Nineteenth Century Crime – What really happened?

Crime in the nineteenth century was varied and often driven by poverty. In this intriguing article, Janet Ford looks at a newspaper from the city of Birmingham, England in 1872 in order to deduce the types of crime committed and some possible reasons why it was these crimes that were committed.

Crime has always been an interesting and in many cases shocking subject, as there are so many different types of crime and such a variety of criminals. It can also show what society, people and a place were and are like. To get an understanding of crime during a certain time and in a certain place, I am going to look at a week in March 1872 in the city of Birmingham in the UK using the newspaper, the Birmingham Daily Post. I only looked at reports that happened in the city of Birmingham itself, as the newspaper also reported on major crimes that occurred in the wider region and across the country.

A riot/attack outside a poorhouse - in this article we look at more low-level crime.

During the week I chose, there were 40 crimes reported in Birmingham. The crimes were stealing, assaults on strangers and wives, vandalism, drunk and disorderly behavior, refusing to work, receiving stolen goods, selling beer without a license, and having a pub open after hours. These crimes show that there was a variety of crime committed in the week from March 18, 1872.

Theft – The most common crime

The majority of the crimes were theft related, with 28 such crimes being reported. This means stealing was very much part of daily life for many. Both men and women, young and old, committed the crime, which also means stealing was not limited to one group of people. The reason why so many of the crimes were theft related was down to opportunity, as cities had a great deal of places to steal from, such as shops, employers’ houses and even other people. But there was a great deal of poverty within the city, and so people stole in order to survive. These reasons illustrate that life in nineteenth century Birmingham, like many other cities, was a struggle for many. There were many items stolen, from food to boots, animals to money. There was also a great deal of metal and jewelry stolen, which was due to them being major industries within Birmingham. In fact they were such big industries that areas of the city were named after them, including Jewellery and Gun Quarter. This means the city itself affected what was and could be stolen. An example of one of the many theft reports is shown below.

Assaults, vandalism and theft were not uncommon either. Such violence was not aimed towards just one group of people, as both men and women, strangers and people the criminals knew, were assaulted. Two husbands actually attacked their own wives - domestic violence was a sadly common part of Victorian society. Here is one example of this crime.

However, both men and women could use violence and force, as there were female pick pockets and thieves, as shown with this report.

The public house

The crimes also show that the control of pubs were taken seriously, as a person had to have a license to sell beer. This probably did not stop some people selling beer, but they were fined or spent time in prison if they were caught. And the hour that pubs were allowed to open was controlled. The reports for these crimes can be seen here.

This control was due to the government’s view of alcohol and concerns over public health. In terms of public health, they had to control the quality of the beer and who was selling it, as poor quality beer could cause people harm. The government controlled pub opening hours, as it generally had a negative view of drinking. After all, it caused negative effects on the public, such as drunk and disorderly behavior and theft. Two out of the three such pub licensing related criminals were actually women, which means pubs were not limited to just men. While it was difficult for women to have power and control within many spheres of the economy, pubs actually allowed women to have some control.

Many of the crimes occurred in employers’ houses, with servants stealing money, kettles and such. This was down to it being easy to do, but it also shows that servants were not afraid to steal from their own employers, which could have been down to wanting extra money or stealing what they thought they could get away with. An example of a servant stealing is shown here.

28 of the criminals were men and 12 were women. This illustrates that even though women committed crimes, they were in the minority when it came to being criminals. The vast majority of the crimes women committed in that week were theft related. There was also one being drunk and disorderly, one selling beer without a license, and another having their pub open after hours.

An interesting aspect of the criminals were their ages - they ranged from 14 to 55. However, there were more in certain age groups; 10 were in their teens, 6 in their 20s, 11 in their 30s and 3 in their 40s and 50s. This suggests that crime was not as common within the older population, possibly down to the role of drink, poverty and work.

In conclusion

Overall, the crimes within that week of March show that theft was common, and possibly that cities in the Victorian era were violent, while some people were opportunists. But it also demonstrates that various other crimes, such as the quality of beer, if a person worked or pub opening hours, were taken very seriously.

Much like today, the crimes people were arrested for reflected the authorities’ primary preoccupations.

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

References

Birmingham Daily Post, March 1872

Report One: Tuesday 19th March 1872

Report Two: Tuesday 19th March 1872

Report Three: Wednesday 20th March 1872

Report Four: Thursday 21st March 1872

Report Five: Saturday 23rd March 1872 

The American Midterm Elections in History

The US midterm elections are taking place on November 4, and they are expected to produce some important changes. However, the midterm elections have a long and varied history. Here, Rebecca Fachner tells us about some of the more interesting midterms from the past.

Midterm elections are coming up in the United States on Tuesday November 4, 2014 and the pundits and political gurus are predicting a record low voter turn out. Midterm elections traditionally have a much lower voter turn out than presidential elections; often only 25 to 30 percent of the electorate turns out to vote, much lower than presidential cycles, which recently have usually been in the 55 to 60 percent range. What is remarkable about this is that midterms can be just as important politically. Historically, midterm elections have had quite a bit of political significance and it will be interesting to see what 2014 brings. In anticipation of the elections, and hopefully to encourage interest in the process, we will look back at what midterm elections have meant historically.  Here is a brief, non-partisan, non-political history of midterm elections in America.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidential portrait. Roosevelt has a very much unwanted midterm record.

DEFINITIONS

First, a definition. The term itself is confusing, because why would the US have an election in the middle of a term. Whose term are these elections in the middle of? The president’s term, as it turns out. As everyone knows, presidential elections are every 4 years, but in the middle of each president’s term, he is faced with an election, not for himself, but for the 435 members of the House of Representatives, and 33 senators. Each Congressperson has to get himself or herself reelected every 2 years. Senators have 6-year terms, but the 100 senators have staggered elections, so the country isn’t faced with electing 100 senators all at once. The 100 Senators are broken into 3 equal classes, so that one third of the Senate is up for election every 2 years. In addition, many states elect their governors during the midterm elections; 36 governors face election in 2014.

Midterm elections are generally seen as a referendum on the president, even though he isn’t the one on the ballot. Especially in a president’s first term in office, the midterms are a way of gauging public support for the president’s policies. If the electorate disapproves of the way the president has governed for 2 years, they will ‘punish’ him at the polls by electing Congressmen from the opposite party. If the president’s policies are favorable to the population, they will elect more members of his own party. For most first term presidents, however, midterm elections are a decisive swing away from his party. Almost every president in the modern era has seen his own party lose seats in his first midterm elections. 

The only modern presidents to actually gain ground in their first midterms were George W. Bush and Franklin Roosevelt. Both of their second midterms more than made up for it, however, FDR’s Democrats lost a record 71 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate, and Bush lost 30 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. FDR even holds second place on the number of seats lost in the midterms: in his third midterms in 1942, the Democrats lost 55 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate. In more recent times, the record for the most dramatic loss goes to President Clinton, whose Democratic party lost 52 seats in his first midterms in 1994, and 8 seats in the Senate. The strangest outcome in modern times might be in 1962, when Kennedy’s Democrats lost 4 seats in the House but gained 3 in the Senate.

EARLY MIDTERMS

Although midterms have been happening since the beginning of the republic, the first one that has retained any significance was in 1858, the last midterms before the Civil War. The 1858 midterms were a decisive vote against President James Buchanan and his Democratic Party’s endorsement of slavery. The Democrats split bitterly over slavery, allowing the nascent Republican Party to gain significant ground. The Republican Party was formed in large part to get rid of slavery, and their overwhelming election to Congress fueled talk among Southerners of seceding from a country that clearly did not share their way of life. The election further underscored the dangerous divisions across the country and was a prelude to 1860 when the next election helped to spur secession.

The Republican Party remained in control of Congress through the Civil War and Reconstruction, into the 1870s. After Ulysses S. Grant had been reelected, his second midterm elections in 1874 became a referendum on Reconstruction and the Economic Panic of 1873. Voters decided they were tired of Reconstruction, tired of spending money on it and ended the Republican majority in Congress, ushering in a Democratic majority that would unceremoniously end Reconstruction.

The midterms in 1910 helped to cause such a split in the Republican Party that it fractured in half. Theodore Roosevelt declined to run for a third term in 1908, but, unwilling to give up control completely, handpicked his successor, William Howard Taft. Taft was ostensibly a progressive, like Roosevelt, but in 2 years managed to alienate the progressive wing of the Republican Party to such an extent that the progressives revolted in the 1910 midterms. Roosevelt was so horrified that his successor was abandoning his progressive principles that he hurried back from his travels abroad and decided to run for a third term as an independent in 1912. Roosevelt essentially started his own progressive third party, the Bull Moose Party, and became the first credible third party candidate for President in American history. Unfortunately, he wasn’t credible enough, and votes split between him and Taft, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the White House in 1912.

THE 1966 MIDTERMS

Midterm elections are always seen as if they are a national reaction to the previous political turmoil, and nowhere is that more true than in 1966. This was Lyndon Johnson’s first (and only) midterm election, and it was in the midst of an incredibly turbulent moment in American history. Johnson had become president just under 3 years prior, in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination, an event that deeply shocked the nation. Johnson had won the presidency outright in 1964, bringing with him a liberal onslaught that quickly went to work, passing some of the most important and divisive legislation in modern times, Medicare and Civil Rights.  The midterms in 1966 combined a conservative backlash, as well as dissatisfaction over the escalation of the Vietnam War to put an end to Johnson’s liberal tidal wave. The backlash was so severe that it set the scene for 1968 when Richard Nixon was elected to the White House.

The most memorable midterms of the last several decades were in 1994. 1994 was such a huge shift toward the Republican Party and such a massive repudiation of Bill Clinton and his liberal policies that it was called the Death of Liberalism. Clinton spent his first 2 years in office trying to reform health care among other liberal causes, and Republicans made him pay in 1994. The election was described variously as a bloodbath or a Republican revolution, and brought in a huge Republican majority in Congress. It is not entirely clear whether the Republicans were the winners in the long term, however, as his huge loss in the midterms forced Clinton to become more moderate, something that paved the way for his reelection in 1996.

The midterms in 2014 will do several crucial things; for starters they will determine the lay of the land in advance of the 2016 presidential elections. Similar to Bush’s second midterms in 2006, the President is expected to lose significant support. In 2006 Democrats won a landslide, which underscored how unpopular Bush had become. The election will also make President Obama virtually a lame duck for 2 years. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the midterms of 2014 will begin the 2016 presidential campaign. In the last few decades, particularly since the beginning of 24-hour news cycles, the midterms have come to represent the unofficial opening of the next presidential campaign. It is considered improper to begin to campaign for the next election before this one has been held, so midterms have come to mark the unofficial beginning of the next presidential cycle. Prospective presidential candidates will begin jockeying for position before the votes have even been counted. In retrospect, this may be the reason that voter turn out for midterm elections is so low and drops lower with every midterm; perhaps voters are just exhausted by the process and reluctant to begin the presidential cycle all over again.

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

A fascinating tale... Winfield Scott and the Aroostook War

Winfield Scott was one of the greatest servants in the American Army in the nineteenth century. Even so, he did not just undertake great feats in battle. He was also somebody who helped to promote peace, perhaps most notably in the Aroostook War. Steve Strathmann explains.

Throughout the nineteenth century, Winfield Scott could be found wherever the United States Army was fighting. In uniform for 53 years, he rose through the ranks to eventually command the army. Scott would serve on battlefields across North America, in conflicts as large as the War of 1812 and the American Civil War, and smaller ones against various Native American tribes.

Many remember his invasion of Mexico during the Mexican-American War or his “Anaconda Plan” to defeat the Confederacy in the Civil War. As important as these accomplishments were, one that has been forgotten is a war that he helped prevent, and how it led to the stabilization of the US/Canadian border. 

A lithograph of Major General Winfield Scott from 1847.

Troubled Borderlands

When the United States gained its independence after the Revolutionary War, its northern border with Canada (British territory until 1867) was left to be decided at a later date. Several attempts were made to establish a definitive border, but the two sides could not find common ground. The Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812, solved nothing when it just reset the vague terms of the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

One region where this indecision led to significant problems was the frontier between Maine and New Brunswick. Both sides claimed a wide swath of territory, including the Aroostook River valley. The area was coveted not only for its natural resources, but also as an overland connection between the Canadian coastline and Quebec. By the late 1830s, several incidents had caused tensions to rise, including the arrest of several Maine officials by New Brunswick authorities and fighting between lumberjacks for the rich timber growing in the valley. By early 1839, Maine state militiamen and British troops were facing each other down, possibly one incident away from starting an international conflict.

Enter Scott

The federal government in Washington was being called on to support Maine against the Canadians, so President Martin Van Buren and Congress authorized a body of Federal troops and funds to meet any northern invasion. Winfield Scott was chosen to lead this expedition, and recalled to Washington from Nashville to take over preparations.

There was a second reason to call on Scott for this assignment. He was known to have a professional relationship with Sir John Harvey, the governor of New Brunswick. The two men had served opposite each other during the War of 1812, and often on the same battlefields. In 1813, they served in staff positions that caused them to meet regularly. During truces and negotiations, a friendship of sorts grew between the two soldiers. In fact, Scott once kept Harvey from being shot by a squad of American soldiers attempting to capture him. On another occasion, he bought items taken from Harvey’s captured luggage in order to send them back to the British officer. The two men would continue to correspond with each other in the decades following the war.

This relationship would now prove to be valuable for the two men’s respective nations. The state of Maine might be willing to pull back its militia from the disputed territory, but only if the Canadians did so first. Unfortunately, Governor John Fairfield of Maine and Sir John Harvey had broken off communications, so it was up to Scott to try and calm the border situation down.

A map illustrating the Maine Boundary Dispute. The red line is the British claim and the blue line the American claim. The yellow line is the final agreed boundary in the 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty..

Friendship Prevails

Upon arrival in Maine, Winfield Scott realized that he would have his work cut out for him. He had to convince Maine authorities to back down, but first had to get the British to pull back. He chose to open his correspondence with Harvey by answering a letter he had recently received from him while in Nashville. Harvey promptly responded and suggested that future letters between the two men be made public and semi-official to show the progress of negotiations.

Soon afterwards, the two men had come to an agreement. Harvey promised that the British forces would not escalate the situation if Maine would pull back its militia and replace it with only a small posse to maintain the peace. Both sides would continue to hold disputed territory, but would leave it up to negotiators from Washington and London to finally create a definitive border. Governor Fairfield and the Maine legislature accepted this arrangement and pulled back the militia. Negotiations began and eventually led to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, which established the American/Canadian border from the Atlantic Ocean to present-day Minnesota.

All sides recognized the importance of Scott’s involvement in the settlement of the Aroostook War, a ‘war’ that resulted in no combat casualties. One example of this recognition can be found in a private letter that Harvey sent to Scott as negotiations were just beginning: “My reliance upon you, my dear general, has led me to give you my willing assent to the proposition which you have made yourself the very acceptable means of conveying to me...”

Winfield Scott would find more military glory fighting in Mexico and defending the nation against disunion, and would gain so much fame that he would even run for president in 1852. Still, while many remember and celebrate his accomplishments on the battlefield, it is important that people also take note of the work he did to maintain peace.

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…

References

Buckner, Phillip. “HARVEY, Sir JOHN” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 8. University of Toronto/Université Laval, 1985. Accessed 26 September 2014. http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/harvey_john_8E.html

Burk, Kathleen. Old World, New World: Great Britain and America from the Beginning. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.

Ellis, Sylvia. Historical Dictionary of Anglo-American Relations. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009.

Headley, Joel Tyler. The Life of Winfield Scott. New York: C. Scribner, 1861. Accessed 25 September 2014. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23364695M/The_life_of_Winfield_Scott

Mansfield, Edward D. The Life of General Winfield Scott. New York: A.S. Barnes & Co., 1846. Accessed 25 September 2014. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6558998M/The_life_of_General_Winfield_Scott.

James Monroe - The Forgotten Founder and a Historical Myth

In William Bodkin’s fifth post on the presidents of the USA, he reveals a fascinating tale on the Forgotten Founder, James Monroe (in office from 1817 to 1825). And the real reason why he was not unanimously re-elected to the presidency.

William's previous pieces have been on George Washington (link here), John Adams (link here), Thomas Jefferson (link here), and James Madison (link here). 

James Monroe as painted by William James Hubbard in the 1830s.

James Monroe, fifth President of the United States, was the last American Founder to become President and a hero of the Revolutionary War.  At the Battle of Trenton, Monroe, then a Lieutenant, and Captain William Washington, a cousin of George Washington, stormed a Hessian gun battery to prevent what would have been the certain slaughter of advancing American troops.  Captain Washington, Lieutenant Monroe and their men seized the Hessians’ guns as they attempted to reload.  For their efforts, Captain Washington’s hands were badly wounded, and Monroe was struck in the shoulder by a musket ball, which severed an artery.  Monroe’s life was saved by a local patriot doctor who clamped the artery to stop the bleeding.[1]  Monroe’s heroism was such that it is said that in the famous painting Washington Crossing the Delaware, capturing the moment when George Washington led the Continental Army into New Jersey prior to the Battle of Trenton, James Monroe stands next to George Washington, holding the American flag.[2]

Following the revolution, Monroe embarked on a long career in service of the new nation.  He studied law with Thomas Jefferson, and then served as a United States Senator from Virginia, Ambassador to France, Governor of Virginia, Ambassador to England, Secretary of State and Secretary of War during James Madison’s administration, and was then twice elected President.

Despite this heroic and distinguished career, Monroe seems overlooked as a Founder, eclipsed by the long shadows of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, his presidential predecessors who created the new nation with their considerable intellects and political skills.  Perhaps this is because Monroe was not considered their equal.  William Plumer, a US Senator from New Hampshire, who went on to serve as Governor of that state, described Monroe as “honest”, but “a man of plain common sense, practical, but not scientific.”[3]

James Monroe is generally remembered for two things: the Monroe Doctrine, which sought to block Europe from further colonizing the Americas; and the fact that he was almost unanimously elected to his second term.  History tells us that Monroe was denied a unanimous second term for the noblest of reasons.  One defiant elector in the Electoral College voted for John Quincy Adams because he believed that George Washington should be the only unanimously elected President of the United States.[4]

Except that is not true, and the real reason is a lot more interesting.  The truth involves William Plumer, who did not think much of Monroe, Daniel Tompkins, a Vice-President frequently too drunk to preside over the Senate, and the greatest orator in American history, Daniel Webster.

Unpacking the real story

Following the War of 1812, post American Revolution political tensions eased into the “Era of Good Feelings.”  The Federalist Party had collapsed following the revelation that during the war, they were plotting to secede from the union,[5] essentially leaving no other national party to challenge the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  The country, though, was not united behind Monroe, he just had no organized opposition.  Monroe faced plenty of criticism, including from Thomas Jefferson, who opposed his former law student’s extravagant deficit spending and expansion of the federal government.[6]  But with the Federalist Party unable to put up a national candidate for president, there was no way to protest Monroe’s policies.  At least, not until a plan was hatched by Daniel Webster to protest Monroe by voting against the re-election of Daniel Tompkins to the Vice-Presidency.

Tompkins was widely regarded as a failed Vice-President.  A former Governor of New York, Tompkins was far more interested in his state, even running again for Governor in 1820, just prior to being re-elected Vice-President.  Tompkins was also a chronic alcoholic.[7]  His alcoholism, though, was allegedly tied to a valiant cause.  As New York’s Governor, Tompkins personally financed the participation of the state’s militias in the War of 1812 when the New York State Legislature voted against providing the funding.  After the war, however, the state refused to reimburse him, causing him financial ruin.[8]

Despite the noble roots of Tompkins’ problems, Webster resolved to vote against him.  Webster settled on a plan to gather votes for John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams and then James Monroe’s Secretary of State.  This plan was complicated, however, by the fact that Webster was a presidential elector from the state of Massachusetts.  The head of that Electoral College delegation was John Adams.  Webster, perhaps wisely, chose not to broach the subject with the former president.  Instead, Webster sent an emissary to William Plumer, then mostly retired from political life, but who was serving as the head of New Hampshire’s Electoral College delegation, to enlist him in the plan.[9]

The vote against

Plumer embraced the idea.  He sent a letter to his son, William Plumer, Jr., New Hampshire’s Congressman, asking him to approach John Quincy Adams with the idea.  When the younger Plumer did, however, Adams was appalled.  Adams noted that any vote for him, in any capacity, would be “peculiarly embarrassing”, especially if it came from Massachusetts.  Adams made clear to Plumer he wished Monroe and Tompkins be re-elected unanimously, and that, in any event, there should not be a single vote given to him.  Adams told Plumer that a vote for him would damage his prospects for winning the presidency in 1824.[10]

Plumer sent word to his father immediately, but it did not reach the elder Plumer before he left for Concord, New Hampshire, to cast his electoral vote.  It is not clear where Plumer resolved to vote for John Quincy Adams not for Vice-President, but for President, and to do so as a protest against Monroe himself.[11]  But he did.  In a speech to his fellow electors, the elder Plumer announced his intention to vote for John Quincy Adams for president.  In his remarks, Plumer stated that Monroe had conducted himself improperly as president, echoing Jefferson’s complaints concerning the vast increase of the public debt during the Monroe administration.[12]

How does George Washington fit into this?  It is really not known.  Newspaper accounts of the time accurately recorded Plumer’s dissent.[13]  The first references to Plumer’s vote preserving Washington’s status emerged in the 1870s, when historians assessing the Founding Era noted the parallels between its beginnings, with the unanimous acclamation of George Washington as the indispensable man to the Republic, and its end, with its unanimous acceptance of James Monroe as the man no one opposed.  The theory was first floated around then and it took on a life of its own.[14]  In the absence of clear evidence of how this American legend began, perhaps it was just one of history’s quirks that James Monroe, who nearly sacrificed his life in service to George Washington’s army, was destined to sacrifice part of his historic reputation in service of creating the myth of George Washington, Father of the United States.

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

[1] For the full story, see David Hackett Fisher’s “Washington’s Crossing” (Pivotal Moments in American History), Oxford University Press (2004).

[2] http://www.ushistory.org/washingtoncrossing/history/whatswrong.html

[3] William Plumer, Memorandum of Proceedings in the United State Senate, March 16, 1806.

[4] See, Boller, Paul F., Jr. Presidential Campaigns from George Washington to George W. Bush, Oxford University Press (2004), p. 31-32.

[5] See, connecticuthistory.org/the-hartford-convention-today-in-history/

[6] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, December 26, 1820.

[7] Letter of William Plumer, Jr. to William Plumer, his father, on February 1, 1822, describing Tompkins as
“so grossly intemperate as to be totally unfit for business.”

[8] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Daniel_Tompkins.htm

[9] Turner, Lynn W. “The Electoral Vote Against Monroe in 1820—An American Legend”  The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 42(2), (1955), pp. 250-273

[10] Turner, p. 257

[11] Turner, p. 258

[12] Turner, p. 259

[13] Turner, p. 261.

[14] Turner p. 269-270.

The Autumn of Terror: The Legacy of Jack the Ripper and the Newspapermen who made him

During the autumn of 1888, London was in turmoil. A series of gruesome murders were taking place in the East End. Prostitutes were strangled to unconsciousness or death before being gently lowered to the ground where their throats were cut. They were then mutilated and abandoned, usually in the street. Several names were attributed to the killer who stalked the streets of Whitechapel, Spitalfields and Aldgate. Some at the time simply called him the Whitechapel Murderer, others called him “Leather Apron”. In the modern day, we know him as Jack the Ripper. Nick Tingley explains….

Despite the murders occurring over a century ago, we are no closer to identifying who this mysterious killer was. Historians and Ripperologists have published hundreds of books and papers that describe the murders in exacting detail and have made various claims about the identity of the killer but none of them could ever hope to put the debate to rest. The reason for this is not so much from a lack of evidence, although the presence of today’s scientific methodology in late nineteenth century London may well have stood the police force of the time in better stead. In fact, if there is anything that truly hounds anyone attempting to identify Jack the Ripper, it is the overwhelming amount of evidence that must be shifted through to find the grain of truth.

Jack the Ripper as depicted by Tom Merry in Puck magazine.

There is even debate about how many murders can be attributed to Jack the Ripper. Theories range from the generally accepted five canonical victims (who were all murdered between August 31 and November 9, 1888) and a further thirteen victims who were murdered between December 1887 and April 1891. And whilst the police struggled to find the Ripper, they were hampered by the press, both locally and across the country, who were keen to keep the Jack the Ripper story going for as long as possible. Hundreds of letters were sent to the police during the Autumn of Terror, all of which claimed to have been written by the Whitechapel Murderer. Of those that were not written by fools trying to incite more terror, most were almost certainly written by newspapermen attempting to flesh out the story.

It is from many of these regional newspapers that we can find some interesting stories that show the Autumn of Terror was not just a plague of fear that was rampant in London. It was a genuine horror that spread all across the British Isles and even reached out across Europe.

“I am Jack the Ripper”

Throughout the Autumn of Terror there were many instances of people claiming to be Jack the Ripper. Whether it was in the form of a letter sent to the police or newspapers or whether it was a man surrendering himself to a police station, the newspapers were ready to report it. In fact, many of the smaller regional newspapers even started having regular Jack the Ripper bulletins to keep everyone up to date on the comings and goings of the case.

More often than not, these bulletins were short and matter of fact. One such bulletin from the Edinburgh Evening News (October 11, 1888) tells the story of a man named Gerry who surrendered himself to the police in London, claiming to be the Whitechapel murderer. The report mentions that he was quickly released without charge but still makes a point of mentioning the incident to keep the Edinburgh populace completely up to date with events in London.

With small incidences like these making their way into the local newspapers, it is hardly a surprise that soon stories began to be printed of events where criminals made casual remarks to Jack the Ripper. One such story was printed in the Cornishman (November 8, 1888), which detailed the story of a young St Buryan woman who was accosted by a strange man who announced that he was Jack the Ripper when she refused to walk with him. She quickly ran back to her home and the man disappeared. The following day, Mary Jane Kelly, the last of the canonical victims, was found butchered in her lodgings in London and the newspapers had something more concrete to report on.

These incidences of people claiming to be Jack the Ripper continued throughout 1888, and were reported by the newspapers of the time. Many of these reports came from court proceedings. More often than not, these detailed events where a man was arrested for being drunk and disorderly and, during the course of disorderly conduct, happened to shout that he was Jack the Ripper. While it was apparent that the police were not concerned by these impromptu drunken confessions, the local newspapers were quick to question whether any of these were just the ramblings of a drunken man.

The Ripper Victims Who Weren’t

The Autumn of Terror had spread so far that it was almost inevitable that it would eventually hurt someone. On October 27, 1888, the York Herald reported a story that had come from Northern Ireland. In Kilkeel, County Down, a young lady named Millegan would become a victim of Jack the Ripper. Whilst walking down the street, Millegan was startled by a man who jumped out at her, brandishing a knife and claiming he was Jack the Ripper. Such was the shock of this incident that Millegan fainted and suffered from a fever from which she never recovered.

On the same day, the Aberdeen Journal reported the story of Theresa Unwin from Sheffield who had been found dead at her home. She had committed suicide with a carving knife. Although her husband was keen to point out that there was no history of insanity in the family, Theresa had reported having a dream about Jack the Ripper. The papers were keen to play up to the idea that this dream had been what prompted her suicide.

Although neither of these women probably ever had contact with the man who committed the Whitechapel Murders, it is undeniable that they were victims of Jack the Ripper and the terror that had been spread around the country by the newspapers of the time.

Amateur Sleuths

While the terror inspired many to made outlandish claims of being the Ripper to terrify those around them, others seemed to be inspired to take action to capture the Whitechapel Murderer – sometimes with hilarious consequences.

On October 16, 1888, a few weeks after the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddows, both generally believed to be Ripper victims, “An Elderly Gentleman” wrote to The Times of London detailing his recent trip to the north of Britain. The gentleman wrote of how he had been walking along a road to visit a friend of his when seven young colliers confronted him. The young men apparently believed he was Jack the Ripper and wanted to take him into custody. When the gentleman refused, they attempted to threaten him, with a gun they didn’t have, and coerce him using the authority of the police, which they also didn’t have. The gentleman simply continued walking to his friend’s house at which point the seven lads disappeared.

This was not the only time when people in Britain attempted to take the Jack the Ripper matter into their own hands. All across the country, newspapers began to publish reports of young men who were arrested after beating up other members of the community in the belief that they had found Jack the Ripper. In one instance, a man named John Brinkley was charged with being drunk when he went out into the streets of London dressed in a woman’s skirt, shawl and hat (Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette, November 14, 1888). When questioned by the police, Brinkley replied that he had intended to dress like a woman so he could lure Jack the Ripper to him and catch him in the act. It apparently had never occurred to Brinkley, that this act was not only ridiculous but could also have put him in serious danger – although probably not from the Ripper himself. 

​

The first letter from Jack the Ripper - September 25, 1888.

The Travelling Ripper

A month or two after Mary Jane Kelly’s murder, it appears that the wave of terror was beginning to calm down in Britain. Regional newspapers were publishing less about the Whitechapel murders, although it had by no means stopped. By November 27, newspapers were beginning to report on a letter that had purportedly come from “The Ripper’s Pal”. This letter, sent to the Nottingham Daily Express, claimed that the Ripper had come from Bavaria and that he, the Ripper’s Pal, had come from America and that they would soon be heading out of the country.

Whether this letter really did come from anyone associated with the Whitechapel murders, we will never know. What is interesting is that, barely a month after this letter was published around the country, someone seems to have taken it on themselves to finish the story. On December 18, Jack the Ripper reportedly arrived in Berlin, sending a letter to the Chief of Police stating:

“As I now intend to stay some time here, I should like to see if the celebrated Berlin police succeed in catching me. I only want 15 victims. Therefore, beware! Jack the Ripper.”

The British newspapers again jumped to report the migration of Jack the Ripper, although they were careful to point out that the German police had already disregarded the note as a practical joke. The fear of Jack the Ripper had spread to the European continent and now it appeared that German citizens were hopping on the bandwagon.

But it didn’t stop there. Within ten days, similar letters and telegrams had been sent to King Leopold in Brussels, announcing that Jack was coming to commit his crimes there. What had been a wave of crime that had been very much contained within a square mile area of London had now become a pandemic of fear across a continent.

Ultimately, the identity of Jack the Ripper will remain a mystery forever. But his legacy lived on and lasts to the modern day thanks to the newspaper coverage of the Whitechapel murders and the subsequent wave of terror that followed.

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…

Colonial repression at its worst? Conrad and the Belgian Congo

Joseph Conrad’s book Heart of Darkness, set in the Belgian Congo, illustrates some of the worst abuses of colonialism. It is important to remember that the book was very much based on real events though. Julia Routledge tells us about the book and contrasts it with actual happenings in the Congo.

‘Going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings. An empty stream, a great silence, an impenetrable forest. The air was warm, thick, heavy, sluggish… The broadening waters flowed through a mob of wooded islands; you lost your way on that river as you would in a desert, and butted all day long against shoals, trying to find the channel, till you thought yourself bewitched and cut off for ever from everything you had known once – somewhere – far away – in another existence perhaps… And this stillness of life did not in the least resemble a peace. It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. It looked at you with a vengeful aspect.’

The human condition has always embraced the allure of adventure; for Charles Marlow, the intrepid protagonist of Joseph Conrad’s celebrated novella, ‘Heart of Darkness,’ this fascination with the unknown manifests itself in an urge to command a steamboat down the mighty Congo River. It reminds him of ‘an immense snake uncoiled,’ and he recalls that ‘it fascinated me as a snake would a bird – a silly little bird.’ The ensuing tale is a damning exposition of the corruption and insatiable greed of colonialism, and of mankind’s capacity for savagery. Yet this story is rooted in historical fact: it stems from Conrad’s own disillusionment whilst working on the Congo River in 1890, and Marlow is thought to be his alter ego.

Proprganda from the Belgian Ministry of Colonies in the 1920s.

Exploration in the Congo

In 1876, King Leopold II of Belgium hosted the Brussels Geographical Conference, aiming to garner support for sowing seeds of civilisation amongst the indigenous people of the Congo. He advocated the creation of an International African Association, under whose umbrella various countries and groups would collaborate: it would be the purveyor of progress to the benighted natives of Central Africa. Leopold was instated as its first chairman, and, whilst his intentions were ostensibly philanthropic, in reality, he used his authority to further Belgian interests in the region.

At around the same time, Henry Morton Stanley – famous for locating the Christian missionary, Dr Livingstone – set out to explore the uncharted territories of Central Africa and to trace the Congo River to the sea. He discovered a region replete with natural resources and ripe for development, yet British financiers were lukewarm about his findings. In King Leopold, however, he found a zealous leader who required an agent to expedite the establishment of a Belgian presence in the Congo. Leopold’s de facto hegemony over the area was confirmed at the Berlin Conference in 1884, where fourteen European states convened to carve African territory into national possessions. The Congo Free State was proclaimed the following year; unusually for an overseas colony, it did not belong to a country, but was instead Leopold’s private fiefdom. Its population was about to experience the ruinous consequences of an ‘enlightened’ man’s unfettered power.

Leopold began swiftly to assert his authority by funding railway construction to facilitate exploration, and challenging the troubling existence of Arab slave gangs, led by the formidable Swahili-Zanzibari dealer Tippu Tip, along the Lualaba River. Leopold had pledged to tackle African slavery at the Belgian Conference, but the gangs’ presence in the north-east also constituted an intolerable threat to the economy, for each labourer or portion of ivory claimed by the traders detracted from the Belgian regime’s power. After several years of tense co-operation, open conflict broke out between the unhappy bedfellows in 1892, and the Arabs were ultimately subdued and crushed.

Leopold promulgated various decrees which stifled free trade and curtailed the natives’ rights, until these subjugated citizens were little more than serfs. He also established the Force Publique: a loyal private army of indigenous soldiers and European officers who enforced his rule with breathtaking brutality. The region offered a cornucopia of exploitable materials, notably ivory and rubber, and although demand for the latter significantly increased with the advent of motor cars and inflatable bicycle tubes, it was around the ivory trade that Conrad centred his book.

Marlow is confronted by the reality of colonial oppression soon after arriving at his Company’s station. In a narrow ravine nearby, he stumbles upon ‘black shapes… in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair.’ It is self-evident that the labourers have come to this place to die: ‘They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now – nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom. Brought back from all the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest. These moribund shapes were free as air – and nearly as thin.’

Fiction and fact

Charged with relieving a company agent, Mr Kurtz, from his station, Marlow ventures into the depths of the sprawling, primordial wilderness on his steamboat. Mr Kurtz’s reputation precedes him: he is a remarkably productive ivory trader who possesses ‘universal genius’, and Marlow nurtures a growing obsession to meet this enigmatic figure. At the end of his perilous journey up river, he finds an individual wallowing in his own supremacy, and so engorged with authority that he coerces the native people to revere him as a god-like entity. Through his quasi-divine status, Kurtz obtains prodigious amounts of ivory from the Congolese; yet lurking behind this glamour is an egregious relationship of elaborate manipulation and viciousness, captured by the gaunt heads on stakes that surround Kurtz’s dwelling.

Colonial cruelty and exploitation were just as dreadful in reality. Appalling punishments were meted out to natives who failed to harvest enough wild rubber to meet their quotas, including the burning of their villages and the murdering and mutilation of their families. One of the most infamous punishments carried out by Force Publique soldiers was to chop off the right hand of a native in order to verify that he had not been squandering his resources on hunting and had instead been actively implementing Belgian authority. Photographs from the era attest to this perverse discipline: in one image, Congolese stare bleakly at the camera, each consciously bending the remainder of their arm inwards; in another, two impassive militiamen grasp severed hands: grotesque tokens of their dominance. Famine, disease and exhaustion were other major killers: they stalked the country, seizing first upon the elderly and weak labourers, before welcoming the able-bodied into their chilling embrace. Although it is impossible to ascertain the true human cost of Leopold’s avaricious and merciless regime, some estimates place the death toll in the region of ten million.

This flagrant indifference towards human life inflamed international opinion, and Heart of Darkness contributed to this outburst of moral revulsion. Leopold might have been able initially to conceal the hideous underbelly of his regime, but by the turn of the century, criticism was mounting. The British government was compelled to establish an investigation into the reality of life under Leopold’s administration, the findings of which were published in the 1904 Casement Report. Roger Casement, a British diplomat and human rights activist, had listed Belgian atrocities meticulously, and an interview with a native illustrates the rampant abuse:

‘We had to go further and further into the forest to find the rubber vines, to go without food, and our women had to give up cultivating the fields and gardens. Then we starved. Wild beasts – the leopards – killed some of us when we were working away in the forest, and others got lost or died from exposure and starvation, and we begged the white man to leave us alone, saying we could get no more rubber, but the white men and their soldiers said: “Go! You are only beasts yourselves; you are nyama (meat).” We tried, always going further into the forest, and when we failed and our rubber was short the soldiers came up our towns and shot us. Many were shot; some had their ears cut off; others were tied up with ropes round their neck and bodies and taken away… Our chiefs were hanged and we were killed and starved and worked beyond endurance to get rubber.’

The report engendered further outrage at the plight of the Congolese, and also triggered the foundation of the Congo Reform Association, a movement which counted Conrad, Mark Twain and Arthur Conan Doyle among its notable supporters. Leopold’s position was becoming increasingly untenable, and he eventually succumbed to international pressure by conceding the Congo Free State to the Belgian government in 1908. Yet it was not until 1913 that the Congo Reform Association officially disbanded: a reflection of the Belgian government’s reluctance to investigate or even acknowledge the crimes perpetrated under Leopold’s regime. When considering the abhorrent and systematic abuse of the Congolese, it seems therefore apposite to end with Kurtz’s final, ambiguous yet visceral, exclamation before he died: ‘The horror! The horror!’

If you want others to know about this period in history, please share the article, like it, or tweet about it. Click on one of the buttons below…

Stopping the British supporting the South? Charles Francis Adams in London

Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of Founding Father John Adams, was the third generation of the Adams family to go to London – and he probably had the toughest job. He had a major role to play as the American Civil War broke out and had to stop the British supporting the South… Here, Steve Strathmann follows up on his articles about John Adams (here) and John Quincy Adams (here) by considering Charles’ time in London.

Charles Francis Adams, Sr. had already had a long political career by 1861. He had served in the Massachusetts state house and run for vice president on a third party ticket in the 1840s. In late 1860, he was a congressman and joined a number of committees trying to end the secession crisis (to no avail). As Abraham Lincoln prepared to enter office in 1861, his Secretary of State-designate William Seward pressed for Adams to be the nation’s minister to Great Britain. Lincoln approved his choice and Adams presented his credentials to Queen Victoria on May 16. The third Adams in London had arguably the hardest job when compared with those of his father and grandfather. He had to try and keep Great Britain from becoming involved in the American Civil War.

Charles Francis Adams by William Morris Hunt. 1867.

The British View

As the American Civil War began, Great Britain did not react as the Americans expected it would. The British had long supported the abolition of slavery, so many in the North believed that they would support their side in the conflict. Problems arose when Lincoln initially framed the war as a fight to save the Union, not to free the slaves. The northern states also supported higher tariffs on foreign goods than the southern states had. On top of that, the large British textile industry used cotton grown in the American South, which would now be cut off by the North’s blockade. As historian Kathleen Burk wrote about this period, “there was, therefore, no reason of either British national interest or morality to support the North as a matter of course.”

The government of Lord Palmerston looked at the war as an opportunity to see a rival power weakened. Palmerston, along with his foreign minister John Russell, felt that if the United States became two or more separate nations, the result would be a more powerful Great Britain. On the other hand, the prime minister was reluctant to commit to any policy that may favor one side over the other, as his ruling coalition held many opinions on the American situation and could collapse over any disagreement. As a result, the British proclaimed themselves officially neutral in May 1861, but gave belligerent rights to the Confederates and met with several representatives from the breakaway states.

One other reason why the British were wary of taking sides as the Civil War began was a fear for Canada, which at this time was still a British possession. William Seward was known to be an Anglophobe, and some in London thought that Seward would convince Lincoln that the United States should invade Canada in order to make up for the loss of the South. This would never happen, but the Palmerston government was worried enough to send 11,000 troops to defend the Canadian frontier.

Seward’s dislike of Britain would continue to be a problem for Anglo-American relations. The messages he sent for Charles Francis Adams to relay to John Russell were at times blunt and confrontational, and could have caused a dangerous rift between the two nations. Fortunately, Adams was independent enough that he would at times hold back all or parts of these messages until they could be presented in a more diplomatic manner. Still, there were several times during Adams’ tenure when he feared that Britain and the United States would come to blows despite his best efforts. In fact, he would only rent his London home by the month, in case he was recalled to the United States.

The Trent Affair

The first major incident that Adams had to deal with was the Trent affair. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto stopped the British steamer Trent, and arrested two Confederate commissioners, John Slidell and John Mason, who were on their way to Europe. The captain of the San Jacinto, John Wilkes, acted without orders and against the advice of his crew, but was hailed as a hero in the North. The British were infuriated by the stopping and boarding of a neutral vessel. They claimed (rightfully) that Wilkes’ actions were illegal and demanded an apology from the United States, as well as the immediate release of Mason and Slidell. British public opinion turned so strongly against the United States over the Trent incident that preparations for war were started. This was the point when British troops were sent to Canada, and Palmerston was also close to sending the Royal Navy’s Channel Squadron across the Atlantic. Adams warned Seward that the mood of the British could lead to war.

Several factors helped defuse this situation. Prince Albert, in one of his last acts before his death, had the British government temper their demands in order to give the United States a way to back down from possible conflict. Adams and his British counterpart in Washington, Lord Lyons, made sure not to inflame the situation while waiting for instructions from their governments. Most of all, the time it took for messages to cross the ocean (usually several weeks as there was no trans-Atlantic telegraph service at this time) allowed public opinion to cool down. Eventually, the US relented and the two commissioners were allowed to continue to Europe, where they were largely ineffective.

The Alabama

Another incident that caused trouble between the two nations was the construction and escape of the Alabama. The Confederate government had contracts to have ships built in British shipyards. This was allowed as long as the ship wasn’t armed. The Alabama was one of these vessels and Adams tried to get the British to detain the ship by arguing that it would be armed as a privateer soon after leaving Liverpool. Russell replied that there was no legal reason to stop the Alabama from leaving port. Adams presented more proof to British authorities that the ship was due to be a warship, eventually persuading them to detain it. Unfortunately, the Alabama escaped hours before government officials arrived and proceeded to the Azores, where it was armed and set loose on the high seas. This event was seen by the United States as a violation of neutrality, and they would press claims for damages on Britain for the shipping losses caused by the Alabama. This disagreement would linger between Great Britain and the United States until 1872, when it was settled by international arbitration in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Laird Rams

After the escape of the Alabama, Adams continued to try and stop the construction of Confederate warships. He was especially focused on two ironclad Laird rams in Liverpool. It was claimed that these ships were being built for Egypt, but Adams presented proof to the contrary. The British once again hesitated to act, saying that there needed to be more evidence.

Adams now felt he had only one alternative left. He sent a message to Russell stating that if the ships were allowed to leave, the United States would have no choice but to view it as an act of war by Great Britain. Cooler heads would thankfully prevail. The British saw that at this point (late 1863) the North was gaining the upper hand in the Civil War, and realized that antagonizing them would serve no purpose. The rams were eventually purchased by the British for their own use, placing them out of the Confederates’ reach.

Tensions Ease

As 1864 began, the tensions that existed in Anglo-American relations finally began to ease. There were fewer incidents that would cause problems between the two nations, and Adams soon settled into the normal, sometimes tedious, business of running a diplomatic post. He still pressed the British on the Alabama claims, but he maintained good relations with Russell, who would become prime minister when Palmerston died in 1865.

Adams would serve in London until 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War. While he received warm tributes from Seward and several American newspapers, the British gave him even greater honors. His name was cheered in the House of Commons, and even the Times, a long-time foe, credited him for his judgment and discretion. His father and grandfather would have been amazed at these British compliments!

Thus ends the saga of the three Adams in London...

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

Sources:

Brookhiser, Richard. America’s First Dynasty: The Adamses, 1735-1918. New York: The Free Press, 2002.

Burk, Kathleen. Old World, New World: Great Britain and America from the Beginning. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.

Duberman, Martin B. Charles Francis Adams, 1807-1886. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960.

Ellis, Sylvia. Historical Dictionary of Anglo-American Relations. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009.

Foreman, Amanda. A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American CIvil War. New York: Random House, 2010.

James Madison: Helping make Thomas Jefferson an icon

This is William Bodkin’s fourth post for History is Now.  The first three touched on aspects of the lives of George Washington (link here), John Adams (link here), and Thomas Jefferson (link here). Today William discusses the fourth president of the United States, James Madison (president from 1809-1817). Madison was to have a great influence on another Founding Father – or Founding Brother – Thomas Jefferson.

I have always been fascinated by the personal relationships among the American Founders.  As I mentioned in last month’s post on Thomas Jefferson, their friendships, rivalries, alliances and disagreements still shape the country’s political discourse, with Jefferson having the most lasting influence.  However, when reading all of Jefferson’s writings, this influence and reach can come as a surprise, as it often seems that posterity was neither his intent nor his goal. 

James Madison by John Vanderlyn, 1816.

Jefferson was, of all the Founders, perhaps the truest revolutionary in spirit.  He expressed it unhesitatingly in his writings and letters when commenting on the events at the time.  One of Jefferson’s more famous expressions of his revolutionary fervor came not in the Declaration of Independence, but in a letter reflecting on Shays’ Rebellion in 1787.  Daniel Shays was a former captain in the Continental Army who took charge of a group of farmers in central and western Massachusetts protesting the Massachusetts’ government’s failure to take steps to alleviate the farmers’ debt burden, which often cost the farmers’ their property and landed them in prison.[1]  In response to a query about the rebellion, Jefferson stated “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.”[2]{cke_protected_1}  Jefferson noted that the United States had been independent eleven years, with only one such rebellion.  He wrote “What county before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?  What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”  It was in this letter he also observed that the “tree of liberty” must be “refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”[3]

How then, was this literally bloody-minded revolutionary transformed into the guiding philosophical spirit of a nation?  The answer is simple: James Madison.  Madison spent a good portion of his political career serving as a check and balance on Jefferson’s revolutionary spirit.

Madison, the fourth President of the United States, is rightfully celebrated for many of his personal accomplishments, including being the ‘Father of the Constitution’.  He was, if not the document’s primary draftsman, (it is generally agreed that that distinction belongs to New York’s Gouverneur Morris)[4] the driving force behind the “Spirit of 1787”, with its realization that the decentralized government of the Articles of Confederation had failed.  A new, stronger central government was needed if the United States of America was to survive.  This idea, however, seemed incongruous with the revolution that had just passed.  The Spirit of 1776 had at its core an inherent distrust of removed, centralized governments that were unresponsive to the needs of the populace.[5]  The resolution of this tension between the Spirits of 1776 and 1787 can be found in Jefferson’s and Madison’s friendship.  As the sixth President, John Quincy Adams, noted, “the mutual influence of these two mighty minds upon each other” was “a phenomenon.”  Future historians, thought Adams, would, upon examining the Jefferson-Madison relationship, “discover the solution of much of our national history not otherwise easily accountable.”[6]

Take, for example, Jefferson’s most famous pronouncement on the nature of law, expressed to Madison in a letter from 1789, where he questioned “whether one generation of man had the right to bind another” with its laws.  Jefferson believed that the earth belonged only to the living.  “By law of nature, one generation is to another as independent as one nation is to another.”[7]  Jefferson expressed this idea at a delicate time.  George Washington had just taken office as the new Republic’s first president.  Congress was sitting for the first time.  Questions abounded concerning whether the new nation could last.  Surely the word of Thomas Jefferson that the work being done could or should be undone in a mere twenty years would undermine the new government’s legitimacy.

Setting Jefferson straight

Madison took care to set Jefferson straight.  When he responded to Jefferson, he first hailed the “idea” as a “great one,” that offered “interesting reflections” to legislators.  That said, Madison remarked that he was skeptical of this “great idea” in practice.  Madison wrote that a government “so often revised” could never retain its best features, even if they were the most “rational” ideas of government in an “enlightened age.”  The result, Madison stated, would be anarchy. “All the rights depending on positive laws,” such as to property would be “absolutely defunct.”  The most “violent struggles” would ensue between those interested in maintaining the status quo and those interested in bringing about the new.  All this being said, Madison thought the idea should at least be mentioned in the “proceedings of the United States,” since it might help to prevent legislators “from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.” [8]

Madison’s argument carried the day.  Jefferson never mentioned this idea to him again, and certainly never attempted to seriously advance the idea during his presidency.  As we know now, the great self-governance experiment envisioned by Madison has indeed carried on, allowing Jefferson, over time and history, to be honored as one of its great architects.  The idea that earth belonged only to the living, though, remained a philosophical theme to which Jefferson would return in his writings.  Indeed, it is perhaps “the single statement in the vast literature by and about Jefferson that provides a clear and deep look into his thinking about the way the world ought to work.”[9]

The relationship between Jefferson and Madison suffered not at all for this fundamental disagreement about the nature of law.  Madison went on to serve as Jefferson’s Secretary of State and then succeed him to the presidency.  Jefferson, always appreciative of Madison’s counsel, wrote toward the end of his life that “the friendship which has subsisted between us, now half a century, and the harmony of our political principles and pursuits, have been sources of constant happiness to me.”  Jefferson also recognized Madison’s frequent advocacy on his behalf, writing in the same letter that it was a “great solace” to him that Madison was “engaged in vindicating to posterity the course we have pursued.”  Jefferson acknowledged to Madison that “you have been a pillar of support through life,” and asked his old friend to “take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall leave with you my last affections.”[10]

The often warm personal relationships between the Founding Fathers cannot be understated.  Amongst their peers, they were Founding Brothers.  It was these bonds of genuine affection that permitted, despite their conflicts, John Adams’ dying words to be of Thomas Jefferson, and despite the dueling interests of the Spirit of 1776 and the Spirit of 1787 for Jefferson to ask Madison to take care of him when dead.  The founders inspire many things in the American experience.  The nation’s political discourse continues their arguments today.  What often seems to be missing, however, is perhaps the Founders’ most important idea - that friendship can transcend partisan differences when it comes to advancing the interests of the nation.

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

A brief note from the author:

The good people who run this website have graciously agreed to let me contribute columns on one of my favorite topics, the presidents of the United States.  My plan is to focus, roughly once a month, on less appreciated aspects of their lives, hopefully some things that most people don’t think about when considering the presidents.  This task is far easier with the Founding Fathers; often their time as president was their least important contribution to the United States.  I anticipate some challenges with the presidents to come.  For example, other than Hawkeye in M*A*S*H being named for him, I am unsure what Franklin Pierce’s contribution to the nation was, prominent or otherwise.  In any event, I will try my best to continue delivering what I think are interesting columns about the presidents, and hope the readers agree.

[1] For a fuller discussion, see www.ushistory.org, Chapter 15 “Drafting the Constitution,” (a) Shays’ Rebellion.

[2] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.

[3] Id.

[4] See, e.g., “Miracle at Philadelphia” by Catherine Drinker Bowen (1966).

[5] See e.g., Ellis, Joseph, “Founding Brothers,” Preface, “The Generation.”

[6] “The Jubilee of the Constitution,” A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society in the City of New York, on Tuesday the 30th of April 1839; being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday the 30th of April 1789 (Samuel Colman, VIII Astor House 1839).

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

[8] Letter of James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, February 4, 1790.

[9] Joseph Ellis, “American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson,” 132-133 (Knopf, 1996).

[10] Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, February 17, 1826

Drugs Throughout History: Why We Can’t Kick The Habit

Drug use has long been a controversial issue, but the current debates surrounding it are far from new. Drugs have been a part of society for centuries, though a few in particular have, and continue to, spark disputes and clashes despite being household names - albeit illegal ones… Georgie Broad explains.


Cocaine

Cocaine is the second most used illegal drug in the UK and widely used in other Western countries, and this popularity can be seen through the drugs’ history, having been legal until late into the 19th century and beyond. However, in those times, cocaine was also considered harmless in moderate doses, and even advertised for its apparent medicinal purposes. Victorian pharmaceutical companies promoted their “cocaine toothache drops”.

An advertisement for cocaine toothache drops.

The claims about the alleged safety of the usage of cocaine may seem bizarre to us now in the age of never ending health and safety checks, however in the early 19th century the drug was cheap to come by and sparsely tested for any unwanted side effects (if it was tested at all, that is) and so it was easier, and more lucrative, for companies to claim its safety than to actually prove it. In actual fact, cocaine is one of the most powerful drugs in terms of creating a psychological dependence!

Cocaine was not just used in the powder form we know today. In 1863, Angelo Mariani created Vin Mariani, a wine that, thanks to its ingredients, created a rather potent mixture, producing roughly 6.5mg of cocaine per ounce. Even Pope Leo XIII during the mid-19th century carried with him a “tonic” in a hip flask that he claimed helped to fortify him when prayer wasn’t sufficient, and advocated its use through posters!

Many famous writers turned to the drug when a little lacking in inspiration, including Emile Zola, Jules Verne and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It was not uncommon for the more creative minds of the centuries to turn to recreational drug use – a fallacy and legacy that is still controversially perpetuated by many musicians and writers today. It was also popularized in America by manual laborers as it was believed to increase productivity, and was essentially used in the way we use caffeine today.

As the 20th century progressed, people became wary of ‘innocent people’ being led astray thanks to the effects of the drug. It was seen to be the drug of choice in the lower classes of society and among immigrants, and soon the media began to inflate and exaggerate its effects on African American citizens which at the time caused mass hysteria and invoked vehement hatred – both toward the drug and its users. It wasn’t long before the US government cracked down on the drug and took more stringent and effective legal action.

Cannabis

Cannabis is the most used drug worldwide, and has a colorful history stretching back around 4,000 years, though it was only in the mid-19th century that the drug gained popularity and notoriety in the West. By this time, it could be freely purchased throughout stores in America, and even Queen Victoria was a user, as she was prescribed cannabis by her doctors to help relieve her period pains!

During the 1800s, cannabis was widely used by the artistic and literary community, with many of the great novels we now love having been written by authors who were, most likely, high. So popular was the drug that greats such as Dumas and Victor Hugo began a club in France, “Le Club des Haschischins”, where members would meet up, smoke cannabis and discuss art and life.

Recovering alcoholics were often given cannabis as a way to help them along the road to kicking their addiction, and the drug was much more popular than drink. During the Prohibition era in America, many women advocated the use of cannabis in lieu of alcohol, claiming it didn’t lead to such violent reactions from men who took it. This appreciation of the more mellow results of cannabis can be seen elsewhere, too – for example the Wooton Report of 1968 stated that there was in fact no evidence of “agression or anti-social behaviour” or “conditions of dependence”.

Cannabis was the most used medicinal drug in America during the early 1800s; however advances in medicinal science brought with them injectibal drugs (such as morphine) and asprins, thus leading to a declin in the use of cannabis not just in the USA, but throughout the West. The difficulty of standardising dosages also signalled a decline in the drugs use.

Once again, it was partially thanks to social issues that the eventual illegalisation of cannabis came about. Its usage was tied to immigrant jazz musicians in North America and their unappealing and unconventional way of life. Once again, a smear campaign raised the negative profile of the drug and its users to the point where it almost criminalised itself without any government interference.

Heroin

At the end of the 19th century, morphine was a very popular drug. In 1898, the Bayer Pharmaceutical company began to sell a preparation of diacetylmorphine (which was essentially morphine boiled for several hours). It was a new drug heavily promoted as being non-addictive and very effective for curing ailments such as tuberculosis or bronchitis, as well as allegedly helping people recovering from morphine addictions. This drug was given the name Heroin.

In 1906, it was approved by the American Medical Association for general use, and was even recommended as a replacement for morphine itself. Unfortunately, far from the original desires for the drug, a population of around 200,000 heroin addicts sprung up around America. This problem persisted, leading to the eventual litany of Acts and regulations passed to quell the usage of the drug – along with many others. The Harrison Narcotics Act, for example, was passed in 1914 in an attempt to stop the abuse of cocaine, heroin and cannabis, and it shortly became necessary for doctors to pay a tax on the drug.

By 1924, the Deputy Commissioner of the NYPD claimed that around 94% of all crimes were commited by heroin addicts, and it was not long after that the drug became outlawed for both medical and personal use.

In perspective

The reputaion, usage, and market for drugs today seems just as turbulent as in the past; controversially glamourised by celebrities, surrounded by debate, and yet still undeniably a part of society. Today, arguments on the legalisation of cannabis can be heard around the world, and you often hear the tagline “heroin chic” attached to models and celebrities who have that certain rugged, palid, and slightly ill-looking demeanor.

As we can see, smear campaigns have always surrounded drugs and their users – from the racial arguments in the 19th century to those around us today warning against drug use, painting users as destitute criminals.

Billions of dollars circulate around both the drug market and the rehabilitation programmes set up to combat usage and addiction, but it seems that the fight to find a common ground among society, drugs, and the law is far from being won.


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

References

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-468286.html

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/heroin-history-1900s.html

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/cocaineandcrack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1632726.stm

http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/chapter-thirteen/

Re-establishing Anglo-American Relations: John Quincy Adams in London

In 1788, John Adams left London, never to return to Europe. His son, John Quincy Adams, would assume his father’s post at the Court of Saint James 27 years later. While both men represented the United States in Great Britain after wars, JQA had a more successful time in establishing stronger ties between the two nations than his father had. This article by Steve Strathmann follows the first in the series here and details the ups-and-downs of John Quincy Adams’ time in London.

The Experienced Diplomat

John Quincy Adams first came to Europe with his father during the Revolutionary War. In addition to working for his father, he spent three years in Russia serving as secretary for an American mission at the tender age of fourteen. After graduating from Harvard, he was appointed Minister to the Netherlands by George Washington. During his time in The Hague, he travelled frequently to London on business, where he met his future wife Louisa Johnson, the American daughter of a Maryland father and English mother. In fact, the church where they were married, the Church of All Hallows Barking, still stands today near the Tower of London and has a plaque outside marking the occasion.

JQA would later serve terms as American minister to Prussia and Russia. While at St. Petersburg, he was asked to join the American group negotiating to end the War of 1812. After the Treaty of Ghent was signed, he hoped to return home, but was asked to serve as President Madison’s Minister to the Court of St. James. The offer was too tempting for Adams to refuse and he crossed the English Channel in May 1815.

John Quincy Adams by Gilbert Stuart, 1818 (The White House Historical Association).

Official Relations with Britain

John Quincy Adams presented his credentials to the Prince Regent on June 8, 1815. The prince did not seem prepared for the meeting, at one point even asking if JQA “was related to Mr. Adams, who had formerly been the Minister from the United States here.” The new minister established an office on Charles Street and rented a house outside of London in the village of Ealing. While in Britain, John Quincy and Louisa would have their whole family (sons George, John and Charles) together for the first time in six years.

Adams maintained good relationships with both Prime Minister Lord Liverpool and Foreign Secretary Lord Castlereagh. His primary mission was to help negotiate a treaty of commerce with the British. The result of these negotiations would only be a commercial convention, but the Americans did make some gains. These included a prohibition on discriminatory duties, the opening of British East Indies ports to American shipping and ‘most favored nation’ status for the United States.

There were still outstanding issues left over between the two nations after the War of 1812. These included the impressment of sailors, the return of slaves that fled to the West Indies with British help during the war, and the opening of Canadian waters to American fishermen. Castlereagh said in response that these were issues that could be dealt with at a later date when the Anglo-American relationship was stronger. Adams did not press the foreign secretary, especially over the escaped slaves. A life-long abolitionist, Adams only brought up the topic because his diplomatic instructions called for it.

One area where significant gains were made was on the Canadian border of the United States. On January 16 and March 21 of 1816, Adams proposed to Castlereagh that there should be a reduction of arms on the Great Lakes. The foreign secretary agreed and the negotiations that followed led to the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817. This pact reduced the two lake fleets to four ships apiece that were to primarily deal with customs issues. This agreement was “the first reciprocal naval disarmament in the history of international relations”, according to historian Samuel Flagg Bemis. Others have added that it is also the most successful and longest-lasting deal of its kind.

Outside the Office

In addition to his good relations with Liverpool and Castlereagh, Adams struck up friendships with other notable Brits. One was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Though the two men had differing views on certain topics, they became friends due to their appreciation of each other’s intellect. John Quincy and Louisa also were invited to a wedding held at the Duke of Wellington’s home.

Adams enjoyed going to the theater and opera in London, especially to see the works of William Shakespeare. He read Shakespeare often, and his diaries contain reviews of London performances of Richard the Third and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

John Quincy and Louisa were thrilled to have their family together and being able to watch their sons’ growth. George and John were enrolled in an Ealing boarding school, while Charles attended school during the day. While he loved his boys, JQA worried that they did not focus enough on their studies. According to biographer Fred Kaplan, he hoped that someday they “would be his intellectual companions” much like he was to his father.

Unfortunately, Adams did have to deal with some health issues during his London tenure. He injured his writing hand and also had several eye infections. These afflictions were especially hard on a man who was a vociferous reader and writer. Louisa helped during this period by taking dictation and reading aloud to her husband. Adams eventually healed and was able to resume all of his diplomatic duties.

In April 1817, Adams received a message from President James Monroe, asking him to return to Washington and become Secretary of State. Though John Quincy hesitated, the rest of his family were excited about the prospect of returning to the United States, including his elderly parents. He eventually decided that he would accept the cabinet post, and on June 10, 1817, the family left London for the long journey home.

In 1861, Charles Francis Adams would return to take the post that his father and grandfather held before him. His primary duty: keep the British out of the American Civil War. But that’s for next time…

We shall have the next article in this series next month.

If you enjoyed the article tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the links below.

Sources

Kaplan, Fred. John Quincy Adams: American Visionary. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2014.

Remini, Robert V. John Quincy Adams. New York: Times Books, 2002.

Unger, Harlow Giles. John Quincy Adams. Boston: De Capo Press, 2012.