Instructions For Completing The Cause Of Death Section Of The Death Certificate For: Fill & Download for Free

Why only secular historians? Is this an assumption of bias? But that’s a bias! It can be fairly said that all ancient historians had biases of some kind, not just Christian ones. Heck—all modern historians are biased too, but modern ones, at least, are generally more aware of it and make the effort to correct for it. They do that by giving equal treatment to all material. Excluding non-secular historians would sacrifice some of the most important avenues to the past we have, and it would do so on purely ideological, not historical, grounds.That’s how you get crap history fit only for a Bill Maher video.The short answer to your question is yes. There are multiple textual sources, including Christian and non-Christian ones, as well as archeological finds, providing solid evidence that persecution of Christians in the Roman empire was real.**Do not, under any circumstances, quote to me “THE MYTH OF PERSECUTION” by Candida Moss as an authoritative history contradicting this statement! Her book is not a work of history, it is a polemic against modern fundamentalism because it’s her opinion they have a martyr complex. Her sole historical claim is that early persecution wasn’t constant, which is not even a new idea.It’s true the pre-Constantinian period was not an era of continuous, sustained, imperially-coordinated martyrdom. Persecution was sporadic and primarily regional, often led by local mobs, or local authorities, or local governors—albeit with Rome’s approval. From A.D. 30 to A.D. 311, (a period in which 54 emperors ruled the Empire), only about a dozen took the trouble to harass Christians. Furthermore, not until Decius (249–251) did any of them deliberately attempt an Empire-wide persecution.All true, and now that we’ve downplayed it all, it should be said that regional persecution is still persecution for those in that region, and honestly, any persecution by your neighbors or your own government has to be traumatic. Let’s not forget this is a discussion of real human suffering, loss and pain.Keep it in perspective, that I agree with, but to say that Christian persecution is a mere historical fantasy flies directly in the face of all the many historical references to it.So. What evidences are there?Roman LawThe bibliography of the juridical basis of the persecutions of the Christians in the Roman Empire after AD 200 is vast. As one example, Ulpian, a Roman jurist, collected the imperial criminal laws relating to the punishment of Christians into the seventh book of his “De Officio Proconsulis.” [1]However, before 200, the first reference to ‘Christians’ in Roman Law is almost certainly in Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan of AD 112.Pliny questions Trajan about the law: “Is the name (Christian) itself to be punished, even without offenses, or only the offenses perpetrated in connection with the name?” (By this Pliny meant the accusations of immorality against Christians —cannibalism (the eucharist) and incest (brother and sister in Christ).)It is probably safe to assume from Trajan’s response that his secretaries searched the files and could find nothing in the law (of 112 AD) to directly answer Pliny’s question:Trajan’s response is moderate, “they are not to be sought out,” but he affirms that, yes, “if they are denounced and proved guilty (of being Christian), they are to be punished”. [2]Trajan confirmed: the name alone was sufficient.Pliny and Trajan probably had no intention of establishing legal precedent, but they did. This rescript became a guide for any proconsul thereafter.Pliny the YoungerThere are no court records, nor any record of the names of those that died under Pliny’s ministrations, but we know they did because Pliny says so. The absence of legal records is not proof persecution didn’t occur.It may seem surprising that Pliny handled interrogation, prosecution, sentencing and execution all by himself, but this is consistent with legal methods of the time. Even when a case against a Christian was brought to court for trial, more often than not, the outcome was wholly subject to a local governor's personal opinion.Before the late 2nd century AD, even those trials actually in the criminal courts seem to have been little governed by the niceties of law. Trials were held before a body of non-professional judges; decisions were made by a majority vote, without deliberation. Trials began with long presentations made by highly adversarial advocates from each side with little opportunity for pre-trial discovery, compulsion of witnesses to tell the truth, or rules of evidence.Christians were accused and prosecuted through a process termed cognitio extra ordinem—outside the order set by ordinary criminal law: the leges iudiciorum publicorum. This cognitio system allowed for the prosecution of a wider breadth of ‘new and unusual’ crimes outside of what was normally considered criminal such as being Christian.Trials and punishments both varied greatly. The court produced no explanation of its verdict, and no appeal was possible, though pardon could be granted by a political act of the assemblies or the emperor. (Roman criminal law had a deeper and more complicated relationship to politics than did civil law.)One martyr story tells of a trial in an amphitheater with a magistrate who was there because he was on vacation, but that is no argument against authenticity, since it is entirely possible within the legal culture of the time.[3]Acts of the MartyrsIn addition to Roman Law we have the Acts of the Martyrs, or Acta Martyrum. They include all the varied accounts (acta, gesta, passiones, martyria, and legenda) of the arrest, interrogation, condemnation, execution, and burial of the martyrs of the first centuries.Some are authentic accounts of martyrdom and some are not.They are divided into categories.Acta, or Court Proceedings.In a Roman criminal court, the questions asked by the judge and the responses of the defendants, along with the official verdict, were taken down in shorthand by professional notaries (notarii, exceptores, or censuales). These notes were then transcribed into regular writing and deposited in the archives (instrumentum provinciae). There they could be consulted years, and even decades, later. This is attested by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 5.18.9; 7.11.6), St.Augustine (Contra Cresconium 3.70), St. Jerome (Adv. Rufinum 2.3), and Lydus (De magistratibus populi Romani 3.29).Some examples:The earliest of the authentic Christian martyr Acta are those of Justin Martyr and his six companions, executed at Rome c.164 AD by order of Junius Rusticus, prefect of the city.The Acta Martyrum Scillitanorum report the trial and condemnation of 12 Christians from Scilli on July 17, 180, by the proconsul Saturninus at Carthage.The Proconsular Acts of Cyprian, one of the most important and moving documents of the early Church, contains a transcript of his first trial in 257; another of his second the following year; and a description by an eyewitness of his execution on Sept. 14, 258.The Acts of Fructuosus preserve the protocol of the trial of the bishop and his two deacons, Augurius and Eulogius, along with a description of their deaths by fire (Jan. 21, 259).Other authentic Acts from the time of Diocletian are those of Maximilianus, who was executed at Theveste in Numidia in 295 for refusing to enter military service, and of the centurion Marcellus, beheaded at Tangier in Mauretania in 298 for throwing away his military belt.Passiones and Martyria.Accounts of eyewitnesses, or well-informed contemporaries of the martyrs, are called passiones in Latin and in Greek martyria. They were written by Christians and are of a more personal and literary character than the acta, and are authentic in their core accounts..The earliest of these accounts is the Martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna. Another report of this type is the encyclical letter preserved by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 5.1.1–2.7), and sent by Irenaeus after the persecution of the Christians at Lyons in 177 (discussed more below).Another example of an authentic account is the Passion of Saint Perpetua, Saint Felicitas, and their Companions . [4]The Acts of Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, condemned by Culcianus, Prefect of Egypt, at Alexandria early in the fourth century also belongs in this category.Interpolated Accounts.The third class of martyrs' Acts is much larger and consists of accounts drawn from written documents that have been more or less extensively edited at a later date to suit the purpose of the author. An example of this type of development may be seen in the seven different redactions of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs.Since the mid–19th century, numerous attempts have been made, using both internal and external criteria, to sift the facts from the fiction in these Acts, but the conclusions reached are often uncertain.Among the pieces in this class are the Passiones of Maximus, Crispina, Irenaeus, Pollio, Euplus, Philip, Quirinus, Julius; and of Agape and Chionia; and that of Saturninus, Dativus and their companions, Claudius, Asterius and their companions; and of the Persian martyrs Simeon, Pherbuta, Sadoth, and Bademus. Many of the narratives in the Menology of Symeon Metaphrastes also belong in this category. Many have historical details but are still uncertain in their historicity.Among those that should most probably be dismissed as undependable are:Historical and Imaginative Romances. These are late works based on neither written documents nor definite oral traditions. Instead, a few facts are set down in an elaborate, imaginary framework. Usually what is historical in these compositions is the saint's name, the date of his feast, the existence of his shrine, and not much more.Hagiographical Forgeries. These accounts about the death of martyrs were written for neither the edification nor the amusement of readers, but to deceive them. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are the earliest examples of this type, and were composed out of excessive devotion to St.Paul by a priest of Asia who was later defrocked for his pains (Tertullian, De baptismo 17).Early Sporadic Persecution under Nero, Domitian and TrajanThe First Persecution: Nero, 54 AD–68 ADIn the summer of AD 64, Rome suffered a terrible fire that burned for days consuming almost three quarters of the city. There is archaeological evidence of the fire.[5]The people accused the Emperor Nero of the devastation, claiming he set the fire for his own amusement. There is no evidence to support—or disprove this claim—however, since Rome was a rumor mill and Nero was not well-liked (he had murdered his way to the throne), it is reasonable to accept Tacitus’ explanation that Nero determined it was necessary for him to deflect accusation and placate the people by blaming the Christians.Tacitus writes around 115/116 AD referring to Nero's actions around the time of the Great fire in Rome in 64 AD.Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race.”In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights." (Tacitus, The Annals, Book XV, section 44).It should be pointed out that these three methods of execution—by beasts, crucifixion, and burning—were the regular methods used by Rome for criminals.It is established in Christian tradition that Peter was crucified in this persecution and that Paul was beheaded shortly thereafter. The first letter of Clement (written in the 90s AD), mentions a persecution of Christian “pillars” and of Christian wives, and the names of Peter and Paul.The historian Justo Gonzalez writes:“Of all these traditions, the most trustworthy is the one that affirms that Peter was in Rome, and that he suffered martyrdom in that city during the Neronian persecution. On these points, several writers of the first and second centuries agree. We are also told that he was crucified—according to one version, upside-down—and this seems to agree with the otherwise obscure words in John 21:18–19.”Lactantius, Latin father of the Church, in his apologetic On the death of the Persecutors (De Mortibus Persecutorum), compiled instances of Roman tyranny against Christians, included Nero’s persecution, and mentioned Peter and Paul. But Lactantius gave a theological explanation for the Neronic persecution that held those Christians responsible for their own suffering rather than blaming Nero as Tacitus had.This explains why, though Lactantius later tells how a fire in AD 303 at Nicomedia (the eastern Roman capital before Constantinople), occasioned false accusations of responsibility and persecution by emperors Galerius and Diocletian, Lactantius did not draw a parallel to Nero: he did not hold the Christians at Nicomedia responsible for what happened to them so there was no parallel to draw.The Second Persecution: Domitian, AD 81 to 96According to some historians, both Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian’s reign (AD89-AD96) but this has lately come under dispute with those who doubt the validity of Eusebius the primary source.The non-Christian evidence for persecution comes primarily from Suetonius and Cassius Dio and it is uncertain. They both mention Domitian’s expulsion of ‘dangerous teachers’ from Rome, which might include Christians, but if it did, they were exiled along with others who weren’t. Dio also speaks of the tax Domitian imposed on Jews/Christians, and of the “deaths of many nobles” this caused, also mentioned by Eusebius.Seutonius and Dio both speak of Flavius putting to death his own cousin, Flavius Clemens, who was consul, and Dio adds the exiling of Clemens’ wife Domatilla, because they were said to observe “Jewish customs.” It is traditionally believed Flavius and Domatilla were Christians.Since Christianity was originally perceived as a Jewish sect by the Romans, and since it is clear from their own literature that Christians still thought of themselves as Jews at this time, it is not surprising if there is some confusion in the sources as to whether what was being investigated was Judaism or Christianity. Yet, it is true that all the text says is “Jewish customs.”It cannot be said that any of this provides a clear picture of Domitian’s attitude toward Christians.No contemporary narrative of a persecution under Domitian is still in existence, but it is possible that we do have those documents called forth by it: Revelation, I Clement, and possibly I Peter, and Hebrews.Many scholars are now dating the writing of Revelation to Domitian’s reign (AD 89–96), and if—and it is a big if—if this is correct, it is highly probable there was persecution under Domitian.As one example, Domitian had gold and silver statues of himself erected on the Capitol among those of the state gods, and disrespect to his statue was punished as sacrilege. The language of the thirteenth chapter of Revelation seems to reflect this:“The second beast (the governor) was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast (Domitian), so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed.”There are scattered accounts of persecution under Domitian in other Christian writers, such as Tertullian, but the fullest account is only in Eusebius.The Third Persecution, Under Trajan, A.D. 108Trajan’s policy towards Christians was no different from his policies toward other sects. He was relatively temperate but became the first emperor to persecute Christians as fully distinct from the Jews.He did not pursue persecution on the scale of some other emperors, however, he did execute some Christian leaders including Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,[6] and Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem. [7]The Church of Antioch was fully organized almost from its beginning, and is therefore, one of the few original churches which preserved, complete, the catalogue of its bishops which includes Ignatius. Ignatius was taken prisoner during a persecution of the Antioch church; he was put in chains and escorted, along with others, by a unit of soldiers, to Troas, for transport to Rome. During the trip he wrote seven letters to 6 churches and one friend.[8](Ignatius lived so early in Christianity’s history that reliable information about him is sparse. Also, his history has been clouded by subsequent tradition. Other writings have been attributed to him, but the seven letters are seen as genuine and are taken as evidence of his persecution and death.)Among the pagan temples in Antioch that were taken and dedicated to Christian use, one was the celebrated Temple of Fortune (Tychæion) where Christians of Antioch enshrined the body of Ignatius as a martyr.According to Eusebius, Simeon of Jerusalem was selected as James' successor after the conquest of Jerusalem which took place immediately after the martyrdom of James which puts the account in agreement with that of Flavius Josephus and with Hegesippus, an early chronicler of the Christian church.The earliest of the Passiones and Martyria is the Martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna, composed by Marcion and sent in the name of the Church of Smyrna to the Christian community at Philomelium in Greater Phrygia. This passio describes the arrest, trial, and heroic death of the aged bishop in the arena at Smyrna, most likely on Feb. 22, 156. It forms one of the earliest Christian accounts of martyrdom outside of the New Testament. [9] [10] [11]Trajan was succeeded by Hadrian (AD 117 to 138). About this same time, Alexander, bishop of Rome, with his two deacons, were martyred, as were Quirinus and Hernes, with their families, and Zenon, a Roman nobleman, but it is doubtful that Hadrian had anything directly to do with their deaths.Under Hadrian, Christians enjoyed a relative amount of toleration. Hadrian died A.D. 138, and was succeeded by Antoninus Pius, one of the most amiable monarchs that ever reigned. He stopped the persecutions.The Fourth Persecution, Under Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, A.D. 162The number and severity of persecutions in various locations of the empire increased during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, AD 161-180. The extent to which Marcus Aurelius himself directed, encouraged, or was aware of these persecutions is unclear and much debated by historians.Officially, Marcus took the moderate position of his predecessors, but it seems his philosophical mentors convinced him that Christianity was a dangerous revolutionary force preaching gross immoralities. So, under Marcus, anti-Christian literature was allowed to flourish for the first time, (i.e. Celsus’ The True Doctrine), and Marcus also allowed anti-Christian informers to proceed more easily than in the past. The result was fierce persecutions that broke out in various regions of the empire.One of the Passiones is the encyclical letter preserved by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 5.1.1–2.7) describing the persecution of the Christians at Lyons in 177. Among the numerous victims was Bishop Pothinus "over ninety years of age"; Blandina, a slave girl; Sanctus, a deacon of Vienne; and Ponticus, a boy of 15.This famous letter was surely composed by Irenaeus of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp and successor of Pothinus[12]because in the letter, Irenaeus asserts his own authority as bishop of Lyons saying that Pothinus had been his predecessor in the position, and the first holder of that office. There had been no others. (Ockham’s Razor leads to Irenaeus as its author.)In Irenaeus' account, Pothinus was born around the year 87, and died at the age of ninety, in about 177 AD, as a martyr, along with Alexander, Attalus, Espagathus, Maturus, and Sanctius.They had all been seized by a mob and taken to the local magistrate, where they were jailed and tortured. Pothinus is believed to have died from the abuse he suffered in prison, while the others were killed by wild beasts in the local amphitheater.The Acts of Saints Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice is a description of the trial and deaths of these three at Pergamum, under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (a.d. 161–169) … or during the persecution of Decius (250–251). There’s a problem with the timing which is not uncommon with Eusebius.A similar chronological problem is connected with the death of Pionius at Smyrna. His passio was taken by an unskilled editor from three sources: a memorial left by Pionius himself (or one of his companions), and two official interrogations. Still, it is thought to be authentic and largely historical.The Fifth Persecution, Commencing with Severus, (AD 193–211)Severus was a soldier, first and last. His generosity to his soldiers was one of his trademarks. During the first part of his reign, Severus was not unfriendly toward Christians. Some members of his household, in fact, professed the faith, and he entrusted the rearing of his son, Caracalla, to a Christian nurse.However, in AD 202 Severus is said to have issued an edict that forbade further conversions to Judaism and Christianity. The change in attitude is attributed to a trip Severus took through Palestine and the surrounding area.However, the authenticity of the edict and its mention in the Historia Augusta is questioned. The author of this work was anti-Christian and could have attributed this edict to Septimus as justification for his own attitudes.Tertullian’s “Apologeticus” of AD 197 was written in defense of persecuted Christians and is addressed to Roman governors. It says nice things about Severus. It does not mention any edict by Severus. That could simply be evidence of chronology rather than being a valid argument from silence against the edict’s existence. Tertullian is said to have written his apology in 197 and Severus didn’t issue the supposed edict until 5 years later.There is evidence persecution occurred in the time frame following 202, especially in North Africa and Egypt, which could be coincidence but also could be evidence of the edict. For example, Clement of Alexandria, who was in charge of the catechetical school there, left Alexandria abruptly; this is attributed to the persecutions resulting from the edict.The death of Perpetua and her companions is believed to have taken place in AD 203. The “Passion of Saint Perpetua, Saint Felicitas, and their Companions” is one of the oldest and most notable early Christian texts. It gives an account of the imprisonment and death in the amphitheater at Carthage on March 7, 203, of Saturus Saturninus, Revocatus, and two young women, a slave Felicitas and her mistress, Vibia Perpetua, 22 years of age, "well born, liberally educated, honorably married, having father and mother and two brothers, one like herself a catechumen, and an infant son at her breast." [13]According to the Historia, the imperial edict was aimed at converts, of which Perpetua clearly was one, since she is described as a catechumen—a Christian convert still under instruction before being baptized.The longest portion of the passio (ch. 3–10) was written by Perpetua herself, and another section, by Saturus, (ch. 11–13) while they were waiting execution. The two documents were given an introduction and conclusion describing the deaths of the saints by a contemporary of considerable literary talent, possibly Tertullian.Persecutions known in lesser detail continued through 212 AD. However, not everyone agrees that Severus himself was responsible.The Sixth Persecution Under Maximinus, A.D. 235The successor to the Severan dynasty was Maximinus Thrax (AD 235-238). It is debated whether Maximus himself authorized the persecutions that occurred during his reign, or whether they were the decisions of local governors. Several well-known Christian senators and leaders, many of them members of the former Emperor’s court, were executed, while others such as Hippolytus were sent into exile. It is hard to see that anyone beside the emperor would have beed able to authorize that.Evidence for persecution under Maximinus is found in Eusebius and the papal calendar. There is also a brief description in a letter written by Firmilion to Cyprian circa 257 AD.Eusebius references Origen’s Exhortation to Martyrdom to date the martyrdoms of Ambrose and Protectitus to the reign of Maximinus. There are, as is often the case, scant details, however, leaving this in question. [14]Except for this brief—possible—bout of persecution under Maximinus (235–238), Christians were free from persecution for some 50 years.Later Imperial Persecutions Under Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Galerius and MaximinusThe Seventh Persecution Under Decius, (249–251) — Leader of the First Empire-wide PersecutionEmperor Trajan DeciusDecius was from a village near the Danube at the northern frontier of the Empire, and was familiar with the problem of invading barbarians. As emperor, he became concerned that traditional polytheism was weakening, and that this was in turn weakening the empire. He thought a resurrection of devotion to the deities of Rome’s glorious past would help restore Roman strength.[15]Therefore, in the year 249 AD the emperor Trajan Decius issued an edict requiring all the inhabitants of the empire to sacrifice to the Roman gods. Once completed, that person would receive a Certificate of Sacrifice (libellus) from the local Sacrificial Commission and so be cleared of suspicion of undermining the religious unity of the Empire.There are multiple examples of these certificates still in existence.[16]With this decree, he also inaugurated the first empire wide persecution of Christians.Persecution had previously been local/regional, but under Decius and thereafter, persecutions were largely instigated by emperors and took place on an imperial scale.This is a turning point in the history of Christian persecution.As a result, it has become common to differentiate pre-Decian persecution from the later centrally organized persecutions of Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Galerius and Maximinus. [17]Cyprian speaks of the thousands of applications for re-admittance to the church that were received after lapsing under Decius. Many of these still exist.Defections, though numerous, were counterbalanced by the many who suffered death, exile, confiscation, or torture in all parts of the empire. The Decian persecution was the severest trial to which the Church up to that time had been subjected and the loss suffered by the Church as a result of apostasy was as damaging as the losses by martyrdom. [18]Decian’s edict claimed many of the most prominent figures in the Christian community, among them the church-leaders (bishops) of several major cities: Origen, the famous theologian, suffered from lengthy torture before dying; similar fates befell Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Babylas, bishop of Antioch. In Antioch there is a martyrium, or memorial shrine of Babylas.Fabianus, the bishop of Rome, was one of the first and most notable casualties of the persecution, allegedly being executed on January 20th, 250. Then Cornelius the Pope was killed in 253.Pope Cornelius and St. CyprianCyprianus, bishop of Carthage, escaped death only by going into hiding. The Roman presbyter Moyses died after a confinement of 11 months.Some evidence from Spain and Gaul implies the edict was enforced there as well, but there is no certain knowledge of martyrs there, or in Sicily, which does preserve the names of two victims.The rich details of Cyprian in Letter 22 supplies the names of 17 victims in North Africa.Castus and Amelius died undergoing torture.There are no figures for how many Christians were killed or otherwise punished in the year and a half that elapsed between Decius' Edict and his death, but there is no doubt the persecution occurred.The Eighth Persecution, Under Valerian, A.D. 257In the 50 year period from 235 to 285 CE there were at least 20 emperors with the majority dying either in battle or by assassination. Most historians point to the year 180 CE as marking the demise of the Roman Peace, whose loss by the time of Valerian is being deeply felt.When Valerian took the throne, barbarians were constantly ravaging the borders, and on the east the Persians were doing real damage. Still worse was the terrible plague which had begun in the reign of Decius and raged for about fifteen years. Worst of all, was the fact the Empire had been ruled by a series of less-than capable emperors. Manichaeans were threatening Roman religion from the East as was Christianity at home.These calamities aroused the religious fears of the emperor. Valerian blamed the Christians for Rome’s problems: their refusal to worship the gods of Rome meant Rome was not receiving its usual blessings and protections from the gods.[19]So in August 257, Valerian intensified Decius’ policies by ordering clergy to sacrifice to the gods of the state. A year later clergy became liable to capital punishment. Pope Sixtus II and St. Lawrence were subsequently burned to death in Rome, and Cyprian was executed at Carthage.The Death of St. Lawrence the DeaconIn addition, the property of Christian laity, especially that of senators and equites (a class immediately below senators) was confiscated, and Christian tenants of imperial estates were condemned to the mines.[20]Cyprian was the first clerical martyr of Africa dying in AD 258, but we have his letters as evidence of events. In Cyprian’s letter to Lucian we learn of Lucian’s banishment and return to replace Cornelius as Bishop of Rome who had been martyred in the last persecution by Decius.Cyprian sees more persecution on the horizon, and his epistle #58 is a beautiful and moving exhortation to his flock to prepare for what’s coming. Cyprian’s letters are in line with Dionysius of Alexandria’s reports on Gallus’ measures against Christians. [21] (#57:1,2,5; #58:1,2,8,11). Dionysius also gives evidence of Valerian’s first edict, now lost, but found in the sections on Germanus and the trial of Cyprian.It is well known that Eusebius makes a chronological blunder in referencing these letters. He quotes two passages from Dionysius’ letter to Domitius and Didymus as if relating a narrative of the sufferings of Dionysus under Valerian, but when comparing passages from the epistle against Germanus, it appears these events may have happened under Decius and not Valerian.It’s also possible Eusebius did not intend to indicate the temporal sequence of the events themselves but only the order in which the letters were bound. [22] It’s also possible he just made a mistake.In midsummer of 258, a second edict was issued. It is summarized in Cyprian’s epistle #80. This letter is an itemized report to fellow-bishop Successus.Other documents attest to some of what Cyprian describes: the Acta Proconsularia Sancti Cypriani of Cyprian’s trial, the Passio of Bishop Fructuosus of Tarragona and two of his deacons, the Passio of Bishops Agapias and Secundinus, the deacon Jacobus, and the lector Marianus, all offer rich historical information.[23]According to a letter written by Dionysus during this time, "men and women, young and old, maidens and matrons, soldiers and civilians, of every age and race, some by scourging and fire, others by the sword, have conquered in the strife and won their crowns."The persecution under Valerian is thought to have been the bloodiest before the days of Diocletian. [24]In May of 260, Valerian was taken prisoner by the Persians, and his son Gallienus lifted the edicts against Christians.The Ninth Persecution Under Aurelian, A.D. 274Persecution under Aurelian is disputed.[25] The two major sources claiming such persecution are in Eusebius Historia Ecclesiae, and in Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum (On the death of the Persecutors, AD 318). [26]The principal sufferers were: Felix, bishop of Rome, and Agapetus, a young gentleman, who sold his estate, and gave the money to the poor, was seized as a Christian, tortured, and then beheaded at Praeneste, a city within a day's journey of Rome.St. Felix I, Pope of Rome, AD 274+The Tenth Persecution, Under Diocletian, A.D. 303 - 312. — The Great PersecutionDiocletian was the most remarkable imperial organizer since Augustus. He is most famous for his reconstruction of the Empire into a Tetrarchy where the Empire was divided between four men, two Augusti and, under them, two Caesars. Diocletian had hoped that dividing the power would ease the effects of transition when rulers changed. It didn’t work out that way.Diocletian enacted a huge tax increase to pay for the military—a system that became totalitarian in effect—and issued four edicts against the Christians. Eusebius and Lactantius, were contemporaries and eye-witnesses of the persecutions in Phoenicia and Egypt, and in Nicomedia itself.According to Eusebius (Hist. Ecc viii 2), the First Edict was issued in:…the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian in Dystrus (which the Romans call March), when the feast of the Saviour's passion was near at hand, and royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches Should be razed to the ground, the Scriptures destroyed by fire, those who held positions of honor degraded, and the household servants, if they persisted in the Christian profession, be deprived of their liberty.[27]Christians who refused to hand over the scriptures or who continued to hold services or worship were executed.The Second Edict ordered the arrests of Christian clergy. Edict three offered pardon on condition the Christian sacrificed to the gods of Rome.The Fourth Edict ordered all citizens to sacrifice to the Roman gods on pain of death. [28]The empire was thereby plunged by stages into a bloody decade of turmoil involving horrifying human pain and suffering.[29]We have the Passions of Felix of Thibiuca and of the congregation of Abitina which are quite straightforward.We have the earliest and most authentic versions of the deaths of Procopius, Romanus, Alpheus and Zacchaeus in Eusebius’ Martyrs of Palestine.The earliest document on the apostasies that took place dates from 306. It is the ‘Canonical letter’ of Peter the Bishop of Alexandria, and has 14 ‘canons’ that focus entirely on those who lapsed during the Great Persecution.The Canons of the Council of Ancyra, the Passion of Philip, Bishop of Thracian Heraclea, the Passion of Agape and her fellow martyrs from Thessalonica are authentic reports of these events.[30]Attempts at estimating the numbers involved are inevitably based on inadequate sources. One historian of the persecutions estimates between 5,500 and 6,500 people died.[31] Estimates put the population of the empire at about 40-55 million at the time of Diocletian and Christians at about ten percent of that. Considering that means there were 4–5 million Christians present in the empire under Diocletian, and the fact that these edicts were empire wide, and applied to all, 6000 dead is most likely too low to be genuinely likely. Even if 2 out of every 3 Christians lapsed—and there is no indication the numbers were that high—that still means a million people or more died. That’s hard to grasp, and would put Diocletian up into the rarified atmosphere of the top ten mass murderers of history with Stalin, Mao and Hitler.After a serious illness in 304, Diocletian abdicated the throne. Although called back for a brief period, he retired to farming in Salonae in Dalmatia (in modern-day Yugoslavia).Persecutions continued under Galerius, now promoted to Augustus, but falling seriously ill in 311, Galerius and his fellow emperors issued an edict canceling the persecution of Christians.The following year, Constantine emerged triumphant in the West after the battle at the Milvian Bridge. In 313 he and Licinius, soon to control the Eastern Empire, issued the Edict of Milan, which decreed legal toleration of Christianity.As far as the Romans were concerned, Christians were criminals of the worst kind: the kind who won’t repent. In the Roman view they were treasonous, and the Romans tried everything to stop them.Most of the martyr’s names that we have are of the leaders and the well-known, but the vast majority of those who died in Christianity’s first four centuries were ordinary people whose names we will never know. High and low, from the perspective of those that died, these people were guilty of nothing but having a different faith.For that they had their goods and property confiscated, and their rights abridged; they were maimed through beatings, having their hands and feet cut off, tongues cut out, and eyes gouged out. They were caged in cages as small as a modern dishwasher. They were cooked alive, dragged to death, crucified, burned alive, sewn into hides, and attacked by animals who ate them. They were starved, boiled, racked, crushed, ground in a stone mill, broken on a wheel, and thrown into the sea sewn into a sack of asps and scorpions.Christian persecution wasn’t continuous, and it wasn’t always empire wide, but it was real, and by modern standards, often quite vicious.Cursory Bibliography on MartyrdomSourcesEusebius, The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, tr. and ed. H.J. Lawlor and J.E.L. Oulton. (London: SPCK, 1927). [see also the Pelican paperback of the EH and the NPNF]Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, edited by J.L. Creed, Clarendon Press, 1984; digitized July 2, 2009H. Musurillo, ed. and trans., Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: OUP, 1972).StudiesT. D. Barnes, "Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum", JTS ns 19 (1968) 509-31.T.D. Barnes, (1968). Legislation against the Christians. Journal of Roman Studies, 58(1-2), 32-50. doi:10.2307/299693T. Baumeister, Die Anfänge der Theologie des Martyriums (Münster: 1980).Gary A. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii, Harvard Dissertations on Religion 22 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).Daniel Boyarin, "Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism", JECS 6.4 (1998) 577-627.Glen W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).Virginia Burrus, "Reading Agnes: The Rhetoric of Gender in Ambrose and Prudentius", JECS 3 (1995) 25-46.Arne Søby Christensen, Lactantius the Historian: An Analysis of the De Mortibus Persecutorum, Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen, 1980B. Dehardschutter, "The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research", ANRW II.27.1 (1993) 485-522.H. Delahaye, Les passions des martyres et les genres littéraires (Brussels: 1921).Robert Doran, "The Martyr: A Synoptic of the Mother and Her Seven Sons", in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980) 183-221.David Frankfurter, "The Cult of the Martyr in Egypt before Constantine", VC 48 (1994) 25-47.Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (NY:1987).J.W. van Henten, ed, Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie (Leiden: Brill, 1989).The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 1997).Saul Lieberman, "Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries", in idem, Texts and Studies (1948, rep. NY: Ktav, 1974) 112-177."Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum", in Texts and Studies.Judith Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jew in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1996).Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, Yale University Press, 1984Ekkehard Mühlenberg, "The Martyr's Death and Its Literary Presentation", SP 29 (1997).Louis Robert, Le martyre de Pionios, ed. G.W. Bowersock and C.P. Jones (Dumbarton Oaks:1994).Joyce Salisbury, Perpetua's Passion: The Death and Memory of a Young Roman Woman (NY: Routledge, 1997).B.D. Shaw, "The Passion of Perpetua", Past and Present 56 (1993) 3-45.G.E.M. de SteCroix, "Why Were the Christians Persecuted?", Past and Present 26 (1963) 6-38.Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus. Studia Post-Biblica 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).Footnotes[1] Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome[2] Pliny’s Letter to Trajan | Christian History Institute [3] Law and Empire in Late Antiquity[4] Passion of Saint Perpetua, Saint Felicitas, and their Companions - Wikipedia[5] The Great Fire of Rome | Clues and Evidence | Secrets of the Dead | PBS[6] Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia[7] Simeon of Jerusalem - Wikipedia[8] Library : The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch[9] Martyrdom of Polycarp - Wikipedia[10] The Didache: The Epistle of Barnabus, the Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the Fragments of Papias, the Epistle to Diogn (Ancient Christian Writers): Johannes Quasten, James A. Kleist: 9780809102471: Amazon.com: Books[11] Polycarp, Early Christian Bishop and Martyr[12] Saint Irenaeus | bishop of Lyon[13] Internet History Sourcebooks Project[14] Some Victims of the Persecution of Maximinus Thrax[15] The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 12, The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337[16] Internet History Sourcebooks[17] The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire[18] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Decius[19] Pagans and Christians[20] Amazon.com: The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337 (9780521301992): Alan Bowman, Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey: Books[21] http://www.metaphysicspirit.com/books/The%20Epistles%20of%20Cyprian.pdf[22] Evsebiana[23] Two Edicts of the Emperor Valerian[24] Amazon.com: The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337 (9780521301992): Alan Bowman, Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey: Books[25] Some Thoughts on the Emperor Aurelian as "Persecutor"[26] http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0240-0320,_Lactantius,_De_Mortibus_Persecutorum_[Schaff],_EN.pdf[27] Internet History Sourcebooks Project[28] Aspects of the "Great" Persecution[29] Amazon.com: The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337 (9780521301992): Alan Bowman, Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey: Books[30] Amazon.com: The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337 (9780521301992): Alan Bowman, Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey: Books[31] http:// W. H. C. Frend (1984). The Rise of Christianity. Fortress Press, Philadelphia. p. 319.

The lindbergh baby kidnapping.One of the many unsolved cases still trying to be solved to this day.I learned about this topic in only the fitfh grade. We were going to be working on a project about unsolved mysteries. There were several topics, I forgot because it was three years ago, but I chose the lindbergh baby kidnapping and I can never forget about it.Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., 20-month-old son, (yes only 20 months year old. He was a one year old, not even two yet.) of the famous aviator and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was kidnapped about 9:00 p.m., on March 1st, 1932, from the nursery on the second floor of the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, New Jersey. The child’s nurse, Betty Gow, discovered the absense of the baby a little later and notified the parents immediatly. They also found a ransom note demanding $50,000 if they ever wanted to see their son again.During the search at the kidnapping scene, traces of mud were found on the floor of the nursery. Footprints, impossible to measure, were found under the nursery window. Two sections of the ladder had been used in reaching the window, one of the two sections was split or broken where it joined the other, indicating that the ladder had broken during the ascent or descent. There were no blood stains in or about the nursery, nor were there any fingerprints.Household and estate employees were questioned and investigated. Colonel Lindbergh asked friends to communicate with the kidnappers, and they made widespread appeals for the kidnappers to start negotiations. Various underworld characters were dealt with in attempts to contact the kidnappers, and numerous clues were advanced and exhausted.A second ransom note was received by Colonel Lindbergh on March 6, 1932, (postmarked Brooklyn, New York, March 4), in which the ransom demand was increased to $70,000. A police conference was then called by the governor at Trenton, New Jersey, which was attended by prosecuting officials, police authorities, and government representatives. Various theories and policies of procedure were discussed. Private investigators also were employed by Colonel Lindbergh’s attorney, Colonel Henry Breckenridge.real photo of the ransom note ^^The third ransom note was received by Colonel Lindbergh’s attorney on March 8, informing that an intermediary appointed by the Lindberghs would not be accepted and requesting a note in a newspaper. On the same date, Dr. John F. Condon, Bronx, New York City, a retired school principal, published in the “Bronx Home News” an offer to act as go-between and to pay an additional $1,000 ransom. The following day the fourth ransom note was received by Dr. Condon, which indicated he would be acceptable as a go-between. This was approved by Colonel Lindbergh. About March 10, 1932, Dr. Condon received $70,000 in cash as ransom, and immediately started negotiations for payment through newspaper columns, using the code name “Jafsie.”About 8:30 p.m., on March 12, after receiving an anonymous telephone call, Dr. Condon received the fifth ransom note, delivered by Joseph Perrone, a taxicab driver, who received it from an unidentified stranger. The message stated that another note would be found beneath a stone at a vacant stand, 100 feet from an outlying subway station. This note, the sixth, was found by Condon, as indicated. Following instructions therein, the doctor met an unidentified man, who called himself “John,” at Woodlawn Cemetery, near 233rd Street and Jerome Avenue. They discussed payment of the ransom money. The stranger agreed to furnish a token of the child’s identity. Condon was accompanied by a bodyguard, except while talking to “John.” During the next few days, Dr. Condon repeated his advertisements, urging further contact and stating his willingness to pay the ransom.A baby’s sleeping suit, as a token of identity, and a seventh ransom note were received by Dr. Condon on March 16. The suit was delivered to Colonel Lindbergh and later identified. Condon continued his advertisements. The eighth ransom note was received by Condon on March 21, insisting on complete compliance and advising that the kidnapping had been planned for a year.On March 29, Betty Gow, the Lindbergh nurse, found the infant’s thumb guard, worn at the time of the kidnapping, near the entrance to the estate. The following day the ninth ransom note was received by Condon, threatening to increase the demand to $100,000 and refusing a code for use in newspaper columns. The tenth ransom note, received by Dr. Condon, on April 1, 1932 instructed him to have the money ready the following night, to which Condon replied by an ad in the Press. The eleventh ransom note was delivered to Condon on April 2, 1932, by an unidentified taxi driver who said he received it from an unknown man. Dr. Condon found the twelfth ransom note under a stone in front of a greenhouse at 3225 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York, as instructed in the eleventh note.Shortly thereafter, on the same evening, by following the instructions contained in the twelfth note, Condon again met whom he believed to be “John” to reduce the demand to $50,000. This amount was handed to the stranger in exchange for a receipt and the thirteenth note, containing instructions to the effect that the kidnapped child could be found on a boat named “Nellie” near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. The stranger then walked north into the park woods. The following day an unsuccessful search for the baby was made near Martha’s Vineyard. The search was later repeated. Dr. Condon was positive that he would recognize “John” if he ever saw him again.On May 12, 1932, the body of the kidnapped baby was accidentally found, partly buried, and badly decomposed, about four and a half miles southeast of the Lindbergh home, 45 feet from the highway, near Mount Rose, New Jersey, in Mercer County. The discovery was made by William Allen, an assistant on a truck driven by Orville Wilson. The head was crushed, there was a hole in the skull and some of the body members were missing. The body was positively identified and cremated at Trenton, New Jersey, on May 13, 1932. The Coroner’s examination showed that the child had been dead for about two months and that death was caused by a blow on the head.The Investigation: 1932-1934On March 2, 1932, after a conference with the Attorney General, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had contacted the headquarters of the New Jersey State Police at Trenton, New Jersey. He officially informed the organization that the U.S. Department of Justice would afford Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, the assistance and cooperation of the FBI in bringing about the apprehension of the parties responsible for the kidnapping. He advised the New Jersey State Police that they could call upon the Bureau for any facilities or resources which the latter might be capable of extending. The special agent in charge of the New York City Office of the Bureau, which at that time covered the New Jersey district, was instructed accordingly and, upon instructions from the Director, the special agent in charge communicated with the New Jersey State Police and the New York City Police, offering any assistance which the Bureau might be able to lend in this matter.During the next few weeks the Bureau was acting merely in an auxiliary capacity, there being no federal jurisdiction. However, on May 13, 1932, the President directed that all governmental investigative agencies should place themselves at the disposal of the state of New Jersey and that the FBI should serve as a clearinghouse and coordinating agency for all investigations in this case conducted by federal investigative units.On May 23, 1932, the FBI in New York City informed banks in greater New York that the Bureau was the coordinating agency for all governmental activity in the case. A close watch for ransom money was requested.The New Jersey State Police announced on May 26, 1932, the offer of a reward not to exceed $25,000 for information resulting in the apprehension and conviction of the kidnapper or kidnappers. In compliance with a request made by Colonel Schwarzkopf, copies of this notice of reward were forwarded by the FBI to all law enforcement officials and agencies throughout the United States.On June 10, 1932, Violet Sharpe, a waitress in the home of Mrs. Lindbergh’s mother, Mrs. Dwight Morrow, who had been under investigation by the authorities, committed suicide by swallowing poison when she was about to be requestioned. However, her movements on the night of March 1, 1932, had been carefully checked and it was soon definitely ascertained that she had no connection with the abduction.In September, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated in a meeting with Director Hoover that all work on the case be centralized in the Department of Justice. He requested the Director to convey his views to Attorney General Cummings with the suggestion that the Attorney General make a request of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), either through the President or directly, for a detailed report of all work performed by the IRS Intelligence Unit. On October 19, 1933, it was officially announced that the FBI would have exclusive jurisdiction in so far as the Federal Government was concerned in the handling of any investigative features of the case.The President’s Proclamation requiring the return to the Treasury of all gold and gold certificates was a valuable aid in the case, inasmuch as $40,000 of the ransom money had been paid in gold certificates and, at the time of the Proclamation, a large portion of this money was known to be outstanding. Therefore, this phase of the investigation was emphasized.On January 17, 1934, a circular letter was issued by the New York City Bureau Office to all banks and their branches in New York City, requesting an extremely close watch for the ransom certificates and, in February 1934, all Bureau Offices were supplied with copies of the Bureau’s revised pamphlet containing the serial numbers of ransom bills. The New York City Bureau Office distributed copies of this pamphlet to each employee handling currency in banks, clearinghouses, grocery stores in certain selected communities, insurance companies, gasoline filling stations, airports, department stores, post offices, and telegraph companies.Following the distribution of these booklets containing the serial number of the ransom currency, there were also prepared and similarly distributed by the Bureau currency key cards which, in convenient form, set forth the inclusive serial numbers of all of the ransom notes which had been paid. This was followed by frequent personal contacts with bank officials and with individual employees in an effort to keep alive their interest.Prior to this time, the passing of ransom bills had been reported to either the FBI, the New Jersey State Police, or the New York City Police Department, none of which had complete information on this point. Therefore, arrangements were effected whereby investigation of all such ransom bills detected in the future could be immediately conducted jointly by representatives of the three interested agencies.One of the by-products of the case was a mass of misinformation received from well-meaning but uninformed, highly imaginative individuals, and a deluge of letters written by demented persons, publicity seekers, and frauds. It was essential, however, that all possible clues, regardless of the prospect of success, be carefully followed, and it was impossible in the vast majority of instances to determine at the inception whether they would be material or false.On March 4, 1932, a con man named Gaston B. Means was approached by Mrs. Evalyn Walsh McLean, of Washington, D.C., who felt that she might be of material assistance to Colonel Lindbergh in procuring the return of his child. Mrs. McLean had become acquainted with Means as a result of some investigative work which means had performed for her husband some years before. Means informed her that he felt certain he could secure a contact with the kidnappers inasmuch as he had been invited to participate in a “big kidnapping” some weeks before but had declined. Means claimed that his friend was responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping. The following day, Means reported to Mrs. McLean that he had made a contact with the persons who had the child. He successfully induced Mrs. McLean to hand over to him $100,000, to be used in paying the ransom which he said had been doubled. Until April 17, 1932, he kept Mrs. McLean waiting, daily expecting the return of the child. During this period, he purported to be effecting negotiations with the alleged leader of the kidnappers, whom he called “The Fox.” Mrs. McLean finally requested the return of the $100,000 and additional money which she had advanced him for “expenses.” When he failed to do so, the case was turned over to the FBI. Means and “The Fox,” who was found to be Norman T. Whitaker, a disbarred Washington attorney, were apprehended, and Means was later convicted of embezzlement and larceny after trust, and sentenced to serve 15 years in a federal penitentiary. Whitaker and Means were later convicted of conspiracy to defraud, and were sentenced to serve two years each in a federal penitentiary.There were other attempted frauds which required extensive investigations before they could be completely eliminated from consideration in connection with the Lindbergh case.In all, there were literally thousands of leads in all sections of the United States which were followed to their definite conclusions by the Bureau. The results of all these investigations, no matter how trivial, were reported. The activities of the known and suspected members of the so-called “Purple Gang” of Detroit, and various rumors and allegations concerning this gang were carefully and thoroughly investigated. Numerous registries of boats were examined in a fruitless endeavor to locate the boat “Nellie,” on which the baby was to have been found according to the 13th and last ransom note handed to Dr. Condon at the time he paid the ransom money to “John.” Records of cemetery employees who were employed in various cemeteries in certain sections of New York City and near Hopewell, New Jersey, were examined. Information accumulated in various other kidnapping and extortion cases handled by the FBI was examined in closest detail and studied with particular reference to any bearing they might have upon the solution of the Lindbergh case. Hundreds of photographs and descriptive data of known criminals of all types and other possible suspects were exhibited to the few eye-witnesses in this case in an endeavor to identify the mysterious “John.”On May 2, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discovered 296 ten-dollar gold certificates, and one $20 gold certificate, all Lindbergh ransom notes. These bills were included among the currency received at the Federal Reserve Bank on May 1, 1933, and apparently had been made in one deposit. Immediately upon the discovery of these bills, deposit tickets at the Federal Reserve Bank for May 1, 1933, were examined. One was found bearing the name and address of “J.J. Faulkner, 537 West 149th Street,” and had marked thereon “gold certificates,” “$10 and $20” in the amount of $2,980. Despite extensive investigation, this depositor was never located.Examination of the ransom notes by handwriting experts resulted in a virtually unanimous opinion that all the notes were written by the same person and that the writer was of German nationality but had spent some time in America. Dr. Condon described “John” as Scandinavian, and believing he could identify the man, spent considerable time in viewing the numerous photographs of possible suspects and known criminals. In this connection, the FBI retained the services of an artist to prepare a portrait of “John” from descriptions furnished by Dr. Condon and Joseph Perrone, the taxi cab driver who had delivered one of the ransom letters to Dr. Condon.In a further endeavor to identify the individual who received the ransom payment, representatives of the New York City Bureau Office engaged Dr. Condon to prepare a transcript of all conversations had by him with “John” on March 12 and April 2, 1932, the dates on which Dr. Condon personally contacted the kidnapper in order to negotiate the return of the child and the payment of the ransom. These conversations were, during March, 1934, transcribed in detail on phonograph records by Dr. Condon who imitated the pronunciations and dialect of “John.” In this manner the nationality, education, mentality, and character of the kidnapper were more clearly defined and permanently preserved for future use.Another interesting attempt to identify the kidnapper centered around the ladder used in the crime. Police quickly realized that it was crudely built, but built nonetheless by someone familiar with wood who was mechanically inclined. The ladder had been thoroughly examined for fingerprints and had been exhibited to builders, carpenters, and neighbors of the Lindberghs in vain. Slivers of the ladder even had been analyzed, and the types of wood used in the ladder had been identified. Perhaps a complete examination of the ladder by itself by a wood expert would yield additional clues, and in early 1933, such an expert was called in—Arthur Koehler of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Koehler disassembled the ladder and painstakingly identified the types of wood used and examined tool marks. He also looked at the pattern made by nailholes, for it appeared likely that some wood had been used before in indoor construction. Koehler made field trips to the Lindbergh estate and to factories to trace some of the wood. He summarized his findings in a report, and later played a critical role in the trial of the kidnapper.Hauptmann is LocatedA series of ransom notes following the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby led to a meeting between Dr. John Condon, a representative of the Lindbergh family, and a mysterious man named “John.” An artist sketch of “John” was developed from the verbal description of Dr. Condon and proved to be very similar to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, who was ultimately arrested on September 19, 1934 following a massive investigation led by the New Jersey State Police and supported by the FBI.A series of ransom notes following the kidnapping led to a meeting between Dr. John Condon, a representative of the Lindbergh family, and a mysterious man named “John.” An artist sketch of “John” was developed from the verbal description of Dr. Condon and proved to be very similar to Bruno Richard Hauptmann (right), who was arrested on September 19, 1934.For a period of seven months prior to August 20, 1934, no gold certificates were discovered except for those received in the Federal Reserve Bank, previously mentioned. Starting on August 20, 1934, and extending into September, a total of 16 gold certificates were discovered, most of them in the vicinity of Yorkville and Harlem. The long-awaited opportunity had finally arrived. As each bill was recovered, a colored pin marking the location of the recovered bill was inserted in a large map of the Metropolitan Area, thus indicating the movements of the individual or individuals who might be passing the ransom money. When the first few made their appearance, it was decided to concentrate on gold certificates, as experience had proven the futility of tracing the ordinary currency included in the ransom money. In keeping with the cooperative policy previously established with the New Jersey State Police and the New York City Police Department, teams composed of a representative of each of these police agencies and a special agent of the Bureau were organized to personally contact all banks in Greater New York and Westchester County. As a result, the various neighborhood banks discovered the bills close to the point at which they were passed, and it then became possible for the investigators to trace the bills to the person who had originally passed them. For the first time in the history of the case, the investigators succeeded in finding that the description of the individual passing these bills fit exactly that of “John” as described by Dr. Condon. It was determined through the investigation that the bills were being passed principally at corner produce stores.About 1:20 p.m. on September 18, 1934, the assistant manager of the Corn Exchange Bank and Trust Company, at 125th Street and Park Avenue, New York City, telephoned the New York City Bureau Office to advise that a $10 gold certificate had been discovered a few minutes previously by one of the tellers in that bank. It was soon ascertained that this bill had been received at the bank from a gasoline station located at 127th Street and Lexington Avenue, New York City. On September 15, 1934, an alert attendant had received a bill in payment for five gallons of gasoline from a man whose description fitted closely that of the individual who had passed other bills in recent weeks. The filling station attendant, being suspicious of the $10 gold certificate, recorded on the bill the license number of the automobile driven by the purchaser. This license number was issued to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, 1279 East 222nd Street, Bronx, New York.Hauptmann’s house was closely surveilled by federal and local authorities throughout the night of September 18, 1934, until at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 19, 1934, an individual, closely fitting the description of “John,” as supplied by Dr. Condon, and the description of the purchaser of the gasoline, as supplied by the service station attendant, left his house and entered his automobile parked nearby. He was promptly taken into custody by representatives of the three interested agencies.After some investigating, he was found to be Bruno Richard Hauptmann, the individual to whom the automobile license had been issued, a German carpenter who had been in this country for approximately 11 years. A $20 gold ransom certificate was found on his person. His description fitted perfectly that of “John” as described by Dr. Condon, and in his house was found a pair of shoes which had been purchased with a $20 ransom bill recovered on September 8, 1934. Hauptmann admitted several other purchases which had been made with ransom certificates. On the night of September 19, 1934, he was positively identified by Joseph Perrone as the individual from whom he had received the fifth ransom note to be delivered to Dr. Condon. The following day, ransom certificates in excess of $13,000 were found secreted in the garage of Hauptmann’s residence. Shortly thereafter, he was identified by Dr. Condon as “John” to whom the ransom had been paid. It was also ascertained that he was in possession of a Dodge sedan automobile which answered the description of that seen in the vicinity of the Lindbergh home the day prior to the kidnapping.A painstaking analysis of Hauptmann’s handwriting by the Bureau’s new crime lab showed a remarkable similarity between the lettering of the author of the ransom notes and of Hauptmann. This evidence proved valuable in helping to convict Hauptmann of the murder.A painstaking analysis of Hauptmann’s handwriting by the Bureau’s new crime lab showed a remarkable similarity between the lettering of the author of the ransom notes and of Hauptmann.Shortly after his apprehension, specimens of Hauptmann’s handwriting were flown to Washington, D.C., where a study was made of them in the FBI Laboratory. A comparison of the writing appearing on the ransom notes with that of the specimens disclosed remarkable similarities in inconspicuous, personal characteristics and writing habits, which resulted in a positive identification by the handwriting experts of the Laboratory. Upon the apprehension of Hauptmann, it was found that he bore a striking resemblance to the portrait of “John” which had previously been prepared from descriptions furnished by Dr. Condon and Joseph Perrone.Further investigation developed that Hauptmann, 35 years old, was a native of Saxony, Germany. He had a criminal record for robbery and had spent time in prison. Early in July 1923, he stowed away aboard the SSHanover at Bremen, Germany, and arrived in the Port of New York City on July 13, 1923. He was arrested and deported immediately. After another failed attempt at entry in August, Hauptman successfully entered the United States in November 1923, on board the George Washington. On October 10, 1925, Hauptmann married Anna Schoeffler, a New York City waitress. A son, Manfried, was born to them in 1933. During his illegal stay in New York City and until the spring of 1932, Hauptmann followed his occupation of carpenter. However, a short while after March 1, 1932, the date of the kidnapping, Hauptmann began to trade rather extensively in stocks and never worked again.Indictment, Trial, and ExecutionHauptmann was indicted in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, New York, on charges of extortion on September 26, 1934, and on October 8, 1934, in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, he was indicted for murder. Two days later, the Governor of the State of New York honored the requisition of the Governor of the State of New Jersey for the surrender of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and on October 19, 1934, he was removed to the Hunterdon County Jail, Flemington, New Jersey, to await trial.The trial of Hauptmann began on January 3, 1935, at Flemington, New Jersey, and lasted five weeks. The case against him was based on circumstantial evidence. Tool marks on the ladder matched tools owned by Hauptmann. Wood in the ladder was found to match wood used as flooring in his attic. Dr. Condon’s telephone number and address were found scrawled on a door frame inside a closet. Handwriting on the ransom notes matched samples of Hauptmann’s handwriting.Lindbergh takes the witness stand during the 1935 trial of Hauptmann in Flemington, New Jersey. Hauptmann was found guilty on February 13, 1935. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.Lindbergh takes the witness stand during the 1935 trial of Hauptmann in Flemington, New Jersey. On February 13, 1935, the jury returned a verdict. Hauptmann was guilty of murder in the first degree. The sentence: death. The defense appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey on October 9, 1935, upheld the verdict of the Lower Court. Hauptmann’s appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied on December 9, 1935, and he was to be electrocuted on January 17, 1936. However, on this same day the Governor of the State of New Jersey granted a 30-day reprieve and on February 17, 1936, Hauptmann was resentenced, to be electrocuted during the week of March 30, 1936. On March 30, 1936, the Pardon Court of the State of New Jersey denied Hauptmann’s petition for clemency, and on April 3, 1936, at 8:47 p.m., Bruno Richard Hauptmann was electrocuted. Now since Hauptmann never admitted to the crime, they just assume that he was the person responsible. People are still making theories of who it could be, some people say it was the baby’s nurse, or it was the father. But now it’s too late to find out. But the person who killed Charles is a sick monster who killed an innocent baby out of greed and for money. It makes me ashamed to be a human being.Sorry for it being so long. If you read all this way, thank you :).Stay hydrated,Sofia <3

Trump is against mail in ballots because the pool of eligible Democratic voters and Independents likely to vote against him is greater than the pool of eligible voters likely to vote for him. Under those circumstances, making it easier to vote may work to his disadvantage.But first, let’s correct an answer Alex Mann that is simply false:So first let’s start with what this fight is about. It is NOT about the ability to have a mail-in ballot system. Trump hasn’t really said anything about that and most states already do it. The fight is over:1Vote verification: Democrats want to remove signature verification on votes.2.Who ballots get sent to: Democrats want to send ballots to all eligible voters, including inactive ones. This is the entire issue—there is no more complexity behind it (that’s a joke, but this is the basic outline).Alex’s answer initially referenced California’s new vote by mail executive order, which is actually now an actual piece of legislation, and claimed that it wanted to remove signature verification on votes AND send ballots to inactive voters. He then changed it to Nevada’s alleged deficiencies, but has now removed any references to particular states since his claims about specific laws in specific states are either false or so grossly misleading that they are functionally false. But because he initially claimed that CA was removing signature verification and just randomly sent ballots to inactive voters, I will keep the substance of my response.First, it is absolutely false that California’s Vote by Mail legislation, or the predecessor executive order removed signature verification on votes. In fact, the verification process in CA is very strict:Here is the statute:Law sectionCHAPTER 1. Vote by Mail Application and Voting Procedures [3000 - 3026]( Heading of Chapter 1 amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 508, Sec. 11. )3019.(a) (1) Upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, the elections official shall compare the signature on the identification envelope with either of the following to determine if the signatures compare:(A) The signature appearing on the voter’s affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter.(B) The signature appearing on a form issued by an elections official that contains the voter’s signature and that is part of the voter’s registration record.(2) In comparing signatures pursuant to this section, the elections official may use facsimiles of voters’ signatures, provided that the method of preparing and displaying the facsimiles complies with the law.(3) In comparing signatures pursuant to this section, an elections official may use signature verification technology. If signature verification technology determines that the signatures do not compare, the elections official shall visually examine the signatures and verify that the signatures do not compare.(4) The variation of a signature caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, is not grounds for the elections official to determine that the signatures do not compare.(b) If upon conducting the comparison of signatures pursuant to subdivision (a) the elections official determines that the signatures compare, the elections official shall deposit the ballot, still in the identification envelope, in a ballot container in the elections official’s office.(c) If upon conducting the comparison of signatures pursuant to subdivision (a) the elections official determines that the signatures do not compare, the identification envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted. The elections official shall write the cause of the rejection on the face of the identification envelope only after completing the procedures described in subdivision (d).(d) (1) A minimum of eight days prior to the certification of the election, the elections official shall provide notice to all voters identified pursuant to subdivision (c) of the opportunity to verify their signatures no later than 5 p.m. two days prior to the certification of the election.(2) The notice and instructions shall be in substantially the following form:Below, I will reference the new California Vote by Mail amendments. For those of you who don’t regularly review statutes, the new Bill does not alter or amend section 3019 above. It amends 3019.7: AB-860 Elections: vote by mail ballots.In other words, the chief premise for Trump’s opposition, which is that California’s new Vote by Mail provision changes voter signature verification is absolutely false. And there are procedures for challenging a voter’s signature.Second, it is completely false that California will send mail in ballots to all “eligible voters.” Under the new act, only registered active voters will get mail in ballots. Inactive voters, voters who have had materials returned back by mail or have not voted in two elections, represent a small number of registered voters but election materials such as mail in ballots do not have to be sent to them if they are inactive.Under California law, inactive voters are legally eligible to vote but do not receive election materials:"Inactive voter" means a voter for whom a county has received:a returned residency confirmation mailing pursuant to California Elections Code section 2220 without a forwarding address within the same county, orinformation obtained through the United States Postal Service National Change of Address (NCOA) database indicating that the voter has moved outside the county pursuant to California Elections Code sections 2222 and 2226. Per California Elections Code sections 2221 and 2226, such inactive registrants retain the legal right to vote, but need not be mailed election material. Further, inactive voters who do not vote in two consecutive Federal general elections are subject to cancellation of their voter registration pursuant to Section 303(a)(4)(A) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(4)(A)).Nothing in the new bill changes that provision of California’s Election code. if there is any ambiguity, the California Secretary of State has stated: “Only active registered voters will be mailed a ballot ahead of the November 3, 2020 General Election. The President’s tweet is completely false.”A registered but inactive voter could show up in person to vote provisionally, but that’s always been the law.The California bill was passed 68-5 by the Assembly, with six members not voting. The opponents were all Republicans. Republicans who backed the bill noted that ballots will not be mailed to so-called inactive voters, who have not participated in recent elections.California Enacts Law Requiring Mail-In Ballots Sent To All Voters For November Presidential Election So, again, the leading answer as of this time is simply false.California has a very strict voter registration verification program including verifying voter roles against felony convictions and deaths. It also cross references motor vehicle records. Statewide Voter Registration Database Further, the vote by mail does not change anything with respect to inactive voters. An inactive voter could always show up at the polls and cast their vote, or request a vote by mail ballot. But the county does not send them ballots automatically.Voting in federal elections is determined by state and local governments. There is nothing inherently fraudulent about voting by mail. It all depends upon the policies and procedures of the vote by mail provisions. Despite the claims of widespread voting fraud benefiting Democrats, there is always a way to verify the integrity of mail in ballots. Just like there is a procedure for maintaining the integrity of in person voting.Historically, due to population density, urban precincts usually have long poll lines while rural precincts basically have walk in voting with no wait. Theoretically, if rural voters have to travel an hour or more to vote, they're would be widespread outrage over the unfairness. There is no similar outcry over urban voters routinely having to wait several hours to vote. Programs to reduce these lines and waits, like early voting, have also been opposed by the GOP because the lines benefit their party and discourage urban folks from voting. My guess is that if there was some feature of in person voting that benefited Democrats and discouraged likely GOP voters to vote, like long travel distances, then the shoe would be on the other foot. The truth is that until Trump disbands the Post Office, vote by mail is the fairest way to ensure an equal opportunity to vote along equal terms. Indeed, the postal service is one of the only federal services guaranteed by our Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"Further, there is no guarantee which party that mail in voting will favor. If the Pandemic is still raging come November, it may be that older people may be more reluctant to vote in person while younger folks are more than willing to face the lines. Trump believes that repeatedly claiming the election will be rigged may power up his base; or give him an excuse if 2020 turns out as bad for the GOP as 2018. He is almost certainly likely to get crushed in the popular vote based upon California alone. This gives him further ammunition to claim it is rigged to deny the significance of the fact that the majority of the country does not think he is fit to be President.Finally, the truth is that swing states are swing states because they a fairly even split between the two parties. Again, there is state and local control over federal elections. The odds of any mail in voting procedure not being hotly debated and fairly constructed in a swing state is almost nil. In a swing state, both parties have reasons to see that the procedures are full and fair and will use the courts if necessary to enjoin unfair election rules designed to favor one party. The trend in most swing states has been that Democrats have worked hard to expand voting opportunities and Republicans have worked hard to suppress votes, usually by shortening early voting or requiring drivers license IDs or the equivalent for folks who often do not drive. This is due in no small part to the demographics of Democratic voters and simple numbers. In most swing states, if Democratic voters come out, then it is a big win for Democrats in state wide elections like the Presidential popular and EC race. If the Cities do not come out for the Democratic candidate in massive numbers than the rural areas of swing states are enough to carry the state. Once upon a time the GOP made serious efforts to court the suburbs but Trump has caused the party to bleed numbers.