Thomas Jefferson – The President who re-wrote the Gospels

Thomas Jefferson is today known as one of America’s greater presidents. So much so that both Democrats and Republicans claim him as their own. But he also undertook another remarkable feat – he re-wrote the Gospels to make them less miraculous. William Bodkin explains.

Few people in American history have been picked over as much as Thomas Jefferson. Of the Founding Fathers, he is considered second only to George Washington, and of the presidents, only Abraham Lincoln may have had more written about him. This is all with good reason. Jefferson, alongside John Adams, formed the original American frenemies; together they forged the creative relationship that gave birth to the United States. Their influence, and conflicts, remain to this day. The United States runs for political office in the language of Jefferson, that of personal freedom and self-determination, but governs in the language of Adams, that of a technocratic elite managing a strong central government.

A portrait of Thomas Jefferson. Circa 1791.

In my last post, I considered John Adams’ Declaration of Independence, the May 15, 1776 resolution he believed to be the real Declaration, consigning Jefferson’s to a mere ceremonial afterthought.[1] Adams, eyes firmly locked on posterity, seemed to compete for immortality with Jefferson. However, despite recent efforts to rehabilitate the image of the second president, Adams, who knew he had made himself obnoxious to his colleagues[2], has largely lost this battle.

Jefferson, by contrast, is beloved as the genius Founding Father whom everyone claims as their own.  The Democrats revere him for founding their party, one of the oldest in the world. The Republicans, and the tea party movement in particular, love to quote his language of personal freedom and revolution, like invoking his statement that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”[3] All agree that his “ceremonial afterthought” should be celebrated for all time.

And yet, though he has won history’s affections, there’s an excellent chance Jefferson would be irritated by being worshiped or followed today.  After all, Jefferson had “sworn eternal hostility” against “any form of tyranny over the mind of man,”[4] believing that one generation of humanity could not bind another with its ideas, or even its laws. Jefferson said that it was “self-evident” that “the earth belongs to the living.”[5] Indeed, were he alive today, he would probably encourage us to discard things such as the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers much in the same way he discarded the work of the Evangelists who wrote the Christian Gospels.

REWRITING THE GOSPELS

Jefferson was not known for his devotion to religion. Abigail Adams wrote, after Jefferson had defeated her husband John Adams for the presidency, that the young nation had “chosen as our chief Magistrate a man who makes no pretensions to the belief of an all wise and supreme Governor of the World.” Mrs. Adams did not think Jefferson was an atheist. Rather, Jefferson believed religion to only be as “useful as it may be made a political Engine” and that its rituals were a mere charade. Mrs. Adams concluded that Jefferson was “not a believer in the Christian system.”[6]

Jefferson, who always professed a high regard for the teachings of Jesus, found the Gospels to be “defective as a whole,” with Jesus’ teachings “mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.”[7] Jefferson seemed most offended by the accounts of miracles. The Gospels could be improved, he concluded, by removing the magical thinking - that is, anything that could not be explained by human reason.

Following his presidency, Jefferson reconciled with John Adams once Adams had recovered from the bitter sting of presidential defeat. Jefferson confided in his old friend about the project he had undertaken to rewrite the Gospels. Jefferson wrote to Adams that “by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book,” he was able to separate out “the matter which is evidently his (Jesus’),” which Jefferson found to be “as distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.”[8] Adams responded favorably to Jefferson’s project, commenting “if I had eyes and nerves I would go through both Testaments and mark all that I understand.”[9]

Jefferson, though, was not finished. He believed the effort he described to Adams was “too hastily done”.  It had been “the work of one or two evenings only, while I lived in Washington.”[10] Think, for a moment, how astounding that is. Jefferson’s first effort at reworking the Gospels came while he “lived in Washington,” meaning while he was president. So for fun, after steering the American ship of state, he rewrote the Gospels.

A NEW WAY OF THINKING

While working on his second Gospel revision, Jefferson described his complete disdain for the Evangelists. He found their work to be underpinned by “a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.” Yet he still believed that “intermixed with these” were “sublime ideas of the Supreme Being”, “aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence,” that had been “sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors.” All had been expressed, by Jesus, “with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed.” Jefferson could not accept that Jesus’ purest teachings were the “inventions of the groveling authors who relate them.” Those teachings were “far beyond the powers of their feeble minds.” Yes, the Evangelists had shown that there was a character named Jesus, but his “splendid conceptions” could not be considered “interpolations from their hands.” To Jefferson, the task was clear once more. He would “undertake to winnow this grain from its chaff.”  It would not “require a moment's consideration”, as the difference “is obvious to the eye and to the understanding.”[11]

At the end of this process, Jefferson, in his seventy-sixth year, had completed his Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, extracted from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French & English, an account of the life of Jesus, bereft of any mention of the miraculous. No wedding feast at Cana, no resurrection of Lazarus, and ending with the disciples laying Jesus in the tomb, rolling a great stone to the door, and then departing.

Jefferson’s rewriting of the Gospels is a perfect distillation of his belief that each generation could take and shape the meaning of the Gospels, or really, anything, for their own purposes. Jefferson took these beliefs to his gravestone. Prior to his death, he chose to list there, of all his accomplishments, his three great contributions to the freedom of thought: “Author of the Declaration of American Independence and the Virginia Statutes on Religious Freedom; Father of the University of Virginia.” Jefferson hoped, perhaps, to inspire successive generations not to follow his words, but rather, to live by his example, and cast off the intellectual bonds of the past in order to create a new way of thinking.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Share it, tweet about it or like it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

[1] See, Ellis, Joseph, Revolutionary Summer: The Birth of American Independence, Chapter 1 , “Prudence Dictates.” (Knopf 2013).

[2] Id.

[3] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Novmeber 13, 1787.

[4] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.

[5] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789

[6] Letter of Abigail Adams to Mary Cranch (her sister) dated February 7, 1801.

[7] Jefferson, Thomas. “Syllabus of an estimate of the merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of others.” College of William and Mary, Digital Archive (https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/15130).

[8]Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, October 13, 1813.

[9] Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, November 14, 1813.

[10] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Rev. F.A. van der Kemp, May 25, 1816.

[11] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, August 4, 1820.

What really happened in the Wild West? The Gunslinger Myth

The Wild West of nineteenth century America was at times a chaotic and unruly place, not helped by the lack of law enforcement officials. Even so, many myths have arisen about the period. Here, Robert Walsh debunks the myths and shares what really happened.

The Wild West was the home of many colorful (often disreputable) characters. Native Americans, gold prospectors, gamblers, cattle ranchers, miners and immigrants scrambled to extend the new frontier. They spread further West in search of their fortunes. With law-abiding, hard-working citizens came criminals. The most notorious were gunslingers, hired guns who would rob a bank one month, protect a cattle baron the next and then be hired as a town marshal the month after that. Being a gunslinger didn’t automatically make a man a criminal; some of the best known were both law enforcers and lawbreakers at different times.

A stylized version of a Wild West gunfight.

Gunslingers in popular culture

The popular image of gunslingers comes from cheap novels and films and it is far more fiction than fact. Hollywood would have us believe that hired guns were either all good (like Gary Cooper’s portrayal in the classic film ‘High Noon’) or all bad (like Michael Biehn’s portrayal of Johnny Ringo in ‘Tombstone’). This black-and-white idea doesn’t reflect reality. Pop culture’s image is often a slow-talking, fast-drawing lone gunman riding into town, taking on several men at once while wearing one or two pistols in low-slung hip holsters and, naturally, letting them draw first before instantly killing all of them. He’ll probably indulge in a drawn-out, climactic gunfight, standing opposite his opponent in the middle of a street for several minutes, each waiting for the other to make the first move. The ‘good guy’ lets the ‘bad guy’ draw first but still wins, naturally.

This portrayal is, frankly, grossly inaccurate. Gunslingers weren’t even called gunslingers during the ‘Wild West’ period. They didn’t wear the standard ‘gunfighter’s rig’ of a low-slung hip holster tied to their thigh for a faster draw. Many didn’t favor the pistol as their primary weapon. Drawn-out standoffs were almost non-existent, as were single gunslingers choosing to fight multiple opponents single-handed unless they absolutely had to. Few made public show of their skills with trick shooting or fancy pistol twirling in saloons or on street corners (notable exceptions were ‘Wild Bill’ Hickok and the infamous John Wesley Hardin). They were seldom always lawmen or outlaws and frequently both at different points in their careers (some even managed to hold public office as sheriffs or marshals while operating as vigilantes, assassins, extortioners and general criminals). Pop culture’s version of the gunslinger hasn’t made them more interesting; it has dumbed down who these men were, what they did and how they did it while ignoring the more complex aspects.

‘Shootists’ – The reality

According to etymologist Barry Popik the word ‘gunslinger’ didn’t come into use until the 1920 movie ‘Drag Harlan’ and then in the novels of famed Western author Zane Grey who first used it in his 1928 novel ‘Nevada’. The word ‘gunfighter’ first appeared in the 1870s. Wild West gunmen were more commonly known as ‘shootists’, ‘badmen’, ‘pistoleers’ or ‘pistoleros’ (a Spanish word for ‘gunman’). Granted, the word ‘gunslinger’ sounds good, but it first appeared long after gunslingers themselves ceased to exist. Feared gunman Clay Allison is believed to have coined the most popular term of the period when asked about his occupation by replying “I’m a shootist.”

Pop culture would also have us believe that gunmen wore customized gunbelts and holsters, the standard ‘gunfighter’s rig’. They didn’t. The stereotypical ‘gunfighter’s rig’ beloved of movie directors the world over didn’t exist during the period. It came into being in the 1950s when ‘quick draw’ contests with blank-firing revolvers became a competitive sport. The low-slung holster tied down to a man’s thigh simply didn’t exist.

Also almost non-existent was the idea of two fighters walking out into a street, facing each other and then fighting a ‘quick draw’ duel. If a real gunfighter drew quickly it was usually because an opponent had tried to ambush him. Most one-on-one gunfights resulted from personal disputes such as over women or during card games where insults were exchanged and guns drawn immediately. The idea of Wild West gunfights having any resemblance to European dueling is best left in dime novels and movie theaters where it belongs. Only two such face-to-face duels are on record as having actually happened, between ‘Wild Bill’ and Davis Tutt (Hickok killed Tutt with a remarkable single pistol shot at a range of over fifty meters) and between Jim Courtright and Luke Short (Short killed Courtright with a volley of four bullets, not a surgically-delivered single shot). Gunfights like those in the ‘Spaghetti Westerns’ directed by Sergio Leone are wonderful viewing, but bear almost no relation to reality.

Gunfighters of the time were also far more sensible than to tackle multiple opponents single-handed unless they absolutely had to. One extremely rare example was the notorious ‘Four dead in five seconds’ gunfight in Austin, Texas. Gunfighter Dallas Stoudenmire (employed as town marshal at the time) used his two pistols to kill four men, three of whom had ambushed him. Unfortunately the fourth was an innocent bystander already running for cover when the shooting started.

Tools of the trade

Another myth is that gunfighters all preferred revolvers. In films they draw one or two pistols, empty them without seeming to aim and, naturally, kill every opponent without missing or accidentally shooting anybody else. Any pistol marksman will tell you that holding a revolver with one hand and fanning the hammer with the other is the worst way to shoot accurately. In reality, most gunmen favored the ‘coach gun’ (a short-barreled shotgun used by stagecoach guards, hence the phrase ‘riding shotgun’) or rifles like the 1873 Winchester. Legendary gunman Ben Thompson was a firm devotee of the shotgun, as was John ‘Doc’ Holliday’ of OK Corral fame. Billy the Kid always preferred a Winchester rifle. The reason was simple. Shotguns and rifles are more accurate than pistols so killing with the first shot was more likely. It was pointless drawing a pistol quickly if you couldn’t hit your target before they hit you. As Wyatt Earp once put it: “Fast is fine. Accurate is final.”

Some gunfighters bucked that trend. Clay Allison, Dallas Stoudenmire and Frank and Jesse James all preferred pistols, but they were exceptions. Small pistols like the Derringer were tiny, often firing only one or two shots instead of the six rounds in a typical revolver. They were easily concealed ‘hideout guns’ often hidden in waistcoat pocket or by gamblers for use at a poker table. Similar guns were made for women and nicknamed ‘muff pistols’ because they were often carried in the fur-lined hand-warmers fashionable among women of the time. Whether picking a fight over a poker game or trying to rob a female stagecoach passenger, these small guns often fired large-caliber bullets, much to the distress of many an outlaw.

As time went on single-shot, muzzle-loading weapons were replaced by ‘repeating’ guns like the revolver, shotgun and breech-loading rifles such as the 1873 Winchester. Gunfighters now had weapons enabling them to deliver greater firepower with less time spent reloading their weapons. Samuel Colt’s ‘Peacemaker’ revolver was accurate, powerful and instantly outdated other revolvers by being the first to use all-inclusive metal cartridges. The new cartridges rendered old-school ‘cap and ball’ revolvers obsolete almost overnight. These require the user to fill each individual chamber with gunpowder, add a lead pistol ball and some wadding, ram the ball, powder and wadding into each chamber using a lever under the barrel and then fit a percussion cap over each chamber. Only then is a ‘cap and ball’ revolver fully loaded. The ‘Peacemaker’ could be reloaded simply by shaking out the spent metal cartridges and replacing them. Improved weapons meant increased firepower. Increased firepower was essential in the evolution of the gunslinger.

‘Wild Bill’ Hickok, the first legendary gunslinger, in the 1870s.

Rise of the hired gun

So what created the gunslinger? Why was there a need for hired guns rather than the police forces we know today? In a word, necessity. Law enforcement was at best basic. Individual US marshals could find their territory extended over hundreds of square miles. County sheriffs had the same problem. There was simply too much ground containing too many people for such limited law enforcement to deal with. Outlaws could easily evade even the most persistent marshals and sheriffs simply by crossing State lines, putting themselves beyond the legal jurisdiction of their pursuers. The court system on the frontier consisted largely of ‘Circuit Judges’ (a term still used today). Individual judges were allotted a ‘circuit’ of towns and rode round and round conducting trials and any other legal business that had amassed since their last visit. Jails were insecure and their staff often corrupt, so even when criminals were arrested they often easily escaped. Authorities could also offer rewards for wanted outlaws on a ‘dead or alive’ basis, encouraging many gunslingers to work as bounty hunters. With rewards offered ‘dead or alive’ many bounty hunters found it safer to simply kill wanted outlaws, deliver their bodies and collect their reward. It was safer than the additional risks associated with delivering live outlaws into custody for the same amount of money. Bounty hunters of the time were sometimes referred to as ‘bounty killers’ because, to them, fugitives were worth the same alive or dead.

The gunfighter - Hero or villain?

With the vastly inadequate official systems available, many towns hired their own sheriffs and marshals. Naturally, the job required men who were expert with guns and bold enough to fight when necessary. Not every expert marksman was also prepared to face ruthless criminals for a sheriff’s wage. So townsfolk often turned to whoever was prepared to do the job, often hiring gunfighters based on their fearsome reputation rather than their regard for the law. Notorious outlaws ‘Curly Bill’ Brocius (later killed by Wyatt Earp) and William Bonney (known as ‘Billy the Kid’) were also sheriff’s deputies at one time. Even the infamous John ‘Doc’ Holliday, one of the most feared gunmen of the Wild West, was deputized by his long-time friend and Deputy US Marshal Wyatt Earp after the famed ‘Gunfight at the OK Corral’ in Tombstone, Arizona. Equally notorious killer Ben Thompson became Chief of Police in Austin, Texas, despite having previously served a sentence for murder.

Businessmen also hired groups of gunslingers to protect their lives and their interests. Famed cattle baron John Chisum once employed ‘Billy the Kid’ as a gunman to protect his livestock against cattle rustlers. Mining companies often employed notorious gunmen such as Butch Cassidy to escort shipments of newly minted bullion and payrolls, ensuring their safe arrival by hiring gunmen who might otherwise try robbing those very shipments. In the absence of adequate official law enforcement many people sought their own version by employing as sheriffs and marshals exactly the kind of people they hoped to be protected from. Famed marksman Tom Horn (later hanged for murder) was a sheriff’s deputy and a Pinkerton detective while performing contract murders at the same time. Jim Courtright was a town marshal when he fought his famous duel with Luke Short. Being town marshal hadn’t stopped Courtright from trying to extort Short. It didn’t stop Courtright killing him, either. Wyatt Earp was heavily involved in gambling (and, some say, pimping) while also serving as a Deputy US Marshal.

Men of dubious reputations weren’t everybody’s first choice as law enforcers, but then they were often the only men available to do the job. The frontier territories, with their cattle ranches, mining towns, railroads and various other lucrative businesses and limited law enforcement, offered rich pickings for outlaws prepared to rob, extort and kill anybody opposing them. Law-abiding citizens had to hire their own gunmen and sometimes resort to vigilante justice through lynch mobs. Until the law was fully established the gun took precedence.

One last thought on the gunslinger myth is that pop culture isn’t entirely to blame. To develop and keep their credibility gunmen had to be regarded as people to both respect and fear. The more feared they were, the fewer challenges they were likely to face. With that in mind, many gunfighters built myths around themselves and made themselves seem as skilled (and therefore deadly) as they could get away with. John Wesley Hardin was a notorious braggart. Clay Allison was the same. If gunfighters are so badly misrepresented in the modern world then they are also to blame.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Like it, share it, or tweet about it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

References

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/gunslinger_or_gun_slinger/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHt6i5Wi02s

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-outlaws.html

http://www.historynet.com/wild-west-outlaws-and-lawmen

http://www.elpasotimes.com/125/ci_3767809

http://www.historynet.com/dalton-gang

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-BatMasterson5.html

Image sources

http://www.modernmythmuseum.com/m%20saga%203%2055%20holliday.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bill_Hickok#mediaviewer/File:Wild_Bill.jpg

“Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know” - The inimitable and intimate life of Lord Byron

Lord Byron has become an icon in history and literature, and not just thanks to his beautiful and unparalleled command of the English language. Throughout his 36 years, Lord Byron infamously acquired a litany of lovers, some of whom caused controversy, and some who inspired a handful of the most important and beautiful poems ever written. Georgie Broad explains more…

George Gordon Noel Byron was born in 1788 to a small aristocratic family that was rapidly losing its luster. As a whole, Byron’s family life was the epitome of dysfunctional. His father left the family while Byron was a young boy, his mother suffered from schizophrenia and he was put under the care of an abusive nurse. The only place where the young Byron could find familial respite was with his sister Augusta… but more on that relationship a little later.

In 1803, at the tender age of fifteen, Byron fell in love with his distant cousin Mary Chaworth. This love was not reciprocated however, and as is often the nature with unrequited love, his feelings for Mary inspired several of his earlier poems. A few years later Byron began his intermittent studies at Trinity College, Cambridge. While there, studying wasn’t exactly at the forefront of his mind; instead he turned his attentions toward sports, gambling (which forced him deeper into debt) and a great many sexual escapades thanks to how naturally handsome he was.

Lord Byron.

EARLY CONNECTIONS

During his time at Cambridge, though, Byron made some of his first important steps to becoming the man we know so well today. He met John Cam Hobhouse, a lifelong friend who aided his induction into the ideals of liberal politics that remained with him for the rest of his life,and during his last year at Cambridge, he wrote Hours of Idleness, a compilation of poetry. Upon its publication, it received harsh and damning reviews, though they couldn’t have been better for Byron’s success. As a reaction to these scathing reviews, Byron published English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, a satirical piece that openly attacked the literary community with wit and without fear that actually earned him high acclaim throughout the very community he criticized.

At the age of 21, Byron began an intrepid journey around the Mediterranean with his friend Hobhouse, and continued to indulge his two passions on the trip: poetry and a fair few lustful tristes; however his adventure was cut short when he had to return home following the death of his mother. Although in his childhood the two never had a picture postcard relationship, the passing of his mother plunged Byron into a period of deep and desperate mourning. As was characteristic of Byron, he was pulled out of his despair through praise of his work from respected London critics and another string of lovers.

One such lover was the novelist and aristocrat Lady Caroline Lamb who uttered the infamous description of Lord Byron as “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”. Caroline and Byron had a whirlwind romance; passionate, intense, and short lived. Caroline had no qualms about making their love affair very public, and wouldn’t shy away about being demonstrative about her feelings. After their affair ended, Caroline was plunged into depression and turned to drinking to deal with the loss of her love. She also wrote a book, Glenarvon, which detailed their tempestuous romance.

It was at this time, amid the love of Lady Caroline and Lady Oxford, rumors began to circulate about the relations between Byron and his married half-sister, Augusta. To dispel the gossip and to seek a little respite from his Lothario-like ways, Byron proposed marriage to Annabella Millbanke. The marriage was something of a train-wreck from start to finish, and crumbled rapidly due to financial debts, the persistent rumors of incest surrounding Byron and Augusta, and gossip about his sexuality. (Today, it is widely accepted that Lord Byron was bisexual given the accounts of his sexual exploits during his time at school and university with men and women). Although Byron and Millbanke had a daughter, after the ending of their marriage, Byron saw neither his ex-wife nor his daughter again. It was around this time that Byron penned the immortal poem She Walks in Beauty, supposedly about a married woman he met at a ball. The poem has since become an iconic piece of literature and a cornerstone of romantic poetry.

SAILING AWAY

In 1818, Byron set sail for Europe, never to return to England. He saw the European attitude as more romantic, liberal, and accepting of the way he conducted himself. True to form, Byron carried on his womanizing ways while he travelled around with the mother of sci-fi, author Mary Shelley, her husband and her sister - with whom Byron fathered another daughter, Allegra. During these travels, the infamous Don Juan was written, arguably one of Byron’s most successful and important works, a witty and satirical poem that detailed many romantic encounters and was remarkably similar to his own life.

The last and most enduring of his romantic affairs was that with Teresa Giuccioli, a married countess of only nineteen, compared to his 30 years of age at the time. He described her “as fair as sunrise – and as warm as noon” and the two, unlike many affairs of Byron’s before, carried on their relationship unconsummated until Teresa separated from her husband. Although by today’s standards, the relationship seems unconventional, Teresa’s father actually liked Byron, and initiated him into the Carbonari, a group of Italians who sought the independence of Italy and helped bring about the Risorgimento (the process of Italian unification).

Byron died in 1824, aged 36, and was buried in a family vault. He was, and remains, a legend of the literary world, having penned some of the most iconic verse in English literature. He was the king of sharp wit and satire and defined a genre of writing that is still revered to this day. His private life was as turbulent and passionate as his writing, and he can truly be considered one of the masters of romance.

You can read Georgie’s previous article on why King George IV may have been the worst king of England by clicking here.

References

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/romance-passion/great-lovers-a-celebration-of-true-romance-1895508.html?action=gallery&ino=5

http://www.biography.com/people/lord-byron-21124525#last-heroic-adventure&

http://www.bl.uk/people/lord-byron?ns_campaign=disco_lit&ns_mchannel=ppc&ns_source=google&ns_linkname=Lord%20byron&ns_fee=0

Philanthropy in 19th Century Britain – Humble Beginnings

Britain in the nineteenth century was in many ways a dark and discouraging place; however there were shining lights in the gloom of working class life in the form of philanthropists. In this series, Lindsey Buteux will be looking at key philanthropists whose dedication to their cause brought many hundreds of individuals out of poverty and into education, better health, better living conditions and allowed them to experience the life that that their peers did not have access to.

Society did not have a particularly charitable attitude towards the poor so philanthropy at the start of the nineteenth century was not a common sight, but this had greatly changed by the end of the century. A hymn published in 1848 comments upon these social differences: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, and order’d their estate.”

So what makes certain individuals act differently to their peers, why did women such as Angela Burdett-Coutts and men such as Titus Salt, Joseph Rowntree and Charles Dickens challenge the social norm and act above and beyond in the care of the poor? Can we look to these people for inspiration in a society that is becoming increasingly insular and reluctant to be generous and giving of spirit as well as material goods?

Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1814-1906

Angela Burdett-Coutts is the first philanthropist who we will be looking at. Recognized for her charitable work by Queen Victoria in 1871, she was a friend of Charles Dickens and known as ‘Queen of the Poor’, but Burdett-Coutts was not put off by her lack of access to the family business of banking (due to being the last child of six and her gender), and instead channeled her enthusiasm into her philanthropic work.

Angela Burdett-Coutts.

Amongst her charitable donations, Burdett-Coutts supplied Florence Nightingale with the equipment she needed when treating soldiers in the Crimea and thus changed the face of nursing. Burdett-Coutts was concerned with the needs of many and in many areas such as housing, water supply, supporting military wives, child labor and education.

An 1834 report on the Poor Law made it clear that there was a “duty to promote the religious and moral education of the laboring classes” with an emphasis on literacy in order for all people to understand their “responsibilities as citizens”. There had already been plenty of work done in this area through legislation such as Sir Robert Peel’s Factory Act in 1802 which had ensured employers provided instruction in the “Three R’s” during at least some of the seven year apprenticeship however the quality of this instruction varied hugely from factory to factory. It is a wonder that by the 1830s, any form of mass education had been introduced despite the addition of more voters, as the criticism of this mass education was so brutal. MP Davies Giddy comments in 1807 that “it would teach them (laboring classes) to despise their lot in life, it would render them factious and refractory.” He also argued that the cost of this mass education would be “incalculable”.

So we learn that the role of the philanthropist in educating the “laboring classes” is invaluable in not only funding schools for the poor, orphaned and homeless children but in fighting for the cause of education. Burdett-Coutts funded schools and evening classes for children from deprived backgrounds to enable them to learn skills that would enable them to earn a living. Of course, Burdett-Coutts was not the only Victorian citizen interested in children and education. Thomas Barnardo first started his Ragged School in 1867 but just three years later had expanded into providing housing for young boys and developed a ‘no child turned away’ policy after the death of a boy who had been turned away when the shelter was full. Within seven years Barnardo had acquired tens of properties with one of his wedding gifts in 1873 being a 60-acre site to house a Girls Village.

Angela Burdett-Coutts’ giving was not limited to the poor in England, her giving extended into other parts of the Empire by providing vast sums to relieve the suffering in Ireland during the Potato Famine. Not only did she provide goods such as corn, flour, tea and sugar, but she paid for boats and equipment in an attempt to stimulate the fishing industry - something that is considered to be a very modern approach to charity, providing the needy with the tools to better their situation themselves rather than the nineteenth century tradition of giving only what the poor needed when they came begging.

Clearly this charitable nature ran in the family as her father became the first politician to fight against animal cruelty by sponsoring the first act against cruelty to animals brought to the House of Commons. She was made President of the Ladies Committee of the RSPCA in 1870.  Angela Burdett-Coutts also sponsored scientific discovery by sponsoring the Royal Marsden Hospital, David Livingstone in his African exploration and Charles Babbage in his attempts to develop an early computer.

Most significantly, Burdett-Coutts kept her giving discreet as so many of her gifts were donated anonymously. She was one of the wealthiest women of her time and it is estimated that she donated around £350 million.

What encouraged her to become so philanthropic?

So why did this young woman, of massive fortune who was well read and well travelled, decide that she would dedicate her life to improving the lives of others, most of whom she would never meet or interact with? Her contact with politicians such as William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli surely had an impact as despite their opposing political views, both political leaders acted to pass legislation to protect the vulnerable and needy through the allowance of Trade Unions in 1871 and the demolition of slums in 1875 under Gladstone and Disraeli respectively. Most significantly has to be her relationship with Charles Dickens: known philanthropist and author who used his gift to share the situation that disgusted him so greatly and to encourage middle and upper class readers to take on charitable roles. Burdett-Coutts was aware of the problem of prostitution but Dickens had an action plan to create houses for women where they could be taught, become grounded in religion and train them in a steady, firm yet cheerful and hopeful manner. Burdett-Coutts gave Dickens almost “free rein in setting it up” according to author Claire Tomalin.

Burdett-Coutts’ strength of character is shown here as her very close friend, and some would say, lover or even secret husband, guided her against becoming involved with Dickens’ project to house and reform prostitutes. The Duke of Wellington, as explained in one biography: “could not understand her enthusiasm for social reform, for popular education, clearing slums and sewers, all these were outside his comprehension”. The view of the Duke of Wellington was most definitely the popular view and one that her peers would have shared especially with regards to ‘fallen women’ who had allowed themselves to fall to the depths of society and showed no moral fiber as per Victorian values.

Angela Burdett-Coutts is not one of the most well known philanthropists, in part due to her discretion, there are no hospitals named after her or modern charities bearing her name (just one small primary school in central London), but she was surely a pioneer, not only for women but for all nineteenth and twentieth century philanthropists. She did not seek fame and gave away a significant percentage of her vast fortune, she made alliances with key politicians, authors and members of the nobility who all gave her the knowledge that she sought and the opinions she valued, even if she did not agree with them. So, if you are ever in London, take a walk around Victoria Park and spend a moment at the Burdett-Coutts fountain that was generously donated at a cost of £6,000 in 1862 to ensure that people living in the East End of London had access to clean water.

Want to read more? Click here to read our article on the contrasting lives of the rich and poor in Victorian Britain.

References

• http://philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/ 
• http://www.fergys.co.uk/Blogs/BritPMs.php 
• http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/london/122.html
• http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_history/thomas_barnardo.htm
• http://www.coutts.com/private-banking/coutts-institute/philanthropy-and-social-investment/angela-burdett-coutts/#
• http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter02.html#01

A French gift to America. The Statue of Liberty – Image of the week

The Statue of Liberty arrived in America on this day over 125 years ago, so its our image of the week.

The Statue of Liberty is today one of the great symbols of New York city. But it wasn’t always so. The statue was famously built in France before being transported to America. And it arrived today (June 17) in 1885. The statue was designed by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, and was a gift from France to America that was produced having been a vision for many years.

Our image of the week is a lithograph of the statue from 1885, one year before the statue was actually stood upon the plinth on which it was to be placed. In the image, the statue is lit up in gold against the background and in large letters underneath it says:

The great Bartholdi statue,

Liberty enlightening the world,

The gift of France to the American people.

-------------

Now, have you heard of History is Now magazine? If not, click here to find out about a great new interactive history magazine.

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Statue_of_Liberty,_1885#mediaviewer/File:Currier_and_Ives_Liberty2.jpg

The Worst King of England? The Story of George IV

King George IV of England was king for only ten years until his death in 1830, but he made a lasting impression. So much so that some have dubbed him England’s worst king. Georgie Broad explains why…

Upon the death of King George IV of England in 1830, The Times newspaper said of him “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than the deceased king”. Hardly very complimentary, but it was a truth that was felt by the majority of English citizens during his reign and echoed by many historians today. Throughout his tempestuous and turbulent reign, George IV earned a great many enemies and was the butt of many libelous jibes and quips. But just how devastating was his rule, and should he really go down in history as one of the most dismal monarchs in British history?

Mistresses and Marriage

George’s life was not terribly rich in good relationships. He had a strained and poor relationship with his father, King George III, and these rocky relations carried on throughout his life. Even his “extra-curricular” interactions with his mistresses were dysfunctional, and they earned him a lot of unwanted attention. George IV’s father strove to cultivate an era of, as Dr. Steve Parissien puts it, “sexual respectability”, and to reinforce more traditional family values throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s. George IV was able to almost totally subvert his father’s moralistic hard work all by himself… With a little help from his litany of mistresses…

George IV acquired his first mistress at the humble age of seventeen, and was secretly (and illegally) married to one Mrs. Fitzherbert, a staunch Roman Catholic, before he married his wife Caroline of Brunswick. Through these various trysts with other women, George IV ended up fathering a considerable number of children. George did not always keep his mistresses under the radar, and allegedly connected with actresses and members of the aristocracy. This string of affairs led to something of an uncertain and tacky image of the king being created, one that did not sit well with a great many English people at the time. It also stood in stark contrast to the ideals that his father lay out before him.

After much persuasion, and due to the fact he desperately wanted to settle his debts, George married his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in 1795; however the marriage was a train wreck from its beginning to its rather prompt end after the birth of their only child, Princess Charlotte. George may have had problems, but he wasn’t the only one. Caroline rarely washed, was unfit, and so physically repulsive that George turned to copious amounts of alcohol to cope with the idea of marrying her. He was so drunk on their wedding night that he collapsed and remained in that temporary resting place until the next morning. These bad feelings about Caroline were not just confined to the king. Parliament and government disliked her too – to the extent that they offered her £50,000 to stay out of the country, which she hastily ignored before settling in London. Even so, when she was accused of having affairs, she was popular enough with various civilians that they greeted her and her carriage upon its arrival at the House of Lords.

So it seems then that among the dignitaries the marriage was not very popular, although the English people sat a little more on the fence. Alas for George, his problems didn’t confine themselves solely to the women in his life.

A cartoon of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, reflecting popular opinion of the couple.

Regency and Rule

George IV did not walk right into his kingship. When his father was overcome by a recurrent illness, George IV stepped into the position of Prince Regent, something that allowed him rule of the country… in theory. During his regency and rule, George remained fairly disengaged with politics, instead preferring to leave such proceedings to governors and ministers. In doing so, the new ruler was taking a much less active role in government and the ruling of the country than his father before him. This once again proved quite a jarring difference between the new ruler and his father throughout the minds of the English people, and contributed to a social malaise in the country. In terms of representation throughout the United Kingdom, George IV visited Ireland and Scotland on state visits for the first time in many years. This of course promoted a sense of unity among the United Kingdom; however, in England, George IV was still leaving a lot to be desired.

Instead of looking toward the ruling of the country, George turned his attention to matters of style and culture, echoes of which can still be found in architecture today. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens disliked George IV’s reckless spending, his extravagant coronation was popular throughout the country, and helped him on his reign-long development of the more dramatic, theatrical and pageant-like side of monarchy that we can still see in the international aristocracy today. But his careless and excessive spending did not always strike such a chord in the nation…

The regal and wonderful coronation of George IV.

Drinking, Debt and Dining

The aforementioned debt that drove George to marry Caroline was beyond extensive. Before he became king, his debts reached heights of £630,000 in 1795, which equates to around £55,111,000 today, according to Michael De La Noy in his Pocket Biography of the King. Although various grants were available to help George IV out of his debts, the situation did little to ameliorate his public image. He instead created an image of a lavish and wasteful big spender to add to his womanizing ways, which often left the English public cold, especially due to the less than plentiful economic position of the country at the time.

One of the main things that George liked to spend his money on was drink and good food, a trend that persisted for the entirety of his reign. Toward the end of his rule, his health deteriorated so badly that he didn’t like to make many, if any, public appearances due to the public reactions to his weight though. Not only did these health problems lead to a rapid and irreversible deterioration in George IV’s public image, but it also had severe repercussions on his health. With the litany of health problems that dogged the latter years of the monarch’s life, from gout to suspected mental instability, the king didn’t so much as go out with a royal and regal bang, but instead something of an underwhelming fizzle.

A famous caricature by James Gillray showing George IV in his later, less flattering years

Legacy

Nowadays, we often praise and venerate Georgian style, from clothes to architecture and customs; however the monarch who created many of these trends has gone down in history as one of the worst that Britain has known. Positive reviews can be found of George IV, for example those of the Duke of Wellington, crediting him as “the most accomplished man of his age”, although you need to look through a lot of negative reactions first, including another from the Duke of Wellington detailing how George IV was in fact “the worst man he ever fell in with his whole life”. Contradictory, critical and downright cruel most of the time, accounts from during and many years after the reign of George IV have perpetuated an image of a useless, lazy, and unfit king; being petulant, easily swayed and irresponsible to boot. In that light, we must re-examine George IV and ask ourselves: is it fair to go as far as dubbing him the worst King of England?

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

Image sources

http://www.historic-uk.com/assets/Images/carolinesecretaryvalet.jpg?1390900293

http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/CoronationService.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3518/3640/1600/Gillray_Voluptuary_051126.0.jpg

How the Victorians used Opium

The dangers of opium were not fully understood in the Victorian period. And this led to the not too uncommon consumption of laudanum, a drink that contained opium. Here we introduce you to laudanum in the Victorian Age.

Lord Byron, famed opium user, in Albanian clothes. Painting by Thomas Phillips, 1813.

If you think drug addiction is a recent problem, think again. When I read Frankenstein recently I discovered that Doctor Victor Frankenstein used laudanum (an alcoholic tincture of opium). A drink of laudanum was made of approximately 10% opium and 90% alcohol, and flavored with cinnamon or saffron. It was first used by the ancient Greeks, and in the nineteenth century was mostly used as a painkiller, sleeping pill, or tranquilizer. It was cheaper then poppy oil and could be drunk like you’d drink scotch. It took a while for the Victorians to understand the negative side effects though. Indeed, it was only in 1919 that the production and export of opium was prohibited, and in 1928 a law was passed that prohibited its use.

Wikipedia’s list of laudanum-users is so incredibly long, it makes no sense to copy it. Here are some notable users: Lord Byron (of course!), Kate Chopin (from The Story of an Hour), Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, and Edgar Allan Poe.In literature, it is mentioned in a number of books.Mary Shelley’s character Victor Frankenstein uses laudanum to help him sleep after the death of his friend, Henry Clerval.In Jack Finney’s Time and Again, the main character, Si Morley, wonders if a live baby in an 1882 display case has been “doped up with one of the laudanum preparations I’d seen advertised in Harpers.”The character Cassy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin kills one of her children with laudanum to prevent it from growing up as a slave.In Charles Dickens’ novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood it is the drink of choice for the sinister uncle Jasper.In Bram Stoker’s Dracula Lucy Westenra’s maids are poisoned (though not killed) by Dracula with a dose of laudanum put into wine.And Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote the poem fragment Kubla Khan immediately after waking up from a laudanum-induced dream.

So, it was a rather popular drug. In fact, innumerable Victorian women were prescribed the drug for relief of menstrual cramps and vague aches and used it to achieve the pallid complexion associated with tuberculosis (frailty and paleness were particularly prized in females at the time). Nurses also spoon-fed laudanum to infants. Finally, and sadly, the Pre-Raphaelite muse Elizabeth Siddal died of a laudanum overdose.

This article is provided by Geerte de Jong from 19thcentury.wordpress.com.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below...

References

http://www.jellinek.nl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum 

The Fascinating Wanderer who opened the World of Japan to the West

Kevin K. O’Neill tells us about the life of Patrick Lafcadio Hearn, a man born in Greece, but who later lived in Ireland and the US – until he fell in love with a country that was just opening up to the world in the late 19th century. Japan.

Ninja, samurai, hara-kiri, kamikaze, all are Japanese words familiar to English speakers today. Indeed many people, especially those living on the west coast of the United States, are well aware of Japanese culture and often become ‘Japanophiles’ or people who love things Japanese. The size of this group has risen significantly over the last twenty years due in part to the rise in popularity of ‘anime’ or Japanese cartoons. Unlike their American counterparts, anime are created for all ages and tastes. Post war Japan was impoverished and anime filled the entertainment need without the expense of movie making. However, before Japan took a part of center stage in the 1930s and 1940s, little was known of Japanese culture in the English-speaking world except through the observational writings of travelers. Japan, after initial western contact in the 1600s, closed itself off from the world until, in a true case of gunboat diplomacy, Commodore Perry forced them to open trade in the 1850s.

A Japanese print showing Commodore Matthew C. Perry. Perry played a key role in opening Japan to the West in the 1850s.

In the late 19th century, Europe was in a tizzy over Japan, including such things as pottery (and the crumpled paper it was shipped in, due to the woodblock prints), the Gilbert and Sullivan play ‘The Mikado’ and other items reflecting Japanese aesthetic taste. While information flowed freely much of it was of little value, such as Oscar Wilde’s comment; “… Japan is a pure invention… There is no such country, there are no such people.” A few writers, such as the German Philipp von Siebold, attempted to bring day to day life in Japan to the Western world but their writings were through the eyes of scientists more interested in botany, medicine, or trade. This changed with a writer, Lafcadio Hearn, who went native and became Japan’s first naturalized English speaking foreign citizen. As an aside, the clown of hamburger fame is called Donald McDonald in Japan in deference to Ranald McDonald who taught English prior to Hearn’s arrival.

Troubled Youth

Born Patrick Lafcadio Hearn on an Ionian island in 1850 to a senior British military surgeon of Irish descent and a woman from the minor Greek nobility, Hearn was never acknowledged as legitimate by his father’s side of the family, probably due to his father’s Protestant relatives not recognizing the legitimacy of a Greek Orthodox marriage. With his father on the move due to military service Hearn was relocated to Dublin, Ireland at the age of two. Educated in Roman Catholic schools Hearn lost his faith at an early age, largely due to his parent’s marriage never being recognized and a playground incident that left him disfigured and blind in his left eye.

Portraits and photos of Hearn are of his right profile. Branded a good for nothing misfit, Hearn was sent to the United States at the age of nineteen. Settling in Ohio, Hearn lived a poor life until finding low level journalistic work. Hearn then dropped Patrick from his name because of the source in Saint Patrick and the fact that Lafcadio conveyed the exotic roots of his birthplace, the island of Lefkada. He also thought it was a catchy name for a writer. Hired as a newspaper reporter for his writing talent he developed a reputation for sensitivity with accounts of the poor and of tawdry sensationalism for his descriptions of violent crime. Fired from his job for the crime and associated scandal of inter-racial marriage, he went to work for another newspaper, but with the alleged completion of his divorce he moved to New Orleans. The legality of his marriage and divorce was in dispute until his death.

Hearn wrote for several newspapers and magazines in New Orleans and was prolific in both the variety and volume of his works. With a personality akin to Poe he embraced voodoo as a subject for writing. Hearn wrote many editorials harshly condemning the many failures common to all big cities. It is possible his disenfranchisement with the Western world sown during his early life grew as he bemoaned the ills of New Orleans with diatribes against crime, corruption, and bigotry.

Home at Last, Life in Japan 

Hearn traveled to Japan as a newspaper correspondent, a job that quickly finished as he was able to land a job teaching English in a town in western Japan, Matsue, where he married Setsu Kozumi a daughter of a samurai family. They had four children and to preserve his son’s social and legal legacy Hearn took his wife’s surname becoming known as Yakumo Kozumi. Hearn, even more prolific than before, wrote many books and articles about Japan covering a variety of subjects. Hearn’s fascination with the macabre was apparent in his most popular book, Kwaidan (Ghost Story). Kwaidan, a compilation of tales such as Mimi-nashi Hoichi (Earless Hoichi) and Yuki-onna (Snow Woman), was made into a movie of the same name in 1964 that was awarded the Special Jury Prize at the 1965 Cannes film Festival.  Another of Hearn’s works, Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation (published posthumously in 1904), was relied on by Bonner Fellers, General MacArthur’s military attaché and advisor on Japanese psychology at the end of and after World War II. Fellers received the ‘Second Order of the Sacred Treasure’ from Emperor Hirohito for his “long standing contribution to promoting friendship between Japan and the United States”. The relationship between MacArthur, Fellers and Hirohito is the subject of the 2012 film Emperor.

Hearn wrote about much more than ghosts or psychological impressions, he left a significant legacy with his collection of oral folktales collected at a time when ‘Old Japan’ was being pushed into the shadows by modernization. Hearn also wrote about the art of raising silkworms, incense admiration, haiku, food preparation, insects, training regimes of geisha and monks, and a myriad of other subjects. The deceptively simple title of his In a Japanese Garden conceals a sweeping study that predates the modern Feng Shui movement by one hundred years. Throughout his writings from his time in Japan one can almost feel the Western mind collating the Eastern philosophy of life. That the Japanese embraced him as a kindred soul is shown by the honor they hold for him to this day. The Hearn Memorial Museum at Matsue is still popular and was the subject of a 1984 NHK historical drama. Hearn’s book Out of the East is still used in Japanese schools today.

While it is doubtful Hearn would have been remembered by history had he not visited Japan and did what the brothers Grimm did for European folklore, one hopes his storm tossed soul finally found peace in the Land of the Rising Sun. Indeed much of his later writing expounds the merits of the Buddhist way with fanatical zeal.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, please share it, like it or tweet about it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

The author has used the English format of given name first, surname last, when writing Japanese names as opposed to the “Surname, Given Name” used commonly in Japan.

References

• Kwaidan; Stories and Studies of Strange Things - Lafcadio Hearn
• In Ghostly Japan - Lafcadio Hearn
• https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/hearn.htm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafcadio_Hearn

A Scene of Chaos in a 19th Century Asylum – Image of the week

Our image of the week looks at a scene of anarchy in an eighteenth century asylum.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries life was extremely hard for many. And it only became more so when you possessed a mental health problem. Indeed, in this period mental health issues were known, but often not fully understood. One such arena in which ‘lunacy’ was often not considered was court. So, an ongoing battle was fought in the nineteenth century and in to the twentieth century to have mental health issues considered as part of trials.

At the same time, those who did manage to have their mental health problems recognized as being a mitigating factor in crimes were sent to some less-than-nice places.

The image above is a scene entitled In the Madhouse, painting eight of William Hogarth’s A Rake’s Progress. In the scene we can see the inside of Bethlem Hospital (‘Bedlam’), the foremost criminal lunatic hospital of its day. The painting was produced in the 1730s. The hospital’s roots can be traced as far back as the thirteenth century, while in the Georgian era, it housed many people who were classed as insane by the authorities. The image itself shows us a picture of chaos inside the hospital, with dark figures lurking who are undertaking all sorts of weird and wonderful activities.

The latest issue of History is Now magazine features an article on criminal lunacy in the nineteenth century. The magazine also has a range of fascinating articles related to modern history from America and the wider world.

Click on the following links for more details and to get the latest issue for FREE today: Android | Apple iOS

America’s Great 19th Century Statement of Intent

In this fascinating article, Wout Vergauwen tells us about the Monroe Doctrine, an Empire of Liberty – and America’s expansion across the West and beyond into the rest of the American Continent.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND MANIFEST DESTINY

“We shall divert through our own Country a branch of commerce which the European States have thought worthy of the most important struggles and sacrifices, and in the event of peace … we shall form to the American union a barrier against the dangerous extension of the British Province of Canada and add to the Empire of liberty an extensive and fertile Country thereby converting dangerous Enemies into valuable friends.”

Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

Thomas Jefferson was a great many things, but above all he was a visionary. Yet, it is hard to imagine that even he understood to the fullest extent what his Empire of Liberty could become. Several presidents have, at least to a certain extent, broadened the interpretation. Whereas Jefferson’s empire ideally stretched, as Katharine Lee Bates wrote “from sea to shining sea,” it would become an idea that was applied to the United States’ expansionist efforts, both at home and abroad. However, the first extension of Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty almost caused Mr. Madison to lose US territory in the War of 1812. Luckily for the Americans, the British were too busy fighting Napoleon to pursue their efforts in North America. Ultimately, the British and the Americans signed the 1814 Treaty of Ghent, reaching a modus vivendi on the expense of the Native Americans. Yet, it quickly became clear that Uncle Joe intended to look across the border. 

A portrait of Thomas Jefferson from 1791. At the time Jefferson was Secretary of State. Painted by Charles Willson Peale.

When the Spanish failed to control their colonial possessions in the Americas, another opportunity arose for the United States to expand their sphere of influence. Given that the United States had only gained independence as recently as half a century earlier, they did not feel confident to invade a world power’s possessions, even if that world power was waning. However, colonial insurrection in present-day Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico was too good a chance to let go by. Both the Monroe administration and Congress favored action of at least some sort, because the possibility of having Spain intervene in Latin America would first of all pose a threat to American security. Second of all, reinforced Spanish colonies would also prevent any further expansion of influence across the continent.

Although still dreaming of an Empire of Liberty, caution was required. Spain did indeed still possess Florida, and it would have been unwise to provoke more than strictly necessary. However, immediately after Florida was ceded to the United States, Washington was inevitably going to act quickly. As soon as 1822, the United States recognize the rebelling colonies as independent countries. And besides the ideological ‘support-another-former-colony’ idea, there were several important reasons for having done so. Indeed, a Holy Alliance consisting of Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia had formed in Europe, trying to uphold monarchy and suppress liberalism. The rumors were that after crushing rebellions in both Spain and Italy, the alliance might help Spain to regain control over its prestigious colonies. In a statement supported by Congress, James Monroe read a statement written by future president John Quincy Adams. The American continents, he declared, “are henceforth not to be considered subjects for future colonization by any European power.” That might have been the end of it supposing that there was such a thing as a capable American army. But this was 1823.

FROM TEXAS TO THE WORLD

Just as in 1814, the Americans had the British to thank. Indeed, making a bold statement is one thing. Upholding it is another. Luckily, British interests aligned with America’s. By then, the British had already set up very profitable trade routes with Spain’s former colonies, and they were not going to give them up easily. Already in the early 18th century James Thomson wrote “Rule, Britannia! Rule the waves.” And yes, by 1823, they did. Commanding the most powerful Navy ever seen, King George IV was not going to let an Armada supported by the Holy Alliance cross the Atlantic. The Spanish, still remembering the fate of the Great Armada, decided to hold back and let the Americans have it their way.

Finally having gained the confidence they had lacked since 1776, the Americans went the full mile by 1845. The trigger was, once again, a foreign threat. Although this threat was much less serious when compared to previous ones, some Americans still believed the British might cause trouble in California, Oregon, and Texas. The latter is a special case here. Ever since the Lone Star Republic gained independence from Mexico in 1836, a large majority of the population had wanted to join the United States. Southern states favored the admission of Texas, yet Northern states originally opposed the admission. They feared that Texas might be admitted as a slave state – or worse, divided in up to five slave states – and thus disturb the balance in Congress. Even though a treaty was finally drafted on February 27, 1844, it was not signed. John L. O’Sullivan, an editor from New York, urged President Polk to finally sign the treaty and admit Texas to the union, if only because it was their “manifest destiny.” The term quickly became popular and thrived on the assumption that Providence had intended the United States to control the entire North American continent.

Even though successful attempts were never made to annex Canada, as was Mr. Madison’s dream, Manifest Destiny guided US policy for the rest of the century. Whether manifest destiny caused Polk to annex Texas in 1845 is not entirely clear, and your guess is as good as mine. Yet, in the subsequent eight years, undoubtedly guided by manifest destiny, the US would gain control over the remaining third of its contingent states. An 1846 treaty with Britain gained them Oregon country, also including Washington and Idaho. An 1848 treaty with Mexico gained them present-day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Finally, the 1853 Gadsen purchase gained the United States the final part of its contingent states – a thirty thousand square mile border area between Mexico and the United States.

Ultimately, by the end of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt would square the circle by amending the Monroe doctrine, thereby confirming America’s global intent. His Roosevelt Corollary was thus the capstone of Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, let the world know. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below!