Victors of Circumstance – The Rise of Chinese Communism

The Chinese Communist Party, formally born in 1921 and reinvigorated by the victory of Mao Zedong in 1949, succeeded not only out of its political ingenuity and advances, but also through the failures and shortcomings of its competitors and enemies. Mao’s inspirational rhetoric on 1st October 1949 claimed that with the reign of the People’s Republic of China, the old China had died and New China was born, and with his dramatic social revolution in the face of dire socio-economic conditions and pleas to nationalism following the destruction of the Sino-Japanese war, it is clear how the CCP gained extraordinary public support throughout the Chinese nation. However, the widespread public disillusionment with the failures of the Nationalist party, the Guomindang, led them to support the only political opponent as the ultimate protest vote.

Historians are in general agreement that the communists succeeded from their own actions, but are divided on which actions secured their victory in 1949. It is widely agreed that the Sino-Japanese war played a crucial role in the mobilization of the Chinese people towards the communist party, simply through appealing to Chinese nationalism, which had taken a crippling blow as a result of the bloodshed witnessed by Nanjing in 1937, putting the Chinese in an extremely vulnerable and threatened position under the Japanese. The war seemingly defined China as a reinvigorated country and supplied them with the military unification they so desperately required to mobilise and unite the population. At the outbreak of war in 1937, the Chinese Communist Party and the Guomindang formed a second attempt at a United Front, where ‘the CCP agreed to abandon its radical land reform policy in favour of one of rent reduction’ to keep the peace. However, relations soon grew sour with communist expansion to the north and resulted in a return to hostilities, but the peaceful years had allowed the communists to grow significantly in influential territory and numbers, while their power as ‘heroic resisters against fascism’ had been witnessed by foreign visitors to Yan’an in that time. In 1941, the rectification movement saw the student faction’s last stand, which aided the communist movement’s political leadership by Mao and his theologies that sparked the movement. The communist party successfully implemented methods to enforce political orthodoxy such as self-criticism and written confessions which became key to future movements led by Mao, the majority of which succeeded through this technique which, through public admittance, gained sympathy and unwavering support.

The most attractive element of the communist party was their appeal to peasants and workers alike, launching workers’ strikes, local uprisings and army mutinies in February 1930. Mao Zedong prioritised the importance of social revolution under communism, and emphasised peasants education on matters such as government and politics, creating people’s councils in villages which invited all adults to vote regardless of class, while subsequently encouraging sub-associations to represent women and young people in local governments. To the population, Mao and the communists were appealing to them as no party had before. The party achieved their goals through the peasantry who had been their best defence against the Japanese in the years before, and sought to appease them through acting both ‘for the sake of the peasantry’ and ‘on the side of the peasantry’, the latter of which had proved more successful.

The communists succeeded as a party as well as a triumphant political victor through persistence and strong leadership. Under the control of Mao Zedong, his policies and determination as shown specifically in the 1940s shows a defiance in the party which may not have succeeded in his absence. Mao, a charismatic and defiant character with communism coursing through his veins, lay his priorities with the peasantry, the foundations for a powerful political control. In the face of opposition by the Guomindang which withdrew funding for communist troops and economically blockaded communist-controlled areas, drastically reducing CCP controlled population by 19 million between 1940 and 1942, Mao refused to accept defeat. He administered Border Regions to mobilise the communist populations, increasing industrial production, reducing militia and in turn reducing government expenses and encouraging peasant-led co-operative trades, much to the approval of members of all classes, having previously become disillusioned with the Guomindang who had slowly alienated students, as shown in the May 4th Movement of 1919 by intellectuals and the urban bourgeoisie. Spectacular movements such as these brought wide-eyed attention from the watching Chinese population, demonstrating that the CCP were far from weak, and could hold their own in conflicts with the Nationalists.

In the face of ‘the final extermination’ at the hands of Chiang Kai-shek in 1925, Mao’s defiance and refusal to accept defeat led to his return to Hunan where he gathered peasant support and consequently launched the Autumn Harvest Uprising, however largely unsuccessful, this bought the CCP most of Kiangsi province territory to fund what would be renowned as The Long March from 1934 to 1935. The 6,000 mile journey brought a positive reception from communities they passed through due to the communists’ respectful behaviour unrivalled by the Nationalists. However embroidered with mythical tales of heroic bravery in the face of adversity, for example the Luting Bridge of chains and fire, the realistic race of the communist forces against the Guomindang from Kiangsi province to the Shensi province marked the loss of 270,000 communist lives, but also a milestone in the party’s development as a formidable political and military enemy, the crux of their struggle for eventual victory. The historian Johnson elaborates that, alongside the militia, the emphasis on guerilla warfare in Mao’s approaches advanced the support of the communist party, in Mao’s words ‘because guerilla warfare basically derives from the masses and is supported by them, it can neither exist nor flourish if it separates itself from their sympathies and cooperation’. The CCP emerged well-equipped to capitalise on the Sino-Japanese war following a decade of guerilla warfare development while the Guomindang emerged war-weary and exhausted.

The historian John Roberts details that, among support in the countryside and the takeover of China’s main cities, the success of the CCP can be accredited to their victory in Manchuria. In 1948, Manchuria was the first state to accept the communist approach, following a vigorous battle since 1945 for ownership between the GMD and the communists, vying to claim the most developed industrial region in China since the Japanese invasion left behind an impressive infrastructure. The communist party had offered the countryside a revolutionary land reform that was to be expanded in 1950 following their victory. Taxes and services provided by the peasants in terms of food, labour and military industry would be repaid in land and other forms of wealth confiscated from the old elite. Despite the contentment of the civilians, however, the Guomindang returned armed and the consequent bloody Manchurian campaign took a drastic toll on Chiang Kai-shek’s forces, primarily through casualties and large numbers of desertions to the communist party in Lin Bao’s Fourth Field Army. Following this unanimous defeat assisted also by the rallying of northern Chinese peasants against the Guomindang, Chiang Kai-shek and his two million troops were forced to retreat from the mainland to Taiwan. While this would be assumed as a communist victory, the Guomindang did not disintegrate entirely despite the successes of communism.

Alongside the communists’ advantages were the Guomindang’s shortcomings which helped elevate the CCP to power in 1949. The Guomindang had remained untrustworthy in the eyes of the public for some time, as the May 4th Movement of 1919 demonstrated. Considered the first mass public movement of modern Chinese history, the movement brought to light public concerns with the Guomindang government’s plans for the future of the nation. The peasant population had been unsettled by the GMD’s compromises with intellectuals on who should be taxed and how, followed by the military conscription and heavy taxes brought into effect, the Nationalist government slowly lost its life force and public backing. Upon Sun Yat-sen’s death and Chiang Kai-shek’s consequent control in 1925, the Guomindang turned against their communist allies and sought to subdue the party, commencing the ‘final extermination’ of communist territories. The Guomindang’s response to the Sino-Japanese war further discredited their governing tactics in the eyes of the peasants as the opposing party that did not support Chinese foreign superiority and ultimate independence. Rampant inflation hindered the public’s trust, primarily the middle classes, in the Guomindang’s control of the economy. Having grown exhausted from incessant conflicts, Guomindang members had corrupted the party from the inside, and as a consequence financial scandals gradually lost the party its favour, losing both the party and its armies the will to rule, as opposed to the communists’ unwavering morale and incorruptible structure.

A debate raised by Wasserstrom questions whether there was even a revolution when the communists came to power in 1949, suggesting the drastic developments in Chinese society following the formation of the People’s Republic of China could not be directly or indirectly attributed to Mao’s victory. Wasserstrom also suggests that the changes brought forward by the communist victory would have been supported and implemented by their opponents in the GMD without such drastic methods, for example the complete eradication of the waning influence of foreign imperialism which led to the re-establishment of a central government control over Chinese territory, which was welcomed by the population after almost a hundred years of partial sovereignty and political state division. This in turn brought the reinstatement of domestic peace and agreement following years of civil warfare and overseas conflicts, and, closer to home, the work force was more than twice the size it had previously remained. Mao’s insistence on educational expansion brought literacy to all echelons of Chinese society, plus the drastically required improvements in public healthcare which consequently led to a growth in population. All aspects of Chinese society at the time were expanding, improving and moving forward with the age of the New China as Mao promised.

By 1947, the CCP had mobilised to advance on Beijing in January 1949, and by October, the Gate of Heavenly Peace begged an audience for Mao Zedong’s proclamation of ‘the birth of the new People’s Republic of China and to declare that China had stood up’, announcing the communist victory with a promise of nationalist rejuvenation and ultimate Chinese independence. While communism marched to victory in 1949, the party’s continued existence to this day stands as an effective memorial to their successes of that year. As a result of their encouragement of popular political protests which earned the population much needed government alterations, attractive policies such as land reform appealing to every echelon of society, and their strategic territory occupations, the Chinese Communist Party earned its successes but its ultimate victory can be strongly attributed to the long-term failures of the opposing Nationalist government.

Sources

Davin, Delia, Mao Zedong (Gloucestershire, 1997).
Eastman, Lloyd E., Seeds Of Destruction: Nationalist China In War And Revolution (California, 2002).
Goldston, Robert, The Long March (London, 1972).
Johnson, Chalmers A., Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (California, 1962).
Karl, Rebecca E., Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World (London, 2010).
Mackerras, Colin, China In Transformation 1900-1949 (New York, 1998).
Moise, Edwin E., Modern China: A History (Harlow, 1986).
Pepper, Suzanne, Civil War in China: The Political Struggle, 1945-1949 (London, 1978).
Roberts, J.A.G., Modern China: An Illustrated History (Gloucestershire, 2000).
Sheridan, James E., China In Disintegration: The Republican Era In Chinese History 1912-1949 (New York, 1975).
Wasserstrom, Jeffrey N., Twentieth-Century China: New Approaches (London, 2003).

The Formation of the Kingdom of Serbia

The Kingdom of Serbia was a medieval Serbian Kingdom that existed from 1217 to 1346. It was ruled by the Nemanjić dynasty and was formed from the previous Serbian Grand Principality that was based in Raška. The Kingdom lasted until 1346 when it became The Serbian Empire.

The Grand Principality of Serbia in the Raška region had already been in conflict with the Byzantines for many years, and there had been a long history of Byzantine control over the area. However, it is partially thanks to the Byzantine attacks on the previously most powerful Serb region of Duklja that Raška rose to the top. There would have been another invasion on Raška, but through diplomatic ties with the Kingdom of Hungary, Serbia managed to keep independence.

In the years shortly after this, Serbian leaders fought against the Byzantines, and continued to turn towards Hungary for support. However this was planned to be stopped by the Byzantine Emperor who put a new Grand Prince on the throne in 1166 called Stefan Tihomir, who was of a lower line of Serb nobles. Tihomir ruled jointly with his brothers, the most important of which was Stefan Nemanja. Nemanja swore allegiance to the Byzantine emperor and became a vassal of Byzantium. He aided the Imperial army in many campaigns, including one against the Hungarians. Tihomir saw the tie between Nemanja and the Emperor as a threat.

Stefan Nemanja was eventually imprisoned by his brother. This was supposedly because Nemanja had ordered the construction of two monasteries without the Grand Prince’s permission. However, it is most likely that Tihomir felt threatened by his brother’s allegiance to the Emperor and thought that he was trying to assert his own independence. Nemanja’s supporters conspired to the church that Tihomir had done this because he disapproved of church building in general, so the church turned on Tihomir, which allowed Nemanja to escape.

Eventually, Stefan Nemanja formed an army with Byzantine help in order to overthrow Tihomir. This was a success, and Tihomir and his other two brothers were banished from Serbia. They went to Byzantium in 1167. In the next few years, Nemanja became a powerful figure as the single ruler of Serbia. However, the Byzantine Emperor did not approve of this, and turned to Tihomir and his brothers. Planning to see Serbia divided between the princes in order to keep it weak, The Emperor provided Tihomir with an army to take back Serbia. In 1171, Nemanja had gathered his own army and defeated his brother’s forces at the battle of Pantino. Tihomir was killed by drowning in the Sitnica river at the end of the battle, and Nemanja made peace with his other brothers, returning their old lands to them. After this Nemanja was recognized as the only ruler of Serbia, and at this point begins the Nemanjić dynasty.

Stefan Nemanja planned to gain full independence from Byzantine rule, so he joined the anti-Byzantine coalition with the Kingdom of Hungary, the Venetian republic and the Holy Roman Empire. However, this alliance was short-lived, as Venice faced mutiny and an outbreak of plague destroying their fleet, and the Hungarian King was replaced by a pro-Byzantine successor. Shortly after this, Byzantine Emperor Manuel I launched an attack on Raška, and defeated Nemanja’s forces. Nemanja surrendered to the Emperor, and was imprisoned and brought to Constantinople to be his personal slave. During his time in Constantinople, Nemanja befriended Manuel I, and vowed to never again attack him. In return The Emperor recognized Stefan Nemanja as the rightful ruler of Serbia, and let him return. However, this peace only lasted 9 years, until 1180 when Manuel I died, and Nemanja no longer considered he owed any allegiance to the Byzantines since his vows were to Emperor Manuel I and not the Empire.

Over the next decade, Nemanja worked on the expansion of his territory, and continued to fight with the Byzantines successfully. Although, in 1191, a large Byzantine army led by the new emperor Isaac II Angelus fought and defeated Stefan Nemanja. Nemanja retreated into the mountains with his remaining men and began raiding the Byzantine forces in the area. Nemanja had the tactical advantage at this point, so this prompted the Emperor to negotiate final peace treaty, in which Nemanja had to give up most of his Eastern conquest, and recognize the Emperor’s supreme rule.

On March 25, 1196, Stefan Nemanja summoned a council where he officially abdicated in favour of his second son, Stefan II. Although Vukan was his eldest son, Nemanja preferred to see Stefan II on the throne due to him being married to a Byzantine princess, which allowed them to have peace with Byzantium. Stefan Nemanja would later begin to establish the Serbian church in 1199 with his third son; Sava. Sava would later become ‘Saint Sava’, and Stefan Nemanja himself also later became a monk and took up the name ‘Simeon’, eventually becoming a Saint of Serbia too.

During the beginning of his reign, Stefan II had to deal with the heir conflict with his older Brother Vukan. While Nemanja was still alive, Vukan didn’t oppose Stefan II’s rule, but as soon as Nemanja died in 1199, he started to plot against Stefan II in order to become Grand Prince himself. Vukan used the help of the Hungarian Kingdom to overthrow Stefan II in 1202 and became ruler, while Stefan fled into Bulgaria. Vukan later became a Hungarian vassal and promised to convert to Catholicism if the Pope would give him the title of king. However, Vukan became involved in the Hungarian conflict with Bulgaria, leading to Stefan taking the opportunity to return to Serbia and overthrow Vukan, becoming ruler once again in 1204. The conflict power struggle between the two brothers only ended when the third brother, Sava, returned to Serbia from his work on founding Serbian Christianity. Sava brought with him the remains of their father, Stefan Nemanja, which convinces Vukan and Stefan II to make peace. Sava subsequently asked to stay in Serbia by Stefan, and he does so, starting his widespread education of the people of Serbia. In the following years, Stefan II still had to deal with the tension between himself and Vukan’s son Đorđe after Vukan’s death in 1209. This eventually led to Đorđe’s lands being taken from him in 1216.

In 1217 Stefan, Stefan II managed to secure the title of king from Pope Honorius III. Sava brought the regal crown from Rome, and crowned his brother himself as ‘King of all Serbia’. In 1218, Sava began the real formation of the Serbian Church, and was consecrated as the first Archbishop of Serbia in 1219. In the same year, Sava published ‘Zakanopravilo’; the first constitution of Serbia, thus acquiring the Serbs both political and religious forms of independence. The Nemanjić dynasty continued to rule Serbian lands for the next 200 years, which emerged into a powerful state that would dominate the entire Balkan peninsula, eventually becoming the Serbian Empire on 1346.

‘The greatest mistake America made was allowing women to vote’:

Now there is a title for my blog this month. The greatest mistake that America had ever made was allow women the right to vote, call me crazy but for those of us who actually believe in the ideals of equality, freedom, and the right to express ourselves and our opinions politically, isn’t this going a bit far. Ok so that’s an understatement as to how I felt about this article when I read it, and is actually the politest way I could think to describe the shock and anger I felt upon reading it, by the way yes I am a women and as my friends well know one with feminist tendencies and opinions so to me, this was a bit of a kick in the teeth. However I respect the right of Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to his opinion and have provided a link to the article below for those of you who wish to read the article in full. Yet I hope that he also respectfully accepts my right to disagree with him. So this blog shall explore the complex relationship that women have with politics and voting, and asking the question why, as we come in England (6 years to go) to the centenary of women having the right to vote, do such out dated views, that we should not have the right to vote, still exist.

In the article Rev. Peterson states that women are ‘leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power. Whilst I disagree with Rev. Peterson’s idea that the way in which women vote is bringing a form of ‘political evil’, to the United States, or at least this is how it appears to him, as a Republican. However it must be stated that perhaps his rather extremist view is as a result of the suggestion that in the last presidential election (2008), that more women voted for Obama and the Democrat party , his political and the party that is attempting to bring a considerable amount of change to America, which is described by some, particularly of a Republican persuasion, as attempts to bring a kind of socialism into America. For instance through the introduction of the idea of same-sex marriages; the introduction of health care reforms. As a result the suggestion by Rev. Peterson, the ‘wickedness’ that has been brought in by women voting democrat, entail the more left leaning ideas that are changing America. Which as a Republican, a group who can be typically identified as deeply Christian and extremely conservative, he would not appreciate these changes. However there is a wider comment that can be made as a result of Rev. Peterson’s suggestions, that the attitudes to women and power (in this case political, yet there are other examples) is something that hasn’t changed. Since the beginning of time it can be argued that whenever women had some form of power they were often mocked or criticized for it. In sticking with the political element to this blog post I shall stick to women who have actively participated within politics or had an impact upon them within the 21st and 20th century. However my previous statement remains women who have power have been stereotypically seen as a bad thing or something that cannot be trusted to act rationally. Once again I must state that these suggestions are my own opinions, please feel free to disagree with me and post your own comments on this subject.

As an English woman a prime example of this statement can be found in the treatment of Britain’s first and only (so far) woman Prime Minister Margret Thatcher. Now I can hear you start your tirades of how she took away milk and destroyed the miners or how she did great in the Falkland’s whichever camp you’re in, however I ask you to put these feelings aside for a moment and consider whether the fact that she was a women contributed to people’s opinions of her, in a negative manner. For instance she was known as the Iron Lady, a title given to her as a result of her determination and stubbornness with her politics and politicians, whilst this can be seen as a title of strength it can also be seen negatively as the iron lady can also conjure up images of a harsh woman, to an extent unwomanly. As it is already known Thatcher underwent voice coaching and a change of appearance before becoming leader of the conservative party, in order, it can be suggested to become more authoritative a stereotypically manly trait which is needed for any leader. However the fact that Thatcher has to adopt such traits, authoritative, stubbornness, and determination in order to succeed in British politics demonstrates how women to an extent, have to change in order to succeed in politics, and sometimes get ridiculed as unwomanly as a result. Another more recent example of the way in which women who have political power are often criticized, rightly or wrongly is the characterization of Sarah Palin as the “pitbull with lipstick” and other such stereotypes that have been attached to her. Therefore, the wider point that women who have/ gain political power is still something that is seen in an interesting manner, whilst were not burning them on the stake as witches, it can be suggested that attitudes to women being in power still haven’t changed, as women who attempt have power and attempt to create change can be criticized for it. With the negative stereotyping of women who have political power it is perhaps unsurprising that there have been comparatively less great women political figures (when compared to the amount of inspiring male counterparts) and that even today there are still very few women within the political cabinet of the U.K. that can be argued as actually having a degree of influence or the ability to change laws. Whilst I’m not suggesting that the cabinet or any political body is forced to have women with the opportunity to lead and change the status quo, I think that the relationship between women and politics remains complex and this is something that hasn’t changed since women having won the right to political suffrage. The remarks of Shirley Chisholm (a Congresswoman, for New York’s 12th Congressional District from 1969 to 1983) who said that during her New York legislative career, she had faced much more discrimination because she was a woman than because she was black perhaps remain surprisingly more relevant today than we care to believe in our modern society.

Alternatively it must be recognized that within the last 10-20 years there has been a noticeable change in the treatment of women involved within politics, for instance in America and internationally Michelle Obama is considered a very powerful and influential, within her own right as well as a result of being the first lady. Similarly Hillary Clinton, who ran in the same election as Sarah Palin can be suggested as having less negative publicity for being a politically minded women.

Thus demonstrating that whilst the public’s relationship with women in politics is no doubt complex, it is also changing. For instance in 2009 there America had the opportunity to elect its first ever women president. With this in mind the only thing left for me is to reiterate my opinion that women having the right is far from being the worst thing that has ever happened in history. It is perhaps instead a result of the negative publicity that often surrounds female politicians and women voters that has led to that particular conclusion. Yet the times are changing and there may soon be a time when women presidents and prime ministers, become the norm as it is often the case in Scandinavian countries. Who knows?

Sophie

Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141530/Fox-News-guest-Rev-Jesse-Lee-Peterson-says-women-shouldnt-allowed-vote.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lee_Peterson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7709852.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

The ‘United States of Europe’.

One word has appeared more regularly in the news and media than any other in recent months and years and this is the European Union or EU.  Whether this is because of financial reasons such as in Greece within the debt crisis or political with David Cameron’s dispute with the EU of the Britain’s role within it, it has attracted both criticism and praise. The twenty-seven member union oversees co-operation among its members in many areas such as; trade, the environment, transport and employment. The modern EU is one of the final forms of integration that arrived after centuries of successes in bringing the states of Europe in a closer alliance. As suggested by the title of this blog (made famous by Winston Churchill) I would like to look briefly at the various motives behind European integration centring on the Post-War period.

The Second World War ended on Tuesday 8 May 1945 after six years of endless bloodshed and destruction. Europe had been devastated with bombing raids and death on an unprecedented scale.  With the war in the Pacific coming to a close three months after VE day in Europe, the three major powers of Europe; USA, USSR and the UK met at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 to discuss the future of Germany, post-war reconstruction and future peace in Europe. Ideas of an integrated Europe unified with a common economic and political agenda were also found in the early post-war period and were made increasingly popular by speeches by Winston Churchill.

The place of Germany within Europe had been one of the key factors in contributing to the ideas of European integration. There was a desire in incorporate Germany into a federate Europe to avoid further conflict between the European powers. Whilst Germany had been split into four zones following the Yalta conference, in the 1946 the ‘Iron Curtain’ had descended across Europe and had split Germany in half.  What quickly arose were the two spheres of influence in Germany; the West (Britain and France) and America in the west and Soviet Russia in the east. This divide created new motives for European integration as many states in Europe, weakened by the war, were not strong enough to resist an attack from Russia should they invade. Therefore many states looked to Britain for leadership, as shown by Churchill’s evoking speeches in 1946, though Britain was more concerned with the Commonwealth than Europe.

With Europe devastated economically and even Britain seeking loans from America, integration was also one of the most important reasons for unity in Europe. ‘Integration of the European economy would promote large-scale, low-cost production that would lead to greater economic output and an improved competitive position in the world market’. [1] One of the earliest forms of economic improvement came from America in the form of the Marshall Plan in 1947. Seventeen nations joined this initiative and it became known as the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). Whilst not all Europe joined, such as the states in Eastern Europe, this showed that economically the states of Europe needed each other to survive. To further ties, the Council of Europe was set up in 1949 to plan for further political integration. However the Commission of Ministers had no deliberate power and could only advise and offer recommendations to European states. This still represented the power that Europe could create should it act towards further unity across Europe.

To conclude the motives towards European integration are very important factors in which the EU is the modern result. I hope this blog had helped identify some of the motives behind European unity and integration in the post-war years.

Thanks

[1] J. R. Weggs., Europe Since 1945 (New York, 1977), 151.

Sources;

J. R. Weggs., Europe Since 1945 (New York, 1977).

D. W. Unwin., Europe since 1945 (London, 1972).

R. Vaughan., Twentieth Century Europe, Paths to Unity (London, 1979).

BBC History Website

A Thousand Royal Threads

In 1334 the newly arisen Shogun, Go-Daigo, with hands and sword still dirtied called forth the restoration of Imperial rule in Japan; the Kenmu Restoration. The Shogun’s blind eye to his warriors led to the greatest among them, Takauji Ashikaga, to rebuild his armies and place himself upon the throne with his blood claim to the Minamoto clan. After Ashikaga built his bakufu government in the Muromachi district of Kyoto, the humiliated Go-Daigo fled into the Yoshino Mountains, with the aid of close families and loyal samurai building up a rival imperial throne. Several decades of war erupted over the continent, families struggling for land and influence while waving one banner or the other. The Bushi chieftains forged semi-independent domains of their own, gradually swelling to a coalition of the greatest warrior families in Japan. This tale is inherent to the history of feudal Japan, often seen as the turning point between a possible restoration into the all-consuming conflict of total war. These few years following the Go-Daigo domination saw an arch of loyalties dipping into hostility. One entirely rooted in the decision of a man named Takauji, branded a loyal friend, irreplaceable vassal, and cursed traitor even before his dying day.

Takauji Ashikaga (足利 尊氏) was born in 1305 as a descendant of the Minamoto Samurai, also known as the Seiwa Genji line, meaning his family had blood ties to Emperor Seiwa. The family name, Ashikagam derived from the original landholding of the clan ‘Ashikaga-no-sho’ in the Shimotsuke province. Unlike most branch families whose domains were centred in one location the Ashikaga had their land holdings spread across the continent, predominantly in the midlands and east, which suggests the chief could not have depending on his family branches exclusively to govern, but draw on intendants from hereditary retainers. The ‘Kuramochi’ document lists twenty one intendants bearing nineteen different surnames.
While Ashikaga sits in the centre of these events the protagonist at the dawn of the events was Go-Daigo, who begins and ends his part in the saga with a plot. Growing antagonism between the vassals of Kamakura and the Hojo family, whose control of the state monopolised the high-appointments in government and land, saw to many families in central Japan to raise their connections to imperial lines as legitimate excuses for defection from the Hojo. Here is where Go-Daigo found inspiration to begin a restoration of imperial government and remove the eternal influence of the Kamakura bakufu. Go-Daigo had chosen his moments well, and swelling support was given from dissident military houses across the country-the Kenmu restoration was becoming a movement worth recognising. Go-Daigo’s uprising awakened the noble interests within the court, as well as the major religious establishments, and awareness to the growing encroachment of military houses into administration and taxation- as even Go-Daigo’s efforts put a strain into the economy as peasants and soldiers left their homes to build up a resistance. The opposite scale showed that provinces were suffering the pressure of supporting Kyoto nobility while attempting to keep their own land from stagnation. The dooming realisation was that the second factor would inevitably win out, as the promise of fresh opportunity at least gave a chance of retaining some wealth within the provinces.

Go-Daigo’s promise was left unfulfilled as in 1331 he was exiled to the remote island of Oki, the bakufu having been told of the plot against the Hojo and with Go-Daigo feigning no ignorance to the growing unrest. His imprisonment lasted two years, after which he escaped from Oki and found himself at the centre of a continuing resistance to the Hojo, among the chief supporters was Takauji Ashikaga (alongside Nitta Yoshiada, both of whom would become the highest aid of Go-Daigo’s movement). Knowledge of supporters was vague however, and when word of Go-Daigo’s return to mainland reached the Hojo it was Ashikaga who was given the order to take a large army to defend the headquarters at Rokuhara in Kyoto. On arrival Takauji received a written commission from Go-Daigo that legitimised his defection, and bypassing Kyoto completely, he marched to Tamba where he began to recruit an invading army to stand alongside the new resistance under the Minamoto flag. The ‘Taiheiki’ estimates an initial force of 20,000 in Tamba had grown beyond 50,000 when it eventually reached the gates of Kyoto. Following a barbaric encounter within the province Takauji destroyed the Hojo establishment and guarded the seat of Kyoto ready for Go-Daigo’s return.
Go-Daigo reached the capital prepared to set up a true monarch, already having activated the record offices and established an awards commission (osho-gata) through which to commend titles and landholdings among his most favoured. Though they had fought to tear down the reign of the Hojo and ascend Go-Daigo to the throne there was must distaste amongst the warrior families under Ashikaga’s control towards the new awarded policy- essentially seeing that the re-named nobility would be lavished, while the warriors who succeeded in reviving the monarchy would be rewarded insufficiently or in some cases, not at all. Takauji was personally well treated in the new system, designated ‘first to be rewarded’, appointed a fourth court rank and the privilege of using a character from the emperors private name- as well as various landholdings.

The first real obstruction to the restoration came with Hojo Tokiyuki in 1335, a son of Takatoki who rose an army to attack Kamakura with panicked results as Go-Daigo’s administrators fled Kamakura with a few key figures becoming the target of assassination. In response to this ordeal Takauji hastily gathered up an army without the consent of the emperor, largely made up of forces remaining from broken armies fleeing the Tokaido Road such as those of Tadayoshi’s failed defence. Takauji’s forces defeated the numbers of Tokiyuki’s army in various engagements (such as Totomi and Suruga) until in 1335 they retook Kamakura and put Tokiyuki to death. While this did built hope for a restored order in Kanto this was to the concern of Emperor Go-Daigo and Nitta Yoshiada, as the efforts to recall Ashikaga to Kyoto were unanswered, and Takauji established himself a headquarters in Eifukiji temple, declaring himself more secure in newly regained Kamakura. The truth of Takauji’s new control was seen with the rewarding of warriors who had supported him, dishing out lands and securing loyalties with the strongest of factions, which put the courts lacklustre gifts to shame.
After the invitations of the Emperor were ignored Go-Daigo branded Takauji a traitor and sentenced him to death upon his capture. Takauji himself however began centering his attention on the supporting roles of the Emperors power, such as Nitta Yoshisada’s provinces, and even gained some legitimacy from the now retired emperor Kogon-In (previously elected by the Hojo in 1331).

After the invitations of the emperor went unanswered Go-Daigo branded Takauji a traitor and ordered his death upon apprehension. Takauji however had centred his attention upon the heaviest supporters of the emperor, in particular his former ally Nitta Yoshisada, and even obtained legitimacy from the former emperor Kogon-In (whom had previously been appointed by the Hojo in 1331.) It was not until July 5^th of 1336 that Takauji commanded his men against the loyalists that sat at the heart of Go-Daigo’s imperial support. The engagement involved many heads of warrior families including Tadayohi, Shoni Yorihisa, Kununoki and the warriors of the Shiba clan. Takauji’s initial assault saw his forces sailing around for an east landing at the Minatogawa’s mouth, while Tadayoshi’s forces contacted the men of Kunusoki in the mainland. At this time the Shiba warriors outflanked the Kunusoki troops, skirting around towards Nitta’s own army and creating a layered battlefield. At this time Takauji had landed and struck directly into Nitta’s front flank, pinning them with albeit inferior numbers, but Nitta’s eventual realisation came too late. He received word that Hosokawa forces had landed behind the Imperialist army close to the Ikutagawa, and that soon their armies would be forced from all sides and picked off. In panic Yoshisada called for a complete retreat that, to his ignorance, left Kusunoki’s men isolated amidst a surrounding array of Takauji’s swords. The stories tell that Kusunoki fought on against unwinnable odds for some time before eventually taking his own life. While Yoshisada and the loyalists would take up engagements elsewhere it was clear that Go-Daigo’s hold of the imperial throne was crumbling, and when the armies finally came to the heart of Kyoto it was Takauji Ashikaga who met the dawn upon the seat of Shogun.
There are few men in the tales of Japanese history as muddied as Ashikaga. His legacy treads between bringing down an oppressive Hojo ‘Shikken’ and building up a dream of imperial restoration, and tearing apart that reality with a war that would leave the courts and provinces divided for centuries to come. His personal dream of leading a new warrior government in Japan was a prosperous one, and only so fitting that a leadership centred on the blade should begin with a stab in the back.

C. Totman, ‘Japan before Perry’ 1984
A. Gordon, ‘A modern history of Japan’ 2003
E. M. Cooper ‘Japan- History and Culture’ 1970
‘The Cambridge History of Japan- Volume 3’ 1997
W. M. Tsutsui ‘A Companion to Japanese History’ 2007
A, Joyce  (1982) Lessons from History: the Tokushi Yoron. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press

-          Adie Randall

Cambridge and the Southampton Plot

Richard Earl of Cambridge in 1989 movie 'Henry V'

In the closing days of July 1415 King Henry V was occupied making the final preparations for the departure of his forces to France on the Campaign that would culminate in his famous triumph at the Battle of Agincourt. The army was gathered at Southampton, as were most of the nobles and peers of the realm. The necessary measures had been taken to secure the safety of the Kingdom in Henry’s absence, such as the stationing of troops on the Scottish Borders to prevent the invasions which took place almost as a matter of routine when the Kings of England went to war with France.

To all intents and purposes everything was going very well indeed for Henry when His distant cousin Sir Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March requested an audience with him. The Earl revealed to Henry the details of a Plot that was being made to have Henry declared a ‘usurper’ and make Mortimer King in his place whilst he was in France.

The principal conspirators were Richard Earl of Cambridge, Henry Lord Scrope of Masham and Sir Thomas Grey of Heton. These three were promptly arrested on revelation of their clandestine plans. Cambridge and Grey made full confessions to their intentions of placing Mortimer on the throne, and of an apparent intention to stir up revolt in Wales and Scotland, as well as among the despised Lollards. The only crime that Scrope would acknowledge, however, was his failure to disclose the Plot to Henry.

The Bargate, Southampton

The three were also accused of actually planning to Murder Henry and his brothers, and, although this may have been the ultimate consequence of a deposition, it seems likely that this charge was made in order to secure a conviction. Grey was promptly executed some 3 days after Henry discovered the plot on the 3^rd of August. Mere knights such as Grey were counted as ‘commoners’ so he were not entitled to be tried before the Nobles of the Realm, a privilege which the other two conspirators insisted upon. The trial of course was a forgone conclusion, and Scrope and Grey were both executed on Southampton Green, then not far outside the Bargate, which still survives today.

This event, known for obvious reasons as ‘The Southampton Plot’ has intrigued historians and writers for centuries, and have cited any number of explanations for the actions Motivations and Purposes of the conspirators. William Shakespeare suggested that they were paid by the French in his play Henry V. Modern Historians generally reject this, and usually cite political reasons, alongside some degree of personal disenchantment on the part of Cambridge in particular, which will be explored in greater detail later on.

Most agree that the Plot was ‘hare brained’ and so far-fetched and poorly planned that it could not possibly ever have succeeded. Not least because more than one of the parties whom the Plotters were planning to involve were dead, or died soon afterwards, and others hardly seemed likely to rebel. Cambridge is almost certain to have been the Principal instigator of the plot, the other two were related to him by marriage.  Cambridge was an obscure and somewhat unfortunate figure of whom little is known outside of his involvement in the Southampton Plot and untimely demise.

He was born in either 1375 or 1385 in Conisburgh Castle In Yorkshire. T.B. Pugh (among others) argues for the Later date, and recounts an adulterous Liaison between Cambridge’s mother, Isabella of Castille and Thomas Holland, the Half-brother of Richard II, of which Cambridge may have been the product. As the younger sibling Richard did not inherit the estates of his possible father Edmund of Langley, Duke of York.

Richard was married c.1408 to Lady Anne Mortimer the Older sister of Edmund. They had a daughter named Isabella, and two years later a son also named Richard who would grow up to become Richard Duke of York, the patriarch of the Yorkist dynasty and father of Kings Richard III and Edward IV. Sadly Anne appears to have died shortly after giving birth to the younger Richard in 1411.

Cambridge seems to have been in severe financial difficulties for most of his adult life, his only resources being an annuity granted by his Godfather Richard II, and the revenue from several manors he obtained on his Second marriage to Lady Matilda Clifford in 1414. Even when he was made Earl of Cambridge Richard was not granted any lands or estates with the Title, which was extremely unusual at this time.

These factors have been cited as possible reasons behind Cambridge’s disgruntlement with his lot, and perhaps unhappiness with Henry’s treatment of Him.

Another Interesting fact is that both of Richard’s siblings had been implicated or involved in schemes and intrigues designed to undermine or compromise the Lancastrian regime. His brother, Edward Duke of York was involved in the Epiphany Rising which took place in 1400. His life was only spared in this instance because he may well have been the Person who revealed this scheme to the King, thereby condemning the other noblemen involved.

Cambridge’s sister Constance appears to have become embroiled in a plan to Kidnap the Young Edmund Mortimer some 10 years before. There is also the fact that Richard’s then infant son had a (somewhat tenuous) claim to the throne through his mother, in lieu of Edmund Mortimer the childless Earl or March. Cambridge’s connections to Mortimer have been bought up as another possible reason for his seeking to place him on the throne.

Unlike other Historians Juliet Barker argues that the Southampton conspirators’ plans may have been workable, and could have succeeded. All had raised large contingents of troops for the French campaign, and these soldiers would have been readily available for them to build an army from. Dissent already existed in Scotland and had been expressed in an invasion some Nine days before the Plot was revealed. The King of Scotland was a captive in the Tower of London, and could have proved very useful in any plot against the King. All the conspirators had their power bases in the North, and it has been suggested that a number of knight may still have had Lollard sympathies.

What could have been the consequences of the conspiracy if successful? At best it could have jeopardised the Agincourt Campaign, probably forcing the King to come home and resulted in civil unrest which would have warranted evasive military action. At worst there could well have been a civil war that would threaten the existence of the Lancastrian regime. The plotters were tapping into existing undercurrents of dissent, and many of their actual plans mirrored revolts that had taken place in the Reign of Henry IV. It does ultimately seem unlikely that the plotter’s designs could ever have got far past the planning stage. Henry however took the decisive action against them that he deemed necessary in the circumstances, even though it may appear overly harsh to Historians today.

In conclusion one of the greatest ironies behind the Southampton plot is that for all the conspirators’ plans, it was Richard Duke of York, the son of Cambridge and his sons that successfully deposed and killed the last Lancastrian monarch, and son of Henry V, and took the throne for themselves. Their relation to Edmund Mortimer, the very man whose confession ensured the condemnation of Cambridge that formed the basis of their claim. Under the Yorkist Kings the Lancastrian dynasty was exterminated, and it is their blood, not that of Henry V which has flowed in the veins of every English monarch since 1460.

Sources

Juliet Barker, Agincourt: The King, The Campaign, The Battle (London, 2005).

T.B Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton Plot of 1415 (Sutton, 1988).

Paul Strohm, England’s Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation 1399-1422 (New York, 1998).  

A Word, or a Name?

-'I am Quisling' -'And what is the name?'

It is not that often that a single person manage to creat a word based on his or her name, and in the modern period it have been even rarer than in earlier ages, therefore will this post be about the man and traitor whose name became synonym with collaboration and national reason during and after the second world war.

On the 18th of July 1887 was a boy born with the name Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling, who would rise to the highest powers and fall from grace and end his life on the 24th of October 1945, for the crimes he committed against his King and Country.

 

 

So what was it this man whose name according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com means; A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country, did? Well Vidkun Quisling started his career in a very respectable way in the Norwegian army, and helped in Nansen’s project during the famine in Ukraine and Russia after the Russian civil war, he lived further some years in Paris and Moscow with his wife Maria until he returned to Norway in 1929 which started his political career. Quisling published his first book in Norway about race politics; “Russia and Us”(title translated from Norwegian) in 1930, and was a part of his first appressed to the public, aided by Fredrik Prytz, who was one of the leading men in Norway at the time, they had together developed a vision for the future where the traditional politics of Scandinavia and Norway would be shifted drastically to the right. In his article of 24th of May 1930, Quisling outlined his political views which called for financial reforms, a clear race political legislation in Norway and a harder line against Marxism.

During the 1930s Quisling developed his political views and it soon became clear that he had clear fascistic opinions. In 1933 did he become the leader of Nasjonal Samling, NS, which was the Norwegian fascist party, a party which stood very close to Nazi Germany in many ways, even though the party worked hard, did it never achieve a seat in parliament, but for Quisling was this not important for he was preparing for the War he knew would have to come, a war he imagined would be between the far right in the west and the far left in the east. And the war came, as we all know, in 1939 did Nazi Germany attack Poland, which threw Europe into a new catastrophic war, but this time did not Norway manage to say outside. For on the 9th of April 1940 did German troop attack Norway from many fronts, in an attempt to take the capital and the most important cities before the country could manage to resist. However, chance would it that the German ship that were destined for Oslo was sunken in the early hours on the 9th, and this gave the king, the royal family, the government and the parliament enough time to get away. This day was the beginning of Quisling’s crimes…

While the legally elected government of Norway was running for its life, and attempting to stop the German invasion, Quisling walked into the Norwegian national broadcasting center in Oslo and declared that he had taken over the power in Norway, and that the Germans was his and the nations allies. Quisling declared also a new government and was the political leader of occupied Norway through his first government (9th- 15th of april 1940); commissar Josef Terboven’s national council, leaded by Quisling (25th of September 1940- 1st of February 1942) and finally the second Quisling government(1st of February 1942- 8th of May 1945). During this time Quisling functioned as prime minister and political leader of what developed into a police stat, and he have been seen as responsible for among other things the deportation of the Norwegian jews, prosecution of political opposition, etc. However, Quisling did in the early months of 1945 see which way the war was going and took contact with the home front in Norway, for secure a safe and peaceful surrender when the German occupants surrendered. He remained in power until he surrendered himself to the police on the 9th of May 1945 in Oslo, he was trailed for treason in October 1945, and sentenced to death as earlier mentioned.

The first reference to the name Quisling as a word can be found in The Times on the 19th of april 1940, and through british newspapers and BBC, it spread throughout the world and became the word for treason collaboration we know today.

source:

http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Vidkun_Quisling/utdypning

Black History Month; Obama and His Place in History

The theme for this month’s set of blogs is Black History. Black History Month (BHM), also known as African History Month (AHM), was created to promote and bring attention to black history and culture around the world. Black History month is in the month of October in the UK whilst it is in February in the US. BHM was originally founded in 1926 when Carter G Woodson, editor for thirty years of the Journal of Negro History, established African Caribbean celebrations in America. Whilst in the UK Black History Month was founded in 1987 alongside Diane Abbot’s election into Parliament as the first black female member.

In this week’s post I will be looking at Presidents Barack Obama presidency and inauguration and its place in black history. I will now give a brief overview of Barack Obama’s life. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 and was son to a Kenyan father and mother from Kansas. Obama went on to attend law school, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Obama became politically important when he was elected into the Senate in 2004 and passed various reforms aimed on healthcare and ethnic reform. Obama secured the Democrats vote in August 2008 and became the first African American President in November 4, 2008, and was sworn in on January 20, 2009.

In this section I will have a look at the impact of Obama election on both America and the World. Firstly Obama presidency can be seen in some ways as a fulfillment of the American Dream. This is because it marks a decisive moment in the grand story of the black freedom struggle in America. In some aspects it means a greater sense of equality, as now there is an African-American is in charge of the country rather than a white man. This fact also point towards a shift in perception towards minority community and also re-asses what it means to be American. Johnny Bernard Hill comments in his book The First Black President that ‘What the election does tell us is that the way we think about race in America has forever changed.’ I find that this statement is very true as it highlights the impact that Obama’s election has had on the American people and around the question of race and equality. For me personally, despite not really understanding American politics (or any politics for that matter), Obama’s victory showed to me that anything could be changed and that the future was best faced together rather than alone.

I would finally like to discuss a part of Presidents Obama’s speech to the Democratic Convention in 2008;

“America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.”

Upon reading part of Obama’s speech we can get a sense of change and promise for a united future. We get an idea that it’s not just Obama campaign, but an American campaign to tackle the problems of the future together whatever race or background that you are from. To finish I believe that Obama election and presidency is a major historical landmark not just for black history, but for world history. Obama’s story proves that anything can be achieved if you believe in it. I hope that you have enjoyed reading my post and that Barack Obama amazing achievements as president have inspired you to believe that anything is possible.  

Sources;

Johnny Bernard Hill The First Black President (New York, 2009)

http://www.black-history-month.co.uk

http://www.blackhistorymonthuk.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk

An Honest Man

This is the story of a quite unique come back. In fact is as unique as to be the only time that such a thing has happened in the U.S. history. This is the story of President Stephen Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th President of the United States of America.
Grover Cleveland was also Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York prior to the assumption of the presidency. And he was consider an honest man, at such an extent as to survive politically to the constantly spread rumors of his spawning of a multitude of children outside his marriage which, in a cultural and political environment as straightforward as the United States one, could be considered almost miraculous.
What is more interesting is that Cleveland won the popular vote three consecutive times, in 1884, 88, and 92, but was defeated, probably because of fraud, in the electoral vote in 1888(fortunately for me, who now have a theme for this article, but no so for Cleveland). Alas, this was a case of a great woman behind a maybe not so great a man: allegedly, when Frances, Cleveland’s wife, was leaving the White House, she told to a member of the staff to take good care of everything in the House, because she wanted to find everything just as it was when “coming back four years from today”. It turned out to be just as she said.
Speaking of unique events, the 1892 campaign was extraordinary: clean, quiet, with no accusations of fraud and, in fact, no actual campaigning on the part of the main candidates. Republican candidate Harrison’s wife was dying of tuberculosis, what lead to her husband not campaigning personally; to his credit, Cleveland decided to do as well not to take advantage of Mrs. Harrison’s illness. Then Cleveland won, for the first and only time, his second non-consecutive term as President of the United States.
We are not to discuss his policies, that not being the theme of our current series, but it is important to mention what was one of his favorite sayings: I just have one thing to do, and that is to do the right thing. For us, 21st Century people, hearing that from the mouth of a politician would probably result in a burst of laughter, but the important thing here is that Cleveland really believed in what he said. And thus, he was able to come back from the civil world to the Presidency even against a great portion of his own Party, and reject another attempt when he was in open conflict with his Party political platform. Amidst an era of Republican holding of the Presidency, Cleveland was probably a nice brushing of politics even inside his own party. Coming to that, is sad to think that, against his own party, and against the political and economic tendencies of our days, Grover Cleveland would have been, most probably, a simple outsider, or a thorn in the side of the system. Well, if you think of it as it is, maybe we need more Cleveland’s now than they do back in the XIXth century…
So, this was probably, an honest man. Surely, a come back master. Hopefully an example to follow.

Lost Causes: Levellers.

For the final post of our lost causes month we shall be looking at the Levellers, a group of rebels during England’s Civil War 1642-1651, who as a political movement attempted to bring ‘religious toleration, law reform, free trade, an extension to the voting franchise, and rights guaranteed under a written constitution and a government answerable to the People rather than to King or Parliament. As we can see by their ideals and political desires, the Levellers’, were well ahead of their time, and perhaps this is why they can be considered as a lost cause. In my opinion history rarely changes over night and if it does then it’s usually as a result of all the little factors building up and then finally exploding. This doesn’t happen in the case of the Levellers’ instead it could be considered as too much too soon and therefore they can be included in June’s L for lost causes that also begin with L month. However we mustn’t simply assign them to the Lost causes pile as I think that would neglect, another L –word, their Legacy which arguably has had influence on many political thoughts and ideas even today.

What’s in a name?

The name Levellers comes was first used to describe a section of Cromwell’s New Model Army who along with their London supporters wished to kill King Charles I of England. However it was later applied to a group of radicals under the leadership of John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn. The name Levellers’ came from the idea that all the members of this faction wanted to bring everyone down to a common level; however it wasn’t originally used by the leaders of the group but it was later adopted by the group as the majority of the people recognised and by the time of their arrest and imprisonment in 1649 the current leaders Walwyn, Overton, Lilburne and Thomas Prince signed a manifesto in which they called themselves Levellers.

Political ideologies’

The Levellers had no set agenda, other than a broad commitment to the general good principles of abolition of corruption, religious toleration, having the Law in the common English that everyone could understand, and finally an extension of the Suffrage franchise. However these ideas changed over time with other ideas becoming more important such as the idea that the English common law and the Magna Carta was the foundation of English rights and liberties. Lastly they also believed in the idea of “natural rights”, where the people have certain right and liberties which they believed to have been violated by the king and his followers during the civil war. However what natural rights actually stood for remains ambiguous, with Thomas Rainsborough defining natural rights as those coming from the Bible, and Richard Overton considered that liberty was a part of everyman’s natural rights Therefore the levellers cause can be considered as a lost one because what they wanted politically could be suggested as semi utopian ideals which weren’t not unpractical for the time, just a case perhaps of too much too soon.

Background and events

The Levellers began by handing out leaflets about soldier’s rights, along with extensions to the political franchise, as whilst the soldiers were fighting for parliament only a small amount actually could vote for it, and this is continued with the ideas that members of the House of Commons shouldn’t be allowed t serve for more than a year at a time as they were too corrupt. By 165 an official leveller party had been established under John Lilburne, John Wildman, Richard Overton and William Walwyn, asking for their political desires and the abolition of the monarchy and the house of lords, trial by jury and an end to the tax on people earning less than £30 a year (imagine that having no tax). The Levellers also had their own newspaper The Moderate and organised petitions as a demonstration of their supporters.

The levellers are perhaps best known for their document An Agreement of the People 1647, a proposal created with the Agitators of the new model army. The document stated that all sovereign power should reside with the people of England instead of the monarchy; members of parliament should be elected in proration to the population of their constituencies; the existing parliament should be dissolved on the 30th of September 1648 and be elected biannually and sit every other year between April and September consisting of a single elected house which would act as the supreme authority within England, although there were limits to its power as it couldn’t interfere with freedom of religion and it couldn’t enforce conscription into the armed forces or prosecute anyone for their part in the civil war. The document was debated at the Putney Debates (October and November 1647) with Cromwell and Ireton trying to limit perceived extremism of the Levellers. A second extended version of the agreement was created after King Charles I’s defeat, by John Lilburne hoping to find a middle way between royal despotism and military dictatorship however they failed to achieve a complete document that could be used as the legal constitution when the king was put on trial in January1649. A final agreement was created in May 1649 it included the following;
• The right to vote for all men over the age of 21 (excepting servants, beggars and Royalists)
• No army officer, treasurer or lawyer could be an MP (to prevent conflict of interest)
• Annual elections to Parliament with MPs serving one term only
• Equality of all persons before the law
• Trials should be heard before 12 jurymen, freely chosen by their community
• No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves in criminal cases
• The law should proceed in English and cases should not extend longer than six months
• The death penalty to be applied only in cases of murder
• Abolition of imprisonment for debt
• Tithes should be abolished and parishioners have the right to choose their ministers
• Taxation in proportion to real or personal property
• Abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes

This final document was created whilst Liburne, Overton, Walwyn and Prince were under arrest by order of the Council of state and just before the army leveller s were suppressed as Burford, and these actions effectively put an end to the somewhat idealistic leveller movement.

The Levellers although considered a radical group politically were perhaps not as radical as they could have been actively as Oliver Cromwell and Fairfax were able to keep control of the levellers in the army during the second civil war (). However it was in government that they caused the most problems, coming into conflict with the council of state and later growing unrest by the army levellers over plans for the state invasion of Ireland leading to munities in April and May 1649. Heres were suppressed by Cromwell and Fairfax which lead to a decline of the Levellers influence as a result of no longer having the army to support them.

Although the movement itself was over by the end of 1649, some of the more radical members became involved in conspiracies’ to overthrow the Crowellian regime, which was regarded then as a betrayal of the principles which the civil war was fought over.

Therefore are the levellers a lost cause, hmm it depends on your view of lost cause. Does lost cause apply to; something that was ahead of its time and therefore it is lost cause because it was never going to achieve much, even though world at that time was in a state of disarray that it could have achieved its goals if it had more support; or is it lost in that its simply forgotten or overlooked as a result of the wider picture of history and finally does the legacy of the Levellers over rule all of this, and leave you as a reader wondering why I covered this in the Lost Causes month.

My own thought is that the Levellers whilst I can see how they can be considered as a lost cause, I don’t think that they are one because, they can be demonstrated the beginnings of a wider perhaps more socialist movement and their political legacy and influence in this case has opened the way, albeit eventually, to greater equality . To conclude I would say the Levellers are a lost cause as in forgotten but not a lost cause overall, but feel free to comment if you agree or disagree all constructive comments are welcome.

Sophie

Sources

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/levellers.htm

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

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/libhe/libhe005.htm

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm