The Basic Bible Atlas A Fascinating

Guide to the Land of the Bible 3rd

Edition John A. Beck
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-basic-bible-atlas-a-fascinating-guide-to-the-land-o
f-the-bible-3rd-edition-john-a-beck/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The promised land Bible stories retold Catharine Shaw

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-promised-land-bible-stories-
retold-catharine-shaw/

Introduction to the Hebrew Bible Third Edition John J

Collins

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-the-hebrew-
bible-third-edition-john-j-collins/

Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible Ronald

Hendel

https://textbookfull.com/product/steps-to-a-new-edition-of-the-
hebrew-bible-ronald-hendel/

Bible nation the United States of Hobby Lobby Museum Of

The Bible.

https://textbookfull.com/product/bible-nation-the-united-states-
of-hobby-lobby-museum-of-the-bible/
NIV, Maxwell Leadership Bible, 3rd Edition John C.
Maxwell

https://textbookfull.com/product/niv-maxwell-leadership-
bible-3rd-edition-john-c-maxwell/

The Bible in Motion A Handbook of the Bible and Its

Reception in Film 1st Edition Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-bible-in-motion-a-handbook-
of-the-bible-and-its-reception-in-film-1st-edition-rhonda-
burnette-bletsch/

The Faggot Bible The Definitive Guide To Being A 100

Slutty Filthy Fearless Shameless Proud Faggot Cumwhore
3 ed 3rd Edition Fagmaster

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-faggot-bible-the-definitive-
guide-to-being-a-100-slutty-filthy-fearless-shameless-proud-
faggot-cumwhore-3-ed-3rd-edition-fagmaster/

Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical

Books John J. Collins

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-the-hebrew-
bible-and-deutero-canonical-books-john-j-collins/

The Catholic Study Bible New American Bible Revised

Edition Donald Senior

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-catholic-study-bible-new-
american-bible-revised-edition-donald-senior/
“Although I have studied the land and history of Israel for a lifetime, I never cease
to gain new insights from the writings of Dr. John Beck. The Basic Bible Atlas is no
exception. Drawing from his rich teaching experience and travels in the Bible
lands, John demonstrates the importance of physical setting as a key to
understanding the biblical narratives. Focusing on significant developments and
turning points, he tells the stories of Israel with crystal clarity and penetrating
insight.”
J. Carl Laney, professor of biblical literature and coordinator for
Israel study programs, Western Seminary, Portland, OR

“This atlas is a delightful foray into the real world of the Bible. In it, John Beck has
woven the narrative line of the Bible into its geographical context, showing us how
to read the land as we read the text. The result is a rich tapestry that gives
vibrancy to our Bible reading and grounds its claims on our lives.”
Paul H. Wright, Jerusalem University College

“John Beck’s episodic presentation in The Basic Bible Atlas takes you on a
delightful journey from the garden lost to a soon-to-be-made-new garden where
mankind’s broken image will be repaired and restored. Along the way, God’s
abundant grace and mercy come clearly and easily into view. It is an atlas every
Christian must have to aid in their walk with the Lord.”
Rev. Robert Chew, senior pastor, Moriah Bible Presbyterian Church,
Singapore

“Far more than just another book of maps, this work is invaluable for anyone who
has ever tried to thread the stories of the Bible into a cohesive narrative. Using his
astute understanding of geography as an organizing principle of Scripture, John
Beck takes the reader on the long journey from Genesis to Revelation, where the
story of salvation begins and ends in the same garden. Biblical history flows like
the rivers of the Fertile Crescent in this interpretive resource not to be missed by
any serious student of Scripture who is ready to think about the Bible in a whole
new way.”
C. Chappell Temple, PhD, lead pastor, Christ Church of Sugar Land
(Texas)

“John Beck has provided students of Scripture another helpful resource to assist us
as we study the Bible. The Basic Bible Atlas will provide an entrance point for both
new and seasoned believers who want to connect the Bible’s content with the
Bible’s geography. This relatively brief volume provides a geographically rich
survey of the metanarrative of Scripture. Those geographical dimensions deepen
our understanding of Scripture and add vividness and color to our preaching and
teaching of its truths.”
Michael A. Grisanti, professor of Old Testament, The Master’s
Seminary, Sun Valley, CA

“As one of many who have walked the biblical land with John, this narrative felt
like sitting at the feet of one of the elders and hearing our family story of
salvation. John helps us ponder our deep roots in the land, reminding us that the
God who forgives us and is with us, is also the one who writes the beginning and
end of our story. In my own role as a pastor who desires to make the Bible come
alive for people, John assists me in explaining how the land God gave his people
became an intersection of influence to the world and the place from which to
broadcast his glory. The reader will be able to ground historical theology in the
actual soil on which so much of the Bible unfolds and will better understand the
complete story from Genesis to Revelation.”
Jim Halbert, lead pastor, Crossroads Community Church, Nampa, ID
© 2020 by John A. Beck

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Publishing Group
PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287
www.bakerbooks.com

Ebook edition created 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example,
electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the
publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of

Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-1-4934-3018-5

Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®.
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of
Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com. The “NIV” and
“New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™\
 To Marmy—
my soul mate,
co-adventurer,
and
backpacking bride
 CONTENTS

Cover 1
Endorsements 2
Half Title Page 3
Title Page 5
Copyright Page 6
Dedication 7
Map and Illustration List 11
Acknowledgments 15

Part 1: Introduction to Geography 17

1. Introduction to the Atlas 19
2. Introduction to the Biblical World 23

Part 2: Putting the Story in Its Place 37

3. Creation, Fall, and Rescue Plan Stories 39
The Garden of Eden 39
Looking for Eden outside the Garden 42
Canaan, the Promised Land 47
4. Exodus, Wilderness, and Transjordan Stories 55
Egypt 55
Wilderness 59
Transjordan 63
5. Conquest, Division, and Crisis Stories 71
Promised Land Received and Divided 71
Promised Land in Crisis 77
6. United Kingdom Stories 85
Israel as One Kingdom 85
7. Divided Kingdom Stories 95
Israel as Two Kingdoms 95
8. Exile and Return Stories 105
Exile from the Promised Land 105
Return to the Promised Land 111
9. Jesus Stories 117
Jesus in Galilee 117
Jesus beyond Galilee 125
Jesus Confronts Opposing Voices in Judea 130
Jesus’s Passion: A Jerusalem Story 135
10. Church Stories 141
The Early Church in Jerusalem 141
The Early Church in Judea and Samaria 146
The Early Church to the Ends of the Earth 151
The Church Returns to the Garden of Eden 158

Notes 163
Scripture Index 167
Index of Place Names 170
About the Author 172
Back Ads 173
Back Cover 177
 MAP AND ILLUSTRATION
LIST

Part 1: Introduction to Geography

1. Introduction to the Atlas
1.1 Modern Mediterranean World 19
1.2 Modern Israel 20
2. Introduction to the Biblical World
2.1 The Ancient Near East 22
2.2 Old Testament Regions 24
2.3 New Testament Regions 25
2.4 Major Cities and Towns of Israel 27
2.5 Roads in Israel 28
2.6 Geographical Zones 30
2.7 Rainfall in Israel 32
2.8 Seasons and Culture 34
2.9 Soils and Products of Ancient Israel 35

Part 2: Putting the Story in Its Place

3. Creation, Fall, and Rescue Plan Stories
3.1 First Stories 43
3.2 Abram, Ur, Shechem, and Egypt 47
3.3 Abraham in Canaan 48
3.4 Isaac and Jacob in Canaan 51
3.5 Joseph Taken to Egypt 52
4. Exodus, Wilderness, and Transjordan Stories
4.1 The Exodus and the Great Detour 54
4.2 The Exploration of Canaan 60
4.3 The Transjordan Conquest 64
4.4 The Tabernacle 67
5. Conquest, Division, and Crisis Stories
5.1 Campaigns of Joshua 72
5.2 Tribal Land Allotments 76
5.3 Deborah and Barak’s Campaign against the Canaanites 79
5.4 The Life of Samson 80
5.5 The Time of the Judges 82
6. United Kingdom Stories
6.1 The Life of Samuel 86
6.2 Travels of the Ark 87
6.3 David and Goliath 88
6.4 Saul’s Final Battle 89
6.5 David: From Wilderness Fugitive to King of Israel 90
6.6 David’s Military Campaigns 91
6.7 The United Kingdom 92
6.8 Jerusalem of David 93
6.9 Jerusalem of Solomon 94
6.10 Solomon’s Temple 94
7. Divided Kingdom Stories
7.1 Schism at Shechem 96
7.2 The Divided Kingdom 98
7.3 Elijah and Elisha 100
7.4 Jehu’s Purge 101
7.5 The Assyrian Empire 102
7.6 Southern Kingdom Conflicts 103
7.7 Jerusalem of Hezekiah 104
8. Exile and Return Stories
8.1 The Babylonian Empire 106
8.2 The Persian Empire 107
8.3 Exiles and Returns 108
8.4 Judah and Idumea 114
9. Jesus Stories
9.1 The Roman Empire 116
9.2 Herod’s Kingdom 119
9.3 The Ministry of John the Baptist 120
9.4 Jesus’s Early Years 121
9.5 Jesus Moves to Capernaum 122
9.6 Jesus in Galilee 123
9.7 Jesus among Samaritans and Gentiles 126
9.8 Jesus in Jerusalem 131
9.9 Jesus after the Resurrection 137
10. Church Stories
10.1 Pentecost 143
10.2 Philip, Peter, and Paul 147
10.3 Paul’s First Missionary Journey 152
10.4 Paul’s Second Missionary Journey 153
10.5 Paul’s Third Missionary Journey 154
10.6 Paul’s Journey to Rome 155
10.7 The Seven Churches of Revelation 159
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to gratefully acknowledge those whom the Lord has used to

shape my thinking on the relationship between geography and the
Bible. First, my thanks to Dr. Paul Wright, president of Jerusalem
University College. I have grown with each conversation and each
shared step we have taken in the Lord’s own land.
I am grateful for each of the students from across the world who
have matched steps with me during our field-study treks in the
Middle East. Your thoughtful questions and gentle challenges have
matured both how I think and how I speak. You have truly helped
me make Bible geography meaningful.
And I am grateful for Brian Vos, senior acquisitions editor for
Baker Books. Thank you for inviting me to partner with you in this
project and for your insightful suggestions that make its pages come
to life. I pray that the Lord will use all the tools we have cocreated
to grow his kingdom.
 PART 1

INTRODUCTION TO
GEOGRAPHY
 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE
ATLAS

F rom beginning to end, the Bible tells a story that is geographically

grounded. The story begins when the Lord provides Adam and Eve
with a home in the garden of Eden, and it will end when the Lord
provides the descendants of Adam and Eve with an eternal home in
the new Jerusalem. In between, the Bible tells a story that is always
somewhere.
 1.1 Modern Mediterranean World

But that somewhere is not our somewhere. Like people

throughout history, we are shaped by place. Who we are, how we
think, and how we communicate are intimately bound to where we
are from. No one fully understands our story unless they understand
where we are from.
The same is true of the story told in the Bible. It is the story of
God meeting real people in a real time and place. And we will not
fully understand this story unless we understand the place from
which it has come. That is why you need an atlas. Because some of
what the Lord has to say to us, he has said using geography.
 1.2 Modern Israel

⬛ Why Do I Need This Basic Bible Atlas?

Of course, there are many Bible atlases available. If you are just
getting started with biblical geography, this is the right atlas for you.
It focuses on the basics and the big picture.
Here in part 1 we begin with a clear and concise introduction to
the basic geography of the biblical world, big-picture geography that
informs the entire story. We explore questions such as: Where is the
promised land located? How large is it? What are the most important
things I need to know about this land? Why did the Lord select Israel
as the promised land?
In part 2 we will move through the story of salvation from Genesis
through Revelation, identifying each major shift in the geography
and making that geography meaningful. Each time there’s a
significant change in location or we observe a change in the nature
of the location, we will pause to consider where we are, what has
changed, and how that shift impacts the story.
In the end, you will know the lands of the Bible better, as well as
the roles that geography plays in shaping the message of the Bible.
But the greatest reward will be the joy of hearing the Lord speak
more clearly. I hope the story that once hovered above the ground
will settle to earth, and that you will see and feel the vital
connections between the story, the land, the lesson, and you.
 2
INTRODUCTION TO THE
BIBLICAL WORLD

⬛ The Fertile Crescent

Ancient Israel was part of the Fertile Crescent, a sweeping arch of
land that stretches for 1,800 miles from Egypt to the shore of the
Persian Gulf (see map 2.1). Life and culture blossomed in the Fertile
Crescent for several reasons.
The Fertile Crescent was food-producing land. Ancient economies
were built on grain products because grains were a staple of the
ancient diet. Throughout the Fertile Crescent, sufficient rainfall—or
its equivalent redirected by irrigation canals from rivers to farm fields
—allowed farmers to grow barley and wheat.
The Fertile Crescent was empire-building land. The latitude of the
Fertile Crescent made it possible for its inhabitants to grow a
storable surplus of grain and to domesticate livestock, including
sheep, goats, and camels. This meant residents of the Fertile
Crescent could exchange a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that isolated
people from one another for a more settled agrarian-pastoral
lifestyle that permitted people to live near one another. As a result,
villages, towns, cities, and empires took root in the land. The Bible
mentions a number of these great empires—Egypt, Assyria, and
Babylon.
The Fertile Crescent was travel-friendly land. Cities and empires of
the Fertile Crescent interacted with one another. Merchants moved
commodities between neighboring communities, cultural innovations
were exchanged, and generals led armies into battle against
adjacent empires. The food and water resources available
throughout the Fertile Crescent, its travel-friendly topography, and
its navigable river systems made this the natural causeway for trade
and military movement.

2.1 The Ancient Near East

2.2 Old Testament Regions
 2.3 New Testament Regions

⬛ Israel as Land Bridge

Israel occupied a unique position between continents on the Fertile
Crescent, making it a natural land bridge. Most travel in the ancient
world was overland travel, so natural obstacles like mountain ranges,
seas, and deserts were avoided.
The western side of the Fertile Crescent had all these obstacles
(see map 2.1). To the west of Israel was the Mediterranean Sea. To
the north were the Taurus and Kurdistan Mountains. To the east and
south, the Arabian and Sinai Deserts discouraged travel. The only
viable route that sliced between them all was the travel-friendly land
bridge of ancient Israel. Consequently, overland routes—such as the
International Highway that connected ancient civilizations in Africa
and Saudi Arabia with those in Europe and Mesopotamia—passed
through the promised land.
Those interested in pursuing wealth or war had a natural interest
in controlling this crossroads. Merchants traveled this land bridge
and carried commodities between ancient markets. Given the fact
that the bridge was as narrow as seventy miles between desert and
sea, income-hungry empires lustily eyed the opportunity to collect
tariffs here, where restricted travel options allowed for more efficient
tax collection. In addition, the empires of the Fertile Crescent used
this travel corridor as a buffer zone between themselves and their
opponents. This made Israel a land worth fighting for and a land
worth fighting on. The local Israelites knew that reality all too well.
Their power paled in comparison to the empires, so they rarely
capitalized on the economic benefits of occupying the land bridge.
Instead, they were frequently victimized by the wars that raged on
it.
2.4 Major Cities and Towns of Israel
2.5 Roads in Israel
⬛ Israel Was a Small Land
Because stories of the Bible play such a big role in our lives, we tend
to assign them a correspondingly large footprint geographically. The
reality is much different. Ancient Israel was a small land.
At all four compass points, ancient Israel was defined by natural
boundaries: the Wilderness of Zin on the south, the Mediterranean
Sea on the west, the Lebanon Mountains on the north, and the lakes
and river of the Jordan River valley on the east (Num. 34:1–12).
But what about the two and a half tribes of Israel that received
land assignments on the east side of the Jordan River? These are
best seen as divine land grants to help secure the vulnerable east
side of the promised land. In this respect they are similar to the land
grants given to Israel’s extended family members, Edom, Moab, and
Ammon (Deut. 2:5, 9, 19), which also lie outside the promised land.
With these boundaries in mind, it is time to do the math. The
distance between Dan and Beersheba, which are mentioned as the
northernmost and southernmost cities of the promised land (see
Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20), is just 145 miles. The distance from the
middle of the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean Sea is 55 miles. And
the distance between Dan and the Mediterranean Sea measures a
measly 25 miles. This yields a promised-land footprint of merely
6,750 square miles. Only four states of the United States are
smaller: Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island. By all
accounts, ancient Israel was a small land.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 the Court, observed: 'The solution of this question must
necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the
meaning and intention of the convention which framed and
proposed it for adoption and ratification to the conventions
of the people of and in the several States; together with a
reference to such sources of judicial information as are
resorted to by all courts in construing statutes, and to which
this court has always resorted in construing the
Constitution.' 12 Pet. 657, 721. We know of no reason for
holding otherwise than that the words 'direct taxes,' on the
one hand, and 'duties, imposts and excises,' on the other,
were used in the Constitution in their natural and obvious
sense. Nor in arriving at what those terms embrace do we
perceive any ground for enlarging them beyond or narrowing
them within their natural and obvious import at the time the
Constitution was framed and ratified.

{555}

"And passing from the text, we regard the conclusion reached

as inevitable, when the circumstances which surrounded the
convention and controlled its action and the views of those
who framed and those who adopted the Constitution are
considered. … In the light of the struggle in the convention
as to whether or not the new Nation should be empowered to
levy taxes directly on the individual until after the States
had failed to respond to requisitions—a struggle which did not
terminate until the amendment to that effect, proposed by
Massachusetts and concurred in by South Carolina, New
Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island, had been rejected—it
would seem beyond reasonable question that direct taxation,
taking the place as it did of requisitions, was purposely
restrained to apportionment according to representation, in
order that the former system as to ratio might be retained
while the mode of collection was changed. This is forcibly
illustrated by a letter of Mr. Madison of January 29, 1789,
recently published, written after the ratification of the
Constitution, but before the organization of the government
and the submission of the proposed amendment to Congress,
which, while opposing the amendment as calculated to impair
the power only to be exercised in extraordinary emergencies,
assigns adequate ground for its rejection as substantially
unnecessary, since, he says, 'every State which chooses to
collect its own quota may always prevent a Federal collection,
by keeping a little beforehand in its finances and making its
payment at once into the Federal treasury.'

"The reasons for the clauses of the Constitution in respect of

direct taxation are not far to seek. The States, respectively,
possessed plenary powers of taxation. They could tax the
property of their citizens in such manner and to such extent
as they saw fit; they had unrestricted powers to impose duties
or imposts on imports from abroad, and excises on
manufactures, consumable commodities, or otherwise. They gave
up the great sources of revenue derived from commerce; they
retained the concurrent power of levying excises, and duties
if covering anything other than excises; but in respect of
them the range of taxation was narrowed by the power granted
over interstate commerce, and by the danger of being put at
disadvantage in dealing with excises on manufactures. They
retained the power of direct taxation, and to that they looked
as their chief resource; but even in respect of that, they
granted the concurrent power, and if the tax were placed by
both governments on the same subject, the claim of the United
States had preference. Therefore, they did not grant the power
of direct taxation without regard to their own condition and
resources as States; but they granted the power of apportioned
direct taxation, a power just as efficacious to serve the needs
of the general government, but securing to the States the
opportunity to pay the amount apportioned, and to recoup from
their own citizens in the most feasible way, and in harmony
with their systems of local self-government. If, in the
changes of wealth and population in particular States,
apportionment produced inequality, it was an inequality
stipulated for, just as the equal representation of the
States, however small, in the Senate, was stipulated for. …

"Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional

provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in
plain language. It is said that a tax on the whole income of
property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the
Constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without
apportionment, whether direct or indirect. We do not think so.
Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath and the
restriction blown to the winds in another. Cooley (On
Taxation, page 3) says that the word 'duty' ordinarily 'means
an indirect tax imposed on the importation, exportation or
consumption of goods'; having a broader meaning than "custom,"
which is a duty imposed on imports or exports'; that 'the term
"impost" also signifies any tax, tribute or duty, but it is
seldom applied to any but the indirect taxes. An excise duty
is an inland impost, levied upon articles of manufacture or
sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to
deal in certain commodities.' In the Constitution the words
'duties, imposts and excises' are put in antithesis to direct
taxes. Gouverneur Morris recognized this in his remarks in
modifying his celebrated motion, as did Wilson in approving of
the motion as modified. …

"Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:

"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that,

taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on
the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

"Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or

on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

"Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to

thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it
falls on the income of real estate and of personal property,
 being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution,
and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not
apportioned according to representation, all those sections,
constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily
invalid."

Four dissenting opinions were prepared, by Justices Harlan,

Brown, Jackson and White. In that of Mr. Justice Harlan, he
said: "What are 'direct taxes' within the meaning of the
Constitution? In the convention of 1787, Rufus King asked what
was the precise meaning of 'direct' taxation, and no one
answered. Madison Papers, 5 Elliott's Debates, 451. The
debates of that famous body do not show that any delegate
attempted to give a clear, succinct definition of what, in his
opinion, was a direct tax. Indeed the report of those debates,
upon the question now before us, is very meagre and
unsatisfactory. An illustration of this is found in the case
of Gouverneur Morris. It is stated that on the 12th of July,
1787, he moved to add to a clause empowering Congress to vary
representation according to the principles of 'wealth and
numbers of inhabitants,' a proviso 'that taxation shall be in
proportion to representation.' And he is reported to have
remarked, on that occasion, that while some objections lay
against his motion, he supposed 'they would be removed by
restraining the rule to direct taxation.' Elliott's Debates,
302.
{556}
But, on the 8th of August, 1787, the work of the Committee on
Detail being before the convention, Mr. Morris is reported to
have remarked, 'let it not be said that direct taxation is to
be proportioned to representation.' 5 Elliott's Debates, 393.
If the question propounded by Rufus King had been answered in
accordance with the interpretation now given, it is not at all
certain that the Constitution, in its present form, would have
been adopted by the convention, nor, if adopted, that it would
have been accepted by the requisite number of States." The
following is from the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brown:
"In view of the fact that the great burden of taxation among
the several States is assessed upon real estate at a
valuation, and that a similar tax was apparently an important
part of the revenue of such States at the time the
Constitution was adopted, it is not unreasonable to suppose
that this is the only undefined direct tax the framers of the
Constitution had in view when they incorporated this clause
into that instrument. The significance of the words 'direct
taxes' was not so well understood then as it is now, and it is
entirely probable that these words were used with reference to
a generally accepted method of raising a revenue by tax upon
real estate. … But, however this may be, I regard it as very
clear that the clause requiring direct taxes to be apportioned
to the population has no application to taxes which are not
capable of apportionment according to population. It cannot be
supposed that the convention could have contemplated a
practical inhibition upon the power of Congress to tax in some
way all taxable property within the jurisdiction of the
Federal government, for the purposes of a national revenue.
And if the proposed tax were such that in its nature it could
not be apportioned according to population, it naturally
follows that it could not have been considered a direct tax,
within the meaning of the clause in question."

Mr. Justice Jackson concluded his dissenting opinion as

follows: "The practical operation of the decision is not only
to disregard the great principles of equality in taxation, but
the further principle that in the imposition of taxes for the
benefit of the government the burdens thereof should be
imposed upon those having the most ability to bear them. This
decision, in effect, works out a directly opposite result, in
relieving the citizens having the greater ability, while the
burdens of taxation are made to fall most heavily and
oppressively upon those having the least ability. It lightens
the burden upon the larger number in some States subject to
the tax, and places it most unequally and disproportionately
on the smaller number in other States. Considered in all its
bearings, this decision is, in my judgment, the most
disastrous blow ever struck at the constitutional power of
Congress. It strikes down an important portion of the most
vital and essential power of the government in practically
excluding any recourse to incomes from real and personal
estate for the purpose of raising needed revenue to meet the
government's wants and necessities under any circumstances.

"I am therefore compelled to enter my dissent to the judgment

of the court."

The opinion delivered by the majority of the Court was

criticised with severity by Mr. Justice White, who said: "The
injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting
it. It takes invested wealth and reads it into the
Constitution as a favored and protected class of property,
which cannot be taxed without apportionment, whilst it leaves
the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the
lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic,
and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a
people must depend, subject to taxation without that
condition. A rule which works out this result, which, it seems
to me, stultifies the Constitution by making it an instrument of
the most grievous wrong, should not be adopted, especially
when, in order to do so, the decisions of this court, the
opinions of the law writers and publicists, tradition,
practice, and the settled policy of the government must be
overthrown.

"To destroy the fixed interpretation of the Constitution, by

which the rule of apportionment according to population, is
confined to direct taxes on real estate so as to make that
rule include indirect taxes on real estate and taxes, whether
direct or indirect, on invested personal property, stocks,
bonds, etc., reads into the Constitution the most flagrantly
unjust, unequal, and wrongful system of taxation known to any
civilized government. This strikes me as too clear for
argument. I can conceive of no greater injustice than would
result from imposing on one million of people in one State,
having only ten millions of invested wealth, the same amount
of tax as that imposed on the like number of people in another
State having fifty times that amount of invested wealth. The
application of the rule of apportionment by population to
invested personal wealth would not only work out this wrong,
but would ultimately prove a self-destructive process, from
the facility with which such property changes its situs. If so
taxed, all property of this character would soon be transferred
to the States where the sum of accumulated wealth was greatest
in proportion to population, and where therefore the burden of
taxation would be lightest, and thus the mighty wrong
resulting from the very nature of the extension of the rule
would be aggravated. It is clear then, I think, that the
admission of the power of taxation in regard to invested
personal property, coupled with the restriction that the tax
must be distributed by population and not by wealth, involves
a substantial denial of the power itself, because the
condition renders its exercise practically impossible. To say
a thing can only be done in a way which must necessarily bring
about the grossest wrong, is to delusively admit the existence
of the power, while substantially denying it. And the grievous
results sure to follow from any attempt to adopt such a system
are so obvious that my mind cannot fail to see that if a tax
on invested personal property were imposed by the rule of
population, and there were no other means of preventing its
enforcement, the red spectre of revolution would shake our
institutions to their foundation. …

"It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that, after more than

one hundred years of our national existence, after the
government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the
dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become
united and powerful, this court should consider itself
compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory
of the Constitution, by which the government is deprived of an
 inherent attribute of its being, a necessary power of taxation."

United States Reports,

v. 158, pages 601-715.

{557}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (July-November).

Correspondence with the Government of Great Britain
on the Venezuela boundary question.

See (in this volume)

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (JULY), and (NOVEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (September).

Executive order for the improvement of the consular service.

In his annual Message to Congress, December 2, 1895, President

Cleveland made the following statement of measures adopted for
the improvement of the consular service of the country:

"In view of the growth of our interests in foreign countries

and the encouraging prospects for a general expansion of our
commerce, the question of an improvement in the consular
service has increased in importance and urgency. Though there
is no doubt that the great body of consular officers are
rendering valuable services to the trade and industries of the
country, the need of some plan of appointment and control
which would tend to secure a higher average of efficiency can
not be denied. The importance of the subject has led the
Executive to consider what steps might properly be taken
without additional legislation to answer the need of a better
system of consular appointments. The matter having been
committed to the consideration of the Secretary of State, in
pursuance of his recommendations, an Executive order was
issued on the 20th of September, 1895, by the terms of which
it is provided that after that date any vacancy in a consular
or commercial agency with an annual salary or compensation
from official fees of not more than $2,500 or less than $1,000
should be filled either by transfer or promotion from some
other position under the Department of State of a character
tending to qualify the incumbent for the position to be
filled, or by the appointment of a person not under the
Department of State, but having previously served thereunder
and shown his capacity and fitness for consular duty, or by
the appointment of a person who, having been selected by the
President and sent to a board for examination, is found, upon
such examination, to be qualified for the position. Posts
which pay less than $1,000 being usually, on account of their
small compensation, filled by selection from residents of the
locality, it was not deemed practicable to put them under the
new system.

"The compensation of $2,500 was adopted as the maximum limit

in the classification for the reason that consular officers
receiving more than that sum are often charged with functions
and duties scarcely inferior in dignity and importance to
those of diplomatic agents, and it was therefore thought best
to continue their selection in the discretion of the Executive
without subjecting them to examination before a board.
Excluding seventy-one places with compensation at present less
than $1,000, and fifty-three places above the maximum in
compensation, the number of positions remaining within the
scope of the order is one hundred and ninety-six. This number
will undoubtedly be increased by the inclusion of consular
officers whose remuneration in fees, now less than $1,000,
will be augmented with the growth of our foreign commerce and
a return to more favorable business conditions. In execution
of the Executive order referred to, the Secretary of State has
designated as a board to conduct the prescribed examinations
the Third Assistant Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the
Department of State, and the Chief of the Consular Bureau, and
has specified the subjects to which such examinations shall
relate.
"It is not assumed that this system will prove a full measure
of consular reform. It is quite probable that actual
experience will show particulars in which the order already
issued may be amended, and demonstrate that, for the best
results, appropriate legislation by Congress is imperatively
required. In any event these efforts to improve the consular
service ought to be immediately supplemented by legislation
providing for consular inspection. This has frequently been a
subject of Executive recommendation, and I again urge such
action by Congress as will permit the frequent and thorough
inspection of consulates by officers appointed for that
purpose or by persons already in the diplomatic or consular
service. The expense attending such a plan would be
insignificant compared with its usefulness, and I hope the
legislation necessary to set it on foot will be speedily
forthcoming.

"I am thoroughly convinced that in addition to their salaries

our ambassadors and ministers at foreign courts should be
provided by the Government with official residences. The
salaries of these officers are comparatively small and in most
cases insufficient to pay, with other necessary expenses, the
cost of maintaining household establishments in keeping with
their important and delicate functions. The usefulness of a
nation's diplomatic representative undeniably depends upon the
appropriateness of his surroundings, and a country like ours,
while avoiding unnecessary glitter and show, should be certain
that it does not suffer in its relations with foreign nations
through parsimony and shabbiness in its diplomatic outfit.
These considerations and the other advantages of having fixed
and somewhat permanent locations for our embassies, would
abundantly justify the moderate expenditure necessary to carry
out this suggestion."

Message of the President

(54th Congress, 1st Session,
 House Documents, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (December).

Message of President Cleveland on the boundary dispute
between Great Britain and Venezuela.
Prompt response from Congress.

On the 17th of December, 1895, the country was startled and

the world at large excited by a message from President
Cleveland to Congress, relating to the disputed boundary
between British Guiana and Venezuela, and the refusal of the
British government to submit the dispute to arbitration.

See, (in this volume),

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (DECEMBER).

The tone in which the President recommended the appointment of

a commission to ascertain the "true divisional line" between
Venezuela and British Guiana, with a view to determining the
future action of the United States, was peremptory and
threatening enough to awaken all the barbaric passions which
wait and watch for signals of war; and Congress, in both
branches, met the wishes of the President with the singular
alacrity that so often appears in the action of legislative
bodies when a question arises which carries the scent of war.
The House refused to wait for any reference of the matter to
its Committee on Foreign Relations, but framed and passed at
once (December 18) without debate or division, an act
authorizing the suggested commission and appropriating
$100,000 for the expenses of its work.
{558}
In the Senate there were some voices raised against needless
and unseemly haste in the treatment of so grave a proposition.
Senator Teller, of Colorado, was one who spoke to that effect,
saying: "I do not understand that our great competitor in
commerce and trade, our Great English-speaking relative, has
ever denied our right to assert and maintain the Monroe
doctrine. What they claim is that the Monroe doctrine does not
apply to this case. Whether it applies to this case depends upon
the facts, which are unknown to us, it appears. If I knew what
the facts were, as an international lawyer I would have no
difficulty in applying the law. As a believer in the American
doctrine of the right to say that no European power shall
invade American soil, either of North or South America, I
should have no trouble in coming to a conclusion. Is it an
invasion of American soil? I do not know that. I repeat, I
thought I did. I have found that I do not.

"If the President of the United States had said that in the
Department of State they had determined what was the true line
between the British possessions and Venezuela, and if he had
said, 'We are confident that the British Government, instead
of attempting to arrange a disputed line, is attempting to use
this disputed line as a pretense for territorial acquisition,'
no matter what may be the character of the Administration,
whether Democratic or Republican, I would have stood by that
declaration as an American Senator, because there is where we
get our information upon these subjects, and not from our own
judgment. We must stand by what the Department says upon these
great questions when the facts are ascertained by it. The
President says that he needs assistance to make this
determination. We are going to give it to him. Nobody doubts
that. The only question is, how shall we give it to him? I am
as firm a believer in the Monroe doctrine as any man who
lives. I am as firm a believer as anyone in the maintenance of
the honor of the American people, and do not believe it can be
maintained if we abandon the Monroe doctrine.

"Mr. President, there is no haste in this matter. The dispute

is one of long standing. Great Britain is not now taking any
extraordinary steps with reference to the control of the
territory in dispute. They took, it is said, five months to
answer our Secretary's letter of July 20. Mr. President, the
time was not excessive. It is not unreasonable in diplomatic
affairs that there should be months taken in replying to
questions of so much importance. We may properly take months,
if we choose, to consider it before we plant ourselves upon
what we say are the facts in this case. I repeat, so far as
the American people are concerned, the Monroe doctrine is not
in dispute, is not in doubt, whatever may be the doubt about
the facts in this case. If the facts are not ascertained, we
must, before we proceed further, ascertain them.

"This is a very important question. It is not a question of

party politics. It is not a question that any political party
ought to take advantage of to get votes. The political party
that attempts to make capital out of this question will find
that it is a loser in the end. The American people will not be
trifled with on a question of this kind. If the other side of
the Chamber, or the Administration, or anybody, attempts to
make capital out of it they will find that they will lose in
the end, as we should lose on our side if we should be foolish
enough, as I know we are not, to attempt to make capital out
of it in any way. … This question is of so much importance
that I do not care myself if the bill goes to the Committee on
Foreign Relations and lies there a month. You will not impress
the world with our solidarity and solidity on this question by
any haste in this body. Let this proceeding be a dignified
proceeding. Let the bill go to the committee. Let the
committee take their time on it. Let them return it here and
say what is the best way by which we can strengthen the hands
of the President of the United States in his efforts to
maintain this American doctrine.

"Mr. President, I am not one of those who want war. I do not

believe in war. I believe in this case Great Britain made a
great mistake when she said she would not arbitrate, and I
have faith enough in the love of justice and right that
pervades the people of Great Britain to believe that on second
sober thought they will submit this question to arbitration,
as many of their representative men have declared they are
willing to submit all questions of this character. … Let this
bill go to the committee. Let it be considered. If the
committee wants a week, ten days, or two weeks, or a month,
let the committee take it. Nothing will be lost. Great Britain
will not misunderstand our attitude. She does not misunderstand
it now. She knows just as well how we feel upon these subjects
as she will when we pass this bill. She has had it dinned in
her ears again and again from nearly every Secretary of State
that we were not willing to abandon the Monroe doctrine, nor
view with indifference the improper interference of any
European power with any existing American Government, whether
such interference is a violation of the Monroe doctrine or
not."

Congressional Record,
December 19, 1895, page 246.

Senator Call made a similar appeal, saying: "As to all this

talk about war, in my opinion there is no possibility of war.
There can be, and ought to be, no possibility of it. The
enlightened sentiment of the nations of the world would forbid
that there should be a war between this country and England
upon this question. Nevertheless, it would be the duty of this
country to maintain by force of arms the proposition that
there shall be no forcible establishment of European
institutions and European Governments over any portion of this
territory. Who can entertain the idea that war can be made
with Great Britain, and that the people of the British Empire
will permit that Government to engage in war upon a question
of boundaries which is not sustained by the facts of the case,
but a mere aggression, and that the peace of mankind shall be
disturbed by it. …

"I agree with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] that there
is no necessity for haste in this action and that it comports
better with the dignity of Congress for the Senate of the
United States and the House of Representatives to declare that
 this Government will firmly maintain, as a definite proposition,
that Venezuela shall not be forced to cede any portion of her
territory to Great Britain or to recognize a boundary line
which is not based upon the facts of history and upon clear
and ascertained proof.
{559}
It seems to me, Mr. President, that all this discussion about
war should not have place here, but that we should make a bold
and independent and firm declaration as to the proper policy
of this Government, and vote the President of the United
States the money necessary, in his judgment, to carry out that
declaration so far as obtaining information which may be
desired. …

"The possibility that war between these two nations will be

the result of our defending the right of Venezuela to the
integrity of her territory against its forced appropriation by
England should not be entertained. These two nations, the
United States and Great Britain, are the main pillars of the
civilization of the world, neither can afford to demand of the
other anything that is wrong or any injustice to the other.
Great Britain recognizes the supremacy of the United States in
the Western Hemisphere, and it is sufficient for them to know
that we will maintain this with all the power of the Republic,
and that this is not an idle menace.

"This is my view of the situation. The President has done his

duty. He has recommended that the traditional policy of this
country to protect all people who establish governments of
their choice against forcible intervention by European powers,
under whatever pretense, whether by claiming fictitious
boundaries and enforcing their claim, or by any other means,
and that we will be the judge of this, but that we are ready
to submit the facts to the judgment of a fair arbitration. It
is sufficient for us to sustain this declaration and for us to
provide the means of obtaining the information necessary for
an intelligent judgment on the question. It will suffice for
 the able statesman who represents the Government of Great
Britain to know and to inform his Government that the people
of the United States are united in the determination to
maintain and defend this policy with all their power, and a
peaceable settlement of the question will be made."

Congressional Record,
December 20, 1895, page 264.

The Senate was persuaded to refer the House Bill to its

Committee on Foreign Relations, but the Committee reported it
on the following day (December 20), and it was passed without
division.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895-1896 (December-January).

The feeling in England and America over the
Venezuela boundary dispute.

Happily President Cleveland's Message did not provoke in

England the angry and combative temper that is commonly roused
by a demand from one nation upon another, made in any
peremptory tone. The feeling produced there seemed to have in
it more of surprise and regret than of wrath, revealing very
plainly that friendliness had been growing of late, much
warmer in English sentiment toward the American Republic than
in American sentiment toward England. Within the past thirty
years there had been what in France would be called a
"rapprochement" in feeling going on between the two peoples;
but the rate of approach had been greater on one side than on
the other, and neither had understood the fact until it was
brought home to them by this incident. There seems to be no
doubt that the English people were astonished and shocked by
the sudden prospect of a serious quarrel with the United
States, and that Americans were generally surprised and moved
by the discovery of that state of feeling in the English mind.
The first response in the United States to the President's
message came noisily from the more thoughtless part of the
people, and seemed to show that the whole nation was fairly
eager for war with its "kin beyond sea." But that was a
short-lived demonstration. The voices that really speak for
the country soon made themselves heard in a different
tone,—anxious to avert war,—critical of the construction that
had been given to the Monroe doctrine by President Cleveland
and his Secretary of State,—earnestly responsive to the
pacific temper of the English public,—and yet firm in
upholding the essential justice of the ground on which their
government had addressed itself to that of Great Britain. The
feeling in the two countries, respectively, at the beginning
of 1896, appears to have been described very accurately by two
representative writers in the "North American Review" of
February in that year. One was Mr. James Bryce, the well-known
English student of American institutions—author of "The
American Commonwealth"—who wrote:

"Those Englishmen who have travelled in America have of course

been aware of the mischief your school-books do in teaching
young people to regard the English as enemies because there
was war in the days of George III. Such Englishmen knew that
as Britain is almost the only great power with which the
United States has had diplomatic controversies, national
feeling has sometimes been led to regard her as an adversary,
and displays of national feeling often took the form of
defiance. Even such travellers, however, were not prepared for
the language of the President and its reception in many
quarters, while as to Englishmen generally, they could
scarcely credit their eyes and ears. 'Why,' they said, 'should
we be regarded as enemies by our own kinsfolk? No territorial
dispute is pending between us and them, like those we have or
have lately had with France and Russia. No explosions of
Jingoism have ever been directed against them, like those
which Lord Beaconsfield evoked against Russia some twenty
years ago. There is very little of that commercial, and none
of that colonial, rivalry which we have with France and
Germany, for the Americans are still chiefly occupied in
 developing their internal resources, and have ample occupation
for their energy and their capital in doing so. Still less is
there that incompatibility of character and temper which
sometimes sets us wrong with Frenchmen, or Russians, or even
Germans, for we and the Americans come of the same stock,
speak the same language, read the same books, think upon
similar lines, are connected by a thousand ties of family and
friendship. No two nations could be better fitted to
understand one another's ideas and institutions. English
travellers and writers used no doubt formerly to assume airs
of supercilious condescension which must have been offensive
to Americans. But those airs were dropped twenty or thirty
years ago, and the travellers who return now return full of
gratitude for the kindness they have received and full of
admiration for the marvellous progress they have witnessed. We
know all about the Irish faction; but the Irish faction do not
account for this.
{560}
So we quite understand that resentment was caused in the North
and West of America by the attitude of our wealthy class
during the Civil War. But that attitude was not the attitude
of the British nation. … Our press, whose tone often
exasperates Continental nations, is almost uniformly
respectful and friendly to America. What can we have done to
provoke in the United States feelings so unlike those which we
ourselves cherish?'

"In thus summing up what one has been hearing on all sides in
Britain during the last fortnight, I am not exaggerating
either the amazement or the regret with which the news of a
threatened breach between the two countries was received. The
average Englishman likes America far better than any foreign
nation; he admires the 'go,' as he calls it, of your people,
and is soon at home among you. In fact, he does not regard you
as a foreign nation, as any one will agree who has noticed how
different has been the reception given on all public occasions
to your last four envoys, Messrs. Welsh, Lowell, Phelps, and
Lincoln (as well as your present ambassador) from that
accorded to the ambassadors of any other power. The educated
and thoughtful Englishman has looked upon your Republic as the
champion of freedom and peace, has held you to be our natural
ally, and has even indulged the hope of a permanent alliance
with you, under which the citizens of each country should have
the rights of citizenship in the other and be aided by the
consuls and protected by the fleets of the other all over the
world. The sentiments which the news from America evoked were,
therefore, common to all classes in England. … Passion has not
yet been aroused, and will not be, except by the language of
menace."

J. Bryce,
British Feeling on the Venezuelan Question
(North American Review, February, 1896).

The writer who described American feeling, or opinion, in the

same magazine, was Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who said: "In the
United States, East, West, North and South, from which
divergent voices were at first heard, there is but one voice
now. Public opinion has crystallized into one
word—arbitration. In support of that mode of settlement we now
know the nation is unanimous. The proofs of this should not
fail to carry conviction into the hearts of Britons. The one
representative and influential body in the United States which
is most closely allied with Britain not only by the ties of
trade, but by the friendships which these ties have created,
is the Chamber of Commerce of New York. If that body were
polled by ballot, probably a greater proportion of its members
than of any other body of American citizens would register
themselves as friendly to England. So far did the feeling
extend in this body, that a movement was on foot to call a
meeting to dissent from the President's Message. Fortunately,
wiser counsels prevailed, and time was given for an
examination of the question, and for members to make up their
minds upon the facts. The result was that at the crowded
meeting subsequently held, there was passed a resolution, with
only one dissenting voice, in favor of a commission for
arbitration. In the whole proceedings there was only one
sentiment present in the minds of those assembled: 'this is a
question for arbitration.' …

"Every nation has its 'Red Rag,' some nations have more than
one, but what the 'Right of Asylum' is to Great Britain, the
Monroe Doctrine is to the United States. Each lies very deep
in the national heart. Few statesmen of Great Britain do not
share the opinion of Lord Salisbury, which he has not feared
to express, that the 'Right of Asylum' is abused and should be
restricted, but there has not arisen one in Britain
sufficiently powerful to deal with it. The United States never
had, and has not now, a statesman who could restrain the
American people from an outburst of passion and the extreme
consequences that national passion is liable to bring, if any
European power undertook to extend its territory upon this
continent, or to decide in case of dispute just where the
boundary of present possessions stand. Such differences must
be arbitrated. …

"In his speech at Manchester Mr. Balfour said he 'trusted and

believed the day would come when better statesmen in
authority, and more fortunate than even Monroe, would assert a
doctrine between the English-speaking peoples under which war
would be impossible.' That day has not to come, it has
arrived. The British Government has had for years in its
archives an invitation from the United States to enter into a
treaty of arbitration which realizes this hope, and Mr.
Balfour is one of those who, from their great position, seem
most responsible for the rejection of the end he so ardently
longs for. It is time that the people of Great Britain
understood that if war be still possible between the two
countries, it is not the fault of the Republic but of their
own country, not of President Cleveland and Secretary of State
Olney, but of Prime Minister Salisbury, and the leader of the