Felsted - The Cromwellian (Issue 3, 2016)

The Cromwellian Issue 3

January 2016

THE CROMWELLIANISSUE 3 JANUARY 2016

by Greg Flack, Ollie Salmon, Leah Wright, Ben Jewell and Jimmy Reid Together we are team history…

1 | Page

CONTENTS PAGE P3-4- Mr Pathak’s inspirational introductory comments PP4-12- Greg Flack explores the career and political ideology of Margaret Thatcher PP 12-13- Ben Jewell analyses the roots of the English Civil War PP13- 14- Leah Wright tells you ten things you may not previously have known about Mahatma Gandhi PP15-19- Ollie Salmon explains how the USA was able to recover from the Great Depression in the 1930s PP20- 22-Jimmy Reid reviews Pauline Croft’s biography of James I PP22-25- History guru ‘Mr Patrick’ answers your historical queries PP26-29- Mr Pathak’s Quiz

INTRODUCTION Mr Pathak explains why studying History is so important…

2 | Page

The fascination of History has always seemed self-evident to me. Since I first picked up one of my grandfather’s history books, immersing myself in the past has been one of life’s great satisfactions. It is often said that we must study the past in order to understand the present and there is some truth to that statement. It is certainly the case that many current issues in the world have deep roots. For example, many historians would go as far back as the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 which ‘carved up’ the Middle East between Britain and France, in order to start explaining the current tensions in the Middle East. The same point about the long-term ramifications of past events reverberating into the present, was made more pithily by the Chinese communist politician, Zhou Enlai. Famously, when asked about the consequences of the French Revolution he allegedly replied that it was ‘too early to say…’ He might well have been right as the forces of liberalism and nationalism unleashed by the events of 1789 continue to shape the present.

Alternatively, a newly fashionable interpretation is that Zhou was not actually referring to the events of the French Revolution at all and something has been lost in translation, according to recent historians; an interesting point to consider on the reliability of sources ! Another common justification for studying History is that it helps us to learn from the mistakes of the past, although a quick glance around at the state of the world in 2016 might suggest that these historical lessons are going unlearned; or maybe it is just the case that presidents and prime ministers need to pay a little more heed to their historians. So, study history because it might help you understand the present or avoid the pitfalls of the past: but above all, study History because it’s fascinating. Indeed, it is the very stuff of life- the exploration of what other human beings have thought, said or done. That makes historians what Simon Schama calls the ‘storytellers of the tribe’, the people who record and analyse humanity’s deeds. Ultimately, knowing a lot of History is perhaps not practically useful, unless you plan to enter the fiercely competitive world of professional pub quizzing but by nudging you into looking at the world around you in a balanced, forensic and sympathetic way, and by reminding you that an opinion is just a rant unless it is well supported by a specific evidence, it might just help you along in life. So, well done to this year’s contributors and I hope you enjoy reading their well crafted work. Take inspiration from their intellectual example 3 | Page

and also remember that as a History teacher I know once remarked, ‘grades are important but History will also help you get an A* in life…’

‘CONSERVATIVE; LIBERAL; RADICAL; TORY.’ HOW USEFUL ARE THESE CATEGORIES IN ASSESSING THE NATURE OF THATCHERISM ?

Greg Flack ranges far beyond the exam syllabus by exploring the political ideology and thcareer of one of the most important and controversial of 20 century British prime-ministers…

Britain’s first female Prime Minister is either depicted as a cantankerous woman of the right or a revolutionary ‘Iron Lady’. The mere mention of her name evokes fury or admiration from all sides of the political spectrum. Elected on the back of a ‘winter of discontent’ overseen by her predecessor, Thatcherite ideologues would not have been able to implement a political revolution without the ‘Falkland’s Factor’. Wars are often the making or breaking of a leader; the dichotomy between a Churchill and a Chamberlain.

For those growing up in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher was a villain or a heroine, often depending on your social background; whether you were the son of a miner or the daughter of a City trader. This essay will be giving an impartial opinion on the nature of Thatcherism from a viewpoint that was not developed as a result of living under its rule; was it liberal and revolutionary or a form of traditional conservative Toryism?

In order to gauge the nature of Thatcherism, one must have an understanding of the true meaning of the categories at hand; Liberal, Radical, Tory, Conservative. Liberalism is one of the founding principles of modern democracy and philosophical thought, championing values of equality as well as promoting progress or reform in both social and political terms. Radicalism is ‘characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive’, a term that goes hand in hand with revolutionary change that many associate with Thatcherism. The term ‘Tory’ is a colloquial term for a member of the Conservative party and in fact derives from the Middle Irish word ‘toraidhe’, meaning outlaw. The word Tory has also been used for those who support the British monarchy and the traditional social order.

The underlying values of Thatcherite politics are essential in understanding the nature of Thatcherism. Thatcher’s early influences in terms of political thought 4 | Page

undoubtedly came in the form of her father; promoting maxims about thrift and hard work which had fuelled his rise to an influential role as a Conservative alderman. Thatcher agreed with the value of monetarism in governance, which her close associate Sir Keith Joseph was the representative of within the Conservative Party. He intended to stand for the party leadership, amid Ted Heath’s unpopularity during the ‘sorry 70s’, with Margaret Thatcher effectively running his PR campaign. Joseph was the standard-bearer for the right-wing of the party and was briefly considered as the man to step into the notorious Enoch Powell’s shoes. With Joseph being one of the front-runners in the 1974 Conservative leadership campaign, he soon self-imploded and strayed beyond the ideals of monetarism and into advocating restraint of the immigrant population within Britain. The media’s response to this was so overwhelming for Joseph -his newly voiced views were repudiated as being extremist- that he could not cope with the exposure and intensity that the leadership campaign inflicted on him and his family. Thatcher, as the only other ‘outsider’ and monetarist representative in the party therefore stood for the leadership.

Nevertheless, Joseph is often referred to as the intellectual founding father of Thatcherism and his contribution to its underlying values has a lasting legacy.

Thatcher admitted herself: “I could not have become leader of the Opposition, or achieved what I did as Prime Minister, without Keith.” But what is the significance of monetarism on Thatcherite values and how far does this help in categorising the nature of Thatcherism?

Monetarism itself is an economic theory formulated by Milton Friedman, which focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Its main argument is that monetary authorities or the government should focus entirely on maintaining price stability. Sir Keith Joseph stressed that: “Monetarism is not enough…we are over-governed, over spent, over taxed, over borrowed and over mannered.” Joseph and Thatcher shared the ideology that with governing comes unpopularity. Based on this premise, not to endure pain was not to govern. In this sense, Thatcherite values adopt a sense of ‘political masochism’; standing firm in ideology at the expense of personal health or reputation. This upright determination is a characteristic embodied

by Margaret Thatcher; a woman who was unafraid of using physical force to maintain her view of a perfect British society. The monetarist ideal of free markets, privatisation and making profits is linked very closely to the idea of liberalism. Indeed, the middle classes were the main beneficiaries of this particular Thatcherite policy, as they were of the restructuring and computerisation of the City of London money market.

Thatcher’s first three years in public office were rife with economic despair; unpopularity in the opinion polls and her cantankerous personality meant that 5 | Page

she did not have the full backing of her cabinet. Most of Thatcher’s governmental offices were occupied by Heathite politicians; the Prime Minister respected the split in ideology within the configuration of her government but not in her leadership style. Leaving Heath himself on the back benches, Thatcher consciously placed his former supporters into spending departments, while placing Thatcherites into economic ones. The Heathites, such as Lord Carrington in the Foreign Office, Whitelaw in the Home Office, Michael Heseltine in environment and Mark Carlisle in education became what were termed the ‘wet’ faction of Thatcher’s government. Contrastingly, the Thatcherite supporters, namely Howe in the Treasury supported by Biffen and the future chancellor Lawson; Joseph in the Industry Office, Nott in Trade and Howell in energy were deemed the ‘dries’. The budgets of 1979, 1980 and 1981, overseen by Geoffrey Howe were dubbed as ‘monetarism gone mad’.

The effect of these budgets was to tighten public spending by £1 billion, at a time when unemployment was rising past two million. They were seen as anti-egalitarian monetarist gambles and reckless, relying heavily on private tax incentives to avoid recession. Howe’s 1981 budget was particularly unpopular, as indeed the chancellor confessed himself, in dubbing it ‘the most unpopular budget in history.’ It proposed further cuts in in public spending and an extra £7 billion was to be taken out of the economy in taxes, in order to reduce public borrowing and hold down interest rates. Nevertheless, Thatcher was unwavering in her public support of Howe’s budgets and she stayed true to her ‘stick-to-your-guns’ Thatcherite persona. Indeed, at her 1980 party conference, she promoted this very Thatcherite principle: “You turn if you want to; the lady’s not for turning.”

Thatcher enjoyed portraying herself as an ‘Iron Lady’, an unbreakable woman who stood up firmly for what she believed in. Indeed, it was a Russian socialist journalist, who first pejoratively coined this title. Instead of being offended by this Russian contempt, Thatcher embraced her title and affirmed it through the conviction of her actions both domestically and in Europe. Thatcher is remembered for her belief in the virtues of free market capitalism and the vices of socialism. She was the figurehead in the Falklands war, which inspired a British victory over the Argentines, as well as playing a part, alongside Reagan, in bringing an end to the Cold War and crushing Soviet communism. All of this steely determination points to Thatcher being a radical, promoting liberalism abroad through military force, while combatting terrorism head on and conducting a domestic economic and industrial revolution.

One of the most infamous aspects of Thatcherism is the perceived struggle between Thatcher’s government and trade unions. Thatcher is still today the hate figure of the traditional industrial working classes, as most recently 6 | Page

demonstrated by the distasteful effigy of the former Prime Minister at the Durham Miners’ Gala. Such hatred was born from Thatcher’s decisive battle with the trade unions and the legislation that she laid down to restrict their running. The so called ‘class war’ that Thatcherism is said to have incited, is very much linked to the fate of the trade unions, with which many workers instinctively identified in the 1980s. From the perspective of a working class citizen living in the 1980s, Thatcher’s attack on the unions, while being radical, would by no means be classified as liberal. The legacy of Thatcher’s radical trade union reforms is a long lasting one; it is argued by the left-wing journalist Owen Jones, in his award winning book Chavs that the manual jobs that employed many members of the working class in 1979, have since been replaced by low paid employment in supermarkets and call-centres. Jones cites the Guardian’s Economics Editor, Larry Elliott in terms of providing evidence that Thatcherism was the source of industrial collapse: “If you go beyond the M4 corridor, then labour market participation will be 80 per cent. If you go to parts of the old industrial heartlands it’s 55 per cent, or 60 per cent at most”. In this sense, Thatcher’s legislation aimed at traditional heavy industry was deeply radical, so much so that Britain is still feeling its effects in the 21st century.

Thatcher’s direct assault on the so called ‘supply side’ of the economy was a gradual process and not much headway was made in her first term in high office; mostly due to the Falklands conflict. Thatcher understood that making labour markets more flexible was essential in bringing about the monetarist, Thatcherite economic reform that she intended. After dealing with a number of external crises outside of the domestic scene, Thatcher turned her attention to the trade unions and curbing their power. Dubbing the unions ‘the enemy within’, Thatcher’s government passed a number of legislative measures to implement this aim. When Norman Tebbit, a firm Thatcherite, replaced Prior as Employment Minister he built on his predecessor’s earlier legislation with a 1982 act. This law made a full scale attack on the unions and was a much greater sign of Thatcherism’s radical aspect; it further restricted the right to take industrial action, while at the same time making unions legally liable for infringements. In addition to this, union legislation passed in the few years that followed in Thatcher’s second term, meant that Unions required membership ballots not only in leadership elections but also for national strikes. This legal device would later haunt the leader of the NUM, Arthur Scargill, who refused to call a national ballot at the start of the Miner’s strike of March 1984. A steady rise in unemployment also weakened the unions. During the 1980s their membership fell by 3 million, with half of this loss concentrated in the two years between 1981-3. The conflict between government and the trade unions came to a head in March 1984; with Arthur Scargill representing the NUM and leading the opposition to Thatcher, amongst those who were zealous in 7 | Page

protecting their communities and way of life. The miners’ strike was the galvanising catalyst of Thatcherism for the Prime Minister’s second term, as the Falklands war was for her first. Scargill had already overcome Ted Heath in 1972, while Thatcher herself backed away from conflict in the coal industry in 1981, preferring to buy off trouble. The strike made for violent scenes, depicted vividly on TV; Thatcher was forced to take a typically Thatcherite stand and centralise the police force. Pitched battles broke out between miners, picketers and the police; involving such medieval weaponry as sticks, catapults, shields, armour and horses. Despite the miners’ best efforts, since Scargill crucially had not called a national strike ballot, the cautious Nottinghamshire miners continued to work, while by the end of the winter of 1984, sufficient coal was reaching enough power stations to avoid energy cuts and miners who were short of money started to go back to the workplace. Therefore, the strike had collapsed by March 1985 and Thatcher was victorious over the trade unions.

Employment figures at the start of Thatcher’s appointment compared to the end of her time in office, signify her radical destruction of the unions. In 1975, total employment in metals and mechanical-the largest industrial classificationwas 4.2 million, compared to 1.5 million in banking, insurance and finance. By 1990 both figures were around 2.7million and were dwarfed by the 4.8 million employees classified under wholesale, retail, hotels, and catering. Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of traditional industrial Britain is a lasting legacy of Thatcherism’s radical nature. It was an anti-egalitarian policy, which did little to give Thatcherism a liberal basis. Many go as far as to suggest that it was typical of Conservative legislation; a policy which isolated the working class.

The economic policy of Thatcherism was fuelled by the underlying monetarist ideal of which Thatcher and Joseph were the representatives. Thatcherism would later become synonymous with privatisation and the October 1986 ‘Big Bang’, which de-regulated the City of London and changed the culture of an ‘Old boys’ network’ to a competitive and thriving workplace. In the first term of Thatcher’s government, the Prime Minister was reluctant to privatise the public sector; at this stage, Britoil was the only high-profile company to be sold by the Government. For Thatcher, the word privatisation was an ‘ugly word’. Instead, Thatcher favoured the term ‘denationalization’. Local government was the department that bore the brunt of Thatcherism in her first term; a way of testing the waters before fully unleashing Thatcherism on the public. The most radical economic reform in Thatcher’s first term was her 1980 ‘Right to Buy’ scheme; looked back upon as one of the Conservatives’ ‘Greatest Hits’, a policy which the incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron resurrected as part of his 2015 manifesto. The scheme granted council tenants the right to buy their houses. The policy was bitterly opposed by councils, who regarded their housing as part of their charitable housing stock. The main flaw of the policy 8 | Page

was that Thatcher was unwilling to build new houses in the place of those which had been sold and perhaps points to the scheme being a vote winner rather than anything else. Nevertheless, the great success and popularity of the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme emboldened Thatcher to privatise the huge swathes of the economy that were publically owned. British Telecom was the first major company to be privatised; many others followed. Nigel Lawson pressed ahead with privatisation from 1983 onwards. In the 7 years that followed the Exchequer’s coffers were swelled by Jaguar cars ( £294 million), British Gas (£5,434 million), British Airways (£900 million), Rolls-Royce (£1,363 million), British Airports (£1,281 million), British Steel (£2,500 million), the water boards (£5,110 million), electricity supply (£5,092 million) and electricity generation (£5, 110 million) . By 1990, as a result of privatisation, some 600,000 people were no longer employed by the government. So, what does Thatcher’s extensive privatisation reveal about the nature of Thatcherism? Thatcher simply didn’t agree that businesses should be state owned and believed that it was positive for working people to have a stake in business and to generate profits for themselves. This comes back to the ideology of Thatcherism being a free market, liberal form of capitalism. Indeed, the context of class should further be mentioned in this policy, as the privatisation scheme was arguably a conscious effort to help the middle classes thrive.

‘Lawson’s Boom’ or The ‘Big Bang’ of 1986 was another Thatcherite economic ploy to help the middle classes thrive. During the course of the 1980s, the once conservative realms of London’s workplaces were being transformed by transnational computerisation. A Financial Services Act in 1986, led to the regeneration of London’s money market to one akin to New York. Foreign banks were allowed to operate openly in London both as stock brokers and merchant banks. This aspect of Thatcherism’s economic policy points to it being a radical and in a sense liberal ideology; from the viewpoint of the middle classes anyway. This conversion of London’s money market was revolutionary; it was the best shape the economy had been in during Thatcher’s entire premiership. The cult of ‘get-rich-quick’, associated with stereotypes, the yuppie in a black suit, the Cockney futures trader with the Porsche and the Cotswold manor became synonymous with Thatcher’s Britain. It alludes again to the class element of Thatcherite economic policy and the fact that the middle classes were the main beneficiaries of her ideals.

Thatcher’s first term in office was dominated by one event that, in many ways helped her maintain her premiership across three governmental terms. The Argentinian invasion of the British Falkland Islands, sparked Thatcher into action. The determined, radical approach that Thatcher had yet to implement domestically would in effect first be demonstrated outside of the British Isles.

9 | Page

Thatcher sought advice from Harold Macmillan. He suggested that she suspend normal government and select a small war cabinet. It can be argued that the Prime Minister had imperial rather than liberal aims when she embarked on this conflict. The ruthless streak in Thatcherism can be seen through the Falklands situation. The war caused the deaths of 255 British servicemen and 777 were seriously wounded. The cost in lost equipment and subsequent fortification was over £3 billion. Nevertheless, the war was won and it allowed Thatcher to use the archaic language of Churchillian Conservatism; indeed providing further evidence another of Thatcherism’s Tory roots .

With the British victory in the Falklands achieved, Thatcher faced domestic crises involving terrorism which she tackled in the same fashion as the war with Argentina. With the IRA threatening terrorism in Britain, the reality of their threat was made apparent to Thatcher when IRA terrorists planted a bomb in the Grand Hotel in Brighton-the venue of the Conservative party conferenceintending to assassinate her. The assassination attempt against the prime minister failed but there were five fatalities; the reason for the attack was to seek revenge for Thatcher’s refusal to bow down to the IRA’s demands that their prisoners be recognised as political inmates. Some of them, such as Bobby Sands had starved to death in protest.

Regardless of what one thinks about Thatcher’s politics, there is no doubt that she will go down in history as one of the most successful of the prime ministers who came after Churchill; her character introduced women on to the international political stage, although her politics arguably did little for women themselves, and she was victorious in the Falklands war, whilst having a hand in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thatcherism was most certainly a revolutionary form of British politics; with the restrictions imposed on the trade unions; the transformation and computerisation of the City of London; and the privatisation of much of the public sector. Whilst her first term failed to unleash Thatcherism on British society and indeed was tarnished by economic fragility and dominated by the Falklands conflict, her second and third were fuelled by radicalism in economic policy and in terms of ‘rolling back the state.’

In terms of Thatcherism being liberal, the class context is significant in terms of answering this question. From the perspective of a middle-class British citizen, Thatcherism propelled the economy from a disastrous state into a prosperous environment that allowed working people a stake in business and for small businesses to thrive. Thatcherism from the perspective of a working class Briton undoubtedly was an anti-egalitarian and bitterly unfair ideal and could not be further from the founding political principles of Liberalism. Thatcher’s destruction of traditional industries demonstrated the cut throat, unforgiving element of Thatcherism. Indeed, Ken Livingstone goes as far as to say that: 10 | Page

“along with Oliver Cromwell she is the most loathed English person in the history of the last 1000 years.” Peter Clarke suggests that: “though some of her minsters understandably saw her as upholding the tenets of 19th Century liberalism, its cosmopolitan outlook was literally foreign to her; when it came to nationalism, she was an old-fashioned Tory.” Overall, Thatcherism was rooted in the fundamental principles that would be expected in a typical Conservative, Tory Government; yet its radical edge sets it apart from tradition.

Thatcherism has had a long lasting legacy and its impact on British politics is still being seen today.

Bibliography Jones, Owen, Chavs, Verso, 2012 Jenkins, Simon, Thatcher and Sons, a Revolution in three acts, Penguin, 2007 Clarke, Peter, Hope and Glory, Britain 1900-1990, Penguin, 1996 Pugh, Martin, State and Society, a social and political history of Britain 1870-1997, Arnold, 1999 Thatcher, Margaret, The Downing Street Years, HarperCollins Publishers, 1995 Margaret Thatcher: The woman who changed Britain, ITV Documentary, 2013

WHY DID THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR BREAK OUT IN 1642 ?

Professor Ben Jewell outlines his controversial thesis that has re-ignited the historiographical debate…

This thesis looks at the idea that the civil war was not caused by short term factors like the divide between the gentry revealed in the Long Parliament, but was instead a product of the long term religious changes that had convulsed English society since the 16th century. The constant shifts in religion began at the time of Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries. After the initial implementation of Protestantism under Edward VI, the memory of the anti-Protestant policies of Catholic Mary I, nicknamed Bloody Mary, had been passed on through the generations via Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, a piece of Protestant propaganda depicting the burnings of major Protestants during Mary's reign. After this reign, the national religion became Anglicanism which suited many of the less extreme Protestants. This policy of a religious ‘middle 11 | Page

way’ was taken up by James I after his ascension to the throne of England in 1603 via his ‘Calvinist status quo’. The reason that changes of religion act as the prime cause of the civil war was because the political nation feared a return to the Catholic policies of Mary I, seen by leading gentry and important MP's like John Pym as absolutely unacceptable.

This helps explain the importance placed on the abolition of episcopacy by Pym's Junto and their willingness to support Scottish Covenanters who through their National Covenant had already taken steps to expel all Scottish bishops from the Kirk, after Charles I's religious reforms had been rejected by the Scottish church as sympathetic to Catholics. It should be remembered that the civil war was started not because Charles I was trying to change the national religion to Catholicism but because his Laudian reforms were perceived as ushering in Catholicism. Furthermore, in the minds of the political nation was the memory of the Gunpowder, Main and Bye plots launched by Catholics against Charles's father, James I. Fear of a return of Mary I's brutal punishment towards non-Catholics escalated this fear into war as it was seen as the only other option to prevent Catholicism taking over…

TEN FASCINATING HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT MAHATMA GANDHI We all love a good historical fact and here, Leah Wright provides some interesting ‘factual nuggets’ about this leading figure in the Indian independence movement, a key component of the IB HL History course…

1.

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1948, but he was assassinated before the selection process began. In response to this, the Nobel Committee decided not to award the Peace Prize for that year.

2.

Gandhi attended law school in London and was famous among the faculty for his bad handwriting.

3.

M. K. Gandhi influenced the US Civil Rights Movement and the ideas of Martin Luther King.

12 | Page

4.

Gandhi spoke English with an Irish accent as one of his first teachers was an Irishman.

5.

There are 53 major roads in India, and 48 roads outside India that are named after him.

6.

Mahatma Gandhi was an extremely punctual man, which is why one of his prized possessions was a dollar watch.

7.

Mahatma Gandhi walked/travelled, on average, almost 18 kilometres a day throughout his lifetime which is enough to walk around the world twice over.

8.

Mahatma Gandhi corresponded with a lot of people – Tolstoy, Einstein and Hitler were among the many.

9.

Steve Jobs was a fan of Mahatma Gandhi – his round glasses are not only similar but also a tribute to him.

10. Gandhi helped establish 3 football clubs in Durban, Pretoria and Johannesburg all of which were given the same name: Passive Resisters Soccer Club.

HOW DID THE USA RECOVER FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION ?

13 | Page

Ollie Salmon’s Andrew Society presentation analyses the extent to which the policies of President Roosevelt enabledththe USA to recover from the biggest economic crisis of the 20 century…

It was 24th October 1929, Black Thursday, a record 12.8million shares were traded. Investment companies and leading bankers attempted to stabilise the market by buying up great blocks of stock, producing a moderate rally on Friday. On Monday, however, the storm broke anew, and the market went into free fall. Black Monday was followed by Black Tuesday on October 29th in which stock prices collapsed completely and 16.4million shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day. Thirty billion dollars had been lost, more than twice the national debt, wiping out thousands of investors, and stock tickers ran hours behind because the machinery could not handle the tremendous volume of trading. The USA and the rest of the world then spiralled downwards; this was the start of the Great Depression. The New York Times described the crash as follows: “It came with a speed and ferocity that left men dazed. The bottom simply fell out of the market..... The streets were crammed with a mixed crowd — agonized little speculators,... sold-out traders,... inquisitive individuals and tourists seeking ... a closer view of the national catastrophe..... Where was it going to end?”

Now before I go into how the USA recovered from this we need to understand what a depression is in economic terms. The basic definition is a severe and prolonged downturn in economic activity. Whilst a recession is a normal part of the business cycle, lasting for a period of months, a depression is an extreme fall in economic activity lasting for a number of years. A depression is characterised by economic factors such as substantial increases in unemployment, a drop in available credit, diminishing output, bankruptcies and sovereign debt defaults, reduced trade and commerce, and sustained volatility in currency values. However, to get a sense of the scale of the 1929 depression, one can contrast the unemployment rate of 15% or above in a ‘typical’ depression with the unemployment rate of nearly 25% in the USA in 1933. It remained in the double-digits until 1941, when it finally receded to 9.66%.

The president at the time of the Wall Street Crash was Herbert Hoover. Most experts, including Hoover, thought the crash was part of a passing recession.

14 | Page

Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University on November 14th 1929 even stated,"the end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most." As we know he was wrong. Hoover believed that the government should not intervene in business and that the market would correct itself, so at first he did nothing to try and resolve the depression, giving the impression that he did not care about the American people. In fact, Hoover did care, but he simply did not believe that it was the responsibility of the federal government to take action. By July 1931, when the President wrote a letter to a friend, Governor Louis Emmerson of Illinois, it had become clear that excessive speculation and a worldwide economic slowdown had plunged the USA into the midst of a Great Depression and in a u-turn in his thinking he recognised that he did indeed need to act to bring about economic reform. This explains why he passed the Hawley-Smoot tariff, which imposed higher taxes on imports. Hoover did this as he believed that the American people would then stop buying overseas products, thus purchasing domestic goods which would, in turn, boost American industry. At first, the tariff seemed to be a success. According to historian Robert Sobel, "factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all increased sharply."

However, the Hawley-Smoot tariff reduced the overall volume of world trade, thus reducing American exports by 61% from $5.4 billion in 1929 to $2.1 billion in 1933. Therefore, net exports declined from $1 billion to $600 million.

Overall, world trade decreased by approximately 66% between 1929 and 1934.

The Hawley-Smoot tariff is the first example of Hoover’s intervention to bring a turnaround in the economy, but it clearly failed.

A second example of Hoover seeking to give the USA an economic boost is the building of the Hoover Dam. He saw this mainly as a means to release the agricultural potential of California and the rest of the south-west. According to The Economist, ‘the Hoover Dam is a monster of cement and steel, but has also become a symbol, conjuring up a time when politicians could react to economic calamity not with paralysis, petty squabbling or apportioning blame but by rolling up their sleeves and doing something big.’ However, even at its peak the project employed only 5,200 people and may be viewed by some as a ‘boondoggle’. Yet, when Franklin D Roosevelt succeeded Hoover as president in 1933, he was intent on turning it into a symbol of the New Deal and the superiority of collective action. It became the launching pad for all his other 15 | Page

ambitious public undertakings, including the 29 dams built by the Tennessee Valley Authority that were to follow.

To sum up Hoover’s attempts to bring economic recovery, he recognised too late the extent of economic depression and failed to intervene early enough, leading to 10,000 banks failing, accounting for 40% of the total and over 13 million Americans losing their jobs. When he did act, the Hawley-Smoot tariff, proved to be a significant failure whereas the Hoover Dam was a foundation on which Roosevelt built the New Deal, leading to the next stage of economic reform. Hoover proved to be unpopular with the electorate and so on 8th November 1932 he ended up losing the presidential election to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Roosevelt promised “a new deal for the American people.” This would become the largest and most expensive government programme in the history of the American presidency, costing approximately $50 billion in federal expenditures from 1933 to 1940. From the 8 March to 16 June, in what later became known as the "First Hundred Days," Congress followed Roosevelt's lead by passing an incredible fifteen separate bills which, together, formed the basis of the New Deal. The New Deal was split into two phases, the first New Deal and the second New Deal. The first New Deal consisted of psychological and practical support. The psychological support was used to try and stabilise the banking system as many Americans felt insecure about leaving their money in banks. In Roosevelt’s inaugural address on 4th March 1933 he stated that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror".

Roosevelt declared a Bank holiday for a week from 6th March so that no one could withdraw any money from the American banks. Then on the 12th March he said “I can assure you that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress.” On the practical support side, he set up five different agencies. These were: the Tennessee Valley Authority or the TVA which was responsible for flood control, building dams and constructing new towns; the National Recovery Administration which would negotiate with the major industries to create fair prices, wages and working hours; the Agricultural Adjustment Act or AAA which aimed at reducing farm production and boosting farm prices; the Civilian Conservation Corps or CCC which offered short-term work to young men on conservation projects; and finally, the Public Works 16 | Page

Administration or PWA to construct schools, hospitals and other public buildings.

Although Roosevelt restored hope and prevented the collapse of the banking system, the problem of unemployment was more difficult and at the start of 1934 there were still 11.3 million people out of work. Some historians have said that failing to deal with unemployment was the biggest weakness of the New Deal. Criticism of Roosevelt emerged from several directions. Therefore, in the second stage of Roosevelt’s New Deal, which came about from 1935 to 1936, he offered more radical and reforming policies. He set up two new agencies: the Works Progress Administration and the Rural Electrification Administration which aimed to bring electricity to America's farms. Roosevelt then passed the National Labour Relations Act on 6th July 1936. This act aimed to improve relations between workers and employers, especially as 1934 had seen a series of violent industrial disputes. Some historians say that, where the first New Deal aimed to save the USA and its capitalist economic system, the second New Deal aimed to change the USA fundamentally.

So was Roosevelt’s New Deal a success or a failure? After his inauguration, Roosevelt explained to the American people that his New Deal programme would seek to deliver relief, recovery, and reform. In terms of relief, millions of unemployed Americans who had suffered hugely from the Depression may well have remained destitute, if not for the new agencies. On the topic of reform, Roosevelt’s New Deal defined the relationship between capitalist market, the people, and their government, creating for the first time in the USA an activist state committed to providing individual citizens security against the unpredictable turns of the market. Historians are still arguing today whether the legacy of the New Deal reformed the USA for better or for worse. When it came to recovery, the New Deal failed to bring the USA out of its depressed economic state. Throughout the decade of the 1930s, unemployment remained extremely high and even by 1938 it was still 19%, while economic growth remained exceptionally low. It was only in Roosevelt’s third term as President that due to the needs of war, the USA reached full employment and the return of GDP to pre-depression levels. Still, despite failing in its most important objective, the structural stability and social security provided by the New Deal's reforms were the roots to a post war economic boom that many 17 | Page

historians and economists have described as the "golden age of American capitalism."

So when did the Great Depression actually end? Some historians believe that it ended when the USA started to spend large amounts of money, mobilising the USA ready for the Second World War. However, other historians regard the end of the war as the end of the Depression. This is because even though unemployment fell at the start of the war it was due to 12.2 million soldiers going off to fight in the war which was only ever going to be a short term economic solution. The increase in GDP to $101.4 billion was due to the guns, tanks, ships, and planes produced which did not mean an increased standard of living for Americans. Therefore, the Depression was actually ended, and prosperity restored, by the sharp reductions in spending, taxes and regulation at the end of World War II leading to GDP more than doubling and unemployment recovering to the same rate as in 1929.

In conclusion, the USA only recovered fully from the Depression due to the Second World War. Hoover like many of the American people buried his head in the sand and was waiting for the storm to blow over. Unfortunately for him it never did and when he realised this it was too late; he had lost the support of the American people. Roosevelt recognised that he needed to boost confidence in the USA and the New Deal which he implemented was a huge success and his policies were the basis for the boom period after the war.

However, his economic plan failed to achieve the main objective of bringing the country out of the Depression. Therefore, it was only the threat from Germany and Japan which gave the final push to the USA emerging as the leading economic superpower after the war.

Book Review Jimmy Reid reviews Pauline Croft’s biography of arguably one of British history’s most underrated monarchs, King James VI of Scotland and James I of England…

King James is an interesting book by Pauline Croft that provides great insights into the life of James, and includes little known facts about him, as well as 18 | Page

details concerning some of the important decisions that he took during his life.

Firstly, Croft focuses on James’s childhood, and the experiences that obviously influenced him greatly in his later life. Croft recognises the fact that James started life under a cloud, mainly due to his mother, Mary Queen of Scots who was locked up in prison in England soon after James’s birth. The first chapter’s heading is ‘The Bright Star of the North’, which I think is very fitting as this chapter really explains how James started taking Scotland’s problems into his own hands and deciding how he should win over Queen Elizabeth I, in order to gain the English throne. Even at this early stage in exploring James’ life, Croft begins to dissect the qualities and defects of James’s character. Despite being a very powerful ruler and a young man who wanted complete power over Scotland, and hopefully England, Croft believes that during those early years he was actually quite lonely. He had been very close to Lennox as a teenager, but after the Scottish parliament decided he was not to be trusted, he was banished in 1582. What surprised me most about James was that he was an emotional poet and a keen writer. Croft believes that in those early years he reflected many of his feelings in his poems. However, it is interesting to see how many problems James had to deal with during his reign of Scotland.

Parliament rarely agreed with him, the Kirk wanted to be a power separate from that of the King, and feuding was still rife between nobles. However despite all the problems, James managed to negotiate them all. I believe this first chapter is very important as Croft establishes James’ personality, so we understand why in the future he reacts in the way he does. By the last years in Scotland, James was proud of the work he had done to make Scotland powerful again. He had retained power, had good relations with foreign powers; and he was unpretentious, alert and relaxed.

King James was accepted as ruler of England within three days of Elizabeth’s death, on 27th March 1603. It is interesting to note that James was a very optimistic person as a general rule, and Croft reflects that James was probably over-optimistic with regard to his feeling that England and Wales would be altogether happy about the joining with Scotland. Croft also recognises that James was probably one of the first people to work towards a British constitutional union. He wanted to be King of Great Britain and Croft believes he was one of the first people to try and peacefully establish one king, one people, and one law within the British Isles. Thus, in 1606, the Union Jack was 19 | Page

created. James was married to Anne of Denmark, and she proved to be very influential during the first years of James’s English reign. This was an important change in James, who before had preferred his male courtiers to his wife, and the fact that she could influence him shows us that he was at times in need of help. Although the Gunpowder Plot created a peak in tension, it also showed that James could survive a troubling event, and the people supported him.

However, by 1607, James’s master plan of a United Kingdom was failing, and it seemed that one king ruling three separate kingdoms was the only way forward.

James fully trusted only a few people, such as Robert Carr and the Earl of Salisbury. Croft believes that Salisbury and Dunbar were best adapted to James’s needs, and when in 1612 they died, along with Prince Henry, it was an end of an era. In the remainder of James’s reign, he did not have as many political successes. Croft also analyses James’s relationship with Buckingham, who became a key person in his life from 1614. James and Buckingham were good friends and throughout his reign they grew closer together emotionally, mentally and possibly physically. This became more apparent in 1619, when Queen Anne died and Buckingham and Sir Lionel Cranfield worked tirelessly with James to cut expenditure and reform the navy.

One thing I really enjoyed about Croft’s view of James’ life was how he was portrayed as a man of peace, who was very interested in foreign policy, and trying not to offend anyone greatly. James worked all his life towards the ‘Spanish Match’ for his son, and succeeded in marrying his daughter Princess Elizabeth to Elector Frederick, although negotiations with Spain ultimately ended in failure. In Ireland, he tried to convince the Catholic Old English to work with him, but still moved a Protestant community into Ulster, arguably sowing the seeds of tensions later in the century. The rise of beliefs such as Puritanism and Arminianism was a worry for James in the last years of his life, but only when he died did the peace break and such beliefs increased rapidly.

Croft portrays Charles’s kingship in a very different light. James kept peace in all his kingdoms, but Charles lost the throne in the Civil Wars during his life.

Finally, Croft’s conclusion rounds up James’ life showing how his peaceful foreign policy saved the country’s financial situation. Croft concludes by arguing that the rule of James VI and I is arguably the most formative in British 20 | Page

history. I agree with this statement and I must conclude that this book is extremely interesting, informative and focuses on James’ life very well, but also concentrates on those around him, to create a full picture.

‘Dear Mr Patrick…’

After a year spent trying to get the History teaching pop combo, the History boyz, back to the top of the charts where they belong, we are pleased to welcome back the History guru, Mr Patrick, who is happy to answer any History-related queries…

Dear Mr Patrick, My History teacher keeps boring me about the educational benefits of Quizlet. Are there actually any educational benefits in your opinion ?

Yours sincerely, sceptical IB student

Dear sceptical IB student, Quizlet is not necessarily an educational ‘silver bullet’ but as part of a ‘balanced diet’ including planning past paper questions, and making mind maps and timelines, working through the flashcards and Learn questions on a regular basis can really help consolidate your learning, ensuring that by the 21 | Page

time you enter the exam hall, you have climbed the ‘mountain of knowledge’.

There is also a cool and groovy Quizlet app that you can use whilst in the lunch queue !

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, I am a keen historian who is contemplating studying the subject at university. What can I read that might impress a History professor ?

Yours sincerely, Keen Historian

Dear Keen Historian, You certainly seem to be heading in the right intellectual direction because nothing impresses a History professor more than having ‘read around the subject’ before you get to uni. In terms of your reading, I would advise you to try and achieve two things. Firstly, dig deeper into your A Level/ IB course by reading, for example, the biographies of key personalities. For instance, if you have read Pauline Croft’s biography of James I, try Roger Lockyer’s, or why not tackle Chris Clark’s excellent new book on the origins of World War One. You might then want to range more widely by tackling some of the ‘big questions’ in history and to this end I would recommend John Darwin’s After Tamerlane, Ian Morris’ Why the West rules for now and Daron Acemoglu’s Why Nations fail. If you are a ‘digital native’ you might also want to download the HistoryToday app or start making use of the HistoryToday database of articles.

As you read, it is important that you take brief notes on what you find

22 | Page

interesting as these will then help when it comes to writing your UCAS personal statement.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, Is there an easy way to climb the ‘mountain of knowledge’ ?

Yours sincerely, Frederick the Great

Dear Fred, Good to hear from you and well done on your victory at the Battle of Leuthen btw. As I am sure Voltaire has told you, there are no short cuts when it comes to climbing the ‘mountain of knowledge.’ All I can recommend is following your History teacher’s advice, a regular diet of satsumas, trying to read one good History book every term, working hard outside the classroom and using Quizlet to consolidate your learning. Remember that the view from the top of the mountain of knowledge is magnificent !

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick

Dear Mr Patrick, What is your favourite period of history ?

Yours sincerely, Charles II Dear Charlie, 23 | Page

First of all, congrats on the Restoration, but a word of advice, avoid absolutism and wars against the Dutch at all costs. Obviously, there are so many fascinating periods of history, your own century being a personal favourite, as it laid the foundations of modern political thinking. However, I also enjoy researching new areas about which I know little. That’s the great thing about History, there’s so much of it out there ! For instance, I don’t know as much as I should about the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire and given that the break-up of this empire has done so much to shape the modern Middle East, I would love to know more.

Kind Regards, Mr Patrick Dear Mr Patrick, I was chilling with my fellow academics the other day and I got into an argument with another professor as to who would win a ‘dance off’ between Otto von Bismarck and the leading Danish politician in the 1860s, Ditlev Gothard Monrad ? Given that you are an expert in this sphere, I would welcome your views.

Yours sincerely, Oxford Professor

Dear Oxford Professor, This is an interesting question but unfortunately, there are too many variables to be able to give a definitive answer. For instance, Monrad could dominate the dance floor to any kind of house music, but as regards hip-hop, his efforts can only be described as lamentable. He also had the unfortunate habit of punctuating his street-dance moves with long diatribes about the future of Schleswig-Holstein. On the other hand, few 19th century statesmen could break-dance as well as Bismarck, although when it came to the fox-trot, he had an unfortunate tendency to trip over his cavalry sabre…

Kind Regards, 24 | Page

Mr Patrick

Mr Pathak’s History Quiz Nothing beats a good History quiz and in the Pathak household, it is traditional for all of us to complete a ‘fun and educational’ History quiz every morning as the sun rises over Great Dunmow, after which we may breakfast on authentic Nelsonian ships’ biscuit and gruel. Below are two quizzes which test your knowledge of US presidents and British prime ministers- enjoy !

Remember that knowledge is the gift that keeps on giving…

US PRESIDENTS’ QUIZ Simply match the description with the ‘correct’ US president…

1) This president was once a Democrat senator for Illinois 2) This president has a dam named after him 3) This president set up the so-called ‘alphabet agencies’ to help the USA recover from the Great Depression 4) This president served in the US navy on a submarine before becoming the Democrat governor of Georgia 5) This president famously called the USSR ‘evil’

25 | Page

6) This president defeated the Democrat candidate, Mike Dukakis, in a presidential election 7) This president lost a presidential election to Jimmy Carter 8) This president tried to build a ‘Great Society’ 9) This president was the occupant of the Oval Office at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis 10) This president lost a presidential election to John F Kennedy 11) This president has a Cold War doctrine named after him 12) This president served in a regiment called the ‘rough riders’ during a war between the USA and Spain 13) This president won a presidential election against the Republican candidate, Bob Dole 14) This president won a presidential election despite having won fewer votes than his opponent 15) This president was the general in overall charge of the D-Day landings in 1944 16) This president became the Chief Justice of the USA between 1921 and 1930 17) This president took office on March 4th 1921 18) This president stated that ‘the chief business of the American people is business’.

19) This president deployed US troops in Europe for the first time

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k)

Theodore Roosevelt William Howard Taft Woodrow Wilson Warren G Harding Calvin Coolidge Herbert Hoover Franklin D Roosevelt Harry Truman Dwight D Eisenhower John F Kennedy Lyndon B Johnson

26 | Page

l) Richard Nixon m) Gerald Ford n) Jimmy Carter o) Ronald Reagan p) George H W Bush q) Bill Clinton r) George W Bush s) Barack Obama

BRITISH PRIME MINISTERS’ QUIZ Simply match the description with the ‘correct’ British prime minister…

1) He was PM when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne 2) He was PM at the start of World War One 3) This PM lost an eye in a sporting accident 4) This PM was in a rock band called Ugly Rumours 5) This PM attended Haileybury School 6) This PM had a cousin who is buried in Tynecot Cemetery near Ypres 7) This PM told the British public that they’d ‘never had it so good…’

8) This PM was the last Labour occupant of the office before Tony Blair 9) This PM studied Chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford 10) This individual was the first ever Labour PM 11) This PM promised that the ‘white heat of technology’ would transform the UK 12) This PM was a special adviser of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, when Britain exited the ERM in 1992 13) This PM grimly prophesied that the ‘bomber will always get through…’

14) This individual had the biggest beard of any 20th century PM 15) This PM was the nephew of Lord Salisbury 16) This PM has written a well received history of cricket 27 | Page

17) This individual was PM at the time of the Suez Crisis 18) This individual had the shortest tenure of any 20th century PM 19) This individual was PM when the UK first became a member of the EEC 20) This individual was the first Liberal PM of the 20th century 21) This individual was the last ever Liberal PM 22) This PM played first-class cricket

a) Lord Salisbury b) Arthur Balfour c) Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman d) Herbert Asquith e) David Lloyd-George f) Andrew Bonar-Law g) Ramsay MacDonald h) Stanley Baldwin i) Neville Chamberlain j) Winston Churchill k) Clement Attlee l) Anthony Eden m) Harold Macmillan n) Alec Douglas-Home o) Harold Wilson p) Edward Heath q) James Callaghan r) Margaret Thatcher s) John Major t) Tony Blair u) Gordon Brown v) David Cameron

28 | Page

29 | Page

We hope you have enjoyed reading Issue 3 of the Cromwellian. If you would like to get involved in editing or contributing to subsequent editions, please get in touch with Mr Pathak or another member of ‘Team History’…

30 | Page