therein contained; yet would many be glad to touch it, to embrace it, to kisse it, to hold it to their brests and heades, and stroke over all their bodie with it; to shew their hungrie desire of that knowledge which was spoken of.[7]

            Hariot believed that the Indians were attracted to Christianity in part because English science and technology so impressed them that they admired all of the possessions and beliefs of the English. That the Indians succumbed to diseases of which the English appeared to be immune was also impressive. The chief “called ‘Wingina’, and many of his people would be glad many times to be with us at our praiers, and many times call upon us both in his owne towne, as also in others whither he sometimes accompanied us, to pray and sing Psalmes; hoping thereby to bee partaker in the same effectes which wee by that meanes also expected.”[8]

            Hariot’s Briefe and True Report implies the interaction of two cultures imparting godly knowledge, one to the other. Of course, one was attempting to colonize, to discover, to exploit, while the other was attempting to survive and thrive in a place they already possessed. During the reign of Elizabeth, the English turned from exploration to colonization, from bringing the Gospel to pagan peoples during voyages of discovery to settling among them and Christianizing them. Such a process was marred by sin. The promoter of colonization and Anglican priest Richard Hakluyt wrote in the Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation that the English failed to establish the colony at Roanoke because they were driven away by “the hand of God,” which “came upon them for the cruelty and outrages committed by some of them against the native inhabitants of that country.”[9]

            Such was the typical response of an Elizabethan Christian who believed in God’s active Providence. Failure was obviously a product of God’s will, and failure could best be explained by sin.  Hakluyt’s comment implied a larger question: Was it valid to conquer, colonize, and bring the Great Commission to the indigenous inhabitants of America?

            The English answered in the affirmative, in part because the Elizabethan and Jacobean English believed that England was an Elect nation, in part because of their tremendous sense of God’s Providence at work in their own lives and in the world at large. The English Reformation and founding of the Church of England under Henry VIII, its repression under Mary Tudor, and growth under Elizabeth I, had convinced many English that God particularly blessed England, which would carry out His will.[10] God’s providential role in English voyages of discovery and the English assumption that the Great Commission was of necessity the driver of such voyages can be seen in many of the narratives of voyages of discovery from that time. Edward Hayes, for example, who wrote the account of the 1583 voyage of Sir Humfrey Gilbert, argued that planting “the seed of Christian religion . . . must be the chiefe intent of such as shall make any attempt that way”—“whatsoever is builded upon other foundation shall never obtaine happy successe nor continuance.” He admonished adventurers who prosecuted such voyages to beware such journeys for material rather than spiritual gain. Hayes associated the fulfillment of the Great Commission to all corners of the world with the Second Coming of Christ; hence he believed that God had chosen the Elizabethan age as the time to begin to prosecute the Commission in earnest. Likewise, a contemporary of Smith, James Rosier, who voyaged with and penned accounts of the journeys of Bartholomew Gosnold and George Waymouth, wrote of the ultimate goal of the Waymouth voyage: “a publique good, and true zeale of promulgating Gods holy Church, by planting Christianity, [was] the sole intent of the Honourable setters foorth of this discovery.”[11]

            Captain John Smith’s actions and writings reveal that he agreed that England, the Elect Nation, had a particular role to play in the Great Commission of converting a people ignorant of Christ. He defended the English conquest and colonization of America in his book Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England: “Many good religious devout men,” Smith wrote, “have made it a great question, as a matter in conscience, by what warrant they might goe to possesse those Countries, which are none of theirs, but the poore Salvages. Which poore curiosity will answer it selfe; for God did make the world to be inhabited with mankind, and to have his name knowne to all Nations, and from generation to generation: as the people increased they dispersed themselves into such Countries as they found most convenient.”[12] To Smith, the Great Commission is a historical plan, a commandment of the past guiding people in the present and into the future. Jesus came to earth when the population was not great enough, at that time in the first century, to spread the message of the Gospel to all people. But as time passes and the world’s population increases—and England’s population increases—people have the human and material resources to carry out the Commission. The English colonization of America is therefore part of a great plan. Not to journey to other lands, not to extend the Gospel to other peoples, is to disobey God, indeed to reject God’s plan for history, which in Smith’s time was an even greater sin than using intimidation and violence by which to bring about God’s will.

            Part of God’s historical plan is civilizing the human race. Smith wrote, in Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England, that, “had the seed of Abraham, our Saviour Christ Jesus and his Apostles, exposed themselves to no more dangers to plant the gospell wee so much professe, than we, even we our selves had at this present beene as Salvages, and as miserable as the most barbarous Salvage, yet uncivilized.”[13] It took the courage of other great men, sojourners like Abraham and the Son of Man himself, Jesus, to conform to God’s plan in the face of great danger, even death. Smith and his contemporaries referred to the Indians as salvages, meaning forest-dwellers. Smith believed that the Great Commission would take the salvages from primitive forest existence to the civilized existence of English Christianity.

            How actively involved was Smith himself in bringing the Gospel to the Indians?   There are many examples in Smith’s writings of his attempts to convince the American Indians of the truth of the Christian God. “Our order was daily to have Prayer,” he wrote, “with a Psalme, at which solemnitie the poore Salvages much wondered.” “To divert them from . . . [their] blind Idolatry,” Smith and his companions

did our best endevours, chiefly with the Werowance of Quiyoughcohanock, whose devotion, apprehension, and good disposition, much exceeded any in those Countries, with whom although we could not as yet prevaile, to God as much exceeded theirs, as our Gunnes did their Bowes & Arrowes, and many times did send to me to James Towne, intreating me to pray to my God for raine, for their Gods would not send them any. And in this lamentable ignorance doe these poore soules sacrifice themselves to the Devill, not knowing their Creator; and we had not language sufficient, so plainly to expresse it as make them understand it; which God grant they may.

Smith believed that his words and actions illustrated the power of God in his life, as he wrote: “That God that created all things they knew he [Smith] adored for his God: they would also in their discourses terme the God of Captaine Smith. ‘Thus the Almightie was the bringer on, The guide, path, terme, all which was God alone’.”[14]

            Smith supported the New England Puritans in their work to establish religious societies and convert the natives. God has decided, he wrote, “to stirre up some good mindes, that I hope, will produce glory to God, honour to His Majesty, and profit to his kingdom.” Smith had himself journeyed along the coast of New England in 1614 and believed that the land was reserved by God for some special purpose, that is, English colonization and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. He thought it was possible that God had purposefully spread disease throughout New England prior to the Pilgrims’s coming, preparing the way for the Lord, as it were. The surviving natives of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts would benefit from the English goal of “civilizing barbarous and inhumane nations to civility and humanity.” Indeed, the English owed this work to the New England Indians; it would otherwise be a “want of charity to those poore Salvages, whose Countries we challenge, use, and possesse.” Personally, Smith felt that it was his Christian duty to pursue this work. “Our good deeds or bad,” he wrote in Advertisements, “by faith in Christs merits, is all wee have to carry our soules to heaven or hell.”[15]

            Smith wrote Advertisements toward the end of his life, when he was reflective about his accomplishments and role in history and considered what were his greatest achievements. Significantly, he dedicated Advertisements to the archbishop of Canterbury and the archbishop of York. He wished to show his dedication to the Anglican Church and proclaimed his desire that the New England colonies result in “the increase of God’s Church, converting Salvages, and enlarging the Kings Dominions.” He called the two archbishops his “Fathers and Protectors unexpectedly.” Smith felt compelled to defend himself for doing whatever he could to begin and sustain the Anglican Church in Virginia during the two years he was there. He wrote: “Now because I have spoke so much of the body, give me leave to say something of the soul, and the rather because I have been often demanded by so many how we began to preach the Gospel in Virginia, and by what authority, what churches we had, our order of service, and maintenance of our ministers, therefore I think it not amiss to satisfy their demands, it being the mother of all our plantations.” The Jamestown colonists established Church as they knew it the best way they knew how: “When I first went to Virginia, I well remember, we did hang an awning (which is an old sail) to three or four trees to shadow us from the sun, our walls were rails of wood, our seats unhewed trees till we cut planks; our pulpit a bar of wood nailed to two neighboring trees; in foul weather we shifted into an old rotten tent, for we had few better.” “This was our church, till we built a homely thing like a barn, set upon cratchets, covered with rafts, sedge and earth; so was also the walls; the best of our houses (were) of the like curiosity, but the most part far much worse workmanship, that neither could well defend wind nor rain, yet we had daily Common Prayer morning and evening, every Sunday two sermons, and every three months the holy Communion, till our minister died. But our prayers daily with an homily on Sundays, we continued two or three years after, till more preachers came.”[16]

            Surveying from afar the continuing growth of Anglicanism in England, Smith worried that such would not be the case in New England, and counseled readers of his Advertisements in what he considered to be the true approach to Christianity, both in England and in America. Smith thought that the strength of Christianity lay in its unity to a common creed and unified authority, both of which were found only in “one God, one Christ, one Church”—of England of course. Dissensions from the church splintered the belief, making it prey to non-Christians.[17]

            His books, at least, especially those toward the end of his life, inform us that he believed his own life was guided by the will of God. “If you but truly consider how many strange accidents have befallen those plantations and my self,” he wrote in Advertisements, [you] “cannot but conceive Gods infinite mercy both to them and me.” Smith saw himself as a playing an important role in acting upon the Great Commission. God’s “omnipotent power onely delivered me to doe the utmost of my best to make his name knowne in those remote parts of the world.”[18]

            Smith wrote a short apology, as it were, for English colonization, in the General History:

But we chanced in a Land even as God made it, where we found onely an idle, improvident, scattered people, ignorant of the knowledge of gold or silver, or any commodities, and carelesse of any thing but from hand to mouth, except bables of no worth; nothing to incourage us, but what accidentally we found Nature afforded. Which ere we could bring to recompence our paines, defray our charges, and satisfie our Adventurers; we were to discover the Countrey, subdue the people, bring them to be tractable, civill, and industrious, and teach them trades, that the fruits of their labours might make us some recompence, or plant such Colonies of our owne, that must first make provision how to live of themselves, ere they can bring to perfection the commodities of the Country:[19]

            The Stuart kings who granted charters for colonies agreed with Smith that the Great Commission should be a priority of colonization. For example, when James I granted Virginia a new charter in 1612, he granted the charter “for the Propagation of Christian Religion, and Reclaiming of People barbarous, to Civility and Humanity.”[20] A tract published by the Virginia Company titled True and Sincere Declaration of the Purposes and Ends of the Plantation declared that a motivating purpose of the endeavor was, “First to preach and baptize into Christian religion and by the propagation the Gospel, to recover out of the arms of the devil a number of poor and miserable souls wrapped up unto death in almost invincible ignorance; to endeavor the fulfilling and accomplishments of the number of the elect which shall be gathered from out of all corners of the earth; and add to our myte the treasury of heaven.”[21] Alexander Whitaker, the “Apostle of Virginia,” who baptized Pocahontas and married Rolfe and Pocahontas, wrote in his 1613 tract, Good News from Virginia, that “the promise of God . . . is without respect of person”—humans are equal before God.[22] As the English were centuries before able to be converted from their ignorance to Christ, so too could the Indians of America.

            John Smith’s goal to conquer, colonize, and commission ultimately bore fruit in America. The Anglican Church took root throughout the colonies, and slowly the work of the Great Commission was pursued by self-appointed and ordained commissioners. The Anglican worldview, shared by Smith, that colonization coexisted with civilizing and converting the Indians, could not be accomplished quickly, rather was long and draw out, an encumbrance to which was the inability of Indians to read the Gospel. As a result, either missionaries had to teach English or translate the Bible in the Indian vernacular. This was precisely the aim of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, often called the New England Company, an organization comprised of Anglicans as well as dissenters who collected and invested funds, from which they supported and paid missionaries and schoolteachers and supplied them with books, sermons, and Bibles by which to educate and convert the Native inhabitants. One of the founders of the New England Company, Anglican and scientist Robert Boyle, wrote, in On Theology: “But neither the fundamental doctrine of Christianity nor that of the powers and effects of matter and motion, seems to be more than an epicycle . . . of the great and universal system of God’s contrivances, and makes but a part of the more general theory of things, knowable by the light of nature, improved by the information of the scriptures: so that both these doctrines . . . seem to be but members of the universal hypothesis, whose objects I conceive to be the nature, counsels, and works of God, so far as they are discoverable by us . . . in this life.”[23]

Further south, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG), formed in 1701 after founder Thomas Bray spent some time in Maryland, embraced the theory of converting by civilizing. Bray and the SPG also believed that white settlers living on the frontier needed the Gospel as much as their Indian neighbors. In A Memorial Representing the Present State of Religion, on the Continent of America, addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury, Bray castigated the Church of England for not responding vigorously to the missionary efforts of the dissenters in New England, the Quakers in the Middle Colonies, and the Catholics in New France. He advocated that the SPG send missionaries who were bachelors without children and possessed uncommon zeal. SPG missionaries such as Bray distributed books and Bibles, and promoted schools and libraries, among Indians and whites. Bray himself was lauded by the SPG for his initial efforts and expenditures of funds for “divers ministers” send to America and for “many Parochial Libraries” established in the colonies.[24]

Bray and others in the SPG, such as George Berkeley, believed that the Great Commission must extend to all peoples in the colonies. Berkeley promoted in a 1724 pamphlet that a school should be opened in Bermuda for American Indians to prepare native missionaries to engage in work among their own people.[25] In the first anniversary sermon of founding of SPG in 1702, the speaker, the dean of Lincoln, proclaimed that an important goal was “the breeding up of Persons to understand the great variety of Languages of those Countries in order to be able to Converse with the Natives, and Preach the Gospel to them . . . ; especially this may be a great Charity to souls of many of those poor Natives who may by this be converted from that state of Barbarism and Idolatry in which they now live, and be brought into the sheepfold of are blessed Saviour.”[26] SPG missionaries worked up and down the coast, ministering to colonists, slaves, and Indians. Thomas Bray worked in the early 1730s to encourage the SPG to establish schools on plantations to educate and inculcate Christianity in African-American slave families.[27] The SPG helped to establish King’s College in New York in 1758; part of the aim of the college was to train messengers to interact with and teach all people.[28] Missionaries to Indians were taught that the natural religion of Indians would help them to understand Holy Scripture. One of the first tribes so tested was the Mohawk of New York.[29] French Franciscans and Jesuits had long been at work among the Algonquian and Iroquoian tribes of the east coast, Great Lakes, and Canada. The French had better personal relations with Indians, but the English had more wares and better opportunities for trade.

            The focal point for Anglican missionary work during the eighteenth century before the War for Independence was at Fort Hunter, which was up the Mohawk River from Schenectady. Anglican missionaries such as Thomas Barclay and William Andrews began to bring the Gospel message to the Mohawks in the early 1700s. A Mohawk prayer book appeared in 1715, published by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, under William Andrews’ supervision. Henry Barclay, son of Thomas, was missionary at Fort Hunter from 1735 to 1746, when he became rector of Trinity Church, New York. John Ogilvie succeeded Barclay at Fort Hunter, serving from 1750 to 1760.[30]

            The Rev. John Ogilvie was an accomplished scholar and missionary, educated at Yale, ordained at London in 1748, and assigned to Fort Hunter in 1749. He worked out of Albany. He knew Dutch and Mohawk by which to converse with the local inhabitants of the Mohawk Valley. He revised William Andrew’s Mohawk prayer book, believing that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer was the greatest strength that the English had to combat French Catholicism among the Indians. Upon his arrival at Fort Hunter, he was quickly disillusioned by the job before him. “I wish I could be more sanguine in my Hopes of Success,” he wrote, “but the want of Missionaries & Schoolmasters; the Opposition of the Romish Priest; the Ill examples of Christian professors; the Indians strong Propension to strong Liquors, are such Impediments to this Glorious Work, as fills me with very dark Apprehensions; but I’m somewhat relieved when I consider whose Cause I have in Hand; even His, who is exalted at God’s Right Hand to be a Prince & Saviour, who is Lord of all; who has promised to be with his Ministers to support & assist them in accomplishing the Purposes of his Grace.”[31]

            Ogilvie met with the British superintendent of Indians in the northern colonies, William Johnson, who believed that the Iroquois responded better to the more serious-minded Anglican missionaries rather than the more enthusiastic-minded Methodists.[32] There was a battle, as it were, during the years between King George’s War, which ended in 1749, and the onset of the French-Indian War in 1755, over the hearts and minds of the Iroquois. Anglican missionaries such as Ogilvie were pitted against French missionaries from Upper Canada and Quebec, who were moving about the Mohawk Valley, trying to woo the Indians to the “French interest.” Besides Fort Hunter, the English had located another fort at the Indian village of Canajohaire, west up the Mohawk River. Fortunately, Ogilvie found an ally in “a very pious Indian whose name is Abraham. This Indian has for some time past intirely [sic] neglected his hunting, in order to instruct his brethren in the principles of Religion, & to keep up divine service among the good people & children whilst the others are in the woods. He has likewise visited some of the upper [Iroquois] Nations to instruct them & seems intirely [sic] devoted to the interest of Religion.” To assist Abraham in these efforts, Ogilvie arranged for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to pay him £5.[33]

            With Abraham’s help, and working with thirteen Christian Indians already converted by his predecessors, Ogilvie preached every Sunday in Mohawk to the Mohawks at Fort Hunter, and had an interpreter read the liturgy while Ogilvie performed Holy Eucharist. Of the thirteen Indians, some “have preserved some sense of religion on their minds, & have behaved very soberly since.” During his first year, Ogilvie baptized nine children: six whites and three Indians. He catechized adults and children alike, and even had a separate class for black slaves. Ogilvie also found time to hold school, “instructing the native children himself” in reading and writing. Abraham’s son, Petrus Paulus, also a committed Mohawk Christian, assisted Ogilvie, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel recompensed him to be a “schoolmaster to the Mohawks.”[34]

            Like other eighteenth-century Protestant messengers, Ogilvie believed wholeheartedly that civilization must accompany Christianization for success to occur. He wrote to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 1751: “I am verily persuaded ’till some scheme be concerted for the education of the children [of the Mohawks], this generous work will proceed very slowly. I mean such a scheme as will, by the Blessing of God, change their whole Habit of thinking & acting & tend to form them into the condition of a Civil Industrious people so that the principles of Virtue & Piety may be instilled into their minds in such a way, as will be most likely to make the most lasting impression upon them, and withal introduce the English language among them instead of their own barbarous dialect.” To change their thinking, to change their fundamental assumptions about life, their assumptions about learning, acting, therefore to be a civil, industrious people in the Anglican mode, required thoughtful, serious people, which Ogilvie believed he had found among the Mohawks.[35]

            One of the biggest challenges facing Anglican missionaries was the influx of intoxicating liquors among the Mohawks and other Iroquois of New York. More, the scoundrels who sold the alcohol to Indians were the worst examples of the impact of Christianity upon white civilization. Most whites, Ogilvie proclaimed, who are

Professors of Christianity, who have any considerable dealings with the Indians by [their] Conduct give the most convincing proof that they regard them only as meer [sic] Machines to promote [their] secular interest; & not as [their] fellow creatures, rational & immortal agents, equally dear to the Father of spirits, capable of the same Improv’ments in Virtue, & the purchase of the same precious Blood; in short, the salt of the earth hath (in these parts) lost its savour; & [there is] not one thing that I can mention, as a circumstance of encouragement, in this momentous undertaking. I have made use of everything that had the least probability of being serviceable to the main end. I’ve only been (as it were) rowing against [the] stream, & have not been able to stem the torrent by reason of the extravagant quantities of rum, that is [sic] daily sold to those poor creatures.

Although the Mohawks had, Ogilvie believed, the same intellectual and moral capabilities as whites, they nevertheless, like their white counterparts, often fell into the path of sin. Whenever he returned to Albany, the Mohawks “fell to drinking in ye excess.”[36]

            Ogilvie’s successor, John Stuart, experienced some success that had evaded his predecessor. Upon Ogilvie’s departure in 1760 during the French-Indian War, missionary work among the Mohawk languished until the coming of Stuart, a native Pennsylvanian and former Presbyterian, who arrived under the authority of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 1770. Stuart worked with the Mohawks at Fort Hunter and at nearby Canajoharie. At Canajoharie Stuart met Joseph Brant, whose Mohawk name was Thayendanegea. Brant had embraced Anglicanism under the influence of Ogilvie and collaborated with Stuart in translating the Gospel of Mark into Mohawk. This collaboration was cut short, however, by the coming of war. The Mohawks and most New York Anglicans stayed with the English against the American rebels. While Brant led Mohawks in battle, Stuart was put under arrest, and lived an imprisoned lifestyle at Schenectady until he was part of a swap of prisoners in 1781.[37]

Indeed, many Loyalists and Anglicans departed their homeland for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Upper Canada (what is generally, today, Ontario) during and after the war. Their loyalty to the king was twofold: loyalty to his majesty as head of state and loyalty to his role as head of the Church of England. There were no American bishops of the Church of England, so Anglicans during the seventeenth and eighteenth century always had to look to London for direction and holy orders.[38] It was natural for Anglicans, then, who had never experienced the independence of Congregationalism, to yearn for the order and direction of the Church of England not only in religion but in politics and institutions as well.

            Loyalists were not convinced that the disorder of revolution would in any way or form be preferable to the order of the British Constitution. Such a person was Samuel Andrews, an Anglican minister in Connecticut, who fled the disorder of revolution to travel north to the British dominions of Canada. Andrews was a member of the SPG in Connecticut and continued his association with the society upon his arrival in New Brunswick in 1786. Andrews became rector of a small parish of St. Andrews on the Passamaquoddy Bay; the town had been settled by Loyalists in recent years. Andrews believed he worked from the same Commission and for the same goals as the first apostles. Missionaries were agents of God teaching others, whites and Indians, to be agents of God as well. “What we understand by an agent is, a being capable of instruction,” he wrote, “or able to understand, and to be governed by laws, or to be influenced by the sanctions of law.” Messengers have the awesome responsibility to teach not only the Gospel but the ability to live according to human and divine law. Andrews believed that God, by giving us the choice, free will, to decide to live or not according to His laws, and by giving us grace to help us in our weakness, has embraced humans as His agents, and is working with us in his scheme of redemption.[39]

            Samuel Andrews was clearly influenced by Richard Hooker, the great Elizabethan theologian, who stressed that the focus of the church should not be about condemnation but redemption, not about sin but forgiveness, not about expiating guilt but work on behalf of God’s kingdom. Human agents work to spread God’s kingdom even though said agents are often held back by sin; sin is weakness, but God works with us to make this weakness a strength through Him, which allows us to continue our work on His behalf rather than sinking beneath the weight of guilt.

            With such theology girding their belts, Anglican messengers arrived throughout Canada intent on establishing the Church of England among wayward whites and suspicious American Indians alike. John Stuart, for example, spent four years in Montreal, serving as chaplain in the 2nd battalion of the King’s Royal Regiment of New York during and after the American Revolution. Stuart traveled to Upper Canada to Niagara-on-the-Lake (Newark) at the mouth of the Niagara River in 1784 to minister to Loyalist settlers and Mohawks. At this time, the 1780s, there were no settled parishes in the region west of the Niagara River and south of Lake Ontario. There were many Catholics, Lutherans, and Congregationalists attempting to reach out to the refugees from the thirteen colonies and the native inhabitants. Into this quagmire of uncertainty, Stuart entered and labored. From here, he relocated to the northern shores of Lake Ontario at Kingston (Cataraqui), where he ministered to the Bay of Quinte Indians. His church for many years was a log cabin. He traveled to Brantford, where Brant had brought his people, on the Grand River (north of Lake Erie) in 1785, and was appointed chaplain of the legislative council by Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe in 1792. The Anglican bishop of Quebec, Jacob Mountain, appointed Stuart Bishop’s commissary in Upper Canada from 1789 to his death in 1811. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel named him “Missionary to the Mohawks.”[40]

             Bishop Mountain, who according to Stuart “is a Scholar, Gentleman, Orator & Zealous Churchman” and of whom “we expect great Things from . . . ; especially, that he will rescue our Church from the Contempt into which it is fallen, by the Prudence & Wisdom of his Counsels & the Splendor of his Example,” worked to “promote Literature by establishing an University” in Ontario, which according to Stuart was much desired by the people, whites and Indians.[41] Indeed, when Bishop Mountain traveled from Montreal to Kingston, then along the northern, western, and southern shores of Lake Ontario, in 1794, he was perplexed that “Religious Instruction” is “truly deplorable.” “From Montreal to Kingston, a distance of 200 miles, there is not one Clergyman of the church of England: nor any house of religious worship except one small Chapel belonging to the Lutherans, & one, or perhaps two, belonging to the Presbyterians. The public worship of God is entirely suspended, or performed in a manner which can neither tend to improve the people in Religious Truth, nor to render them useful members of society.” Mountain knew that Upper Canada needed Anglican missionaries to influence the people and win them back from other denominations, or worse, no religion at all.

In my whole progress of my visitation I found the better part of the people extremely unhappy under the privation of Religious Instruction, & to the last degree earnest in their entreaties that I would use the power, which they supposed me to possess, of sending Ministers of the Church of England among them; They represented in the strongest terms not only the uneasiness which the more serious and reflecting persons among them feel, for themselves & for their families; but the dreadful consequences which follow a total want of Religious principles among some of the lowest orders of the people; whose ignorance, profligacy, & barbarism, they represent as being more shameful, & degrading, than those of the savages, by whom they are surrounded, & whom they affect to despise.[42]

            Such was the environment of, in the bishop’s words, savages of all sorts—whites and Indians—to which Robert Addison arrived in 1791. Addison, a missionary appointed by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, came to Newark, as Niagara-on-the-Lake was then called, in the spring of 1792. Addison, according to a memoir found in the archives of the Diocese of Niagara, “had the blessing of being the son of parents whose circumstances enabled them to give him a liberal education.” He attended Trinity College, Cambridge, and excelled in the classics and mathematics, though he was constantly challenged, in the words of one of his mentors, “to overcome the natural indolence and diffidence of his character.”  This intelligent, humble man, lacking in self-confidence, recruited by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, found himself in 1792 in a small village from which he was to minister to the people of the Niagara peninsula and beyond, including the Mohawks living along the Grand River. Addison was the only Anglican minister in the Niagara Peninsula extending west to Detroit.[43]

            Observers of the time commented on Addison’s patience, commitment, and zeal. “The Reverend Robert Addison was Invited to this Country by the principal Inhabitants, thro’ the aid of the Bishop of Nova Scotia, prior to the division of the Provinces of Canada” wrote one in 1797; “he was induced to Accept of this Invitation, by a promise of an annual Subscription from the Settlers, to be continued till Government should otherwise provide for the established Clergy.” A person cannot, however, survive on good intentions. “Mr. Addison has born his disappointment with a manly Fortitude that evinces his Merit. Ever since he has resided among us, he has performed all the Public offices of his Station with becoming Regularity, and with decent zeal; when called into our families for the Exercise of the private functions of a Clergyman we have ever found him attentive, kind, & Humane.” The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel paid Addison £50 per annum, though he was promised £250-300 from the local inhabitants. Another £100 had been promised for a church building, but upon the arrival of a “Presbyterian Clergyman . . . from Scotland the Inhabitants of all denominations built a place of Worship, so that I apprehend very little assistance will be expected from them in the Erection of the Episcopal Church.”[44]

            The bishop of Quebec stepped into this situation, requesting that “Rations” be allowed “to Mr. Addison as a Missionary to the Indians.” He agreed with Peter Russell that “the stationing a resident Missionary in every Indian Village has my most hearty concurrence, but more especially in the Settlement of the five Nations on the Grand River, where there is a very decent Church, and the Indians attend Divine service with exemplary Piety.—Mr. Addisons [sic] Mission is more peculiarly appropriated to that Settlement than to any other, and he is I believe as regular in his attendance to that part of his Duty as the distance of his residence and his other Ministerial duties can permit him.” Eventually Addison was presented with a grant of land at Four Mile Creek south of Lake Ontario.[45]

            Bishop Mountain reported in 1795 that “at Niagara there is a Minister, but no Church. The service is performed sometimes in the Chamber of the Legislative Council, & sometimes at Free Mason’s Hall, a house of public entertainment. The congregation is numerous & respectable.”[46] Eventually a parish building was begun in Niagara-on-the-Lake, in 1805; the congregation raised £1200 for the purpose. Before and after the erection of the parish building, Rev. Addison performed the typical duties of a parish priest. In 1800, he baptized “Peggy a Mulatto (filia populi),” a year later, in 1801, he baptized “David Son of Isaac a Mohawk Indian,” in 1804, “Cloe’ a Mulattoe,” and in 1813, “Catherine Wife of Captn Norton a Mohawk Chief.” As soon as Addison arrived he married Captain James Hamilton to Louisa “his Wife . . . they had been married by some Commanding officer or Magistrate and thought it more decent to have the office repeated” by an Anglican priest. In 1793 Addison presided over the burial of “A Sergeant of the 5th Regt. Shot for Desertion. He was attended a good while before he sufferd—he behav’d well.” In 1802 “Cut.Nose Johnson a Mohawk Chief,” was buried. Addison performed many burials from 1812 to 1815 during the War of 1812. When the United States invaded in 1812, the parish church, St. Mark’s, was occupied and burned. American soldiers spared Rev. Addison’s property, including his library, considered to be the best in Upper Canada. Nevertheless, he wrote the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel that he had been “plundered made prisoner of war, & harrassed till he was dangerously ill.” Once the Americans evacuated, “on our reoccupying Niagara in winter ’13-14, it was again taken possession of by the public and made a provision store of, and continued so until I think 1816, when application was made to His Majesty’s Government for some aid toward putting it into a state to perform Divine service in.”[47]

            Rev. Addison possessed the compulsion, found in many of these Protestant messengers, to reach out, which leads to an awareness of, an empathy toward, others. Addison felt that Christians had a responsibility of stewardship toward others, the unfortunate, including indigenous people. He encouraged his parishioners to help others, friends as well as foes: “to relieve the necesitious [sic], tho the object should be unworthy of bounty this would not detract from our virtue. If we err let us err on the side of a Mercy, and leave the Justice and Judgment to Heaven. . . . Alas! Such is the uncertainty of Human life and every thing connected with it so thin the partition between happiness and Misery life and Death that in one short moment the whole Scene can be changed, and sadly reversed. To day all Joy and Sunshine, tomorrow affliction and Clouds, and which of us can say, even the most affluent, that such reverse of Fate is not impending over and ready to burst upon our head.”[48]

            Twice a year, for decades, Addison journeyed throughout Upper Canada to bring the Message to all inhabitants. His itinerary included south of Niagara-on-the-Lake (Newark) to the soldiers at Butler’s Barracks, along the river to the falls, then south to Fort Erie, which guarded the entrance to the Niagara, across from Buffalo. Addison visited York, across Lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake, and at the southwestern corner of the lake, the small hamlet of Hamilton, west of which, on the Grand River, was the Mohawk town of Brant’s Ford, Brantford. There, Addison conducted services in St. Paul’s Chapel, later called the Mohawk Chapel. He was convinced that his labors would lead to the probable conclusion “that other tribes might be induced by the example of the Mohawks to profess Christianity.” He convinced many Indians to act as missionaries in neighboring villages. Addison never learned Mohawk but relied on Joseph Brant and another Mohawk chief, Captain John Norton, to translate. Among the archives of the local parish at Niagara-on-the-Lake is this record from 1813: “The Mohawk chief Captain Norton was married to his Wife Catherine on the 27th July when she was baptised; and Jacob Johnson another Mohawk Chief was married to his Wife Mary on the 21st August this Year.” On every visit to Brantford and the Mohawk Chapel, he baptized about twenty, and only those who “seemed to offer themselves from a persuasion of the truth and value of our holy faith, without which he had no wish to baptize any of them.”[49]             Addison appears to have not been terribly sanguine about his efforts in this regard. Anglicanism taught, then as now, that the Christian journey toward redemption is a long journey, and transformation does not occur in an instant. Anglican conversion, indeed, is lifelong, and one rarely finds an Anglican who experiences the blinding light of the Apostle Paul on the roa


[1]     This essay is in part the fruits of research enabled through the generosity of a grant provided for the author in 2011 by the Historical Society of the Episcopal Church. The author was also assisted by a grant from Fulbright Canada in 2010.

This essay was originally published in the journal Anglican and Episcopal History.

[2]     John Smith, General History, in Works, 1608-1631, Edward Arber, ed. (Birmingham, 1884), 278.

[3]     For Smith’s Anglican beliefs, see Russell M. Lawson, The Sea Mark: Captain John Smith’s Voyage to New England         (Hanover, New Hampshire: 2015).

[4]     This was James Rosier’s view about the George Waymouth voyage of 1605. See the account at “A True Relation of the         Voyage of Captaine George Waymouth, 1605, by James Rosier,” in Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly          from Hakluyt, 1534-1608, ed., Henry S. Burrage (New York, 1906).

[5]     Thomas Hariot was such a self-appointed apostle, as revealed in Thomas Hariot, A briefe and true report of the new          found land of Virginia, of the commodities and of the nature and manners of the naturall inhabitants: Discouered          bÿ the English Colony there seated by Sir Richard Greinuile Knight In the yeere 1585. Project Gutenberg Etext/

[6]     William Stevens Perry, The History of the American Episcopal Church 1587-1883, vol 1 (Boston: 1885), 7.

[7]     Hariot, A briefe and true report of the new found land of Virginia.

[8]     Ibid.

[9]     Richard Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (London: 1589).

[10]   William Haller, The Elect Nation: The Meaning and Relevance of Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’ (New York, 1963).

[11]   Rosier, “A True Relation of the Voyage of Captaine George Waymouth,” and “A Report of the Voyage of Sir Humfrey         Gilbert, Knight, 1583, by Master Edward Haies” Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly from Hakluyt, 1534-      1608, ed., Henry S. Burrage (New York, 1906), 180, 181, 183, 388.

[12]   John Smith, Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters, in Works, 1608-1631, Arber, ed. (Birmingham, 1884), 934.

[13]   Ibid, 935.

[14]   General History, 76, 105, 126.

[15]   Advertisements, 926, 935- 36

[16]   Ibid., 957-58

[17]   Ibid., 959.

[18]   Ibid., 944-45.

[19]   General History, 464-65.

[20]   Quoted in Conrad H. Moehlman, The American Constitutions and Religion (Clark, New Jersey: 2007), 22

[21]   Ibid., 21.

[22]   Alexander Whitaker, Good News from Virginia (London, 1613), 25.

[23]   See William Kellaway, The New England Company, 1649-1776: Missionary Society to the American Indians (New          York, 1961; Robert Boyle, “Of Theology,” in The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, vol. 4 (London:       Johnston, et.al., 1772), 19.

[24]   Thomas Bray, A Memorial Representing the Present State of Religion, on the Continent of America (London, 1700); C.    F. Pascoe, Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G.: An Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of the           Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1701-1900, vol. 1 (London, 1901), 6.

[25]     Daniel O’Connor, et.al., Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (London,       2000), 20-21.

[26]   Pascoe, Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G., 7-8.

[27]   O’Connor, Three Centuries of Mission, 21-22.

[28]   Ibid., 25.

[29]   Ibid., 31-32.

[30]   Owanah Anderson, “Anglican Mission among the Mohawk,” in O’Connor, Three Centuries of Mission, 235-48.

[31]   John Ogilvie’s Journal, New York State Library, quoted in Peter M. Doll, Revolution, Religion, and National Identity: Imperial Anglicanism in British North America, 1745-1795 (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2000), 74. See also A. H. Young, “The Revd. John Ogilvie D.D., an Army Chaplain at Fort Niagara and Montreal, 1759-1760,” Ontario History 22 (1925).

[32]   Young, “John Ogilvie.”

[33]   Ogilvie, Journal.

[34]   Ibid.

[35]   Ibid.

[36]   Quoted in John W. Lydekker, The Faithful Mohawks (Cambridge: University Press, 1938), 72, 73.

[37]   T. R. Millman, “John Stuart,” Dictionary of Canadian Biography:         http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/stuart_john_1740_41_1811_5E.html

[38]   James B. Bell, “Anglican Clergy in Colonial America ordained by Bishops of London:         http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44497901.pdf

[39]   Samuel Andrews, A Discourse on St. Mark. XVI. 15. 16. “And He said unto them, Go ye,” &c (New Haven: Daniel,          1787).

[40]   John Stuart Papers, General Synod Archives, Anglican Church of Canada.

[41]   The Correspondence of Lieut. Governor John Graves Simcoe, 5 vols., ed. Ernest A. Cruikshank (Toronto, 1923), 2:147.

[42]   Ibid., 3:91-92.

[43]   Diocese of Niagara Archives, Hamilton University.

[44]   The Correspondence of the Honourable Peter Russell with Allied Documents…, vol 1, ed. Ernest A. Cruikshank and         Hunter (Toronto, 1932), 127-128; Simcoe Correspondence, vol. 4, 135.

[45]   Russell Correspondence, 2:62-63, 98-99; Simcoe Correspondence, 4:320-21.

[46]   Simcoe Correspondence, 3:91.

[47]   Diocese of Niagara Archives, Hamilton University; Robert Addison’s Library: A Short-Title Catalogue of the Books         Brought to Upper Canada in 1792 by the First Missionary Sent Out to the Niagara Frontier by the Society for the         Propagation of the Gospel, compiled by William J. Cameron and George McKnight  (Hamilton, 1967).

[48]   Robert Addison Papers, Niagara Historical Society.

[49]   Diocese of Niagara Archives. See also Ernest Hawkins, Annals of the Diocese of Toronto (London: Society for    Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1848), 45-57.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reflections on the Psalms

My new Kindle ebook, God is Love: Reflections on the Psalms, is the product of years of reflection on the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament. The book is an ecumenical, spiritual, meditative, historical reflection on the Psalms of David. The book is meant to inspire reflection on the historical and existential purpose of the Psalms, an active search for and communication with God, and a meditative dialogue with God’s words that links the meditative person with so many like seekers and thinkers over the centuries. 

The approach of the book is simple, reading the Psalms in order, beginning with the first, and ending with the last. I do not reproduce the Psalms, which is unnecessary, rather I provide passages from each Psalm from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament and reflect in brief paragraphs on the meaning of the passages.

The Psalms require an emotional, spiritual, and thoughtful response. Each psalm challenges humans collectively and individually. It is the individual response to the Psalms that inspires this book, God is Love: Reflections on the Psalms. Each individual is engaged in a pilgrimage to know God and Self, to understand how the Self fits in with the whole of humanity and God’s Creation. My spiritual journey has been informed for many years by reflecting on the Psalms. I am of course by no means alone in using the Psalms in this way, as countless others do and have and will use the Psalms similarly. My offering in this book is a unique way to reflect on the Psalms. I advocate reading and reflecting on the Psalms by means of a personal dialogue with the past.

The Psalms purport to be written largely by David, the Hebrew king who lived three thousand years ago. David was warrior, poet, lover, judge, sinner, man of feeling, student of God’s creation. He knew much about himself because of his search to know God. His Psalms are reflective pieces that consider the distance between the Creator and the Creation, between the all-wise and good God and the limited sinful human. God is a shepherd to His people, David wrote, a Father to His children who are repeatedly errant and wayward. These poems are wonderful psychological portraits of the human search for peace and love in a world of conflict and hate.

The Psalms have been my prayer companions for many years. The Psalms are some of the greatest literature ever written. Their depth in terms of spirituality and human reflection has few counterparts.

The Old Testament Psalms are constant reminders of how easily humans forget God’s blessings and have to be renewed by daily prayer.

If interested, purchase the Kindle edition at https://www.amazon.com/God-Love-Reflections-Russell-Lawson-ebook/dp/B09TBM6MWK/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1645807863&refinements=p_27%3ARussell+M.++Lawson&s=digital-text&sr=1-1&text=Russell+M.++Lawson

Posted in Christianity, Reflections on the Psalms | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Whither is Good Government? Reflections on Psalm 45

My tongue is a pen of a quick writer . . .

The Psalmist takes to honorific writing to praise the king, the anointed of God. God indeed anoints. And God’s will is known throughout the world. The Apostle Paul counseled his followers to obey kings and magistrates as the secular agents of God, who impose order and law on society, so that we may direct our hearts and minds from secular to spiritual things, and contemplate God and His works.

Because of truth and meekness and righteousness . . .

The Psalmist praises the king for these qualities for which God’s will is accomplished through the secular arm of rule. Truth, meekness, and righteousness appear oxymoronic compared to government–rather falsehoods, arrogance, and sinfulness seem to be the attributes of government. If only a philosopher-king, such as David, would appear among us!

The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness . . .

Such is the will of God among his secular counterparts who govern society. God loves righteousness and law-abiding. What, then, has gone wrong? Why is the world filled with the exact opposite? Why are kings and prime ministers and governors so corrupt? God anoints the powerful with power, but after the ceremonies and parades, when the task of government becomes real, and the objective wielding of power is required, humans, weak and sinful, cannot abide by the will of God. If humans cannot abide by God’s will in their personal lives, how can they in public lives?

All her glory is within . . .

Such is the praise the Psalmist declares to the wife of the king, who appears in glory, and radiant clothes, and all her subjects worship her, as if she were the Lord. But of course she is not. Rulers and rulers’ families are the same as us all, for God loves equity, not only among humans, but among all life. Should the king or queen, the minister or magistrate, give the glory to God, not self, then perhaps equity and righteousness will be accomplished among human society.

The nations give thanks to thee for ever . . .

If the anointed, the king, rules according to the will of God, then yes, people will acknowledge the king as a great ruler. There have been so few, however. The problem with government and society is that riches anoint, power anoints, rather than God. Notwithstanding if the government is secular or religious, monarchy or democracy, government concerns itself with things of a day, with the present, never the past or future, hence government is shortsighted, and rarely sees beyond the power and riches of today. God sees yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Only when government adopts such a point of view, making all decisions according to the past, in anticipation of the future, acknowledging in the present the will of God, will government ever achieve the justice and equity that has eluded humans for millennia.

Posted in Christianity, Government, Reflections on the Psalms | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Democracy

            The idea of democracy, like the idea of capitalism, promises much, though the reality always falls short. The promise is of wide participation in government, free and open competition among diverse groups, self-determination. Democracy offers the vision of individuals working together to achieve their own particular goals, using similar means to accomplish collectively individual wealth and freedom. History offers few examples of really successful democracies, success being defined as actual structures of government and society that make concrete the image that the word democracy conjures up. Democracy, like liberty, freedom, equality, is elusive, visualized in the mind and a part of one’s dreams yet never quite fulfilled. That these concepts, democracy, liberty, freedom, equality, are linked to capitalism implies that capitalism itself is more image than reality.

            The word “democracy” is a combination of two classical Greek words from the fifth century BCE. The Greek deme was a tribe in ancient Athens; there were ten such tribes (demes) that comprised the city-state, or polis, of Athens. The demos was therefore the people of the ten tribes. The Greek word kratos implies power, strength, control–the attributes of government. Demos joined with kratos means to give the people the power, hence the English word democracy, the “rule of the people.”

            Around 500 BC, Athens had experienced centuries of government by kings (monarchy, rule by one), by the aristocracy (rule of the best men), and by tyrants (Greek tyrannos), which came to mean oppressive rule. But under the leadership of Cleisthenes the Greeks adopted a form of government that developed from the interchange of goods and ideas at the marketplace, the agora. Here the citizens of Athens met in assembly to vote on proposals offered by speakers at the rostrum. The Council of 500, composed of fifty citizens selected by lot from each of the ten demes, typically set the agenda for the assembly. The assembly of citizens passed legislation by acclamation, in time by secret ballot. Athenian citizenship was restricted to adult men; women had little power in Athenian society. Slavery was practiced at Athens as well. Hence the majority of people living at Athens did not exercise power–they were disenfranchised. However, it was remarkable that among the male citizens there was no property qualification for voting, nor even for addressing the assembly.

            The relationship of democracy and capitalism, seen in ancient Athens, is also exemplified in the Later Middle Ages and early Renaissance in European history. Medieval feudalism was the antithesis of democratic society and government. The Medieval manor, in which serfs worked the land of an aristocrat and warrior, the Lord, who was the sole authority and judge, was a closed system of few rights, fewer opportunities, and no government participation on the part of the landed serfs. As long as the Medieval economy was primitive, relying on agriculture and barter, lacking widespread surpluses, having few of the components and resources for trade, serfs had no outlet, no way to change their condition. A thousand years ago, various technological improvements in agriculture led to increasing surpluses, which generated wealth, trade, markets, and eventually market centers–villages, then small cities. This generation of a very limited capitalism provided the serf with the alternative to lifelong service on the Medieval manor. Market centers were places of diversity and transiency, where one could blend in, be anonymous, and start a new life. Trade has always raised the potential for newness, growth, and opportunity.

            The Commercial Revolution after 1100 AD continuing into the early Modern period represented the replacement of feudal with urban structures. The organic, static, unequal, monarchal, aristocratic Feudal society gave way to the independent, free and equal, republican and democratic European towns and cities. These towns were incorporated, that is, the residents joined together into a common self-governing cause where each person had certain rights and responsibilities incumbent upon citizenship. Such an open environment encouraged the self-made man and woman, who in turn knew that without towns, their freedoms, open markets, and mobility, such opportunity for personal success would be limited.

            Most of the Founders of the American Republic, it is true, were less supportive of democracy, fearing the disorder and possible anarchy of a people who exercised influence over the government without control. This was the theme of James Madison’s famous Federalist Paper #10, in which he argued against democracy, which would yield a tyranny of the majority. Madison supported instead a republican government of important, if controlled, freedoms. Madison, who wrote the draft of the Constitution, was joined by Alexander Hamilton in rejecting the first government of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, which allowed too many freedoms to states, localities, and individuals–for example freedom to determine the rules of interstate and international commerce. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, which to some was an undue restriction imposed on the capitalistic inclinations of early Americans.

            Thomas Jefferson, the gifted tragic Virginian who was one of great liberal intellectuals of the eighteenth century yet was imprisoned to the system of slavery in the American South, was one of the strongest advocates of free trade in the early republic. Jefferson was heavily influenced by the thinking of John Locke, the English philosopher who argued that humans are naturally good, free, and equal; that government is not a requirement, rather a choice; that humans choose to join together into voluntary association, giving up some of their rights and freedoms for the overall goal of mutual survival and prosperity. Jefferson once told his friend John Adams, when both were in retirement reflecting upon the past, that the American Revolution was unfinished, and would continue uncompleted for generations to come, only reaching finality when freedom became “intuitive,” and Americans could exercise true self-government. Jefferson’s image of a pure democracy existing in the future depended in part on free trade.

            Free trade has been throughout American history the perceived foundation of American, and world, democracy. Free trade means trade without restrictions, without the encumbrances of tariffs, quotas, embargo, and other means to hamper trade. The principle of free trade eschews using trade as a means of political policy, or using trade as an incentive in diplomacy. The foundations of the ideology of free trade emerged during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Adam Smith, for example, in The Wealth of Nations (1776) argued against the control of trade as practiced by the British imperial system of mercantilism. Smith applied liberal ideas to the economy. He argued that self-interest drives the economy and society. Benevolent altruism is not the stuff of capitalism, or of democracy.

The American experience of having trade controlled by the Navigation Acts and other forms of British mercantilism spurred American thinkers such as Jefferson to develop similar principles of American free trade. Jefferson believed that free trade would be an agent of the spread of the American system of self-government throughout a world that engaged in constant aggression and warfare, the origins of which often occurred because of trade restrictions. Free trade was the principle of the open mind and open society informed by reason and liberty rather than the narrow-minded, closed system of trade restrictions.

            During the whole of American history, even up to the present, free trade has been considered the agent of democracy. Free trade has been one of the primary cornerstones of American diplomacy. Right from the beginning, presidents have generally refused to engage in trade wars and restrictions. Americans responded to the wars between England and France of the late eighteenth and early nineteen centuries with proclamations of neutrality and free trade. Jefferson’s embargo of 1808 was an exception, and a failure–it completely contradicted Jefferson’s own principles of free trade. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was issued in part to promote free trade throughout the Western Hemisphere. Free Trade was the cornerstone of Woodrow Wilson’s post World War I plans and Franklin Roosevelt’s post World War II plans. Recently, American political leaders have supported such free trade programs as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).

            Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America observed, respecting nineteenth-century American society, that the typical American, without pretense to birth or social rank, engaged in lifelong entrepreneurship. The American commoner was restless, hardworking, always seeking something, especially a satisfactory amount of wealth, which was always just out of reach. Such characteristics formed the backbone not only of American capitalism but of American democracy as well. The aggressiveness of the American in business spilled over to local assemblies, state legislatures, and courthouses. Ideas of American justice, morality, and law had a pragmatic, business-like approach. The American democracy, like American business, involved controversy rather than conciliation, anger and argument rather than acceptance and apathy. Even in the twentieth century, in the wake of World War I and World War II, when traditional values were being challenged everywhere, and democracy was under attack from the left and the right, it was diversity rather than sameness, relativism rather than absolutism, that strengthened American democracy.

            After centuries of development, democracy is still the rule of the people. The people, however, rarely act in unison, rarely agree, but it is in disagreement and disunity that democracy thrives. American democracy is based on pluralism. If America ever becomes uniform, predictable, and at one with itself, it might still be an American society, but it will not be American democracy.

Posted in European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

From Modernization to Globalization

Modernization is a major social scientific theory that emerged in the 1950s to explain different levels of development in the world’s societies. Although the roots of modernization theory developed in the response of nineteenth-century American and European intellectuals to industrialization, social scientists in the immediate decades after World War II developed a precise theory to explain the transformation throughout the world, past and present, from traditional agrarian to modern urban societies. Modernization theory reached its peak in the 1970s, then declined thereafter; critics complained of the theory’s ethnocentrism and tendency to associate modernization with westernization; the theory lacked empirical evidence, was too abstract; and it simplified the diversity and complexity of change in both contemporary and historical societies. The world systems theory of Immanuel Wallerstein replaced the emphasis on modernization among social scientists in the 1980s. Recent scholars have developed a globalization paradigm that attempts to explain the relationship of modern developing and developed societies in terms of economic dependence and interdependence.

European Background

Modernization theory derived from the philosophic writings of Karl Marx, Jacob Burkhardt, Ferdinand Tonnies, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Karl Marx set the stage with his arguments, in The Communist Manifesto, German Ideology, Capital, and other works, that economic and social forces, especially those engaged in production, direct human institutions and behavior more than ideas and human consciousness. Burkhardt, a German historian, wrote in his 1860 publication The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy that modernity was the result of individualism brought by the origins of capitalism in Europe rather than feudal, communitarian thinking. Ferdinand Tonnies argued in Community and Association (1887) that the Industrial Revolution in Europe resulted in the diminution of traditional values and relationships, the community, replaced by impersonal relationships and values, the association. Max Weber echoed Tonnies’ lament of a deteriorating traditionalism in a modern context, citing rationalism as the prime culprit for the change. Emile Durkheim adapted Tonnies’ thought to social change and believed that the traditional community would transform into a great community in the modern world.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, then, European social theorists had identified a change that had occurred in the West during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from one sort of society based on community and farming to another based on artificial associations and urban existence. This dichotomy of a traditional and modern society gained the status of a self-evident, a priori theory that required no real empirical proof. At one extreme of this social and historical polarity was the traditional (or peasant) society, characterized by a static existence focused on continuity and tradition, a product of a rural, agrarian existence where keeping the family name tied to the same parcel of land was of utmost importance. Religion and superstition rather than rational, secular thinking captivate the people. Organic institutions such as kin, family, and community orient the people; the group is more important than the individual. The modern society is the polar opposite. Family is disrupted and community is lost as the past is forgotten, traditional values give way to individual whim and artificial associations. Modernity’s search for progress, scientific knowledge, and the latest technology come at the expense of the old ways of doing things, faith, and reliance upon the natural environment. Social hierarchy gives way to social and geographic mobility. Society becomes fragmented, specialized, bureaucratic, urban, industrial, and secular.

American Modernizationists

American social theorists, students of urbanization and community, political scientists and sociologists, such as Jane Addams, Robert Park, Louis Wirth, and Talcott Parsons, embraced modernization theory as a way to explain changes in America from 1850 to 1950. Louis Wirth studied the city and discovered the replacement of “primary relationships,” such as would be found in a traditional community, with “secondary relationships,” those of a modern, anonymous, mass society. Talcott Parsons, in several books published in the 1950s, developed a theoretical framework for analyzing social systems, expanding upon Tonnies’ dichotomy of community and association. Parsons argued in The Social System (1951) that a traditional society is characterized by a willingness to express feelings (affectivity), a focus on self, a belief in moral and religious absolutes (universalism), and personal strength and individual achievement. A modern society, however, demands counterparts such as a cold rational approach to feelings (affective neutrality), an orientation toward the group, relativity toward morals and beliefs (particularism), and behavior ascribed by society.

During the decade of the 1960s and 1970s social scientists tried to being empirical substance and more concrete definitions to Parsons’ theoretical construct. W. W. Rostow, for example, examined modernization according to stages of economic growth. Alex Inkeles used a survey of thousands of people living in Third World countries to determine characteristics of a modern personality. Cyril Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (1966), discussed the transition of a traditional to a modern society in terms of a transfer of leadership as the entire social structure changes as the economy transitions from rural-agrarian to urban-industrial. Samuel Huntington attempted to provide a clear definition of modernization: “The essential difference,” he wrote in “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics” (Comparative Politics, 1971), “between modern and traditional society . . . lies in the greater control which modern man has over his natural and social environment. This control, in turn, is based on the expansion of scientific and technological knowledge.”

Increasingly during these years American historians began to embrace modernization as a means of describing and analyzing American history. The “new social history,” “new urban history,” and community studies movement advocated by scholars such as Darrett Rutman, Kenneth Lockridge, and John Demos provided social-scientific theory along with empirical evidence based on statistical analysis of tax, land, census, and town records to document the transition from a traditional to a modern society from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries in America. Richard Brown epitomized this synthesizing approach toward early American history in Modernization: The Transformation of American Life, 1600-1865 (1976). The community studies movement among social scientists during the 1960s and 1970s was a reflection of the concern during those years particularly among youth that traditional American values of community and reliance upon the natural environment were being lost to urbanization and artificial relationships and the mindset of environmental exploitation. To study the early American community was to capture the material and spiritual bases of a time that was forever fading into the distant past. This longing for the ideal traditional community reflected fear that modernization was bringing about an irrevocable society that nobody really wanted.

World Systems Theory and Globalization

The increasingly development of the economies and technological sophistication of “Third World” developing countries added to the revolution in communications inaugurated by digital technology and the internet, along with the fall of the Soviet Union and the apparent triumph of capitalism, led many scholars to question the legitimacy of a theory of development dependent on the traditional-modern model as well as a West-East dichotomy. Immanuel Wallerstein inaugurated a revolution of sorts among social scientific theorists with the publication of The World System. “World systems theory” advocated looking at the world according to developing systems leading eventually to one world system wherein core countries exploit economically peripheral countries. Wallerstein predicted that a world socialist system will eventually dominate the world’s economic, political, and social structures. Many scholars have disagreed with Wallerstein’s assessment, arguing that capitalism will not fall to the wayside, rather will continue to become an integrative, universal force leading to one global economic system. Globalization implies that capitalism might come full circle, realizing the dream of Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) that free trade might dominate the world’s peoples, bringing enlightened political ideas in its wake.

Posted in European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Liberalism

          Liberalism refers to a system of thought that focuses on the good of the whole of society as opposed to its neglect in the service of the restricted few. Liberalism began at a time of rejection of traditional feudal values, structures, and institutions; the opposition to hierarchical forms of government; and the attack on aristocratic privilege. Liberals, the adherents of the philosophy of liberalism, have supported modernizing change as leading to increased freedoms for the individual, the establishment of democratic governments worldwide, and the development of the idea of government as a guide and protector of human happiness. 

          Liberalism’s first great apostle was the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Conflict, crisis, and civil war dominated the political history of England during the seventeenth century. In 1660 after over a decade of exile Charles Stuart was restored to power in England as King Charles II. Thomas Hobbes the English philosopher defended the Restoration of the monarchy in England. Humans, sinful by nature, require the strong imposition of government authority, Hobbes argued. Strong central government is necessary to corral the passions of humans, to impose order upon chaos. Hobbes’ vision was fulfilled during the reign of Charles II. It was a different story for his successor James II. Parliament, representing the English people, forced James from power in what the English called the Glorious Revolution. A new king, William, agreed to limitations upon his power. Centuries of struggle by the English people had come to a conclusion in the conquest of royal oppression and the accession of law as the true ruler of England.

          John Locke was the philosopher of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke had experienced the vast changes that England underwent during the seventeenth century, not only in politics, but in the English economy and thought as well. The power of the landed English aristocracy was slowly waning in light of the continued expansion of manufacturing and trade. Merchants involved in rudimentary corporations employed workers intent on achieving material success. The English economy was breaking away from a landed, agrarian base toward a money economy rich in opportunity for entrepreneurs willing to take risks with capital to invest and to build. Some investors supported colonies in America and Asia; hard-working commoners traveled to such far away places to make their fortune. Political philosophers worked out the theory of mercantilism to justify colonial expansion, arguing that colonies would provide raw materials and serve as markets for English goods. Capitalistic expansion and the consequent attack on the old aristocratic, feudal structures was reflected in politics. After centuries of struggle the English Parliament of the seventeenth century, representing the people of England, stood equal to the King.

          John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government provided the philosophical underpinning for the dramatic political, social, and economic changes occurring in England. Locke sought from the beginning to distance himself from the thinking of his predecessors, particularly Thomas Hobbes, who in Locke’s words believed “that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and rebellion.” On the contrary, Locke argued that government is not an angry paternal authority, rather an extension of the goodness of human nature itself. Humans in the state of nature, Locke believed, are competitive but not violent toward one-another. They discover soon enough that by joining together they can more successfully take what they need from nature to survive. This mutual need for greater survival, even happiness, is the basis of government. Humans don’t absolutely require government; rather government is a choice, a voluntary association, which is formed by rational people who realize it is in their own best interest. Humans do operate according to self-interest, yet working for the self does not have to mean warfare, chaos, and competition requiring constant government intervention. Humans, rational by nature, join together into a compact for mutual protection and happiness. Naturally one among their number is chosen to manage the whole. And as long as this one leader, or king, works for the interests of the people, they will obey; otherwise the compact, the association or government, will be dissolved.

          Locke’s theory of property was as follows: He believed that God the Creator endowed the world with sufficient resources to care for all humans. Locke thought that humans should use care with the creation, practice economy with the world’s resources, use only what is necessary and spare the rest for another’s use. Private property was one of Locke’s natural rights (the others being life, liberty, and health). Since humans are inherently free and equal, the resources of creation are therefore equally available for the use of all humans. When, however, a person forages for an item of food, such as acorns, which are initially in this “public domain,” upon retrieving the acorns by one’s own labor, the acorns become a possession of the one who retrieved them. Labor toward the accumulation of goods that are initially open to all human use is the basis of private property. The entrepreneur is the one who expends the most labor to accumulate the most goods. But Locke was adamant that one must labor to achieve only what is necessary, and nothing more.

          England’s Glorious Revolution, as Locke understood it, stood for freedom, equality, liberty, the open society, the good of society and of man, and a government that works for the people rather than to accentuate its own power. These were precisely what Thomas Jefferson, the early American philosopher, third President of the United States, founder of the University of Virginia, and author of the Declaration of Independence, believed about the rights of Americans living under the British government. Jefferson and other Americans believed that King George III and the English Parliament had by 1776 generally rejected the principles of its own government as defined by John Locke and implemented during the Glorious Revolution. Jefferson followed Locke’s thinking closely when he proclaimed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” There is no better statement of liberal philosophy than these words of the Declaration of Independence.

          Actions do not, however, always follow the precise meaning of grand words. Jefferson, for all of his great ideas, was a slave owner throughout his life, not manumitting his slaves until his death fifty years later in 1826. More striking is the example of the French Revolution. French thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau were inspired by Locke to press for a government and society in France based not on the privilege of birth, but on human equality. The French people broke the compact with the French monarchy in 1789, creating in time a government based on the principles of equality. “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen,” echoing Jefferson and Locke, proclaimed that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only upon the common good.” Freedom, unfortunately, can sometimes reduce itself to anarchy, as American and French conservatives often feared. The French Revolution in time degenerated into a power struggle and blood bath that had hardly anything to do with the rule of law, so dear to Jefferson and Locke.

Liberalism in England continued to focus on the ideas of Locke even as Great Britain fought to retain its empire. Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher who wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, argued that self-interest among humans resulted in healthy competition that did not need government regulation. This was in contrast to the British mercantilist system of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the advocates of which believed in strict government supervision of trade.

Nineteenth-century liberals continued to voice the concerns and develop the ideas of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. In England, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill expanded on the moral thinking of Adam Smith, creating the philosophy of utilitarianism, which sought the greatest good for the greatest number in a society. The Industrial Revolution and new technology deriving from changing ideas of science inspired the same sense of optimism and dedication toward continued progress among nineteenth-century thinkers that had defined previous expressions of liberalism. Liberal thinkers generally embraced the opportunities for social and cultural change suggested by the new philosophies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The social and behavioral sciences became important professional fields for those who sought ways to reform social structures, institutions, and human behavior. The challenges of the Industrial Revolution-such as the increasing poverty; class disparity between bourgeosie and proletariat; and urban crowding, filth, crime, and pollution-were treated as challenges incumbent upon the process and progress of modernization. Socialists such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Progressives such as Jane Addams and Woodrow Wilson, and Humanists such as Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, embraced new ideas and their implications for society. Naturalism, the philosophy inspired by Charles Darwin; behavioralism, inspired by Sigmund Freud; materialism, the product of Karl Marx; relativism, the offshoot of the theories of Albert Einstein; existentialism, the vague catalog of ideas identified with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche; and the dada movement and other such nihilist philosophies, tended toward the aim of the common good, social justice, free will and freedom, a rejection of traditional ideas and assumptions, and the value of diverse, open societies.

Politics and economic policies reflected the changes in modern society. In both England and America, conservative politics (signified by the Republicans in America, and the Tory party in Great Britain) gave way after the turn of the century to the liberal politics of reform-the Democrats in America and the Labour party in England. “Laissez-faire” economic policy was slowly discarded as liberal politicians such as David Lloyd George and Ramsay McDonald in England and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in America adopted interventionist policies wherein government would have a more direct role in economic development and bring government into the fight of the common person for good wages, good working conditions, help when ill or aged, and the general promise of a satisfying material existence.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, for example, began decades of social and economic reform conforming to a liberal agenda of broadened government policies and agencies to help the poor, disadvantaged, unemployed, retired, and disabled. The New Deal was in direct response to the Great Depression, which caught the Republican Hoover administration by surprise. The Democrat Roosevelt further implemented the initial liberal policies of Woodrow Wilson to fight the depression of the 1930s. Roosevelt’s consequent “alphabet soup” of acronyms for a dizzying number of social and economic programs still inspires today’s liberal politician. The New Deal churned out the Banking Act, creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to back investor’s deposits in case of bank runs and closures. Farmers were helped with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which paid farmers to destroy crops and increase land lying fallow so to lessen agricultural supplies and raise farm prices. The New Deal helped the unemployed with a variety of programs. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) brought young men out of the urban areas into the countryside to work on conservation and forest projects in return for a bed, three square meals a day, and a little money. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Public Works Administration (PWA) provided government funds to employ men in public works projects, helping to build the infrastructure of America and helping the confidence of fathers and husbands who were glad once again to bring home good wages to wives and children. The Social Security Act (SSA) created the Social Security Administration (and the Social Security Number and Social Security Card) to protect America’s senior citizens from ever knowing the same degree of want as had older Americans during the Great Depression.

          Subsequent liberal presidents were so inspired by the New Deal to continue its policies and programs. Truman’s Fair Deal and Kennedy’s New Frontier culminated in Johnson’s Great Society, which brought to America the liberal vision of civil rights. These Democrat presidents were not so successful in foreign policy. Johnson’s decision to escalate the war in Vietnam resulted in the dawn of the New Left, the venue for which were America’s college campuses, the members of which were largely student radicals.

          Today’s liberal continues to embrace issues and actions that conservatives find offensive and controversial, but which to the liberal seems appropriate for people concerned with individual rights and government leadership of social and economic reform. The liberal continues to embrace modernization and its consequences, finding in relativism and secularism opportunities for continued human progress.

Sources:

Aaron, Daniel. Writers on the Left. New York: Avon, 1961.

Berman, Ronald. America in the Sixties: An Intellectual History. New York: Free Press, 1968.

Hartz, Louis. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955.

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: time Incorporated, 1962.

Locke, John. Treatise of Civil Government. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1979.

Posted in American History, European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Laissez Faire

Laissez-Faire, a French phrase that means literally “let do” meaning “let a person alone,” was applied to economics by English and French thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phrase generally applies to the same conditions in modern as in pre-modern times. Proponents of laissez-faire believe that government controls on economic behavior-trade, companies, prices, wages-curtail the freedom of the individual, not just in his economic life, but in all aspects of life, since economics are often closely tied to social status, moral behavior, and religious beliefs. Laissez-faire philosophy has been associated with both liberal and conservative political philosophies depending on whether it is the liberal or the conservative thinker of a given time who puts the most emphasis on liberty in economic matters.

                The origins of the phrase are unclear save that it was apparently in use by the time Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Indeed, Smith become of the early proponents of the doctrine. Previous to Smith, one finds isolated remarks by English and French observers that mercantilism hampers natural liberty. Mercantilism was (and is) the doctrine that a government imposes rules on trade, particularly international trade. A famous example of mercantilism involves the control of the trade of the British-American colonies in the colonial period before 1776. The British government passed a series of Navigation Acts that curtailed the freedom by which an American producer could export his crop. As a result farmers in the American south were forced to sell their produce to English merchants at a reduced price. Clearly such restrictions seemed to curtail economic potential and the freedom of the individual producer to exchange goods for the best price. Under mercantilism, the British were less apt to restrict domestic trade, which could reveal to any insightful observer the advantages of such liberty.

                John Locke (1632-1704) the English philosopher of the Glorious Revolution anticipated Adam Smith, the greatest proponent of laissez-faire economics, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Locke argued that humans, though concerned with self-interest, tend to do good, and join together into governmental or economic associations for mutual benefit, but not at the expense of natural liberty. The earth is as it were a public domain set aside by God for all humans to enjoy equally. The apparently endless plenty of nature allows for each person to acquire sufficient materials for his needs. Excess is against the plan of the Creator, hence immoral. Competition among humans for their share of the public domain is natural, yet not harmful, as long as there is more than enough to satisfy every person’s needs. Private property, one of Locke’s fundamental natural rights shared by all humans, derives from a person putting forth labor to acquire goods from the public domain. Private property is therefore not evil, rather a good, as is the competition and labor that results in its acquisition.

                Another group that anticipated Adam Smith was the group of diverse intellectuals known as the Physiocrats. During the mid-eighteenth century the French economy was still very much beholden to the old regime economy of aristocratic land owners and peasant laborers. The Physiocrats believed that such a dominant almost feudal structure limited the exchange of goods and use of capital in the French countryside. Part of the problem they identified was the extensive impositions of the French government on trade and the heavy taxes imposed on farmers. By removing restrictions and reducing taxes, that is by the government accepting a “hands off” or laissez-faire policy, exchange of goods and capital would flow more freely in France; economic liberty would be commensurate with more political liberty.

                Adam Smith observed as much, agreed with the Physiocrats that government policies should give way to the natural liberty of economic production and trade, and agreed with Locke that private property is a sanctified right as a consequence of human labor, and that competition, even for private interests, is valuable and good. Smith despised the contrast of mercantilist policies with free trade. Adam Smith (1723-1790) was a Scottish intellectual who taught at the University of Glasgow. He was essentially a moral philosopher who published The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759. Smith believed that human self-interest is not a barrier to altruism because humans use reason to temper their acquisitiveness. This rational self-interest meant that economic competition would occur according to natural laws of human behavior instructed by reason. There was no justification, therefore, for government to impose restrictions on economic behavior. Such restrictions would be necessary only if humans irrationally engaged in destructive competitive behavior, which was clearly not true to the Enlightenment mind of Adam Smith.

                Smith is usually identified as a proponent of economic liberalism, because he combined his optimistic view of economic competition and restrained self-interest with the liberal assumptions of man’s inherent goodness and collective goal to work for the interests of the common good. Unlike modern liberals, Smith believed that economic behavior did not require government intervention to achieve the maximum good for society. Said goodness could not be imposed, rather would be a natural consequence of human behavior.

                The eighteenth-century American counterpart to the John Locke, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith was Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). Jefferson was the epitome of the Renaissance man, talented in architecture, music, philosophy, government, history, literature, and so on. He was one of the most complex men of his time, being simultaneously one of the great liberal thinkers of all time yet a slave owner, a proponent of laissez-faire economics yet the president who pushed for the trade embargo of 1808, a believer in limited government yet one of the architects of the United States of America. Jefferson epitomized eighteenth-century economic liberalism in his advocacy of limited government involvement in economic affairs, proponent of free trade among all nations, opposition to protectionism and tariffs, and firm supporter of the agricultural way of life. To Jefferson, as he wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1784), the farmer is the most virtuous of humans because of the inherent liberty of the farming way of life. The farmer pursues self-interest but not at the expense of the common good. The farmer is the best republican because he votes his mind and believes that what is good for him is good for the whole. Jefferson feared the Industrial Revolution because he feared a nation of entrenched urban wage-earners who could not exercise their natural liberty in economic matters and who would become aggressively self-interested without a thought for the common good because of the intense competition waged for limited resources.

                Jefferson’s powerful ideas came to be adopted by many nineteenth-century liberals in America. “Jeffersonianism” became synonymous with laissez-faire liberalism. It must be said, however, that Jeffersonian philosophy was altered over the course of the nineteenth century. The aggressive competition and exploitation consequent upon the Industrial Revolution in Europe and America resulted in a host of philosophies that contradicted classic economic liberalism. Karl Marx (1818-1883), for example, reacted to the perceived class competition between the proletariat and bourgeoisie by advocating (in the Communist Manifesto, co-written with Friedrich Engels in 1848) the destruction of the free market and the embracing of government controls over the economy. At the opposite spectrum, English and American philosophers reacted to Darwin’s theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest by developing a theory to explain human competition. “Social Darwinism” advocated the notions of the free market and the common good built upon the victory of the strongest and fittest over the weakest. Some Social Darwinists, such as Andrew Carnegie, tempered these ideas by arguing that the strongest, hence wealthiest, should eventually give back to the community by means of philanthropic behavior.

                On of the strangest distortions of laissez-faire philosophy involved the Populists of the 1890s. The Populists were a political party made up of farmers of the American south and midwest. Suffering from the exploitation of railroad monopolies that set high prices for transporting farm produce, the Populists advocated government intervention to establish a society and economy consistent with Jeffersonian principles and economic liberalism. In other words, the Populists believed that economic self-interest among farmers resulted in activities for the common good, but corrupt industrialists, monopolists, and politicians were thwarting traditional American economic liberalism. The situation could be remedied only by involvement of the federal government into the economy by means of government ownership of railroads and other utilities, a rejection of the monetary Gold Standard, and the adoption of a national income tax.

                The Populist political program only succeeded with the rise to political power and socio-economic influence of the Progressives. The Progressives possessed the heritage of American economic liberalism but at the same time realized and wanted to address the varied problems brought about by the Industrial Revolution. It was under the influence of the Progressives that the first two decades of the twentieth century in America witnessed the onset of the income tax, legislation putting restrictions on business practices and monopolies, a constitutional amendment to make United States senators more directly answerable to the people, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the achievement of women’s suffrage.

                Similar occurrences marked English politics of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the two most important English utilitarian philosophers, mitigated the classical laissez-faire theory of Adam Smith to take account of industrialization and its negative consequences. The utilitarians believed that private interest working for the common good–the essence of laissez-faire economics–should continue to be the driving principle behind the relationship of government to the economy. But sometimes the common good demanded government intervention to aid the plight of the poor, to restrict unfair corporate practices, and the like.

                The ironic twist that laissez-faire took around the turn of the century is best illustrated by the example of American political parties. The Republicans, formerly the Whigs and before that the Federalists, had long advocated government involvement in the economy. Alexander Hamilton, for example, proposed the federal support of investment in the economy, the accumulation of federal debt (assuming it from the thirteen states), and the promotion of manufacturing. The Whigs of the 1830s advocated the American System of federal investment in America’s infrastructure. Abraham Lincoln and the early Republicans promoted the interests of American corporations and sought a strong and united economic union. But industrial changes and the growing protests of wage-earners and the poor put the Republicans into a defensive posture, so that they increasingly returned to a defense of laissez-faire economic policy to prevent government restrictions on American capitalists. The hands off policy of the American government reached a climax during the 1920s and the Republican administration of Calvin Coolidge.

                The Democrats, on the other hand, who had long promoted the interests of the individual and the state, by 1900 demanded the tempering of laissez-faire economics with government intervention. The initial programs of the Populists and Progressives bore fruit during the 1930s with the Roosevelt administration. The Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cut his political teeth on Progressive and Wilsonian politics, realized that the Great Depression symbolized the bankruptcy of laissez-faire economics. The New Deal of the 1930s followed by the Fair Deal of the 1940s and 1950s, and the New Frontier and Great Society of the 1960s, revealed the commitment of the Democratic party to government taking over the pursuit of the common good. Twentieth-century philosophers like John Maynard Keynes declared that the once positive assumptions of economic liberalism had fallen short, that private interest did not somehow miraculously work for the common good, that it was up to government to temper private interest for the good of all people.

                The Great Depression of 1929 and after was the watershed in the history of laissez-faire economics. The Depression caused such panic and anxiety, weakened and destroyed the economies of great nations, that no Western industrial government would advocate a return to the principles of laissez-faire. Even the conservative Republicans of American politics and the Tories in Great Britain were forced to concede the failure of economic liberalism. Pure laissez-faire economics had come to an end.

Sources:

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Time Incorporated, 1962.

Ekelund, Jr., Robert B. and Robert F. Hebert. A History of Economic Theory and Method. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Notes on the State of Virginia.” In The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Modern Library, 1944. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR. New York: Knopf, 1981.

Posted in American History, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Conservatism

Conservatism is a system of thought that focuses upon upholding traditional values, social structure, government, and economic systems. Conservatives hold specific views about the role of government in the economy and the value of democracy. Conservatives have sometimes been suspicious of change in a modernizing world, and usually try to support to traditional institutions.

 
The origins of conservatism occurred in seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe and America. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, author of “Leviathan,” argued that government is necessary to provide order that is typically lacking among humans subject to the consequences of original sin. For Hobbes, “all men in the state of nature have a desire and will to hurt” because they are all seeking the same thing, power. The solution, Hobbes believed, was that the English should “confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, onto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person.”


A century later another English philosopher Edmund Burke, reacting to the astonishing changes brought about by the French Revolution, sought to promote the stability of past tradition and absolute, unchanging values. Revolution is about utter change, chaos, ideas and institutions never before seen. Burke attacked the ideological program of the French revolutionaries, who worked to destroy the hierarchy of church and state and the aristocratic belief in human inequality. Burke was shocked by the revolutionary program to create a secular state, to abandon divine providence, to substitute traditional morality with humanistic values, to embrace modern capitalism and all of its implications. Burke feared the impact of laissez-faire economics and the rejection of landed property as the traditional basis of society, economy, and government.


Leading conservatives in America at the time of the American and French revolutions included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. Adams and Hamilton were leaders of the Federalist political faction that strongly advocated the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. These American conservatives were heavily influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes. Adams and Hamilton did not go as far as Hobbes, defending the English monarchy, but they accepted his pessimistic assessment of human nature, and assumed that government must impose order upon its people. They applauded the Constitution for circumscribing the liberties of the American citizen within the structure of an orderly, rational government. American conservatives feared the disruptive consequences of the American Revolution, and sought to prevent anarchy and chaos by the overwhelming influence of the best men, that is, the economic, social, and cultural elite. Adams, for example, believed not in an aristocracy of birth (as did Burke) but in an aristocracy of talent and merit. This “natural aristocracy” represented the very few in America, who should inevitably supervise the liberties of the majority. Such was the reasoning behind the Electoral College, which would mediate the popular vote with the influence of the elite Electors. Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, advocated an economic program that made the federal government very influential in the credit and banking structures of the United States. He encouraged the government to promote manufacturing, international trade, policies favoring the rich, and investment in the American economy.


The Industrial Revolution, new technologies, and the dominance of scientific thinking in the nineteenth century forced conservatives to reassess their ideas and policies. Conservative programs of continued government involvement in the economy during the early nineteenth century, such as Henry Clay’s American System, gave way in the post Civil War era to a view that embraced laissez-faire economics. Republicans advocated limited government involvement in the economy, and opposition to labor and trade unions and other such reforms that would impede unlimited economic progress. They advocated economic policies that supported the wealthy, big-business, and manufacturing interests, which in turn would benefit the entire economy, and all Americans, rich as well as poor. The maintenance of a limited money supply, which supported creditors over debtors, brought opposition to the Republican administrations of, for example, William McKinley, from liberal reform groups such as the Populists. Industrialists such as Andrew Carnegie spoke for the majority of conservatives in “The Gospel of Wealth,” arguing that competition dominates economic and social existence; those who compete the best also thrive the best. Social Darwinists such as William Graham Sumner applied the implications of Darwin’s theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest to humans: inequality is the natural state of things; the poor serve a purpose–performing the drudgery of human labor; likewise the rich serve a purpose–directing the application of labor to the infrastructure of society.


In the early part of the twentieth century American conservatives such as Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More, who led an intellectual movement called the New Humanism, feared the rise of the masses, the typical American and his rude habits and uncultured jargon, the anti-intellectualism in American life. The New Humanists believed modern society was under attack from the new ideologies of pragmatism, naturalism, materialism, behavioralism, and liberalism. Babbitt, More, and other New Humanists believed in the moral presence of decorum and order existing within the human soul, which by cultivation and intuition can be accessed–but only a very few can do so. The New Humanists were not alone in responding with concern that the post World War I era would bring new democratic, liberal forces to the world. The “Roaring 20s” in America included a conservative reaction to the war in the forms of prohibition, the Red Scare, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and the Republican administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.


Late nineteenth- early twentieth-century American conservatives were clearly influenced by their European counterparts. In 1889, German intellectual Ferdinand Tonnies argued that the impact of modernization upon a traditional society had caused artificial associations to replaced the organic institutions of family and community; close-knit society and orderly class structure were giving way to a new middle class and working class with completely different moral assumptions, economic concerns, and social habits. Other European conservatives such as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Auguste Comte examined past societies to question the validity of modern change upon medieval, communitarian institutions.


Conservatism after World War II was of two types. First, there was the intellectual conservatism of thinkers such as Russell Kirk, author of The “Conservative Mind” (1953). Kirk’s brand of conservative thought was similar to that of nineteenth-century conservatives in his focus on absolute truth and morality, elitism, and opposition to modern relativism and secularism. The horror of the madness of Hitler and the use of atomic bombs during World War II led to a confused and fearful response in America. Added to such uncertainty was the triad of tragedies in 1949 and 1950: the Soviet Union’s acquisition of the A-Bomb, the fall of China to Communism, and the attack of communist North Korea against South Korea. Anxiety about communism led to fears of espionage and the emergence of Joseph McCarthy to public attention. Many American conservatives rallied around McCarthy and his ideas of anti-communism and anti-liberalism–in short, opposition to anything that appeared un-American. Such was the mentality that William Buckley touted in starting the magazine, the “National Review,” in the 1950s.

The second expression of post war conservatism has been represented by the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1964 against Lyndon B. Johnson, became the spokesman for a new political conservatism embracing the economic principles of laissez-faire. Goldwater, author of The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), argued for a vastly reduced federal government and deregulation of economic and social policies in favor of turning power over to state and local governments. Conservatives, according to Goldwater, opposed the rights of labor, the fight for civil rights, and government intervention into the economy. He supported individual freedoms and the sanctity of private property. He saw the federal government as having a limited role, involving itself in maintaining public order and involvement in foreign affairs. Goldwater’s stance on the cold war and the spread of communism in Europe, Asia, and Africa was that of a “hawk.” He believed in aggressive military and economic containment and confronting the Soviet Union and its communist satellites with vast superiority of nuclear weapons.

Although Goldwater lost to Johnson, his ideals found new life during the Republican administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Both Nixon and Reagan endorsed Goldwater’s run for president, and both gained important influence in supporting a lost cause. Nixon rode his conservative reputation to the White House in 1968, while Reagan became a leading conservative spokesman and governor of California. As a two term president from 1981 to1989, Reagan continued to be the point-person for the conservative movement.

Today, conservatism is still an important political philosophy focusing on government restraint, the free market, individual freedoms, and strong defense of American values both at home and abroad.

Sources:

Lora, Ronald. Conservative Minds in America. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979.

Guttmann, Allen, The Conservative Tradition in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Diggins, John P. Up from Communism: Conservative Odysseys in American Intellectual History. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Hoeveler, Jr., J. David. The New Humanism: A Critique of Modern America, 1900-1940. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1977. Hobbes Selections. Edited by F. J. E. Woodbridge. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930.


(A version of this essay was originally published in the “Encyclopedia of Capitalism,” Facts on File)

Posted in American History, Christianity, European history, General Essays, Government | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Science in the Ancient World: From Antiquity through the Middle Ages

            Ancient science was the intellectual pursuit to understand the origins and workings of nature and humanity. Science is a term that encompasses many methods and varied disciplines over time. Science has engaged human thought for millennia. The questions that scientists ask tend to remain largely the same even as the answers differ according to time and culture. The strange and sometimes simple explanations that the ancient Greeks and Romans gave for natural phenomena appear less absurd to the modern mind when one considers that the answers of today may appear ridiculous to observers a thousand years from now. Among ancient scientists–the Mesopotamians, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Africans, Americans–the Greeks were far and away the leaders in scientific inquiry because they asked the most penetrating questions, many of which still elude a complete answer.             There is a temptation to view the past according to the standards and precepts of the present. The historian encounters countless similarities when comparing modern and ancient science; clearly the building blocks of today’s science were formed two to three thousand years ago in the ancient Mediterranean. Nevertheless, the development of ancient science occurred in a pre-industrial age before the dawn of Islam or Christianity, during a polytheistic, superstitious time. Magic and astrology were considered as legitimate as medicine and astronomy. The earth was the center of a finite universe; the planets twinkled like gods watching from above; the moon governed the fertility of nature and woman. Fertility symbols and statuettes of priestesses and mother goddesses dot the archeological finds from the dozens of millennia BCE, reminding us of the power women once had in ancient societies before the coming of male gods reflecting male dominance. Rhea, Cybele, Artemis, Hera, Isis, and Ishtar were early fertility goddesses who represented the universal mother image who brought life, love, and death to her children the humans.

            In some ways ancient scientists would be scarcely recognizable to contemporary, twenty-first century scientists. The scientists described and portrayed in this book were priests, government officials, kings, emperors, slaves, merchants, farmers, and aristocrats. They wrote history, biography, essays. They were artists, explorers, poets, musicians, abstract thinkers, sensualists. The demands upon scientific study then were different than today. The study of astrology was necessary to know one’s fate, the future. Astronomy and mathematics were essential to forming calendars to fit the cycles of nature and seasons of the year. The ancient scientist was often seeking a practical result rather than pursuing scientific thought for its own sake. At the same time, the ancient scientist was something of a wise person, a community savant who was expected to know–or at least to have thought about, or investigated–all things natural, spiritual, and human. The Greeks called such a thinker polumathes, which is the origin for our word polymath, someone who is learned in many fields of knowledge.             At the same time ancient scientists pursued some of the same goals as their modern counterparts. Modern physicists and chemists seek to know the basic particles that comprise matter in the universe; ancient Stoics and Epicureans hypothesized the same particles and sought the same knowledge of the movement and patterns of atoms. Albert Einstein the theoretical physicist wanted to know the mind of God, the ultimate secrets of the universe, which was a continuing search inaugurated three thousand years before in the ancient Mediterranean. Einstein would have liked Plato; Neils Bohr the twentieth-century Danish physicist would have found a friend in Aristotle. What are the abstract patterns present in the universe? Mathematicians today and millennia ago have been united in the quest to find out, to impose the rational human mind upon the most complex and least concrete inquiry. Psychologists today still work in the shadow of the great psychologists of the past, though the present concern to know the human mind and the nature of personality is a more secular pursuit than it once was. Political scientists today still rely on the initial systematic inquiries into human government that Plato and Aristotle made in the fourth century BCE. Students at modern medical schools take the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing that if the techniques of medicine have changed from the days of Hippocrates and Galen, the ultimate goals and humanitarian concerns have not. In short, the college arts and science curricula and professional scientific careers of today are not a recent development. Rather the moderns in pursuit of knowledge of man and the universe continually ascend the intellectual and methodological building blocks constructed during antiquity.

(From the Introduction, Science in the Ancient World: From Antiquity through the Middles Ages, published by ABC Clio, 2021).

A new affordable paperback version of the book is available on Amazon Jan. 22, 2026. Find it at: https://www.amazon.com/Science-Ancient-World-Antiquity-through/dp/B0FSW74DKZ/ref=books_amazonstores_desktop_mfs_aufs_ap_sc_dsk_0?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=6oCC7&content-id=amzn1.sym.299f645c-0a78-440a-94a2-fb482e7cb326&pf_rd_p=299f645c-0a78-440a-94a2-fb482e7cb326&pf_rd_r=142-5197957-8175817&pd_rd_wg=Erb81&pd_rd_r=7cdd0d6a-0a38-49cf-a2ba-a1a0959be396

Posted in books, European history, History of Science | Tagged , , | Leave a comment