“Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood of the People” – The Key People in the Rise of Italy

In this article, George Broad introduces us to three of the main people involved in the Risorgimento, the process of Italian Unification that led to the formation of the Italy that we know today.

“Freedom, equality and brotherhood of the people” – sound familiar? To those who know their European revolutions it will be ringing some rather large bells in the form of the French Republic’s tagline of “freedom, equality, fraternity.”

As the scent and spirit of revolution drifted through Europe in the late 18th through to the early 19th century, Italy greeted it with open arms. The states of modern day Italy were itching to break away from the bonds of foreign rule. So, inspired by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the people of Italy sought to set in motion a process of revolution and unification to bring into being the Italy we know today.

The Risorgimento (literally translating to resurgence or rising again) took place during 19th century. The term Risorgimento is the one given to cover the period of the uprisings, revolts and warring of the people of Italy in their struggle to make their nation independent. Its exact start date is much disputed as many revolts had been occurring sporadically throughout Italy for many years. One thing we do know for sure is that without a certain few individuals, the Risorgimento could have taken a very different turn…


Giuseppe Mazzini

Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) was a politician and journalist, and it was he who coined the aforementioned title slogan of the Risorgimento.

Giuseppe Mazzini

Mazzini’s mother, who held solid republican and democratic ideals, was in part responsible for gearing her son toward his political future; however it was during his time at law school in Genoa that Mazzini developed a strong interest in politics and became more aware of the stirrings of the people and their movements toward Italian nationalism.

Mazzini was a member of the Carbonari – a revolutionary society with strong nationalistic leanings; however he felt that their aims were too unclear and lacklustre to bring about any real change. As a result, he created the group “Young Italy,” made up of young men who sought Italian Unification in a more effective and real sense. The group believed that through organised uprisings, the rule of Italy could be changed and that Austrian governance could be ousted. It was uprisings and revolts such as this which were vital to the success of the Risorgimento.

Camillo Cavour

Camillo Cavour (1810-1861) was a statesman and renowned diplomat. He was an advisor to the King of Sardinia, and as a result was able to raise the profile of Italy’s desire to unify throughout Europe, especially because Sardinia was a very important part of the fragmented Italy.

Camillo Cavour

Unlike Mazzini, Cavour wanted unification in a monarchical form as opposed to a Republican one, and it was under the rule of the king of Savoy that the unification was announced.

Cavour founded and wrote in a newspaper called “Il Risorgimento” in which he talked of constitutional reforms and anticipated the changes which Italy was beginning to go through on its way to becoming an independent nation. Some of his articles were very controversial, and one even caused a war a few days after it was released!

Cavour’s careful planning, the military help of Giuseppe Garibaldi in the South of Italy, and uprisings inspired by Mazzini, would ultimately lead to the eventual unification of all of Italy.

Giuseppe Garibaldi

Giuseppe Garibaldi

Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882) won the majority of the military victories that came about as a result of the Risorgimento.

Garibaldi was formerly a sailor and had experience in combat prior to his victories in the Unification. He quickly became involved with Mazzini’s Young Italy movement, becoming very closely influenced by Mazzini himself, and although he had a history of exile, he was eventually returned to Italy under the command of Cavour in order for him to lead a war against Austrian forces.

Garibaldi’s actions were influenced by the guerrilla wars occurring in Uruguay around the same time, and in a nod to the soldiers there, Garibaldi’s men took up wearing similarly styled red clothing. This led them to be known as the Redshirts. The men in Garibaldi’s army were also all volunteers.

Without the three men above, the Risorgimento may not have ever happened, and without the creation of the Italy we know today, the history and geography of Europe as we know it would be vastly different.

In the modern age, Italy is separated into regions – five of which are autonomous and have the power of self-governance. However, as in many European countries, there are still areas and regions that wish to become more (or completely) independent - a fine example is that of Venice wanting to split from Rome, an issue that has recently stepped back into the spotlight.

Countries are always changing, but we must never forget the truly momentous changes of the Risorgimento. Its effects and legacy were to be heard around the world, influencing politics, culture, and history both at the time and today.

This article is provided by Georgie Broad.

You can also read longer history articles with interactive content in our magazine, History is Now, available for iPad and iPhone (and Android imminently!). Read more about it here.

Bibliography

• Hearder, H, Italy: A Short History, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp153-187
• Banti, A.M, Il Risorgimento Italiano,  Laterza&Figli, ed. 2005
• Evans, M, The Italian Unification, All About History, Imagine Publishing, Issue 10, pp36-37

The Greatest Exhibition of the 19th century? – Image of the Week

This week’s image of the week is from the time when the British Empire was dominant.

It has been a few weeks since we shared an image of the week, so it is time for this majestic image…

The Great Exhibition, a type of World’s Fair, took place in London in 1851. Opened by Queen Victoria, it was a majestic event that happened at a time when the British Empire was at its peak. It was also well-attended and extremely popular among many of the local population, not least because it had exhibits from over 25 countries, so allowing people to marvel at wonders from the world over, as well as exhibits from closer to home.

The image above shows the main hall with flags from a variety of countries and well-dressed people visiting the different stands from all over the world. At the top we can see the roof, a glass structure known as the Crystal Palace, situated in Hyde Park, London. Light also fills the exhibition hall.

The second image shows a poster advertising trips to the Great Exhibition from Abergavenny in Wales. People traveled from very far to come to what was an unprecedented spectacle and a rare opportunity to see much of the world under one roof.

Catch all of our articles by subscribing to our rss feed - click here.

George Levrier-Jones

The Forgotten War – The 3 Key Causes of the Anglo-American War of 1812

In this introduction to history that follows a piece on the American Revolution, Aidan Curran explores the reasons for the War of 1812. And he finds that there are three principal reasons for the war that broke out between Britain and the US.

Never heard of the War of 1812? Well, you are not alone. This war is often called the “Forgotten War,” as it is overshadowed by other conflicts in American history such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War. However, this is a significant event in American history as it was the first time that the United States declared war on another country. And guess who they declared war on? Yes, you guessed it – Britain. Even after the war of independence, it seems the British still wanted to stick their noses into American affairs, by impeding trade and taking men off American ships whom they believed were British.

This article is going to examine the three main causes of this “Second War of Independence,” - trade, impressment (kidnapping), and expansion.

US Frigate Constitution defeats the British Frigate Java in December 1812.

1. Trade      

In 1803, Britain was locked in a conflict with Napoleon’s France. In order to win this war, Britain had to cut off all supplies to France. This meant interfering with American shipping, and as you can imagine, the Americans were not too happy about this. According to international law, neutral countries could trade with whoever they wished, as long as they traded non-military goods.  Americans felt that their rights as a free nation were being violated, and introduced a number of restrictive trade measures, such as embargoes, in order to preserve the economic health of the United States. This could be called a cold war, as these trade restrictions were made in an effort to avoid full on, bloody war. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, once exclaimed “What a noble stroke would be an embargo! It would probably do as much good as harm at home, and would force peace on the rest of the world, and perhaps liberty along with it.”

So in December 1807, Congress passed the Embargo, which banned all American ships sailing to foreign ports. In 1808, American exports plummeted by 80%. However, this Embargo Act had little effect on Britain. In all honesty, she couldn’t care less; the British were far more interested and consumed in their battle with the French. In fact, the only people who suffered were the Americans, as the economies of port cities suffered. Exports fell from $108 million in 1807 to $22 million in 1808, and imports fell from $138 million to less than $57 million. To say the Embargo Act backfired would be an understatement - it was an absolute disaster! The Non-Intercourse Act was introduced instead, which banned trade only with Britain and France, who were still locked in combat. To win this war, Britain saw it as necessary to “kidnap” sailors from American ships in order to increase manpower, which brings us on to the next cause of the War of 1812.

2. Impressment

If there was one thing in particulr that annoyed the Americans, it was impressment. This was when the British would board American ships, and take sailors they believed to be British citizens. Granted, many were, but many had also become naturalised Americans. Between 1793 and 1812, the British impressed more than 15,000 US sailors in an effort to boost fleet numbers in their war with France.

The process of impressment started back in 1664, as the Royal Navy organised gangs to roam the countryside, forcing British subjects to join. By the 18th century, these gangs were boarding neutral merchant ships to kidnap men to serve in the navy.

Americans regarded the practice of impressment as a violation of a person’s liberty, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. So when the British started boarding American ships and taking men, this was obviously going to cause considerable tensions.

Why were so many British men working on American ships? Simply put, American ships offered better pay and working conditions. It is estimated that 35 to 40 per cent of US naval crews were made up of British seamen in the nineteenth century, often deserters of the Royal Navy. Many of these had become naturalised Americans, but in British eyes, no subject could ever renounce their citizenship. The Americans conceded the right of the British to impress their own subjects from American ships. However, when legally naturalised Americans were taken, this was a cause of huge irritation. And when US-born people were impressed, this caused even greater tension. Between 1803 and 1812, at least 5,000 sailors were snatched from American ships and forced to serve in the Royal Navy, and it is estimated that three out of every four were Americans.

The most controversial case of impressment occurred in Virginia on June 22, 1807. A British warship called the HMS Leopard opened fire on an American ship called the USS Chesapeake. The British boarded the ship, looking for deserters from the Royal Navy. They found and impressed four men, but only one was an actual British citizen. The incident outraged the American public, with President Thomas Jefferson remarking: “Never since the Battle of Lexington have I seen this country in such a state of exasperation as at present, and even that did not produce such unanimity.” War was looming ever closer…

3. Expansion

American expansionism can also be cited as a cause of the War of 1812, as the country tried to extend its influence to the north-west, in places such as Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. As the Americans tried to expand, they faced fierce resistance from Native Americans, who wanted to keep their land from the colonists, reform their habits, and establish a confederacy on American soil.

But what has this got to do with the British? Well, the British began to give support to the Native Americans by providing arms and supplies. They saw the Native American Nations as being valuable allies, while also hoping that a Native American buffer state would be formed, which would halt American growth and expansion, and ensure that Canada remained a British possession. In the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, the defeated Native Americans left behind rifles of British manufacture on the battlefield. This confirmed to the Americans that the British were up to no good, and along with trade interference and impressment, it seemed that the only option was to go to war, and that’s exactly what they did.  On June 1, 1812, President James Maddison gave a speech to the US Congress, in which he described American grievances against the British. The war officially began on June 18, as President Maddison signed the measure into law. This was the first time America had ever declared war on another country.

To sum it all up

The fundamental cause of the War of 1812 between America and Britain is pretty straightforward – both sides could not agree on what was theirs. The British believed that no person could renounce their citizenship, while Americans recognised legally naturalised citizens. This led to a disagreement over impressment, and who exactly was British and American. Sometimes, the British did not even care, and took whoever they wanted off ships, including Americans. This angered the Americans, as their freedom was being violated. On trade, Americans believed that as a neutral country, they should be able to exchange goods with whoever they wanted. Again, there was dispute over this, as the British disagreed. Finally, greed was also a major cause of war, as America wanted to expand its territory, but Britain did not want this, in fear of losing Canada.

America and Britain were like two children in a sweet shop, stealing each other’s sweets and arguing over which sweets were theirs, while also looking to expand their number of sweets! If only they had learned to get along…

You can find out more from Aidan Curran on his site here or his Twitter feed here.

Finally, read more about an adventure from the War of 1812 in issue 4 of History is Now magazine here.

References

• Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty!
• John Garraty, Short History of the American Nation
• Maldwyn Jones, The Limits of Liberty
• Bradford Perkins.  Embargo: Alternative to War 
• John P. Foley, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia.
• Samuel Eliot Morison, A Concise History of the American Republic
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/1901937?seq=3
• http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/british-navy-impressment/
• http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/summer/1812-impressment.html

Tsar Alexander III of Russia - A Paranoid Life. Pogroms, Pokers and Blame

Helen Saker-Parsons follows up her article on Tsar Alexander II, and considers how Alexander II’s death influenced his son, Tsar Alexander III. The results included suspicion against those inside and outside of Russia, and making scapegoats of the Russian Jewish population.

Alexander witnessed his father’s body as it was stretchered up the stairs of his home in the Winter Palace; the stubs of his blown-off legs hemorrhaging blood onto the plush carpet. His father was Alexander II, Tsar of Russia and assassinated by social revolutionaries. His son, the new Tsar Alexander III, accepted that he was their target now: affirmation of which came on his return to his own St Petersburg residence, Anichkov Palace, where he discovered a trench had already been dug, encircling the building, and several armed guards put in place. Alexander III knew that his father had survived several assassination attempts, the threats of which lingered throughout his reign. Indeed, the policies the new tsar pursued and the way he lived his life were governed by fear. Although physically strong, he was no match for an organized group of assassins. To protect himself and his family he was forced to assume a near isolated existence, away from the social whirl of the Imperial court; and moreover to introduce a set of domestic and foreign policies which would keep his enemies at a distance.

Tsar Alexander III of Russia in the 1880s.

St Petersburg itself symbolized revolutionary spirit: a contemporary English observer remarked how the city reeked of dynamite. Following Alexander II’s assassination in March 1881, Alexander III took his family and fled to their country residence, Gatchina, some thirty-five miles to the south.  Here he chose to live more like a prisoner than an Emperor. He dismissed the opulent rooms and instead moved into converted servant quarters that were low ceilinged and cramped. He surrounded himself with Victorian bric-a-brac to further the sense of claustrophobia. Rumors abounded abroad about the new tsar’s confinement.  He listened to the advice of his former tutor: the reactionary and influential Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who warned him to “look under all the furniture at night and lock the doors not only in the bedroom, but in all the adjacent rooms, right up to the outside door.” He further advised to “check every evening, before going to bed, that the sentries are still there – their throats can so easily be cut.” Alexander kept a revolver beneath his pillow and allegedly fatally shot an aide-de-camp who surprised him as well as a guard who reached behind his back for a cigarette. Rumors abounded abroad about the new tsar’s confinement. To counter these claims, he and his family took frequent public walks in a nearby park but the image of freedom was an illusion: the park was reached via an underground tunnel from the Palace and a fear of large crowds forced Alexander to delay his coronation for over fourteen months.

Enemies everywhere

It was this sense of mistrust that governed his foreign policy. Often referred to as ‘Alexander, the peace-maker,’ it was more paranoia that forced his decisions. Although he ratified the Three Emperors League with Germany and Austria-Hungary, which his father had initiated in 1881, he failed to further extend the alliance in 1887 when he became suspicious that Austria was acting against Russian interests in Bulgaria. Instead he signed a Russo-German neutrality pact, but again refused to extend this in 1890, when the ascension of Kaiser Wilhelm pushed Alexander into the hands of the French. Alexander was suspicious of the ambitious German ruler and in 1892 signed a military pact with France to counterbalance German aggression in Europe. But ultimately the Tsar believed he had only two natural allies – his army and his navy.

Alexander III acknowledged that a threat also existed from within. His domestic policy was governed by his desire to maximize the security of his dynasty. He followed the doctrine of his grandfather, Tsar Nicholas I, with ‘orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.’ Only by having one religion, one people and one leader could he maintain peace within Russia and eliminate threats from the Radicals and Reactionaries. He pursued a policy of Russification, promoting the Slavic elements within the Empire and removing Prussian ones. All aspects of life were affected from Alexander sporting a Slav-like beard to persecuting other religions. Russian art, music and architecture were promoted. School curriculums were altered to reflect the glories of Russia and universities were instructed on what to teach.

Blaming the Jews…

Perhaps his most controversial policy was the persecution of the Jews. Pobedonostsev’s formula for the Jewish was:  ‘one-third was to emigrate, one-third was to die, and one-third to disappear (or be converted).’ Strict quotas were introduced on the number of Jews admitted to higher education and Jews were banned altogether from many professions. Their settlement was restricted to nominated areas and towns closed to them. In 1891, almost twenty thousand Jewish inhabitants were evicted from Moscow. Although the pogroms - which were a feature of Tsarist Russia from 1881 - were not government led, they were welcomed by it. The Jews were a useful scapegoat and a focus for hatred: diverting attention away from revolutionary activity. The emancipation of the serfs in 1861 had forced many uneducated peasants into the cities where they came across the wealthier Jews who they resented. This hatred grew as an international agricultural depression was blamed on the Jews who largely controlled the trade and merchant houses.

But the tsar could not divert all hatred from him. The social revolutionaries needed to be suppressed and Alexander achieved this through censorship [the country’s main literary journal Notes of the Fatherland was closed in 1884 for its supposed support of Populist political ideas], the promotion of police powers and consequent clampdown on civil liberties. In 1881 the Law on Exceptional Measures, - in effect martial law - was introduced; meetings of any kind could be banned, and the police were given extensive powers of search and arrest, while liberal judges and officials were dismissed from office. Perhaps most importantly, a new security division of the police was founded - known as the Okhrana. Not only were they responsible directly for the protection of the Tsar and his family but also for tracking down political opponents and radicals. This they achieved through subversion and infiltration. They were successful and effective: by 1894, over 5,400 people had been exiled to Siberia or sentenced to hard labor. The long hands of the Okhrana operated not only from the major cities within Russia but those European hotbeds of revolutionary behavior such as Paris and London.

Alexander III kept his enemies at a distance and flexed his muscles on the international and domestic scene. Even so, his desire to appear powerful and fearless infiltrated every aspect of his life, and ironically was to contribute to his death. At six feet four and with a large stature (his nieces and nephews referred to him as ‘Uncle Fatty’) Alexander III was an imposing physical character. He kept his children amused with feats of strength such as ripping whole decks of cards in half and bending fireside pokers into bizarre shapes. But his most significant display of strength came following a train derailment near Borki in 1888, on one of the few occasions he had travelled beyond the confines of the royal palaces. As bodies lay amongst the tangled mess he reportedly supported the roof of the dining car in which he and his family were travelling, allowing them all to escape. He suffered a trauma to his back and damage to his kidney, heralding the onset of kidney disease that contributed to his death six years later. An alleged tendency towards alcoholism brought about by the stresses of confinement worsened his health. Although Tsar Alexander III escaped the fate of his father and son, he remained imprisoned by the fears his role as ruler of an unruly Russia invoked and ultimately died an untimely death at the age of 49.

As always your feedback is welcomed. If you have the time to leave a comment I’d really like to hear what you thought about the article.

Now, look at what else is on the blog by clicking here.

The Scientist who World War I wrote out of history

Karl Ferdinand Braun is the unsung hero of wireless telegraphy. He made many great discoveries, but due to World War I, he was forgotten. Here, Kevin K. O’Neill tells us his story.

Many people have memories of the early history of radio development summed up in a single word: Marconi. This is not undeserved as Marconi and the companies he founded were instrumental in the development of wireless telegraphy and radio. The transition from the wired telegraph to wireless telegraphy came at a time of turmoil in Europe and was in part driven by different country’s desire for improved communication.

At the outbreak of WWI, verbal radio was still in its infancy and crossing any significant distance in wireless communications was achieved by the "dots and dahs" of Morse Code, whose cultural legacy remains with us in the form of SOS as a distress signal, chosen for its simple three "dots", three "dahs", three "dots" pattern. One of the fathers of this technology remains unsung in much of the world due to Germany's loss of WWI. Despite numerous technical contributions, this man, Karl Ferdinand Braun, remains largely unknown to many English-speaking people.

Most of us in today's world have viewed images on a Cathode Ray Tube, commonly known among English speakers as a CRT.  Before the advent of semiconductor flat panel display technology, every TV and computer sported a CRT as its most prominent feature, but how many know who invented it?  It was Karl Ferdinand Braun.

Braun in 1909.

Success at learning

The youngest boy of seven children, Braun was born in June of 1850 at Fulda, a town northeast of Frankfurt still enclosed in its medieval walls. Despite his father's job as a mid level civil servant, Braun was raised in extreme poverty due to the billeting of Bavarian soldiers in his home. A time of unrest in Germany, Fulda was forced to house many soldiers forcing its inhabitants into sheds and barns, while the poor ate rodents to survive.  Despite these inauspicious beginnings, Braun did attend to school.  Hardly a prodigy, the fact that he had difficulty with mathematics outside of theory was often laughed at later in his life.  Despite this, Braun wrote a book on crystallography when he was 15. Reviewed favorably by several professors it went unpublished due to his age. However Braun was undeterred, publishing several papers on aspects of chemistry before he turned 17.

Braun enrolled in experimental physics, mathematics, and chemistry at the college in Marburg just before his 18th year. Due to his physics professor's musical inclinations his studies were focused on acoustics, which while good at, Braun was not inclined to pursue.  Even so, it is likely that his understanding of the concept of resonance would later play a role in his inspired electrical innovations. Dissatisfied with the scope of his studies at Marburg - with its mere 355 students and unimaginative professors - Braun cleared financial hurdles and went on to the University of Berlin, an undisputed leader in science, after his second semester at Marburg.

In Berlin, an elite physics laboratory existed with only 3 of 265 science students allowed access. Braun, after a single interview with the professor in charge, was allowed use of the lab in complete privacy and at no expense, an honor almost unheard of. Morally and financially compelled to return to Marburg after two semesters to please his father, Braun's next break came when offered a paid internship as a laboratory assistant and lecturer at what was to later become a section of the Technical University of Berlin. This allowed him to stay in Berlin under the tutelage of a Professor Quincke who promoted the spirit of German scientific education, something that was to eventually propagate through much of the academic world. This pairing reaped great benefits for mankind.

Braun's first dissertation earned him the beginnings of a reputation. His acumen for the mechanics of experimentation became evident to all those involved. His contributions to scientific knowledge are too numerous to even outline here, but his discovery of the "diode" effect should be mentioned. This discovery effectively makes him the great grandfather of every semiconductor ever manufactured. Braun was the teacher that every student hopes to get and if they do, they remember him for life.  Braun taught at numerous German universities and his talent for amusing anecdotes once had Kaiser Wilhelm II repeatedly slap his leg and laugh during a lecture.

A history of invention

In the latter half of the 19th century, electricity was working its way into industry and society.  Batteries, generators, lights, telegraphs, and other assorted technologies were being implemented while barely being understood. Braun was asked by early German electricity producers for help with various aspects of energy propagation. With characteristic energy, he tackled the problem by refining ideas published by Roentgen, the discoverer of X-Rays. Braun's solution to probing the inner workings of electrical circuits was the creation of the Cathode Ray Tube.  A long glass tube with the air pumped out and two metal plates with a phosphor coated "screen" of cardboard. Braun was the first to control the horizontal and the vertical by waving magnets around the tube to deflect the electron beam, or cathode ray, which was a discovery in itself. 

Braun, a kindred soul to Tesla and never a businessman by nature, altruistically published his findings with expediency, despite being aware of the enormous fiscal value of his invention. He honed his marvelous tube into what is known today as an oscilloscope, a fundamentally unchanged tool of electronics that is indispensable to any electronic engineer or technician. It was Braun's oscilloscope that first showed the German electricity producers that the electricity they were creating operated at a frequency of 50 "hertz" or cycles per second - a frequency unchanged in Europe to this day. To say the German industrialists involved were pleased with Braun's "Scope" is a huge understatement. Braun contributed many other items to the electric industry and his brother, a successful merchant, founded a company to reap some gain from Braun's inventive mind. The most pervasive legacy of this company remains with us in the form of the Braun electric razor. His tube, known in America as the CRT, is still called "Braunsche Rohre" (Braun's Tube) in German speaking countries and "Buraun-kan" in Japan.

At the tail end of the 19th century "wireless" communication was in its infancy, and utilizing "Spark Gap Transmitters" and releasing barely manipulated EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) assaults into the atmosphere, Braun hoped that someone could pick them up at distances measured in single to double digit miles. If one of these transmitters were "sparked up" today in a modern city, it is likely that all the iPads, iPods, and cell phones in the immediate area would suffer a premature death, all their semiconductor junctions fried at the hands of raw electromagnetic energy.

World War I and change

Ferdinand Braun helped change all that. Braun and Marconi were jointly awarded a Nobel Prize in 1909 for "contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy." Marconi even admitted to Braun himself that he "borrowed" several of Braun's patents. It was during his work on wireless telegraphy that Braun invented the first diode, without which there would be no modern electronics as we know it. It was also here that Braun's early work with acoustic resonance came into play as he improved the wireless technology including inventing the phased array antenna.

During the Russo-Japanese war of the early 20th century and before the outbreak of WWI, the combat efficacy of wireless communications was proven by the Japanese sinking of the Russian flagship Petropavlovsk. Baited out of Port Arthur with small ships, torpedo boats were called in as reinforcements by wireless. At the outbreak of WWI, Braun's workplace, then at Strasbourg, was shut down and the city filled with troops. Braun's family was scattered by various circumstances. When the tide of war ebbed Braun returned to Strasbourg to find his university's station locked behind closed doors, being used by the military as one point of the first known radio triangulation efforts to track ships at sea.  The British ships were tracked and the U-boats success at finding prey may have been due to this effort.

Prior to the war, with Marconi's efforts tied up, the only world wide network of communications was set up by Telefunken. Many pieces of this network were destroyed in the early days of the war in an effort to isolate Germany. The Sayville station, outside New York and the last of the offshore Telefunken stations to remain operational, had recently been upgraded and was able to receive reports from Germany.  It came under assault for patent infringements in efforts to shut it down, with Marconi himself scheduled to testify. Braun decided to travel to New York to help counter the British efforts to shut it down. Diagnosed and treated for cancer ten years earlier though, the disease was rearing its head again making Braun aware that this trip might be the last effort of his life. Risking winter travel and the Atlantic blockade (his own son had been caught at sea returning from America and imprisoned), Braun left for New York without much hope of seeing his homeland or family again.  Departing from Bergen, the captain went far out of the normal sea routes, passing just south of Iceland to deliver his "cargo," for, besides Braun and his three companions, the ship was carrying a new transmitter and antenna setup for the Sayville station. Shortly after Braun's arrival in New York he had a pleasant surprise when his son, released from internment by the British, was allowed to return to America.

In part due to Braun's presence, the lawsuit against Sayville went in Telefunken's subsidiary's favor. However Sayville was taken over by the US Navy when America declared war on Germany.

His job done, Braun petitioned the British government for safe passage to Germany but they were non-committal. Braun remained in America under the watchful eyes of British intelligence, and coming to the realization that the British did not want him back in Germany, Braun resigned himself to life in the Catskill Mountains of New York until the war ended. Many American scientific groups, pleased to have a Nobel Prize winner nearby, treated him to feasts and event invitations, easing his isolation.  He continued to write articles on physics, one of his last being "Physics for Women," a practical aid to housewives everywhere. In 1918 Braun slipped and fell. He broke his hip, went into a sickbed, and never arose. He passed away shortly thereafter.

Scientist, teacher, innovator, and patriot to his country, Braun was a remarkable and admirable man written out of history by the winners of WWI. The next time you view the iconic 1960s TV show The Outer Limits’ introduction, with its elemental display of oscilloscope functionality, take a moment to reflect upon a 20th century without the Cathode Ray Tube.  Braun was the first to control the horizontal and vertical, bringing much of physics in to crystal clarity. Life would not be the same without his wonderful "Braunsche Rohre" and other miraculous inventions.

This article is by Kevin K. O’Neill.

You can read another article by Kevin, related to ghosts and science in the 19th century, here.

Tsar Alexander II of Russia. Assassinations and Assignations - Cat or Rat? The Tsar with many lives and loves

In this brilliant article with a twist at the end, Helen Saker-Parsons tells us the story of the various assassination attempts on 19th century Russian ruler Tsar Alexander II. And his compelling and complicated love life – or lives…

Historically, it is a bear that symbolizes the Russian Imperial Court. But for Alexander II, Tsar of Russia from 1855 to 1881, there are more suitable creature comparisons. His was a reign marked by assassination attempts and sexual assignations. He appeared to have the many lives of a cat but was also referred to as a rat – a love rat. For though it was customary for imperial rulers to take mistresses, Alexander II appeared to move beyond what was acceptable, even for a Tsar.

But has history misjudged his sexual misdemeanors? Or could it be argued that it was his awareness that as a cat his lives were not infinite which pushed him towards his love-rat behavior?

Tsar Alexander II, circa 1865.

Attacks on a ruler

Alexander II oversaw a period of upheaval and change in imperialist Russia. Nick-named ‘the liberator,’ it is the emancipation of the serfs for which he is most renowned. But how the country adapted to change was to leave the Tsar vulnerable, with enemies amongst both the radical reformers and conservative factions. Alexander survived several attempts on his life, firstly from lone assassins and then by the Nihilist group, Narodnaya Volya [People’s Will]. His first near-miss he later referred to “as the event of April 4 1866.” On this date the elbow of Dimitry Karakozov was reportedly nudged as he aimed his revolver at the Tsar leaving the Summer Garden in St Petersburg. When the Tsar questioned the captured wannabe assassin as to what he wanted, the latter apparently replied: “nothing.” During the 1867 World Fair, Polish immigrant Antoni Berezowski attacked Alexander’s carriage but his pistol misfired and hit a horse instead. On April 20 1879, Alexander was out walking when he spotted an armed man, 33 year old former school teacher, Alexander Soloviev, approaching. The Tsar fled, running in a zigzag pattern so that all five of  Soloviev’s bullets missed him.

The People’s Will was founded in 1879 with the principal policy of killing the Tsar. In November their initial attempt to bomb his train route at three points failed. The train diverted from the first point; the dynamite failed to ignite at the second as it did at the third – when a tunnel dug to the track from a rented apartment passed through sandy soil and flooded. On the evening of February 5, 1880, one of their members, employed as a stoker at the Winter Palace, set off a charge in the guard’s rest room aimed to coincide with the Tsar and his family gathering to eat in the dining room above. Eleven people were killed and a further thirty wounded but the Tsar and his family were not amongst the casualties, having fortuitously delayed their meal. Poor time-keeping saved Alexander on The People’s Will’s third attempt when one of their terrorists turned up too late to blow up a bridge over the Catherine Canal which the Tsar was set to cross. The fourth attempt was abandoned when the Tsar changed his travel plans thus avoiding the road that had been mined. For their fifth effort The People’s Will returned to tunneling and rented an apartment from which to burrow and bomb one of Alexander’s frequent haunts. But the terrorist group failed to represent everybody’s will and one of their neighbors denounced them.

Alexander II had survived eight times and a cat is known to have nine lives. That eventually an attempt on his life should be successful seemed an accepted fact both by Alexander and his contemporaries. The British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, had remarked in 1874 that the Tsar always looked sad questioning “Whether it is satiety, or the loneliness of despotism, or fear of a violent death, I know not” and Peter Kropotkin describes the events of March 13, 1881 ‘the tragedy developed with the unavoidable fatality of one of Shakespeare’s dramas.’ On this Sunday, Alexander was travelling his usual route when a bomb was thrown under his carriage. He alighted to inspect the damage and console the wounded Cossacks who accompanied him. A second, as it happened suicidal, terrorist, Ignatei Grinevitski, seized the opportunity to throw another bomb; this time with more success. The Tsar’s legs were blown off by the blast and chunks of his flesh, combined with that of others caught in the blast, littered the lying snow. The dying emperor was taken by sleigh to the Winter Palace. His mutilated body was met by members of his family. His grandson, who later became Tsar Nicholas II and was to meet a violent demise himself, described that “there were big red spots on the carpet - when they had carried my grandfather up the stairs, blood from the terrible wounds he had suffered from the explosion poured out.” Alexander’s body was taken to his quarters, passed the secret passageway, which led down to another series of rooms. It was the presence of these and his mistress and children housed there which gained him the reputation of a rat.

A history of lovers

Alexander II had many admirers, not least Queen Victoria, whom he first met in 1839, when both were barely out of their teens. She wrote in her diary: ‘I really am quite in love with the Grand Duke; he is a dear, delightful young man.’ During his month-long visit to England the two went on horse rides in Windsor, attended balls at Buckingham Palace and even spent half an hour alone behind closed curtains in the royal box at the theatre. But Alexander’s father, Tsar Nicholas I, feared a marriage would result in his son having to give up the Russian throne to become British Prince Consort. He ordered him to Germany where a more suitable suitor awaited; writing: ‘Back to Darnstadt. Don’t be a milksop.’ The parting was not without emotion and Alexander left Victoria his prized dog, Kazbek, as a leaving present. They were not to meet again until 1874 by which time Victoria was dismayed by his changed appearance and openly critical of his indiscretions.

Alexander II’s subsequent marriage to the German Princess – who became known as Maria Alexandrovna following their wedding in St Petersburg in April 1841 – was initially a happy one and she bore him eight children. Alexander’s virility was proven and there were rumors of other offspring; including twin girls born to the British Ambassador’s wife. But it was also the death of his children that reminded him of the fragility of life. His firstborn by Maria, a daughter Alexandra, died aged seven from tuberculosis and Alexander kept her nightgown beneath his pillow for the rest of his life. Their eldest son and heir, Nicholas, also died from consumption in 1865. Both tragedies contributed to Maria’s frail health, something that had already taken a severe down-turn after the birth of her final child in 1860. Diagnosed with tuberculosis and instructed to spend more time in warmer climates, her husband built a sanctuary for her in the Crimea. Her absences paved the way for his infidelities.

Amongst his lovers was an eighteen year old, Marie Dolgorukaia. But it was her sister Catherine who was to steal the Tsar’s heart. After the death of their father, Alexander II had taken on their guardianship and enrolled the girls in the Smolny Institute, in St Petersburg. It was on a visit here that the sisters grabbed his attention. Firstly Marie was employed as a Maid-of-Honor to his wife whilst performing more personal functions; but after less than a year the Tsar turned his eyes to her younger sister Catherine, almost thirty years his junior. Following a brief platonic period, their relationship turned sexual and intensely passionate. Catherine too was appointed as a Maid-of-Honor and assigned her own suite of rooms in the Palace, directly above the personal rooms of the Tsarina.

One love too far?

It was the flaunting of the affair and the damaging effect it had on the Tsarina’s heath that angered many, especially the couple’s children. But Alexander’s first assignation with Catherine, in July 1866, came only a few months after the initial attempt on his life. The awareness that there would be other assassination attempts must have prevailed. He had survived a second by the time Catherine bore their first child together. At a time when life seemed precious and short Alexander turned away from his often morose and religiously maniacal wife towards the intensely sexual mistress. Proof of their passion can be read in the thousands of sexually explicit letters exchanged between them, with almost everyone referring to the act of love-making or ‘bingerle’ [their pet-name for it]. The regularity of his rigor even led to the Tsar’s physicians placing him with a six-week sex-ban. During this period Catherine wrote ‘I confess that I cannot be without your fountain, which I love so… After my six weeks are over I count on renewing my injections.’

It was the permanent presence of the mistress in rooms above the wife that attracted particular criticism. It is alleged that Maria was often disturbed by the noises of Catherine’s children and even as she lay dying was purported to have uttered: “Why is there no one to check those unruly bastards?” But perhaps the most controversial and biggest bone of contention was Alexander’s rush into a morganatic marriage with Catherine forty days after his wife’s death in the summer of 1880. Although tradition dictated a year of mourning, the attempts on Alexander’s life had intensified. He was only too aware of his mortality. He wrote to his sister, Olga, on his decision: ‘I would never have married [Katia Dolgorukova] before a year of mourning if not for the dangerous time we live in and for the hazardous attempts I expose myself to daily which can actually and suddenly end my life.’

History highlights the weaknesses of Russia’s leaders, especially its monarchs who were born, not elected, to rule. Alexander II, like Henry VIII, was blinded by lust. But here was a man who acknowledged he was to be assassinated; who was aware that eventually an attempt would succeed and his many cat-lives would run out. Peter Kropotkin wrote he was: ‘a man of strong passions and weak will.’

And so on closer examination of his flaws it could be argued that the creature most closely characteristic of Tsar Alexander was neither cat nor rat - but that of a typical human being.

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can also read more on Russian history in this article on our blog about Grigori Rasputin here.

Selected References

• Pyotr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid

• Edvard Radzinsky, Alexander II: The last great Tsar

The Russian Peasant who attacked Napoleon’s War Machine – Image of the week

The tough Russian peasant who attacked Napoleon’s forces in 1812 is our image of the week.

We’ve had a number of articles related to Russia on the site this week, so thought we’d make the image of the week Russia-related too.

The 1812 Russian Campaign, or the French invasion of Russia, relates to Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia during the Napoleonic Wars. The campaign was led by a huge French-led force of well over 500,000 troops. All did not go quite to Napoleon’s liking though, and the Russians were able to overcome the French to devastating effect. The defeat was a catastrophe for Napoleon and his dreams of control over Europe.

Our image is related to the Russian Campaign and says: “A Russian peasant loading a dung cart.” In the image, a hardy Russia peasant is about to attack a dainty French soldier with his pitchfork. The French soldier is terrified, even though he has a sword. In the background we can see why he is horrified – there is a dung cart full of the bodies of French troops among hay. A boy is also in the background, happily looking at the man’s attack on the French soldier.

This print is from March 1813.

What else Russia-related have you missed this week? Our article on famed Russian Grigori Rasputin is here and a podcast about Gulags is here.

George Levrier-Jones

Hypnotic Animals - or maybe not? How Animal Mesmerism grew across Britain and Europe

Here Kate Tyte gives us a fascinating overview of Mesmerism, a popular hypnotic process that united all classes and many people believed in through the 18th and 19th centuries.

“There is only one illness,” pronounced Franz Anton Mesmer, “and only one cure.” This cure was animal magnetism, a practice that united eighteenth century society in debate. From royalty to peasants, politicians to revolutionaries, scientists to Freemasons: everyone had an opinion on magnetism. 

Franz Anton Mesmer was born in Germany in 1734. He studied medicine in Vienna, married a wealthy widow and became a fashionable doctor. Not bad for the son of a game keeper. 

In 1774, Mesmer was introduced to patient Francisca Oesterlin. She suffered from ‘constant vomiting, inflammation of the bowels, stoppage of urine, excruciating toothache, earache, melancholy, depression, delirium, fits of frenzy, catalepsy, fainting fits, blindness, breathlessness, and lameness.’ Mesmer tried a novel cure. He gave her a medicine containing iron and applied magnets over her body to create an ‘artificial tide.’ Oesterlin was cured. In fact, she was so well she soon married Mesmer’s step-son. Mesmer now theorized that the whole universe was held together by magnetic fluid, and that disease was caused by blockages in free-flow of this fluid through the body. Animal magnetism was born.

Mesmer developed his cure. He would stare into his patient’s eyes and massage their body, wave a wand at them, or have them put their feet in magnetic water, until they had a ‘crisis’ or a fit and were cured. He was soon hounded out of Vienna as a charlatan and moved to Paris. Once again the medical and scientific authorities were skeptical, but the public loved magnetism so much he had to introduce group cures. His patients would hold onto a tub of magnetized water, a magnetized tree, or simply hold hands.

The authorities felt threatened by Mesmer’s miracle cures and were determined to stamp out animal magnetism. In 1784 the King appointed a Royal Commission of eminent scientists, led by Benjamin Franklin, to investigate. It was rather awkward as they were all members of a masonic lodge that was very keen on magnetism. But their scientific self-interest won the day. They reported that ‘magnetic fluid’ was humbug and that Mesmer’s cures were either fake or a product of the imagination. Mesmer was a staunch materialist and strongly denied that his cures were produced by the mind.

The commission finished Mesmer’s career. He left Paris and drifted around Europe. He was later imprisoned in Vienna as a suspected revolutionary, and died in Germany in 1815.

Magnetism lives on!

Meanwhile, animal magnetism continued to march through Europe and remained as popular as ever. This was hardly surprising. In the late eighteenth century all the medical establishment could offer was blood-letting, vomits and purges. Given the choice between a cure that was painful, dangerous and useless, or one that was pleasant, safe and useless, I would pick the latter option every time.

In 1784, the same year as the Royal Commission, Armand Marie Jacques Chastenet, Marquis of Puysegur, took magnetism in a new direction. He discovered he could induce a new state of consciousness, called ‘artificial somnambulism’ or ‘magnetic sleep.’ This sometimes gave patients occult powers such as clairvoyance and extra-sensory perception. Puysegur’s ‘spiritual’ or psychological version of animal magnetism, became known as ‘mesmerism’, and ensured the continued popularity of the practice.

The British

Mesmerism spread to Britain in the 1780s. The establishment was skeptical. They saw mesmerism as unscientific, and worse, un-English. The Frogs and the Krauts might go in for such effeminate mumbo-jumbo, but John Bull was not going to fall for such nonsense. Despite this, the political classes got quite hysterical about it during the revolutionary wars. They worried that the French were using ‘magnetic spies’ to pry into the minds of the British.

Mesmerism was re-born in Britain during the 1830s and 1840s when several popular books on the subject started a craze dubbed ‘mesmeric mania’. The salons of high society delighted in mesmerism and even Charles Dickens had a dabble. Many people think of mesmerism as an eccentric pursuit by the fringes of Victorian society, but for about 20 years it was all-pervasive and inescapable in every aspect of British life.

The working classes were just as fascinated by mesmerism as the wealthy. Mesmeric showmen toured the country giving demonstrations. Mesmerism’s appeal was obvious. It was exciting, mysterious and wonderfully meritocratic. Anyone could mesmerize. There was no need for expensive training or membership of exclusive professional bodies. Mesmerism was used as a cheap form of medicine for the poor and also a way to explore paranormal phenomena, such as clairvoyance. It could also be deliciously subversive. Men who dropped their aitches could mesmerize duchesses, throwing the whole social order into glorious disarray. And some Socialist groups actually promoted mesmerism as part of a radical political agenda.

The medical profession, though, remained vehemently opposed to mesmerism. John Ellitson, senior physician at University College Hospital and respected medical author, was eager to experiment. He found mesmerism helped many of his patients so he began lecturing on it. This caused a mighty row with the hospital authorities and ended his career. The hospital didn’t care whether mesmerism worked or not. They simply felt that it was disreputable and a threat to their status. Thomas Wakley, editor of The Lancet, said that mesmerists ought to be shunned “more than lepers, or the uncleanest of the unclean.” Wakley had no such qualms about the ludicrous pseudo-science of phrenology.

The medical profession even dismissed mesmerism’s use for surgical anesthesia. Hundreds of operations were carried out using mesmeric pain relief in the 1830s and 40s. At one colonial hospital in India, mesmeric anesthesia caused the death-rate to plummet by 50%. The medical establishment simply ignored this evidence and claimed that all the patients had been faking it! Ellitson asked in despair, “How long will you refuse to spare a single wretched patient the pain of your instruments?”

As it turned out, not long. Mesmerism made the infliction of pain surgery seem like an avoidable trauma, rather than a simple fact of life. Mesmerism inspired surgeons to experiment and by the 1850s ether and chloroform were being used widely. 

The mesmeric craze died out in the 1850s. Chemical anesthesia rendered it redundant in operations and the public had moved on to a new craze for séances, ouija boards and spiritualism. It took many years for mesmerism, or hypnosis as it was later called, to be taken seriously and recognized as tool with great potential for psychological healing. In the meantime the mesmerism craze was practically written out of history as a silly and embarrassing episode. This was unfair, as mesmerism had in fact spared many patients from pain and suffering.

By Kate Tyte. Kate is an archivist, history writer and blogger.  You can follow her on twitter at @KateTyte and find her blog at katetyte.com.

You can also find out more about Mesmerism in Robin Waterfield’s Hidden Depths – The Story of Hypnosis. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Out from Slavery: Heroes for all Americans and the Lessons from Slavery

Following the release of the film 12 Years a Slave, Jason McKenney reflects on the lessons that the whole of America can learn from slavery. He also argues that from the time of American independence, slavery was in demise in the USA and considers the importance of slavery in US history.

This article is provided by Jason McKenney from http://time-trip.blogspot.com

Simply a Shame?

With the recent release of the film 12 Years a Slave, there has been a gale of new commentary on slavery in the United States. The film is based on the autobiographical account of Solomon Northrup, a black man born free in New York State before being kidnapped and sold down the river where he was to live the life of enforced bondage in Louisiana until his escape.

Most of the reviews of the film are as much about slavery as they are about the movie itself. Based on several reviews posted at RottenTomatoes.com, slavery was a “tragedy of countless thousands of souls beaten down,” an “unrelenting horror” and “our national shame.” Thoughts like this aren’t a surprise when dealing with such an emotional and gut-wrenching subject. No sane person would disagree with these statements, but it almost feels like we’re tilling the same ground over and over here without planting any new seeds. Could there be a more positive lesson to pull out of the awe-inspiring struggle so many black slaves endured to make progress towards freedom? Is there a lesson that keeps the evil aspects of slavery in perspective while also giving us a better understanding why it was so important that black liberation succeeded?

A Ride for Liberty - The Fugitive Slaves. Eastman Johnson, 1862.

Slavery and its relation to the black experience in the United States are frequently thought of in just those terms: the black experience. There are not many lessons that the white population currently take from the long struggle for emancipation beyond the fact that slavery was America’s so-called “national shame” and that whites should treat blacks as equals. Other groups such as Latinos and Asians may feel even further removed from this chapter in US national history. However, there is much more for all Americans to learn from the liberation of black slaves than it simply being the right thing to do.

Fueling the Fire of Liberation

The demise of slavery in the United States began almost the moment the nation declared its independence from Britain.

“But how can that be?” you ask. “Slavery still had decades of massive growth ahead of it after 1776.”

I will concede that point if you also concede that the broader principles, arguments and justifications for ending slavery were making unprecedented leaps and bounds in the 18th century. The philosophical movement known as “The Enlightenment” produced writers and thinkers who argued against slavery on humanitarian grounds because the treatment of slaves was growing more brutal by the moment. While valid in tone, the weakness to this argument is that it makes slavery more acceptable as long as the slave isn’t treated poorly. More complete arguments against human slavery claimed that it violated basic natural rights, including the right to liberty of person. These were ideas that had been virtually unheard of prior to The Enlightenment, and with the US Declaration of Independence, the birth of the first nation founded principally on Enlightenment Ideals was underway.

“But the Constitution made indirect allowances for slavery when it was first ratified!” you say.

“And many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves!” you say.

As the 18th century English writer Samuel Johnson put it, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” True and true, but as most writers will also say, perfection rarely arrives in the first couple of drafts. It can take years of delicate crafting to go from a small kernel of truth and stretch it out to a full-fledged cultural paradigm. In other words, who cares if Thomas Jefferson owned slaves? The principles of individual rights, human liberty and religious freedom which the agrarian redhead supported helped fertilize the soil out of which the fight for abolition grew.  This was because, at their heart, many of the Founding Fathers knew their ideal of personal freedom from tyranny was incompatible with chattel slavery. They believed it would only be a matter of time before the peculiar institution either phased itself out or resulted in a climactic and violent civil war.

During the eighty-nine years between the Declaration of Independence and the Surrender at Appomattox, many African-Americans, both free and slave, fought with as much heart, courage and fearlessness to free their people as any lieutenant in General Washington’s army. The fight took many forms. Frederick Douglass and William Still gave us words, stories and history. Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey gave us conspiracy and execution of violent slave revolts in the antebellum countryside. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth showed us that even caught in the brambles of soul-crushing bondage, a woman’s spirit could rise above the situation and show others that a better life was possible.

Each of these people and thousands of others just like them, whether they knew it or not, were acting out natural human impulses codified in America’s Founding Documents. America was built on liberty and independence because the Founding Fathers believed that was the natural state of humankind; to be free and self-governing and not tied down to another power whether it be an English despot or some Southern plantation owner.

An Inspiration for Others

I think that too often, the black struggle for liberation is viewed as an ancillary offshoot of American history and not part of the main course. Most Americans think of US history between the 1770s and the 1860s as basically the Revolution, maybe the War of 1812, the growth of slavery, westward expansion, and then the Civil War where the slaves were freed (with a Second Great Awakening mixed in for good measure). When attention is paid to events like the Underground Railroad, Douglass’ North Star and the early 19th century slave rebellions, they are sometimes viewed as isolated or even minor events that played third fiddle to the larger strains of the American narrative. They will also tend to be viewed as sources of pride exclusively for the African-American population and less so for other ethnicities who claim this nation as home. Instead, these events should be viewed as a vindication of the ideals of the Enlightenment, justification in the founding of the United States and proof that the struggle for the abolishment of black slavery was a more tangible representation of the abstract models fought for by the Founding Fathers.

The examples given by people like Tubman, Still and Northrup to modern Americans of every stripe and color are just as powerful and just as meaningful to the blended DNA of freedom that underlies the United States as any treatise by Jefferson, maneuvers led by Washington or speeches given by Lincoln. These men and women of color fighting for their independence and inspired by the spirit of our Constitution serve as great examples of what it means to be American. Their actions will naturally carry deeper meaning for other African-Americans, but Americans of every ethnic background should take pride in living in a country that has produced such amazing leaders as these.

Jason McKenney was born and raised in Lexington, Kentucky, and now lives in the suburbs of Los Angeles. His education background is in technology and business, but he has a passion for history. His adventure series Time Trip is his attempt to introduce young adult readers to famous historical events in a new and exciting way.

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/timetrip101
• Twitter: @jason_mckenney
• Site: http://time-trip.blogspot.com

Want to find out more about slavery in America? Download issue 2 of our digital magazine History is Now. Click here!

The amazing historical town of Ilha de Mocambique – Image of the week

An image from the fascinating former Portuguese colonial capital in Mozambique is this week’s image of the week.

As you approach Ilha de Mocambique (Island of Mozambique) across a causeway, you are struck by the difference between this small former capital city and the surrounding towns. The town was the capital of Portuguese East Africa for many years, but the capital’s location then changed and the town slowly fell into some sort of decay.

In the image we can see the Misericordia Church bathed in sunlight, a girl walking by the steps of the church, and some ladies washing in the shade. A beautiful scene.

The image comes from Stig Nygaard in 2007 and is available here.

Want to find out about what’s happening with us this year? Click here to join us and find out more!

George Levrier-Jones