We could be saying goodbye to long-planned space missions, new weather satellites, and crucial life-saving treatments.

The Yangtze finless porpoise is so revered that poets have been writing about it for more than a millennium, but that love has not stopped its loss of territory.

A reminder that you dont have to be good at something to enjoy it.

While name whistles are well understood, the team took a closer look at the non name whistles to learn more.

No one has been able to provide an explanation for the noise that is driving locals mad.

The American nation under the US Constitution began with a compromise that, among other things, quelled the founding fathers anxieties over slavery and racial equality before the law. As the United States grew in size and influence, the very same issue would bring future leaders of America back to the compromising tableand even the end of slavery could not stop the nations further need for concessions.1. The Great CompromiseGeorge Washington was chosen to lead the Constitutional Convention, which oversaw the adaptation of the Great Compromise. Source: Mount VernonWhen fifty-five white male landowning delegates converged on Philadelphia in 1787 to correct the federal governments perceived weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation, it became evident that if they were to save their new nation, the men would need to form an entirely new national government that would stabilize the countrys faltering political, diplomatic, and economic situation after the American Revolutionary War. The proposed Constitution would grant more power to the federal government and strengthen a new nation from threats foreign and domestic. But first, the delegates and the people they represented from their respective states needed to get past the deep geographical and social divide that hindered national progress. Apart from the small states demanding changes that would protect their voting power against their larger counterparts, the Northern and Southern states could not agree on how the proposed US Constitution should treat slavery.In what history would remember as the Great Compromise, the delegates settled on the ideas of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut to balance the interests of states with large populations against those with smaller representation. Initially, the Virginia Plan proposed by James Madison favored the larger states when it called for a bicameral or two-chamber legislature with representation in both houses based on state population numbers, which granted more influence to those with more significant numbers of people residing within their borders.William Paterson of New Jersey suggested a counter-proposal to Madison with a plan bearing his states name. This plan supported smaller states, calling for a unicameral or one-chamber legislature with equal representation for each state. Just as the impasse threatened to derail the entire convention and the creation of the new Constitution, Sherman and Ellsworths Connecticut compromise saved the day by blending elements of the Virginia and New Jersey proposals.Roger Sherman, one of the men who came up with the Connecticut Plan. Source: Yale University Art GalleryThe Great Compromise, which allowed the Constitutional Convention to continue, settled on a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives would be based on population, hence appealing to the larger states, and the Senate would call for each state to send two representatives, which appeased the smaller states. Without jumping over the hurdle of representation in the new federal governments lawmaking body, the United States Constitutions ratification would likely never have occurred. Still, the success of the Great Compromise did not immediately resolve all of the issues the convention laid before its representatives. Although the founders showed their ability to find practical solutions to complex problems, this next one would prove even more difficult.2. The Three-Fifths CompromiseThe Official Medalion of the British Anti-Slavery Society from 1795, around the time of the Constitutional Convention. Source: British Abolition MovementThe founding fathers knew better than to debate the moral implications of slavery, all unwilling to even call it by what it was and instead referring to it as the peculiar institution. Having to discuss the issue on moral grounds would no doubt leave the two vastly different geographical regions of the North and South unable ever to come together and form a unified nation; the delegates instead chose to tackle slavery as a calculated statistic.The main issue was how to count enslaved people when determining a states total population for legislative representation and tax purposes. The argument that ensued and threatened to disrupt the proceedings showed the profound division between delegates from Northern states, where slavery was less prevalent or being abolished, and the Southern states, whose economy was heavily dependent on slave labor.The delegates finally reached the Three-Fifths Compromise, which stipulated that each enslaved person be counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and taxation purposesa ratio previously used for tax assessments under the previous governing document, the Articles of Confederation.While the compromise temporarily balanced the power between Northern and Southern States in the House of Representatives and allowed the eventual ratification of the Constitution, the incorporation of the three-fifths rule within the document implicitly acknowledged and legitimized the institution within the new government. In fact, the compromise only highlighted the deep-seated sectional divisions over slavery that would continue to plague the nation. It proved to be a temporary solution that did not address the moral and human rights issues at the heart of slavery. Yet, as far as the fifty-five delegates were concerned, their ability to compromise on complex issues had saved the day; the states ratified the US Constitution in 1788.3. The Missouri CompromiseThe Missouri Compromise would add two new states to the Union: Missouri and Maine. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBy 1819, even the so-called Era of Good Feelings following the War of 1812 could not deter the United States growing sectional disputes and conflicting opinions about slavery and its westward spread. Tensions finally reached a boiling point in 1819 when Missouri applied for statehood as a slave state, which threatened to disrupt the balance of power in the Senate, where, at the time, there was an equal number of free and slave states.While the Southerners argued that the new states should have the right to determine for themselves whether to permit slavery and viewed the restriction of slaverys expansion as a threat to their economic interests and social system, the Northern states foresaw more significant issues at hand. To representatives from the North, this was a question of whether slavery should expand westward into previously unoccupied lands. Admitting Missouri as a slave state would extend the institution of slavery into the Louisiana Territory and give the slaveholding South greater political power in the Senate, which would undoubtedly hinder any efforts to limit or abolish slavery further down the line.Engineered by Henry Clay, a representative of Kentucky known to history as the Great Compromiser, the Missouri Compromise put a band-aid on the issue that threatened to split the nation apart. Missouri would be admitted to the Union as a slave state, but Maine was also admitted as a free state to maintain the balance in the Senate. This way, Clay ensured that the number of free and slave states remained equal and prevented either region from gaining a legislative advantage. The compromise also established a geographical boundary at latitude 3630 north, the southern border of Missouri, which prohibited slavery in all territories of the Louisiana Purchase north of this line, except the just-added state.Henry Clay was known as the Great Compromiser. Source: Library of CongressThe Missouri Compromise would have profound implications for the United States going forward. There is no denying that by maintaining the balance of power in the Senate, Clays plan set a clear line for the expansion of slavery, eased the ever-growing sectional tensions between the North and South, and addressed future admissions of states. Like the proceeding compromises of the Constitutional Convention, the Missouri Compromise demonstrated that compromise was not only possible but also necessary to maintain the Union. Still, while Clay managed to temporarily quell tensions, his plan only highlighted the deep and enduring divisions over the peculiar institution. The geographic line drawn by the compromise would come to symbolize the growing sectional divide, which would only deepen in the decades to come. Within thirty years, Congress would once more call on the elderly Henry Clay to try and mend the divided nation.4. The Compromise of 1850Henry Clay presenting his Compromise of 1850 in the Senate as depicted by Peter F. Rothermel in his The United States Senate, A.D. 1850 painting. Source: Library of CongressAs the United States acquired new western territories following the Mexican-American War, the issue of slaverys expansion once more threatened to tear the nation apart. Slavery took center stage in 1849, a year after gold was discovered in the newly acquired territory of California. Due to the regions subsequent rapid population growth, the local legislation applied for statehood as a free state. The balance of power between free and slave states in the Senate once more hung in the balance.Ever since the US Congress called upon Henry Clay to come up with a compromise in 1820, the situation surrounding the peculiar institution had become more complicated through the Norths growing anti-slavery (Abolitionist) movement. While the Southern states demanded stronger federal enforcement of laws to return escaped enslaved people, Abolitionist Movement proponents countered with the desire to see slavery eradicated not only in the nations capital but also disallowed in any new Western lands altogether, namely New Mexico and Utah.Having quasi-retired seven years prior, Clay returned to Washington at the age of seventy-four, plagued with a terrible cough and early onset of tuberculosis, to once again mend the great divide between the two sections of what he called this distracted and unhappy country. So sick was the politician that it would be his colleagues who read his proposed compromise to the American Representatives. In what would become known as the Compromise of 1850, neither of the sides got what they truly wanted.As future President James A. Garfield would remark about the event years later, unsettled questions have no pity for the repose of a nation, with the good feeling of the nation about its ability to compromise being as hollow and deceptive as it was in the 1820s.The Missouri Compromise as seen on a map. Source: The Library of CongressThe compromise saw California admitted to the Union as a free state, tipping the balance in the Senate in the free states favora victory for the anti-slavery North. The slave tradealbeit not slavery itselfwas also deemed illegal in the nations capital. As for the territories of New Mexico and Utah, Congress permitted them to organize without restrictions on slavery. Instead, the settlers themselves would decide the issue of whether to allow slavery at a later date, a process known as popular sovereignty.In return for the various concessions, the Southern states received a new, stricter Fugitive Slave Law that required citizens to assist in the recovery of escaped enslaved people and deny alleged fugitives the right to a jury trial. The law indirectly made slavery an American institution and not just a Southern one by stating that the North was no longer a place of refuge for escaped enslaved people as the Federal government would now ensure severe penalties on those who aided escapees and would have direct involvement in the capture and return of fugitives.While Clay died only one year after his compromise, and while his newest band-aid temporarily resolved some issues, it ultimately intensified sectionalism beyond reproach. The strict Fugitive Slave Act particularly inflamed Northern public opinion against slavery. It led to increased support for the Abolitionist Movement and to significant political realignments that saw the weakening of the Whig Party and the creation of the newly dominant anti-slavery Republican party of the North, which got most of its votes from anti-Fugitive Slave Act proponents. Together with the failure of popular sovereignty in the Kansas territory, which led to bloodshed between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers, the effects of Clays compromise ultimately brought the nation to the Civil War in 1861.5. The Compromise of 1877Rutherford B. Hayes, the eventual President of the United States after some political maneuvering in 1876. Source: Library of CongressA decade after the end of the Civil War and years since the passage of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, the nation was not yet done compromising on the long-debated question of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote that all men are created equal. The Reconstruction Era, which followed the bloody conflict that pitted brother against brother, set off to rebuild the Southern states and integrate formerly enslaved African Americans into society as free citizens with equal rights.The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into military districts overseen by federal troops who enforced civil rights and ensured the protection of African Americans. Although the period saw the passage of both the 14th and 15th Amendments, the former granting African Americans citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and the latter granting African American men the right to vote, Reconstruction faced significant opposition from Southern whites who sought to maintain white supremacy and resist federal intervention.Southern Democrats, known as Redeemers, set out to control state governments, restore pre-war social and political norms, and backtrack on the new rights and opportunities gained by African Americans. Their work of undermining federal policies, coupled with racial violence caused by new groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, received another boost in 1873 when the nation plunged into a severe post-war economic depression, which diverted attention and resources away from Reconstruction efforts. Over time, many Northerners, as much as most Southerners, grew weary of the ongoing political and social turmoil in the South and the financial cost associated with the military oversight needed to keep it going. The 1876 Presidential Election would become the harbinger of changea time when it became evident that the pre-war, anti-slavery, and pro-Reconstruction Republican party had lost its sway with the American people.Thomas Nasts political cartoon from Harpers Weekly depicting the Compromise of 1877. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe 1876 election saw Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes face off against the Democratic, anti-Reconstruction candidate Samuel J. Tilden in an election that saw the latter win the popular vote with 184 electoral votes, just one shy of the required 185, to the formers 165 votes. To resolve the dispute, Congress established a bipartisan Electoral Commission consisting of fifteen members: seven Democrats and eight Republicans. When the dust settled, it would be another compromise over race and equality that saw the nation move forward, albeit, once again, not in the right direction.The informal agreement between the leaders of the two political parties, later dubbed the Compromise of 1877, saw the Southern Democrats agree to accept Rutherford B. Hayes as the President of the United States in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, effectively ending the federal governments active enforcement of Reconstruction.The nation was able to move on from sectionalist strife, all while leaving African Americans in the South vulnerable to disenfranchisement and racial violence without any federal protection. With the Republican Party no longer solely focusing on Southern issues, Southern states quickly enacted Jim Crow laws institutionalizing racial segregation and disenfranchising African Americans through methods such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses.The entrenched systemic racism and inequality that emerged from the time that followed the end of Reconstruction laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Movement and the need for at least one more national compromise nearly a century later.6. The 1964 Civil Rights Act CompromisePresident Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is seen standing directly behind the president. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans that stemmed from the Compromise of 1877 and the abandonment of the ideals championed by the Republican politicians of the time. Even though the courts Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954 declared separate schools for white and African American children illegal, segregation and discrimination persisted in all other aspects of southern life.The now-famous Civil Rights Movement saw activists organizing protests, boycotts, and marches to demand equal rights and federal legislation to protect those rights. In response to the growing pressure from the movement, President John F. Kennedy introduced a comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Congress shortly before his assassination. Once President Lyndon B. Johnson took over to see it come to fruition, it was evident that, like all other major political decisions in American history regarding race, this new one would once again require some political maneuvering and compromising.Southern Democrats blocked the acts journey through Congress through the usage of filibusters and other tactics to stifle it before it gained any traction. The legislations initial proposal addressed various forms of discrimination, including segregation in public places, unequal application of voter registration requirements, and discrimination in employment. While the bill passed the House of Representatives on February 10, 1964, it faced a formidable filibuster in the Senate. Southern Democrats, led by Senator Richard Russel of Georgia, argued that the bill infringed on states rights and individual liberties. The filibuster lasted seventy-five days, the longest in Senate history.President John F. Kennedy was the one to introduce the Civil Rights Bill to Congress shortly before his assassination. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIts proponents agreed to several vital amendments and compromises to overcome the filibuster. Some provisions regarding public accommodations were modified and adjusted, and the bills provisions on employment discrimination were amended to include language to protect business groups against potential abuses of affirmative action. Lastly, amendments were made to the sections concerning desegregation of public schools and facilities, providing more time for compliance and addressing specific concerns from lawmakers.The Civil Rights Act of 1964, while undisputedly a step in the right direction, did not leave either party entirely satisfied. The act established important legal precedents for combating discrimination, provided a foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and spurred further activism and advocacy for civil rights across various marginalized communities. It also contributed to a political realignment in the United States, with many Southern Democrats opposing the legislation, shifting allegiance to the Republican Party, and reshaping the political landscape for decades to come.Like the compromises that came before it, all pivotal moments in American history that allowed the nation to move forward when the alternative spelled certain doom, the last political compromise about equality and justice never entirely closed the door on the issue. Yet, perhaps the Civil Rights Act of 1964s most significant legacy is the reminder that even in modern times, the people of the United States of America are still capable of compromise.

From its foundation in the 10th century to the decline of its influence in the early 12th, a program of reform and a renewal of monastic life unfolded at Cluny Abbey that would change Latin Christendom forever.Cluny Abbeys Independent OriginsTown of Cluny, South Burgundy. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIn the heart of Burgundy in eastern France lies the town of Cluny. It seems on the surface a most obscure location, far from the traditional power centers that have driven the course of European history. Yet the Benedictine Abbey that once thrived here was for a long time the beating heart of western Christendom, with influence that spanned across the Latin West. The reforming movement that emerged in Cluny Abbey sparked a tumultuous cycle of Christian renewal whose effects would echo down the centuries.The abbey of Cluny was founded in 910 (or possibly 909) by Duke William the Pious of Aquitaine. He required the monastery to follow the Rule of St Benedict, the established guide for the regulation of Christian monastic life in the West and insisted that the abbey was free from the imposition of any external authority.This latter provision was important. Most monastic foundations were owned and controlled by the noble founder, with the appointment of abbots and any internal reforms overseen by said lord. This Cluniac liberty would play an important role in Clunys unique development, allowing the monks near-complete control of their own abbey.Cluny Abbey today. Source: Wikimedia CommonsOver the decades that followed, Clunys abbots would use their freedom to appeal to both the pope and the Frankish king for protection and privileges. Both of these figures guaranteed protection for the abbey and the independence of the monks, as well as affirming the monks control over the landed possessions belonging to the abbey. In effect, the monks, of whom there were around 100 at Cluny by the end of the 10th century, wielded lordship over the lands on which Cluny was situated just as a count or duke controlled their own lands.Though medieval monasteries were places that in many ways sought to withdraw from the world, it is important to remember that they were the cultural centers of Christendom. They also had important connections to the nobility. Though Cluny was not tied to its aristocratic founder, the abbots, as at almost all medieval monasteries, were of noble birth, as were most of the monks.The early abbots of Cluny were particularly well connected. Cluny was, therefore, an institution with important connections throughout the European noble class, and was thus able to generate influence and gain patronage even while being a place of withdrawal from the material world. It also benefited from a snowball effect as the abbey grew in wealth and prominence, more and more of the nobility were keen to donate to the abbey in return for prayers for their souls.Charlemagne, Frankish ally of the Pope, by Albrecht Durer, 1511-13. Source: Google Arts & CultureFrom the beginning, Cluny sought to impose renewal onto other monastic houses as well as maintain a spirit of renewal within its own abbey. The abbots of Cluny used their influence within other houses across western Christendom to encourage reform, and in so doing to bring those houses closer to the central abbey at Cluny.Papal bulls in the first half of the 10th century explicitly sanctioned the taking over of other monasteries by Cluny for the purposes of reform. Reform and renewal in this sense meant, paradoxically, looking back to the Rule of St Benedict and ensuring a closer following of this sacred model of monastic life.A Monastic RevivalModern imaging of a Viking raid, Viking attacks were a major factor in the decline of monastic influence in the 9th century. Source: BavipowerMonasticism was in a state of decline in the early 10th century. The early years of Christian monasticism in the deserts of North Africa, and the 6th and 7th centuries in Europe with the birth of the Benedictine Rule and the ascetic influence of the Irish monastic movement, were seen as a lost golden age of monastic discipline. The depredations of Viking raiders and a lack of rigor and discipline seemed to have deprived the monastic movement of that vigor. Clunys independence from laity control liberated it from the influences that many saw as depriving monasticism of its sacrality in this period. As the abbey grew in prominence, other monasteries that sought to free themselves from lay influence began to draw toward Cluny Abbey like moths to a light.Another important contextual feature for Clunys rise was the vacuum in central power that existed in 10th and 11th-century Western Europe (and especially Francia). The king of the Franks exercised very little power outside of a narrow ring of territory surrounding Paris, with middling nobles vying for power in the rest of Francia. Meanwhile, the Roman Church had yet to develop the centralized power structure under the pope that would emerge so strongly in the 12th and 13th centuries. There was thus an absence of a structured, hierarchical institution that could bring order and stability to Western Europe. This may go some way to explain why Cluny developed such a strong attraction as it became larger and more influential.The Bishop of Assisi Giving a Palm to Saint Clare, ca. 1360, Clunys monks and lay nobles formed a strong relationship. Source: The Met, New YorkThe first century or so of Clunys existence saw it undergo a gradual accumulation of influence and renown. Its abbots held sway across numerous other monasteries that were beginning to be brought under the orbit of Cluny. Yet through the 11th century, under the supervision of two long-lived abbots, the monastery would rise to new heights of influence and prestige within Latin Christendom. Odilo (Abbot 994-1049) and Hugh (Abbot 1049-1109) oversaw a transformation in which Cluny, in addition to influencing other abbeys to reform themselves on a Cluniac model, began to develop a defined network of monastic institutions with Cluny Abbey at the center of this hierarchical structure.Clunys independence from external control allowed it to become a mother house and take ownership of other monasteries. Scholars have created the term ecclesia Cluniacensis (ecclesia is Latin for church) to describe the new form of monastic order that emerged in the 10th and 11th centuries. Under Abbot Odilo, Cluny began to absorb an increasing number of houses. These houses had begun by adopting Cluniac reforms in their observance of the Rule, but they now became directly subject to the Abbot of Cluny.Consecration of Clunys high altar by Pope Urban II, with Abbot Hugh, from a 12th-century manuscript. Source: BnFWhy would a monastery want to do this? In a world where most monastic houses were owned by lay lords, it was perhaps seen as a great liberty to enter a monastic church that was free from the corrupting influence of lay power, especially one that was dedicated to furthering the church and the Christian religion.Under Odilos successor Hugh, the arms of Cluny grew to reach across Northern France, England, and Scotland, and down into Northern Italy and Iberia. In England, the Cluniacs worked alongside William the Conqueror to reform monasticism in England after the Norman Conquest, bringing it into line with practice on the continent. In Spain, the Cluniacs were eager participants in the process of Reconquista.The pope was an ally in the growth of Cluny, and at the end of the 11th century, a papal bull extended all of the privileges granted to the Cluny mother house to any monastery within the ecclesia Cluniacensis. By the mid-12th century, there were around 700 Cluniac communities across Christendom, of varying size and structure.An engraving of the plan of Clunys great medieval church building, 18th century. Source: Web Gallery of ArtAside from forging an independent organizational structure for monasteries, Clunys mission of reform made it imperative to create and spread a new form of monastic practice. The Rule of St Benedict provided only an outline of monastic life the details of daily routine differed between monastic communities. Cluny developed its own order of monastic life. It contained specific customs of prayer and liturgy, work and obedience, and the denial of the body and the material world.In the 11th century, Clunys practices began to be compiled into written texts. These were used by those founding new monasteries or reforming pre-existing ones to reshape communities along Cluniac lines.The abbey itself was famed for the sheer volume of its prayers and services. Liturgies and prayers were constantly performed to remember deceased monks and benefactors. Contemporaries also noted that the abbey would feed hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of the poor every day. The abbots themselves became revered figures.From Odilo onward the abbots commemorated their predecessors through hagiographies, and saints lives of the Cluny abbots became popular around Latin Christendom. A significant part of Clunys revered status lay in the status of its abbots, who were thought to embody the spirit of the entire Cluniac order.Cluny Abbey, interior. Source: Wikimedia CommonsNobility throughout Christendom donated their wealth to Cluny. These donations were made in return for prayers said by the monks of Cluny for the salvation of the donators soul, and sometimes for a burial place within Cluny Abbeys hallowed walls. The more renown that Cluny gathered, the more it became the most highly regarded Christian institution for those eager to access eternal salvation.Equally, as Cluny became more highly regarded, powerful figures across Christendom were eager to prevent any one individual from gaining disproportionate influence over it. This allowed the Cluniac abbots to remain independent of any one patron and to pursue their own agendas.The Ecclesia CluniacensisClunys third church building was the largest in Europe until St Peters Basilica in 16th century Rome, 1887-1901. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIn 1088, the construction of a new church began at Cluny. It was to be one that reflected the influence and the prestige of the monastery within Christendom. It also needed to provide space for the 300 monks who by now had joined the abbey.When constructed, Clunys church was the largest church in Western Christendom. It was constructed in the Romanesque style that was popular at the time (before the emergence of Gothic architecture in the later 12th century). The scale of this building solidified Clunys place at the center of Latin Christendom. It was the largest church in Western Christendom until the rebuilding of St Peters in Rome in the 16th century. Unfortunately, the abbey did not survive the French Revolution, and thus very little of this building can be seen by us today.The grandiosity of the structure reflected the fact that the Cluniacs, for all their emphasis on individual poverty and simplicity, believed in celebrating the mass in awe-inspiring surroundings to reflect the glory of God on Earth. Later monastic movements like the Cistercians, who grew out of the Cluniac reform movement, would place greater emphasis on austerity in all things.Hugh of Cluny, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, and Matilda of Tuscany, 1115. Source: Vatican LibraryCluny had emerged at a time when the Christian world had a vacuum of dynamic leadership. The papacy in the 10th century was the plaything of Roman noble families, and the era of Charlemagne, when great emperors could claim ultimate spiritual and secular leadership over most of western Christendom, was no more (despite the strength of the Ottonian Dynasty in the German lands and northern Italy). The revitalization of Christian leadership demonstrated by the Cluniacs inspired others, however, and in the mid-to-late 11th century, the papal reform movement surged into life.Reforming popes, determined to transform the Roman church from the inside, were deeply influenced by the way in which Cluny instituted a disciplined hierarchical organization that spread throughout Europe. They took inspiration from how Cluny had sought to simultaneously impose order while fostering genuine spiritual renewal and renewed dedication to piety.The charismatic leadership of Clunys great abbots, particularly Abbot Hugh (1049-1109), also seems to have influenced some of the key papal figures of this time like Gregory VII and Urban II. Indeed, the latter pope, who launched the First Crusade in 1095, was himself a former monk at Cluny Abbey.Clunys EclipseSt Bernard of Clairvaux, by Jacques Callot, 17th century. Source: The Met, New YorkThe 12th century saw the relative decline of Clunys dominance within Western Christendom. A revived, powerful papacy gradually distanced itself from its alliance with the Cluniacs, while new monastic movements arose, attempting to seize the gauntlet of monastic renewal from Cluny. The revitalized Roman Church claimed to be the only mediator of salvation, leaving Cluny isolated. The Cistercians, emerging in 1098 around the abbey of Citeaux in Burgundy, asserted themselves as the new dynamic force in monasticism, dedicated to a stricter and more austere form of observation to the Benedictine Rule.Peter Abelard, by Jules Cavelier, before 1853. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIn addition, the sheer scale of the Cluniac order began to work against it, as the disparate flock of monks and nuns from across Christendom became harder to oversee by a single abbot and mother house. Unity could not be maintained for long and factions began to emerge within the Cluniac church. This was seen during an abbatial schism in 1122 when Abbot Pons was deposed and replaced by a successor who lasted only three months.The Cluniac order was incredibly dependent upon the person of the abbot, whom some contemporaries even satirized as akin to a monarch. But such reliance upon an individual to hold together and guide such a vast and sprawling network of houses could not last forever. It also meant that the deaths of abbots, particularly long-lived abbots like Hugh the Great and Peter the Venerable, caused great disturbance in the Cluniac church and could sever connections with major nobles that had been reliant upon the abbots personal charisma.Perhaps the last great abbot of Cluny was Peter the Venerable (1122-1156). Peter faced criticism of the Cluniac order from the emergent monastic orders like the Cistercians (including the mighty Bernard of Clairvaux) and played a prominent role in European religious debates, keeping Cluny at the front and center of Latin Christendom. He famously sheltered Peter Abelard, the controversial scholastic philosopher who gained fame and notoriety throughout the Christian world, and he granted him a posthumous absolution. Abbot Peter was also famous for his interest in the writings of the Islamic world, and it was he who published the first translation of the Quran into Latin after mingling with Islamic scholars in the Iberian peninsula.Franciscans and Dominicans, the emergent orders of the 13th century, by Bernozzo Gozzoli, 1452. Source: WikiartPerhaps Peter the Venerables most important legacy for Cluny was his Statuta, a compilation of abbatial decrees and writings that sought to condense the Cluniac reform movement into a single text. This was composed alongside the holding of a number of general councils and together they sought to fortify the Cluniac order and maintain unity among its many houses and factions.However, Abbot Peter oversaw the last great era for the Cluniac order. By the end of the 12th century, the Cluniacs had lost their privileged status at the vanguard of monasticism and as the darling of the Papacy. The Cistercians and the Papacy now dominated Latin Christendom, with the former soon to be challenged by another set of strident monastic ordersthe Dominicans and the Franciscanswho would emerge in the early 13th century.The Cluniac order did not fall apart after the death of Peter the Venerable in 1156. If anything it became more bureaucratized and orderly, with councils and mechanisms replacing charismatic abbots at the heart of the Cluniac churchs governance. However, it would never again be at the forefront of Western Christendom, either spiritually or politically. That is to say, the influence that Cluny once held, both as a spiritual model for Christians to admire and aspire to and as a key player at the papal court and the courts of Christian monarchs, was lost by the 13th century.The Importance of ClunyCluny helped trigger a cycle of Christian reform movements that led to the Reformation, The Diet of Worms, by Anton van Werner, 1877. Source: Wikimedia CommonsWhy does Cluny matter? The rise of the Cluniac order can be seen as marking the emergence of Latin Christendom out of the stagnation and fragmentation of the Early Middle Ages and into an era of reform, unity, and confidence that marked the High Medieval Period in Western Christendom. The extent of the Ecclesia Cluniacensis also represents the unity that was a defining feature of medieval Europe prior to the emergence of powerful nation-states.A monk of the Cluniac order could travel from the north of Britain down to the Pyrenees, and from the Atlantic coast deep into Germany, all the while passing through churches that followed the same practices, prayers, and daily routines, speaking the same language (Latin) and loyal to the same abbot.The drive of Cluny Abbey to purify and perfect itself, and to lead a movement toward a more unified church, sparked a process that has arguably continued in Europe ever since. The Papacy and the Cistercians followed the Cluniac example, yet these were just the early movers in a cycle of Christian reform movements that ultimately led to the Reformation. In the pretenses of an obscure Burgundian abbey, one can see the factors that would drive European history from the High Medieval Period to the modern day: the relentless drive for self-perfection, the harkening back to a golden era, and the efforts to realize that era in the present day.

A dye extracted from crushed bugs might sound archaic, but it is surprisingly ubiquitous. Cochinealparasitic insects that live on nopal (prickly pear) cacti across Latin Americaare the key ingredients in a vivid red pigment known as carmine, which colors foods, beverages, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals today. In Oaxaca, its production has occupied the heart of indigenous cultures since as early as 2000 BCE. Following colonization, cochineal became a prized commodity in Europe and one of Mexicos largest commercial exports. Even today, its legacy is felt across the globe.Cochineal: Pre-Columbian OriginsDried cochineal insects used for dyeing, Eduardo Verdugo, August 2023. Source: AP NewsLong before Spanish colonizers first set foot on the American continent, cochineal red was held with the same reverence as gold and silver amongst the sophisticated indigenous civilizations of ancient Mesoamerica.The Aztec, Zapotec, and Mixtec peoples of western and south-central Mexico, in particular, were known to associate the dyes rare color with ancestral magic and protection. According to pre-Columbian legend, nocheztli (the Nahuatl name for cochineal, meaning cactus blood) was originally born out of the blood shed by two quarreling gods across a field of nopal cactus.An early Mexican codex, the Matrcula de tributos, documents the use of cochineal as a kind of bargaining currency, or tribute, to Aztec rulers. In everyday life, the pigment was used for both sacred and mundane purposes: to dye clothing, feathers, and textiles; in offerings and ceremonies; and even as a cosmetic stain for womens teeth. It was also commonly used for painting codices and mural arttraces of which can still be found amongst the ancient remains of some Mexican archaeological sites today.Cochineal produced a vibrant, lasting hue unlike any other, achieving a range of soft pinks, lush scarlets, and deep burgundies that were incomparable to any other natural dye of the time. As its popularity grew, the Oaxaca Valley region became a hub for the production and trade of the pigment. Before long, Mixtec farmers in the neighboring highlands began domesticating cochineal insects, breeding bugs with traits favorable for making the brightest, most stable dyes.Whats in a Color?Cactus pads covered with cochineal insects, Eduardo Verdugo, August 2023. Source: AP NewsWhile demand for cochineal expanded dramatically over time, much of its traditional production process has remained remarkably intact. Even today, nopalerias (large-scale cactus farms) are used to cultivate and harvest cochineal insects across Mexico.Producing the pigment itself is a slow and laborious processabout 70,000 bugs are required to make each kilogram of dye. The insects themselves are soft-bodied and live in clumps on the pads of nopal cacti. Only the females and their eggs produce carminic acid, the source of the cochineals signature red coloring.Every 90 days or so, traditional nopaleria farmers carefully knock thousands of insects and their eggs from the pads of their cacti hosts using a tiny brush. The insects are first boiled, then cleaned and dried in the suns heat, reduced to less than a third of their original body weight. Dried cochineal is then groundeither by hand or using millsinto a fine powder. Finally, this resulting powder is mixed with salts which help isolate the carmine, which can then be used with a mordant for dyeing.This ancestral art is still alive and well in some parts of Mexicoparticularly in modern-day Oaxaca, a colonial city practically built by the prosperity of the cochineal trade. Though synthetic dyes are increasingly chosen as a cheap and convenient modern alternative, many artisans in Oaxaca continue to favor organic pigments like cochineal for traditional handicrafts, including textile weaving.Commercializing Cochineal: Spanish ColonizationPage from the Codex-Zouche-Nuttall, Mixtec, 1200-1521 C.E. Source: The British MuseumWhen Spanish colonizers arrived in what is today Mexico in the early 16th century, cochineals already well-established importance to the regions indigenous cultures and mythologies was utterly transformed.Back in Europe, there were only a few viable options for red dye, and most faded quickly or were overly complicated to produce. Red hues were particularly expensive due to their limited availability, which, of course, made them all the more sought after by European monarchs and aristocrats.Upon their arrival, Spanish colonizers were awestruck by the brilliance of the cochineal dye they noticed for sale in local marketplaces. Duller European pigments (like madder root, henna, lac, and kermes, for instance) seemed to pale in comparison to the bright, saturated color and impressive durability of cochineal.Sensing an opportunity for profit, they shipped dried samples of the dye back to Spain and set about capitalizing upon existing local methods for cochineal production in order to export as much of the pigment to mainland Europe as possible. Hundreds of tons of dried cochineal were exported across the Atlantic with the hopes of kindling its potential as a lucrative trade business on the European continent.Portrait of Agostino Pallavicini using cochineal lake, Anthony van Dyck, c. 1621. Source: J. Paul Getty CollectionAs predicted, cochineal became an instant international sensation. By the 18th century, it was second only to silver as Mexicos most valued export and had nearly supplanted all other red dyes. Its trademark color quickly became a recognizable symbol of power and prestige across Europe, though its vast trade routes ultimately expanded as far afield as Asia and the Middle East.As the popularity of cochineal spread around the world, it was adopted for a variety of new uses. Some of the most renowned European artists of the timeAntony van Dyck, Peter Paul Rubens, Domenikos Theotokopoulos (El Greco), and Rembrandt van Rijn, to name a fewadopted the pigment into their palettes in favor of its vivid, translucent quality. The cochineal was combined with a binder to produce a pigment known as a lake, leading to an end product that was incredibly potent and versatile.Famously, cochineal red was also the color used for traditional British redcoatsthe iconic woolen jackets worn by the British army from the 17th to the late 19th century. While most of the lower regiments wore uniforms dyed with madder root (a cheaper, rustier-appearing dye), the color of choice for the coats of sergeants and officers was a scarlet hue that could only be achieved with cochineal.Battle of Bunker Hill, E. Percy Moran, c. 1909. Source: Library of CongressWith the aim of maintaining a strict monopoly over the valuable dye, Spain kept the details of cochineal production a closely guarded secret. It was forbidden by law to bring live insects outside the borders of Spanish colonial territory, and foreigners were prohibited from visiting Spanish colonies. As a result, the exact means by which the dried dye was madeand even what it was made ofwas a mystery to the outside world. For years, consumers and competitors abroad speculated as to what ingredient was behind the dyes signature bright red color.This secrecy allowed the Spanish to keep a firm and exclusive grasp on the cochineal trade. Even after English and French spies determined the dyes origin, it proved nearly impossible to successfully grow cochineal outside of the Americasone after another, attempts to bring the live insect abroad failed. The world remained dependent on Spain for its favorite dye for nearly three centuries, supporting the Spanish economy and helping to finance its sprawling empire.Oaxaca: Mexicos Cochineal CapitalTraditional textile woven by Fidel Cruz Lazo of Teotitln del Valle (Oaxaca), Amy Butler Greenfield, 2017. Source: J. Paul Getty CollectionCochineal was produced almost exclusively in Oaxaca during the colonial era. Indigenous people living in conquered communities were forced to work tirelessly for little pay to meet the increasingly insatiable global demand for the dye. Some 30,000 workers were employed in dye production in the Oaxaca Valley.Spains control of Mexicos cochineal trade was, like most other colonial initiatives, extractive and exploitative. Indigenous people were given little (if any) credit for the complex production process they developed, which the Spanish Crown claimed as its own to the outside world. Whats more, the native populations involved in producing cochineal saw almost none of the profit it generated despite the enormous amount of labor they expended.What local Oaxacans did receive, though, was a legacy of skilled artisanship that would outlast colonial rule by centuries. Much of Oaxaca was built by the wealth of the cochineal trade, which in turn helped complementary artisan industries like textile production to blossom and thrive. These rich and diverse artisan traditions are now, somewhat ironically, an essential part of the regions cultural autonomy and local economies. It is hard to imagine what Oaxaca would be like without them.The nopal plant that is grown in America and produces grana [insect dye]. Reports on the History, Organization, and Status of Various Catholic Dioceses of New Spain and Peru (1620-49). Source: JSTORToday, commercial cochineal farming is found not only in Mexico but across Peru, Chile, Argentina, and the Canary Islands. Yet the state of Oaxaca has kept its place at the heart of cochineal production, even to this day. Even as cheap, mass-produced synthetic dyes have come to dominate the global market, many Oaxacan artisans have preferred to continue working with cochineal for their handicrafts. More recently, as research has begun to point to the potential hazards of certain chemical dyes, natural pigments like cochineal are experiencing a noticeable revival.In Oaxacaand in greater Mexico, for that mattercochineal red is more than just a color. The dyes story has become inextricably linked with the complex pre and post-colonial histories of the region, as well as with the origins of Oaxaca as it is known today.

As commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, George Washington performed many of the functions of a chief executive and head of state. After presiding over the convention that framed the US Constitution of 1787, Washington was elected the first president of the United States in 1789. During his two terms in office, Washington helped to establish the framework for presidential power in the United States.The Election of 1789The Inauguration of George Washington as First President of the United States. Print by Currier & Ives, 1876. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New YorkIn December 1783, three months after the end of the American Revolutionary War, General George Washington relinquished command of the Continental Army and retired to his estate at Mount Vernon in Virginia on the banks of the Potomac River. By doing so, he was consciously following the example of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman statesman of the 5th century BCE who relinquished his powers as dictator six months after being summoned to save the Roman Republic.Washington kept himself informed of political developments at Mount Vernon, and he supported efforts by his former military aide Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Virginian James Madison to centralize power by revising or even replacing the existing Articles of Confederation. In May 1787, Washington was elected President of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.Washingtons desire to remain independent from any political faction and his widespread popularity allowed him to be a neutral arbiter on contentious questions. By September 1787, the delegates had agreed on a new Constitution which strengthened the national government by establishing an executive branch led by a president.By the time the Constitution was ratified in the summer of 1788, it was widely assumed that Washington would become the nations first president. After some hesitation, Washington agreed to put his name forward and was unanimously elected president by the Electoral College in the 1789 election. During the earliest elections, each elector had two votes, and John Adams of Massachusetts became vice president by virtue of receiving 34 votes, the most of any other candidate. On April 30, 1789, Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States at New Yorks City Hall.Constitutional PowersArticle II of the US Constitution, 1787. Source: Journal of the American RevolutionArticle II of the US Constitution states that the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, who will hold office for a term of four years, elected by members of an Electoral College weighted according to the Congressional representation of each state.Article II also declares that the president is ex officio commander-in-chief of the United States Army and Navy, has powers to appoint ambassadors, judges, and other officials with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is also empowered to make treaties with foreign states, also subject to Senate approval.As a high-level document, the Constitution gives little detail about the day-to-day functioning of the executive government. It was up to Washington on the one hand and Congress on the other to figure out how the new Constitution would work in practice.As commander of the Continental Army, Washington had regularly been frustrated by the inadequacies of the Continental Congress, which was forced to defer to the states in supplying his army with men and equipment. As a result, he instinctively favored a stronger presidency for effective administration and enhanced national security. The debate about the extent of the powers of the president in relation to Congress and the federal government in relation to the states split Washingtons cabinet and continues to this day.A Cabinet of TitansWashington and his Cabinet. Print by Currier & Ives, c. 1876. Source: Library of Congress, Washington DCWhile Article II of the Constitution allowed the president to seek written advice from the heads of departments, it did not explicitly include provisions for cabinet government. The framers of the Constitution were keen to avoid a system where the presidents cabinet of ministers would determine policy while also being able to vote on it in Parliament. Nevertheless, after becoming president, Washington began holding cabinet meetings with the heads of each department.Washingtons cabinet was dominated by the leading statesmen of the day. His Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was the author of the Declaration of Independence and had served as ambassador to the French government in Paris. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton served as Washingtons chief aide during the Revolutionary War and commanded troops during the Siege of Yorktown. The Continental Armys chief of artillery, Henry Knox, served as Secretary of War, while prominent Virginian politician Edmund Randolph was Attorney General.Hamilton and Jefferson championed different visions of the American republic. While the Federalist Hamilton favored a strong central executive, commercial and industrial development, and good relations with Britain, the Republican Jefferson supported a weaker executive, an agrarian economy, and a continued commitment to the wartime alliance with France. During his first term, Washington harnessed the creative tension between Hamilton and Jefferson to lay the foundations of American government. However, the personal animosity between the two men caused both to leave the administration during Washingtons second term.A National Financial SystemAlexander Hamilton represented on the US 10 dollar bill. Source: Wikimedia Commons/United States Treasury Bureau of Engraving and PrintingAs Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton emerged as the driving force in Washingtons administration. Unlike Washington, he had a comprehensive vision for the federal governments architecture and sought to implement it in office. During the Revolution, the Continental Congress had incurred significant war debts but could not raise the taxes to pay them off.In his Report on the Public Credit, submitted to Congress in January 1790, Hamilton proposed having the federal government assume state debts, thus creating the national debt. Hamilton argued that it was essential for the government to maintain confidence in its credit so that it could continue to borrow to invest in economic development. The assumption of state debts would strengthen the national government by transferring bondholders loyalties to the federal government rather than the states.Hamiltons proposals were opposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on two counts. Hamiltons plan would not only substantially increase the federal governments power. It would also benefit financial speculators who bought the credit notes from war veterans who had sold them at heavy discounts, expecting them never to be redeemed.In December 1790, Hamilton proposed to establish a central bank to create a national currency, issue loans to public and private entities for investments, and serve as a depository for government funds raised from taxation. While Jefferson and Randolph raised objections in the cabinet over the banks constitutionality, Washington accepted Hamiltons arguments that the bank was constitutional since Congress could do what was necessary and proper to fulfill its functions.A New Capital CityPierre Charles LEnfants plan for the city of Washington DC, 1792. Source: Library of Congress, Washington DCAs Hamilton struggled to seek congressional approval for his economic program due to opposition from the Jeffersonians in the House of Representatives, Americas political leaders were also split over the location of a permanent federal capital. As a New Yorker, Hamilton was keen to keep the government in New York. However, Washington and Jefferson preferred a location on the Potomac River close to their native Virginia.In June 1790, Hamilton visited Jefferson and Madison and offered to support a capital on the Potomac in return for the Jeffersonians to drop their opposition to his economic program. Washington was empowered to choose a site for the new capital and selected a tract of land not far from Mount Vernon. After the passage of the Residence Act in July 1790, in early 1791, Washington appointed the French architect Pierre Charles LEnfant to design the new Federal City, which would incorporate the existing towns of Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia. In September, the city was formally named Washington, District of Columbia.Since the construction of the new capital was expected to take a decade, Washington and the federal government temporarily moved to Philadelphia, which had served as the nations capital for much of the Revolutionary War. The result of Hamilton and Jeffersons compromise meant that the two major issues that dominated Washingtons first term were resolved in the presidents favor, though Washington himself would not live to see the inauguration of Washington DC as the nations capital in 1800.Proclaiming NeutralityManuscript from Washingtons letterbook containing the text of the Neutrality Proclamation, 1793-1794. Source: Library of Congress, Washington DCWashingtons second term was dominated by foreign affairs. The outbreak of war between France and Britain in February 1793, following the execution of King Louis XVI, threatened to draw the United States into the conflict. Washington was concerned about the radicalization of the French Revolution and recognized that the United States was too weak to get involved in the conflict and preferred to remain neutral.Although Washingtons cabinet agreed that neutrality was the best course of action, Jefferson sympathized with the French Revolution and was afraid of repudiating the wartime alliance that had helped America gain independence. Hamilton and Knox argued that the overthrow and execution of King Louis voided the treaty.The crisis came to a head in early April 1793 after French envoy Edmond-Charles Gent landed in South Carolina. While Gent was welcomed enthusiastically by Americans as he made his way to Philadelphia, Washington was troubled by his efforts to recruit Americans to fight for France. After consulting his cabinet, Washington issued his Neutrality Proclamation on April 22, 1793, threatening legal sanctions against Americans who assisted any of the belligerent powers.Disagreements over Washingtons authority to issue the Neutrality Proclamation led to a bitter exchange in the press between Hamilton and Madison under the pseudonyms Publius and Helvidius respectively. By July 1793, popular sentiment shifted against France after Gent reportedly insulted Washington during a meeting in June and threatened to appeal directly to the people against the president. Washington and his cabinet demanded Gents recall, but after learning that the Jacobin government in France intended to put him on trial, Washington granted him asylum to spare him from the guillotine.The Jay TreatyChief Justice John Jay, painting by Gilbert Stuart, 1794. Source: National Gallery of Art, Washington DCThe fallout from the Neutrality Proclamation led Jefferson to resign as Secretary of State in December 1793. In the meantime, tensions with Britain had also increased after the Royal Navy enforced its blockade against France by intercepting American ships bound for French ports. The British navys practice of impressmentforcibly recruiting sailors from American ships whom they claimed to be British desertersalso caused consternation in the United States.In 1794, Washington dispatched Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate a treaty with Britain intended to address these tensions. Jay was an experienced diplomat and was a member of the American delegation that negotiated the 1783 Treaty of Paris to end the American Revolutionary War. In November 1794, Jay signed a treaty that formalized a trading relationship on a most-favored-nation basis and an undertaking from the British to withdraw from several forts in the northwest. However, the British refused to give any ground on impressment, and the issue of seizing American ships went to arbitration.After Jay returned to the United States in March 1795, Washington brought the Jay Treaty to the Senate in June. Despite considerable opposition from the Jeffersonians, Washington recognized that it was the best deal the US could hope for and spoke in its favor. In the Senate, the treaty was passed by a margin of 20-10, reaching the required two-thirds threshold for ratification.Bidding FarewellGeorge Washington (The Lansdowne Portrait) by Gilbert Stuart, 1796. Source: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DCAs his second term drew to a close in 1796, Washington was disillusioned by the split between the Federalists and the Republicans. His exploits during the Revolutionary War did not prevent him from being the target of scathing attacks by Jeffersonians. Washington had initially desired to retire after a single term but was dissuaded by both Hamilton and Jefferson, who believed he was the only person who could keep the country together.By 1796, both Hamilton and Jefferson had left the cabinet. While Hamilton remained a close advisor behind the scenes, Jeffersons opposition to the Jay Treaty caused Washington to break ties with him. Keen to relieve himself from the burdens of office and with his health deteriorating, Washington asked Hamilton to redraft a farewell address that had been produced by Madison in 1792. First published in a Philadelphia newspaper on September 19, 1796, Washingtons Farewell Address stressed the importance of maintaining national unity as a guarantor of American freedom and warned of the dangers of factionalism and party politics.While Washingtons warnings about party politics did not prevent the rise of a two-party system, his decision to relinquish the presidency after serving two terms set a precedent that was not broken until Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for a third term in 1940. In March 1797, the 65-year-old Washington left office and returned to Mount Vernon, where he died on December 14, 1799.

Theodore Roosevelt embraced a belief throughout his entire adult life that America was destined to be a major player in world affairs. Roosevelt was fond of saying that America should speak softly, but carry a big stick. Roosevelts Big Stick Policy not only defined his presidency but also set the stage for Americas future in the world.Before the Big Stick Policy: Theodore Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the NavyAssistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt stands with Naval War College faculty members and administrators, 1897. Source: Naval History and Heritage CommandIn 1897, President William McKinley made a momentous choice of nominating former New York Police Commissioner and US Civil Service Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Despite McKinley hoping to avoid getting involved in foreign wars, he picked one of the most hawkish men he could find for this post. Roosevelt may have been a subordinate but he played a more important role in the Navy Department than his nominal superior, Secretary John Long.Roosevelt was a major supporter of the United States becoming an imperial power. He endorsed the theories of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, who argued that the US should follow in Great Britains footsteps and project power through naval force. When Spain began using force to crush Cuban rebels in 1898, Roosevelt was amongst the leading advocates of using naval power to crush the Spanish. He even bypassed Secretary Long in preparing the navy for battle after the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in February 1898.Despite his obsession with naval power, Roosevelt also believed that the US Army could play a big role in creating an empire. When the US Armys V Corps started preparing for the invasion of Cuba, he resigned his role in Washington and took command of a cavalry regiment nicknamed the Rough Riders. His exploits during the Spanish-American War made him a celebrity and enhanced his belief that America needed to project power in its backyard.President Roosevelt and the Philippine-American WarPainting of the Utah Light Artillery in the Philippines. Source: National Guard ArchivesAfter Roosevelt returned to the United States, he was chosen by McKinley as his running mate in the 1900 election, and was inaugurated as vice president in March 1901. A few months later, President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist while at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo. The 42-year-old Roosevelt was duly sworn in as president, becoming the youngest man to hold the office.He inherited one of McKinleys greatest problems: a simmering insurgency in the newly conquered Philippines. After Americas seizure of the islands from Spain, Filipino guerillas led by Emilio Aguinaldo attacked American troops repeatedly and caused heavy casualties. The US Army lacked effective control of much of the territory.Roosevelt embraced a contradictory policy towards the Filipino rebels. On one hand, he believed they were not worthy of statehood and must be controlled by a civilizing force, i.e. the United States of America. At the same time, he thought that the war was a waste of American resources, lives, and credibility. Some 120,000 American soldiers and sailors fought there and as many as 4,200 died in battle and from disease. The war was marked by gruesome war crimes, such as the Americans burning down towns in guerilla-controlled areas. An antiwar movement was developing in the United States.Therefore, Roosevelt decided to end the war without granting the islands independence. The American authorities offered limited self-government and economic development. Roosevelt himself promised an amnesty for rebels that surrendered to US forces. This approach worked: by 1903 the rebels had mostly turned in their arms. While a rebellion in the southern islands continued to 1913, most of the territory had been pacified. Roosevelt was free to focus on Latin America, which he believed was in Americas sphere of influence.The Roosevelt CorollaryThe Big Stick In The Caribbean Sea by W.A. Rodgers, 1904. Source: American Museum of Natural HistorySince 1823, American foreign policy towards South America had been determined by the Monroe Doctrine, warning European colonial powers to avoid interfering in the American continent. This policy was not always enforced and European states routinely demanded concessions from Latin American countries. In 1904, Roosevelt decided to add to this policy with a firm military obligation.In his annual speech to Congress in 1904, Roosevelt stated that the US military could enter any country in Latin America that was being threatened by European states. Roosevelts policy was not opposition to imperialism per se; it was opposition to anyone trying to challenge American interests in the Western Hemisphere. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was therefore intended to make the US a regional policeman.The Corollary had detractors both inside and outside the United States. Many members of the Anti-Imperialist League denounced the policy as un-American. In Latin America, many politicians and diplomats believed that the US was no different from the European imperialists, such as Argentine Foreign Minister Luis Mara Drago. Roosevelt refused to abandon this policy, arguing that America should speak softly, but carry a big stick.This policy was part of his plan to turn America into a global player. The United States further expanded its footprint in the Western Pacific during this period by supporting efforts to suppress the Boxer Rebellion in China and mediating a peace agreement to end the Russo-Japanese War. Roosevelt soon got a chance to test his big stick policy in the little Central American country of Panama.The Creation of PanamaBarges in the Panama Canal, c. 1913. Source: Library of CongressEver since Panama had been liberated from Spanish rule in the early 19th century, Panama had been part of Colombia. In the 1880s, French engineers started hacking a path through the Panamanian jungle to build a canal. This project was one of the most momentous engineering feats in the Americas. When the French company building it failed in 1888, the project was temporarily abandoned. No European country wanted to take responsibility for building the canal.Upon his inauguration, Roosevelt made it clear that building the canal using American resources was a priority. Instead of a private company, the US War Department would oversee the construction. The administration began negotiating with the Colombian government over buying the land where the canal was supposed to be. Roosevelt was willing to pay $10 million to the government in Bogota. However, the Colombians demanded a higher price: $25 million.Instead of acceding to the new demand, Roosevelt tested American power. In 1903, US ships began blockading Colombian ports and US marines threatened to land on Colombian soil. In Panama, local elites declared independence with the support of Washington, hoping to get a cut of the money from the canals revenue. The revolution was bloodless and lasted a few days. American officials not only helped write the countrys new constitution, they even created the Panamanian flag. By 1914, after years of back-breaking work and an enormous allocation of resources, the Panama Canal opened under US supervision. The creation of Panama suited Roosevelts desire to control Latin American affairs.US Invasion of the Dominican RepublicExcerpt of President Roosevelts speech to Congress on the eve of the Dominican Republic intervention, 1904. Source: US National ArchivesAlongside the Panama intervention, President Roosevelts other major intervention in Latin American affairs was the US takeover of the Dominican Republics customs collection. In the early 1900s, the Dominican government of Carlos Morales Languasco struggled to pay off its debts to France, Germany, and Italy. At the time, European countries frequently invaded other countries if they could not pay their debts, and there was a fear that they would use force to ensure Languascos government would meet its obligations.Roosevelt aimed to show that America was the dominant actor in the region. In 1904, he announced to Congress that he would seek to take over the DRs customs collection and arrange for money to be paid to the creditors. While the Dominicans were pleased to avoid a European intervention on their island, they found that American sugar companies exacerbated the problem by pricing out local farmers. The Dominicans resented their leaders selling out to the Americans and in 1912, President Ramon Coceres was assassinated. This led to the deployment of American sailors and marines to guard American companies and put in place a friendly administration.Roosevelts policies in Panama and the DR may have worked temporarily, but caused serious issues down the road. The US occupation of the Dominican Republic from 1916-1924 was costly and unpopular. It also increased resentment of American policies on the island. In Panama, the large presence of Americans caused anger from the locals who were opposed to any foreign presence in their country. Roosevelts Big Stick Policy may have gained him some satisfaction, but caused long-term pain and resentment.Big Stick Policy After Roosevelts AdministrationUS Marines in Haiti, 1929. Source: The New YorkerTheodore Roosevelts presidency lasted from 1901 to 1909 and he is considered one of the most consequential presidents in American history. Part of this was his undying belief that America was a global power and should use force to resolve any problem. This concept of power continued after he left the presidency. When William Howard Taft succeeded him in 1909, he introduced the use of Dollar Diplomacy building on Roosevelts work. Even though Taft claimed to oppose the use of force in American foreign policy, he kept ordering American forces to intervene in Latin American conflicts.Nearly every single American administration from McKinley to Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to use force to maintain American hegemony in Latin America. From 1915 to 1934, American forces occupied Haiti after the assassination of a US-backed president. Additionally, US forces invaded Mexico during that countrys civil war to stop border raids targeting towns in the southern United States. Throughout the Cold War, the US often intervened in Latin American politics because of the fear of communism.Roosevelt was not the first US president to use force abroad or even in Latin America. Ironically, he inherited conflicts from his more dovish predecessor. However, he epitomized the image of the powerful American president ready to use force to defend Americas interests abroad. Roosevelt may have not started any major wars, but he did construct a policy of coercion in maintaining hegemony. That is his main foreign policy legacy and one that remains in place today.