Charles Darwin’s Voyage of the Beagle – And what he discovered…

Charles Darwin’s remarkable travels aboard HMS Beagle opened his eyes to the concept of natural selection and paved the way towards a scientific and human revolution. In this article, Davide Previti explains the importance of the voyage and what happened when Darwin returned to Britain.

A photograph of Charles Darwin from 1881. By Herbert Rose Barraud.

In December 1831 Charles Darwin set off on the historic journey that would lead him to write The Origin of the Species. This was a book that would not only begin a scientific revolution but would also be responsible for changing our perception of humanity and of our position in the world.

As he experienced earthquakes and volcanoes he came to understand how the earth changes, he found the fossils of extinct mammals that would make him question the fixity of species, and he realized that both animals and humans must compete to survive.

A Chaos Of Delight

Darwin was offered the chance to join Robert Fitzroy, the Captain of the rebuilt brig HMS Beagle on a voyage to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America. Fitzroy feared the loneliness of command and invited Darwin to accompany him as the ship’s naturalist. Darwin brought weapons and books for the journey and the Beagle set sail from Plymouth in southern England with a crew of 73 on December 27, 1831.

The voyage was not an easy one as Darwin suffered from terrible seasickness; however the physical hardships he had to endure were offset by the incredible opportunities he was presented with to explore the world. As the ship’s naturalist, Darwin was able to leave the confines of the Beagle to pursue his own interests and as a result, over the course of the five-year voyage, he only spent 18 months aboard HMS Beagle.

In Brazil, Darwin witnessed slavery first hand and pondered how sustainable the system could be, noting in his diary:

“If the free blacks increase in numbers (as they must) and become discontented at not being equal to white men, the epoch of the general liberation would not be far distant.”[1]

It was also in Brazil that Darwin found the Rainforests that would leave his mind in ‘a chaos of delight.’ He spent months in Rio de Janeiro studying ‘gaily coloured’ flatworms and spiders. It was here that Darwin would find evidence against the beneficent design of nature when he witnessed parasitic wasps that would lay eggs inside live caterpillars, which would then be eaten alive by the grubs when they hatched.[2] Darwin also discovered fossils and the bones of huge, long extinct mammals, which raised questions about what could have caused these animals to die out.

On the final leg of the voyage Darwin completed his diary and completed 1,750 pages of notes. He packed up all his samples, the fossils, skins, bones and carcasses he had collected. This was the raw material he would use to formulate his theory of evolution.

Heresy and Corruption

The fossils Darwin had collected fuelled his speculations. In 1837 he became a convinced transmutationist (evolutionist) after his Beagle collections had been examined by expert British naturalists.[3] He had brought back the fossils of huge extinct armadillos, anteaters, and sloths that he hypothesized had been replaced by their own kind according to some unknown “law of succession of types.” These theories were considered, by Cambridge clerics as:

“bestial, if not blasphemous, heresy that would corrupt mankind and destroy the spiritual safeguards of the social order.”[4]

As a Unitarian, Darwin based his beliefs on reason and experience. He used such beliefs to frame his image of mankind’s place in nature, stating in his first evolutionary notebook:

“Animals whom we have made our slaves we do not like to consider our equals. Do not slave holders wish to make the black man other kind? Animals with affections, imitation, fear of death, pain, sorrow for the dead, respect.”

Darwin continued to question religion, especially Christianity. Identifying himself as agnostic, he would eventually stop believing in Christianity altogether and instead adopted natural selection as his deity.[5] For years Darwin filled his notebooks with ruminations and ideas. He considered extinction and noted his theory that life represented a branching tree rather than a ladder that humans sat at the top of.

At this time Darwin was not the only scientist that had theories of evolution. The difference between his notion and those of his peers was that Darwin put forward the unique idea of natural selection, a theory that explains how and why evolution happens.

It is said that Darwin first began to formulate the idea of natural selection when he saw how breeders could effectively change dogs and pigeons by identifying and accentuating certain traits through breeding. Equally, the population was expanding in Britain at the time, and in 1834 a poor law was amended. This played a role in separating men and women to stop them breeding.

Darwin realized that the increase in the population had lead to a lack of resources. And, with more mouths to feed there was less to go around. It occurred to Darwin this competition would ultimately weed out the unfit and it was when he applied this idea to nature that he had formulated the basis of a theory that would forever change the way we view life on earth.

Darwin took 20 years to publish The Origin of the Species, which would go into great detail to explain the theory of natural selection. He had seen so much on his voyage, he undoubtedly found it difficult to find the time to condense his experiences into proofs that would back-up his theory. He did however produce a 230-page abstract of his theory in 1842 and would expand that to a 300-page paper in the summer of 1844. Darwin revised his ideas over the course of those two decades and added to them as he came across new evidence and information.

An Intellectual and Conceptual Revolution

When he finally published The Origin of The Species with its explanation of natural selection, without reference to God, a higher power or a creator, it changed the way scientists looked at evolution. According to the eminent late evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, "Eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena; it gave rise to positivism; it produced a powerful intellectual and spiritual revolution, the effects of which have lasted to this day."[6]

More than just something that changed the world of science, the notion man, animals and plants were effectively descending from the same replicable cell is something that is very difficult to put into perspective even nowadays. Man, the ruler of the world, the smartest of creatures, the creator of art and music was not born superior from the outset, but equal. This thought was unbearable to many at the time and that is no surprise. The famous depictions of Darwin as a monkey that appeared on newspapers such as The London Sketch-book and in satirical magazines like La Petite Lune appear to us nowadays as testaments of fear and disbelief.

This moment in history is capital: man’s status amongst all things, was, once again, completely downsized. It is reminiscent of when Galileo told the world the Earth was not the center of the universe but only one of the many planets orbiting the larger sun. Man has always had an idea of itself as more important in the order of things and realizations that point to its smallness and insignificance always come as a shock.

The presence of God to explain the way the world and humanity came about is comforting -it elevates man to a higher level. In the book of Genesis God says: "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."[7] How wonderful to think that man is equated to God and was born to rule the Earth and all the creatures on it. Darwin wipes all of this away and leaves us to face a cold reality: scientifically we are nothing more than a conglomeration of cells which just happened to evolve differently to other plants and creatures. How about that for a paradigm shift in perception?

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!

Finally, you can track all the stops and events of Darwin’s voyage of the Beagle in the infographic available here.

1. http://darwinbeagle.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/3rd-july-1832-comments-on-slavery-in.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumonoidea

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20665232

4. http://www.faithology.com/biographies/charles-darwin

5. http://www.faithology.com/biographies/charles-darwin

6. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-big-question-how-important-was-charles-darwin-and-what-is-his-legacy-today-1216258.html

7. The Parallel Bible (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), p. 2.

Charles Darwin as a monkey in The London Sketch-book (1874).

Charles Darwin depicted as a monkey on a tree in La Petite Lune (1878).

A more Adventurous Lawrence of Arabia? The life of General Robert Rollo Gillespie

Robert Gillespie was one of the legends of his age. During his life (1766-1814), the Northern Irishman fought in all manner of arenas and participated in some amazing events. He stared death in the face many times - and came out on top much more frequently than his enemies. Here, Frank Jastrzembski starts to tell us of Gillespie’s amazing life.

An 1814 print of Robert Rollo Gillespie.

Major General Robert Rollo Gillespie was a critical agent in helping to solidify the domain of the British crown in the West Indies, Java and India during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Brave, reckless, and aggressive, his tactics played a leading role in the success of a number of campaigns. He lived a charmed life, surviving a number of deadly encounters that made him legendary in the West Indies and India. Author Sir William Thorn embodied Gillespie when he wrote that his soul, “panted for the field of toil, and thirsted for the career of glory.”[1]

A man well known in his own time, he is nearly forgotten today. By the twentieth century, his legacy had slipped into obscurity. Author Eric Wakeman commented that, “It is a curious comment on the difference between the days of Sir Rollo and the present, that a man whose deeds and heroism read almost like a fairy tale should be almost unknown to the general public.”[2] Field Marshal Philip Chetwode remarked that Gillespie’s life, “far exceeds that of Lawrence in glamour and achievement. Yet Lawrence monopolized the headlines and front pages of the world, while Gillespie is almost unknown.”[3]

Early life

Gillespie was born on January 21, 1766, in the small town of Comber, Northern Ireland, into a prestigious family. His descendants journeyed with William the Conqueror to England in 1066, producing a long line of fighting ancestors. Gillespie’s father had every intention of sending his son to the University of Cambridge for an education in law; however, the young Gillespie had other plans. Displaying a lack of interest for the routine of a life dedicated to the practice of law, the strong-headed youth opted to pursue a career as a soldier. His father reluctantly allowed him to become a member of 6th Dragoon Guards in 1783, as a Cornet, unable to persuade his son from a life of hardship as a soldier. 

Gillespie showed an aptitude for attracting danger early in his army career. In 1787, he was asked to act as a second in a duel for a fellow officer by the name of Mackenzie, after an alcohol-fueled altercation with William Barrington. When the opponents met the next day, they fired and missed their shots, which should have satisfied their honor. Gillespie suggested a compromise, which angered Barrington, who insulted the honor of his regiment. In a fit or fury, Gillespie whipped out a handkerchief and challenged Barrington to hold the other corner and duel him at point-blank range.

The duel commenced as both Gillespie and Barrington fired simultaneously. Barrington’s shot carried away the hammer of Gillespie’s pistol, slightly wounding him. Gillespie’s shot hit Barrington directly in the heart, mortally wounding him. After the death of Barrington, he fled and hid in the countryside facing criminal charges, eventually turning himself in to face court-martial. An army tribunal ruled the murder of Barrington as ‘justifiable homicide’, and Gillespie was acquitted.[4]

In 1792, he was transferred as a lieutenant with the 20th Light Dragoons to the West Indies. Gillespie quickly developed an effigy of invincibility that impressed his superiors. In the British attack on the French garrison of Port-au-Prince in 1794, Gillespie and a companion volunteered to swim to the garrison in order to coerce the defenders to surrender. Stripping off his red tunic, Gillespie rolled up his sweat-soiled sleeves, clenched his sword between his teeth, and leapt into the ocean in an attempt to reach the garrison while under gunfire. When Gillespie and his comrade made it successfully to the shores of the fortress, they were immediately taken into custody. Placed under arrest, they were to be executed as spies. Fortunately, Gillespie noticed an insignia of Freemasonry dangling from General Santhonax’s neck. Gillespie, a fellow Freemason, managed to charm Santhonax enough to allow for his release.[5]

8 versus 1

Another incident that helped to solidify the Gillespie legend in the West Indies took place one night while he was at his quarters in St. Domingo. Gillespie was woken from his deep slumber by the desperate cries of a familiar voice. In his fancy nightgown and dragoon sword in hand, Gillespie came dashing down the stairs to a fearful scene. The cries came from his servant who was desperately wounded in the arm. Eight intruders had broken into his residence in the dark of night. The intruders had an eight to one advantage over Gillespie. When most men would have baulked at these hopeless odds, Gillespie did what he knew best.

With superhuman strength, Gillespie warded off the eight intruders. Fighting in a style similar to that of the Three Musketeers, he managed to kill six of the intruders and so caused the panicked flight of the other two. One of the fleeing intruders fired a pistol at Gillespie that severed his temporal artery. When a patrol finally arrived to the scene of disturbance, they stepped over six disfigured bodies and found the badly wounded Gillespie clinging to life in his bedroom. The desperately wounded Gillespie was granted leave to Britain, and met King George III who was rumored to have remarked, “Is this the little man that killed the brigands?” He soon returned to Jamaica to take command of the 20th Light Dragoons.[6]  

Gillespie had grown tired with his post in Jamaica after eleven years of service, rising to the rank of colonel. The daily routine of garrison duty left him eager for battle. He requested a transfer to the 19th Light Dragoons, stationed in India.

Most of the officers who chose to make the long journey from Britain to their new assignments in India did so by sea. Traversing this journey by land would entail a traveler to make the journey through the harsh and hostile landscape of the Middle East. Naturally, Gillespie chose to make the journey to his new post by land.

To India

When he arrived in Constantinople, he was invited to dine with a French officer resident in the city. Gillespie humbly declined the dinner invitation on the excuse that he sought to return to his quarters for the night. The officers would have parted ways uneventfully if the Frenchman had not proclaimed in a sarcastic tone, “I shall be glad to kill an Englishman.” Gillespie turned and locked eyes with the Frenchman and coolly replied, “As it is your wish to kill an Englishman, I am come to give you that satisfaction, by trying your skill upon me.” As both men were of a chivalrous upbringing, the combatants chose to duel with swords. This was a poor decision on the Frenchman’s part. Gillespie quickly wounded and disarmed the Frenchman, and as an act of generosity, spared him his life.[7]

After making his way across the hazardous desert of Syria and through Persia, he finally arrived at his post in India. He joined the 19th Dragoons at Arcot and took command as colonel, and it did not take long before Gillespie found action in the frontier of India.

A clash was brewing in India due to the poor judgment made by the British officers and officials in regard to their Indian, or sepoy, soldiers. The sepoys had been faithful and brave soldiers of the British crown, but relations had begun to deteriorate between the two. Indeed, relations went from poor to critical when the sepoys were ordered to dramatically alter their appearance and violate their religious customs by shaving their beards, removing religious marks on their foreheads, and replacing their turbans with British headwear. Sepoys who refused to give into these demands were court-martialed with threats of the loss of rank, dismissal, or even being flogged.

Mutiny

On July 10, 1806, in fear of becoming Christian converts, the sepoys of the 1st and 23rd Regiments of Native Infantry mutinied at Vellore, an old fortification. The mutineers slaughtered their own British officers and managed to kill and wound approximately 200 Europeans in total. Four companies of British infantrymen of the 69th Regiment, and a handful of women and children who escaped the surprise attack were pinned down in a few buildings located within the fortress walls. The closest relief force was the 19th Light Dragoons stationed in nearby Arcot. The night before the mutiny Gillespie was scheduled to dine with the commander of the Vellore garrison, Colonel Fancourt, an old friend from Jamaica. He planned to stay the night at Colonel Fancourt’s quarters, but fortunately for Gillespie, he unexpectedly canceled.

The next day, Gillespie received a message from a frantic officer of the munity as he was riding out to Vellore for breakfast.[8] Without delay, he turned around and headed back to Arcot. This excerpt of the poem Gillespie, by Sir Henry Newbolt, immortalizes the events:

He thundered back to Arcot gate,

He thundered up through Arcot town,

Before he thought a second thought

In the barrack yard he lighted down.

Trumpeter, sound for the Light Dragoons,

Sound to saddle and spur,' he said;

'He that is ready may ride with me,

And he that can may ride ahead.

Fierce and fain, fierce and fain,

Behind him went the troopers grim,

They rode as ride the Light Dragoons

But never a man could ride with him.

Their rowels ripped their horses' sides,

Their hearts were red with a deeper goad,

But ever alone before them all

Gillespie rode, Gillespie rode.

Alone he came to false Vellore,

The walls were lined, the gates were barred;

Alone he walked where the bullets bit,

And called above to the Sergeant's Guard.

'Sergeant, Sergeant, over the gate,

Where are your officers all?' he said;

Heavily came the Sergeant's voice,

'There are two living and forty dead.'

'A rope, a rope,' Gillespie cried:

They bound their belts to serve his need.

There was not a rebel behind the wall

But laid his barrel and drew his bead.

There was not a rebel among them all

But pulled his trigger and cursed his aim,

For lightly swung and rightly swung

Over the gate Gillespie came.

He dressed the line, he led the charge,

They swept the wall like a stream in spate,

And roaring over the roar they heard

The galloper guns that burst the gate.

Fierce and fain, fierce and fain,

The troopers rode the reeking flight:

The very stones remember still

The end of them that stab by night.

They've kept the tale a hundred years,

They'll keep the tale a hundred more:

Riding at dawn, riding alone,

Gillespie came to false Vellore.

The one hundred beaten mutineers were found hiding in the Vellore palace and placed, by Gillespie’s orders, against a wall and fired on by canister shot until every one of them was killed.[9] The brutality of this incident would foreshadow the violence of the 1857 Indian Rebellion.

Now, the story of Gillespie concludes here.

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!

Further Reading

• Kanchanmoy, Mojumdar. Anglo-Nepalese Relations in the Nineteenth Century. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1973.

• Pemble, John. Britain's Gurkha War: The Invasion of Nepal, 1814-16. London: Frontline Books, 2009.

• Pemble, John. “Forgetting and Remembering Britain's Gurkha War.” Asian Affairs 40, no. 3 (2009): 361–376.

• Thorn, William. A Memoir of Major-General R. R. Gillespie. London: T. Edgerton, 1816.

• Thornton, Leslie Heber. Campaigners Grave & Gay: Studies of Four Soldiers of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925.

• Wakeman, Eric. The Bravest Soldier, Sir Rollo Gillespie, 1766-1814, A Historical Military Sketch. London: William Blackwood and & Sons Ltd., 1937.

1. William Thorn, A Memoir of Major-General R. R. Gillespie (London: T. Edgerton, 1816), 8.

2. Eric Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, Sir Rollo Gillespie, 1766-1814, A Historical Military Sketch (London: William Blackwood and & Sons Ltd., 1937), xv.

3. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, xvi.

4. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 16-20. Leslie Heber Thornton, Campaigners Grave & Gay: Studies of Four Soldiers of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925), 98.

5. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 39-40. Charles Whitlock Moore, “Masonic Anecdote. The Late Major General Sir Robert Rollo Gillespie, K.C.B.” The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine IV (1845): 276.

6. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 58-59. Thorn, A Memoir of Major-General R. R. Gillespie, 39-40.

7. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 86-87.

8. Thornton, Campaigners Grave & Gay, 97.

9. Wakeman, The Bravest Soldier, 111.

Five Great Historical Buildings… That We’ll Never See

Amazing buildings have been destroyed due to mortars, terrorism, free will and the musings of politicians. It seems mad to us now, in an age when preservation is a priority, that buildings of historical significance have been torn down without any governmental say-so. In every part of the globe, our lands are littered with the remains of what's been left behind, or the spaces where things 'could have been'.

So what are we, as historical tourists, missing exactly in our archaeological passports? What should have been that is no longer here? Hollie Mantle explains…

Sophienkirche - Dresden

World War Two attacked few cities to the same extent it ravaged the German city of Dresden. While people were captured, fled or hid in basements, the city around them, and its beautiful baroque architecture, was being blitzed by a persistent rain of bombs.

Whilst the destruction of baroque architecture was undoubtedly an utter tragedy, one building of unusual note was also left in disrepair by the war. The city’s gothic Sophienkirche, with twin neo-gothic spires, was the admiration of local people. Though the bombs blasted some of the church’s exterior, however, it was not the war which eventually saw to the church’s demise, but the fateful words of a contemporary politician, who said: ‘a socialist city does not need gothic churches’. And so, in the early 1960s, the Sophienkirche was demolished.

The area where the Sophienkirche existed is now a much more unsightly collection of 1990s-style buildings, and not worth a trip for travellers. In the middle of the city, though, the beautiful Frauenkirche cathedral was restored in 2005, and should feature high on any tourist’s ‘to-do’ list.   

Dresden's Sophienkirche.

Carthage – Tunisia

It surprises most to hear of the wide presence of Ancient Roman ruins in northern Africa, and that one of Ancient Rome's most famous sites in fact lies in Tunisia. The ancient city of Carthage was a hot bed of shipbuilding and imports of jewels, glassware, gold, and ivory. However, the city – which was only second to Rome in its splendor in the region – was destroyed around 146BC in the Third Punic War against Rome, after which point the Carthaginian Empire was defeated . After its demise, the city was rebuilt by the Romans, but was eventually destroyed for the second time several centuries later by the Muslim conquest.

Today Carthage lies in ruin in modern Tunisia, and is a great pull for tourists visiting the country. The outlines of homes, palaces and the harbor can still be seen, giving a glimpse of the grandeur of this historic Mediterranean empire. For those who want to avoid the capital, the coastal towns of Sousse, with its ‘Medina’, and Hammamet, are brimming with ancient ruins and museums that will give you a rounded overview of the country’s history.

The Library of Alexandria - Egypt

The loss of this great library, which stood in the city of Alexandria in Egypt, still represents the destruction of public knowledge for many historians. Why, how and when it was exactly lost is difficult to establish, but most books on the subject point fingers at Julius Caesar, Emperor Theodosius I or the Muslim Army of Amr ibn al ‘Aas as culprits, and suggest it was destroyed by fire.

In the last centuries of the period before Christ, the library was the greatest in the ancient world. It had reading rooms, lecture halls, gardens and shelves brimming with papyrus scrolls containing all the knowledge of ancient times. When it was destroyed, some scrolls were preserved and moved to other locations, but most suffered damage again in their second homes.

For visitors wanting to see the ruins now, that is not possible. There are none. Instead, the Biblioteca Alexandrina, a modern library built to commemorate the Library of Alexandria, stands in its place, though with less of the glory of its predecessor. 

The Library of Alexandria

Shakespeare’s House - Stratford upon Avon

Tourists flock to an English town to see the site where the world’s most famous wordsmith was brought into the world.

After his childhood, however, Shakespeare moved to London, where he began his career as an actor and writer – though very few records can mark him down in one particular place at a given time.

As a wealthy, middle aged man, though, we do know this: Shakespeare bought a home in Stratford. New Place was purchased in 1597 for the great sum of £60, and was home to his wife Anne and his children, until he too eventually returned there in 1610, to commence his retirement. It was also the unfortunate stage for his death, six years later, in 1616.

So why do we not visit and revere this home, where the adult Shakespeare housed his family during the prime of his career?

When Anne Hathaway later died in 1623, the house was sold and passed into different hands, before becoming the property of Francis Gastrell. Angered by visitors pestering the outside of his home to see the site where Shakespeare lived, Gastrell tore the place down in 1759.

The piece of land where New Place once stood is protected by the Shakespeare Trust, but is unfortunately just that; a space. All we have now are artists’ drawings and our imaginations to attempt to conjure an image of “the forms of things unknown”.

Ancient Aleppo Markets - Syria

Due to the recent conflict, the cost of disruption and human lives in Syria far outweighs the damage to buildings. But the ancient Aleppo Markets, registered by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, have suffered tremendously during city wide fights, eventually becoming engulfed in flames that destroyed the majority of the ancient 'souk'. Somewhere in the region of 700-1,000 shops were destroyed, as water strikes meant that containing the fire was nigh on impossible. What was once a huge tourist attraction within this thriving city is now just a marker of the tragedy that has taken over and ripped the country apart.

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

An important date? When Mormon founder Joseph Smith met the president

Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon faith, a group who suffered at the hands of attackers in the years after the faith was founded. This led Joseph Smith to seek the support of President Martin Van Buren. But following meetings with the president, Smith decided to take action into his own hands – and started a tradition that continues to this day… William Bodkin explains.

A painting of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, from the early 1840s.

When asked his opinion of Martin Van Buren, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, said that his dog was better suited to be president.  Smith felt his dog would at least make an effort to protect his abused and insulted master.  Van Buren, however, could not bother to lift a finger to help the oppressed.  Smith was not alone in his dislike for Van Buren.  The eighth president of the United States is often described as the least loved national politician of his time.  This was with good reason.  Van Buren was the original Frank Underwood, or Francis Urquhart, in “House of Cards”.  Van Buren relentlessly schemed and plotted his way to the Oval Office, casting aside all in his path while ingratiating himself to Andrew Jackson.  Without Jackson’s endorsement, Van Buren’s chances of winning the White House were slim to none. 

But Jackson owed his Presidency to Van Buren’s pure political pragmatism.  Van Buren had clawed his way to the top of New York State politics as head of the “Albany Regency”, the first political machine in the United States.  Then, while representing New York State as a Senator, he masterminded Jackson’s comeback victory in the 1828 presidential election by turning Jackson’s nickname of “Old Hickory” into the first presidential brand name.

The story behind Smith’s feelings about Van Buren lies in an often overlooked part of American history.  In late 1839, these two men who had begun their distinctive American success stories from the vast expanse of Upstate New York met at the White House.  Smith, the son of a farmer from Palmyra, sought from Van Buren, the son of a tavern keeper from Kinderhook, justice for the Mormons following the war the state of Missouri had waged on them.

Missouri versus the Mormons

One of the Mormon faith’s founding tenants was the idea that Jesus Christ had appeared to Native Americans and that America would be the place for the Second Coming.  Jesus would return in Western Missouri, near the City of Independence.  Smith, a formidable preacher, and to some, a prophet, sent a few missionaries to Missouri.  The Mormon faithful soon followed, hoping to build their Zion.

Mormons were greeted with suspicion and derision by Missourians.  They thought Mormonism could not be compatible with democracy since, to them, Mormons seemed obedient only to Smith.  Armed bands of Missourians began roaming the countryside, terrorizing Mormons.  In 1836, the Missouri Legislature created a new county, Caldwell, in the northwest corner of the state for the Mormons.  The solution proved short-lived.  Mormon immigrants and converts arrived daily, causing the population to spill over Caldwell’s borders into adjoining Daviess County.

The 1838 War began over the Mormon right to vote.  William Peniston, a Whig politician and a colonel in the Daviess County militia, had sought Mormon support in his campaign for the state legislature.  When the Mormons supported his Democratic opponent instead, Peniston gave a fiery speech denouncing them.  Peniston’s supporters tried to stop Mormons from voting on Election Day, with one man stating that Mormons had no more right to vote than “Negroes”.  A melee ensued, ending only when the Mormons withdrew.

The violence continued.  Mormons were murdered and assaulted. Mormon houses were burned to the ground.  Mormon livestock was set free.  Finally, the Mormons resolved to fight back.  On October 24, 1838, at Crooked River, a band of Mormon men encountered what they thought was an armed mob out for blood. Unfortunately, they were the local militia.  In the resulting exchange of gunfire, three Mormons were killed.

When word of Crooked River reached Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs, he declared the Mormons to be in “defiance of the laws of the state.”  On October 27, 1838, Boggs issued an order directing that the Mormons must be “exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace.”  Shortly after Boggs issued this order, a militia unit from Livingston County descended on a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill in Caldwell County.  The militia killed, in cold blood, eighteen Mormon boys and men despite their efforts to surrender.  One militiaman who dragged a wounded ten-year-old boy from his hiding place to shoot him justified it by saying that “nits make lice, and if he had lived, he would have become another Mormon.”

Surrender and Petitioning for Justice

After the Haun’s Mill massacre, the Mormons surrendered.  Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were arrested for treason against the State of Missouri based on the Crooked River skirmish, even though Smith was not there.  The Mormon leadership languished in jail for months, however, before being formally charged.  Smith began to suspect that his imprisonment was an embarrassment to the state.  After six months in prison, in the spring of 1839, Smith and the others were permitted to escape by a friendly sheriff who graciously agreed to get drunk and look the other way.  The leaders fled, and joined the Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois where they had taken refuge.

After his escape, Smith considered petitioning the federal government for compensation for the lives and land lost in the Missouri war.  Smith, in truth, had great faith in the Constitution and in democratic government.  He decided to go to Washington, D.C. himself so that he might make the case to Van Buren and to Congress.  Smith arrived in the nation’s capital on November 28, 1839.  The next day, Smith and two other Mormon leaders, accompanied by Congressman John Reynolds of Illinois, went to the White House.  Smith carried with him petitions outlining the Mormon’s grievances.

Van Buren smiled as Reynolds introduced Smith as a Latter Day Saint, but his visage quickly turned to stern business as Smith presented the Mormons’ grievances.  Reportedly, Van Buren looked at the party and exclaimed, “What can I do?  I can do nothing for you! If I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole state of Missouri.” 

Reports of what happened next vary.  Some say Van Buren agreed to reconsider.  Smith and his party then left to present their case to Congress.  They received help from Illinois’ congressional delegation, who were all too aware of the presence of this growing block of voters in their state.  The Mormons presented to the United States Senate 678 petitions seeking compensation for losses in Missouri ranging from 63 cents to $505,000.  The petitions were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where they met stiff opposition from Missouri’s Congressional delegation. The Committee, not wishing to offend Missouri’s delegation, decided that the petitions were not for the federal government to consider, but were a matter for the Missouri courts.

During this time, Smith apparently met a second time with Van Buren, who was more diplomatic but still unmoved.  Approximately a week or so following the first meeting, the Whigs, for the 1840 election, re-nominated the surprisingly popular William Henry Harrison, who had narrowly lost to Van Buren in 1836.  With an election on his mind, Van Buren allegedly told Smith words that would reverberate throughout Mormon history: “Your cause is just, but I cannot help you.  If I help you, I will lose the vote of the state of Missouri.”

Smith realized what he was up against.  He knew the Mormons would never receive a fair trial in Missouri. He believed strongly that Missourians who understood this had helped him escape.  But Van Buren’s callousness shook Smith at a deeper level.  Smith wrote that Van Buren was merely “an office-seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition.”

What the future held

It is a reflection of the magnitude and scope of presidential power that a brief meeting with a president can have a major impact on Americans, whereas to the president, it may have been of minor significance.  The mostly Mormon scholars who have attempted to research this episode have found that the meeting between Smith and Van Buren was not mentioned in Van Buren’s papers.  But for the Mormons, the meeting was a pivotal event, which can be seen from Smith’s reaction to it.

After the meeting, Smith came to the same realization that every other group new to America does, that the best way for Mormons to gain the protection of the government was to seek public office themselves.  Smith worked with the Illinois legislature to build protections for Mormons into Nauvoo’s City Charter, held office in Nauvoo himself, and, in 1844, Smith ran for president.  With patience and in time, the Mormons have followed Smith’s lead and flourished.

As of writing this, Utah’s United States Senator Orrin Hatch, a Mormon, is President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.  By law, Hatch is third in line for the presidency following the Vice-President and Speaker of the House of Representatives.  In 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney headed the Republican Party’s ticket and was the first Mormon major-party nominee for president.  Governor Romney surprised many by publicly considering a run for the presidency again in 2016.  And while Mr. Romney ultimately decided to pass on standing for the presidency again, it could not have been an easy decision in light of Mormon history and Mr. Romney's knowledge that he has represented, in his lifetime, the best hope of a Mormon becoming president and perhaps gaining an increased acceptance for a faith that remains frequently misunderstood.

Van Buren, despite not offending Missouri, lost the 1840 election to William Henry Harrison.  It cannot be said that his treatment of the Mormons played any role in his loss.  The reality is that Van Buren’s loss likely had more to do with the Panic of 1837 and the economic depression that followed, and the growing factionalism in America that pit the North against the South and both of them against the West.

Missouri, for its part, did eventually acknowledge its wrongs.  In 1976, the state finally formally rescinded Governor Boggs’ extermination order.  In his order, Governor Christopher Bond expressed deep regret on behalf of all Missourians for the injustice and undue suffering caused to Mormons in 1838.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, do feel free to share it! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

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

Author’s Note:  The author gratefully acknowledges the research guidance of Latter Day Saints Elizabeth Vogelmann and Dr. Steven C. Harper in preparing this article.  Any errors in summarizing Mormon belief are solely the author’s own.

Sources

Miller Center of the University of Virginia, American President Martin Van Buren (http://millercenter.org/president/vanburen).

• Fire and Sword: A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, 1836-1839, Leland H. Gentry and Todd M. Compton (Greg Kofford Books, 2010).  See, Chapters 9 & 10.
• Rough Stone Rolling: The Life of Joseph Smith, Richard Lyman Bushman (Random House 2007).  See, Chapters 19-22.
• Running for President: The Candidates and Their Images: 1789-1896 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Ed.) “1836,” Daniel Feller, author.
• Missouri State Archives: The Missouri Mormon War (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/mormon.asp).
• Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, Richard Neitzel Holsapfel and Kent P. Jackson, eds. “1839-1840: Joseph Smith Goes to Washington,” Ronald O. Barney, author (Deseret Book, 2010).  Taken from online source: (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-and-seer/joseph-smith-goes-washington-1839-40).

Five of the best articles in 2014

Over the course of 2014 we have had a great variety of fascinating blog articles on the site. Below are 5 of our favorites...

George Washington on his Deathbed by Junius Brutus Stearns. 1851.

1. In this sadly fascinating article, Robert Walsh considers an American battle that took place on the last day of World War I – and the absurd and terrible reason behind it. Article here.
2. Nick Tingley writes here on a fascinating topic. He postulates on what could have happened had the 1944 Normandy Landings against Nazi Germany taken place in 1943. As we shall see, things may well have not turned out as well as they did… Article here.
   
3. In this extended article, Rebecca Fachner looks at the story of King Henry VIII’s seventh wife – the one that got away. We venture in to the tale of Catherine Willoughby, one of the most enchanting women of her age and Henry VIII’s would-be wife.
   
4. Helen Saker-Parsons considers the fascinating similarities between the sons of two very important men who were killed in tragic circumstances – John F Kennedy and Tsar Michael II of Russia. Article here.
   
5. William Bodkin tells us the fascinating story of William Thornton, the man who wanted to resurrect George Washington after his death. Article here.
   

We hope you find those articles fascinating! And because we really like you, here is one more:

Tanks have been integral to armies since World War One. But over the years a number of prototype designs have been made that never quite worked. Here, Adrian Burrows tells us about the most bizarre tank designs… Article here.

If you enjoyed any of these articles, please do tell others by sharing, liking or tweeting about this article. Simply click one of the buttons below!

George Levrier-Jones

Andrew Jackson and the Birth of Modern Presidential Campaigns

Andrew Jackson was in many ways the first ‘self-made’ president of the USA. Not a member of any of the traditional ‘elites’, Jackson fought his way up to the top. And after being robbed of victory in the 1824 presidential election, he created an innovative way to win in 1828. William Bodkin explains.

A colored image of Andre Jackson, US President 1829-1837.

Andrew Jackson was different from the presidents who preceded him.  Neither a Founding Father nor a Founding Son, he was not a prosperous Virginia landowner and was not a member of one of Massachusetts’ preeminent families.  Perhaps as a result, after having had the presidency essentially stolen from him in 1824 despite winning the popular vote, Jackson and his supporters felt he needed something extra to put him over the top.

In 1828, something happened that provided the template for nearly every later presidential campaign.

Becoming Old Hickory

But what made Jackson a presidential contender? Jackson was, in many ways, the first presidential candidate from the “up-by-your-bootstraps” American tradition.  Born in the backwoods of North Carolina in 1767, Jackson first distinguished himself as a teenage soldier in the Revolutionary War fighting with an American irregular unit.  But the war was cruel to Jackson’s family.  One brother died in combat, and Jackson’s mother and other brother died of smallpox immediately after the war in 1781.  Jackson, then aged fifteen, was a battle-hardened veteran, alone and adrift in the world.

The law provided solace and eventually the path to accomplishment.  Jackson read law for two years in North Carolina, and then took the opportunity to become a public prosecutor in Nashville.  His career took off in the then frontier town: lawyer, delegate to Tennessee’s Constitutional Convention, the State’s first Congressman, a Senator, and then a return home to be a Superior Court judge.  It was while judge that Jackson, in 1802, challenged the state’s governor in an election to be major general of the Tennessee militia. Jackson won handily.  Further military exploits would prove elusive, though, until the War of 1812.

During the winter of 1812-1813, the call came for the Tennessee state militia to defend New Orleans.  Jackson mustered 2,000 men, and, in January 1813, marched them as far as Natchez, Mississippi.  For reasons that were unclear at the time and remain so to this day, the Secretary of War ordered Jackson to disband his men and head back to Nashville.  But neither provisions nor pay were provided for the march home.  Jackson thundered that he and his men had been abandoned in a strange country, but he vowed that he would never leave his men and would make every sacrifice to ensure his army’s safe return to Nashville.  Jackson ordered his officers off their horses, and he gave up his own horses so volunteers who were sick or injured could ride back.  Jackson, on foot, led the march back to Nashville.  By the end of the journey, his men were calling him “Old Hickory” in tribute to his steadfastness and courage.  Heroism, and an all-out rout of the British at New Orleans, came later.

Pursuing the Presidency

How was the 1824 election stolen from Old Hickory? Jackson was one of four presidential candidates that year, alongside John Quincy Adams, who had most recently served as James Monroe’s Secretary of State, William Crawford, who had most recently served as Monroe’s Secretary of the Treasury, and Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House of Representatives.   Jackson won the popular vote, but no candidate won a majority of the Electoral College vote, sending the election to the House of Representatives.  Clay, who had led some of the campaign’s sharpest attacks on Jackson, simply could not stand to see the presidency go to a man he thoroughly despised.  Instead, Clay cut a deal with the supporters of John Quincy Adams to give his support to him in exchange for being nominated Secretary of State.  Adams agreed, and what would go down in history as the “Corrupt Bargain” was sealed.

Following this defeat, on his return to Nashville from Washington, Jackson was greeted at every stop by supporters who expressed their fury.  There was a will to overturn the Corrupt Bargain; all that was needed was the way.  Into this breach stepped the United States Senator from New York, Martin Van Buren.  Van Buren was the head of the “Albany Regency”, which was the first political machine in the United States.  Through a shrewd combination of strict enforcement of party loyalty and strategic rewards via patronage appointments, Van Buren had gained control of New York State, and was eventually sent to represent it in the Senate while his loyalists maintained their grip at home.

Van Buren, perhaps a pure political pragmatist, chose as his first task the co-opting of John Quincy Adams’ Vice President, South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun.  Van Buren sought to bring about an alliance of the plantation owners of the South and the Republicans of the North to deny Adams a second term.  Calhoun, who had become completely alienated by John Quincy Adams, agreed to run as Jackson’s Vice-President.  However, even as Van Buren courted various political leaders on Jackson’s behalf, he did not lose sight of the opportunity to court the popular vote.  In doing so, Van Buren drew a sharp contrast between his war hero candidate and the notoriously aloof Adams, who, concerning his reelection, had observed that if the nation wanted his continued services as president, it must ask for them.  Van Buren and his associates hatched a plan that revolved around Jackson’s rough-hewn image, embodied by his “Old Hickory” nickname.

Selling Old Hickory

“Old Hickory” became the first brand name in presidential politics.  Local political organizations supporting Jackson became “Hickory Clubs,” raising “Hickory poles” and planting hickory trees at barbecues and rallies.  Drawings of hickory branches and leaves, along with likeness of Jackson adorned campaign paraphernalia, from badges to plates and pitchers, even snuffboxes and ladies’ combs.  The Jackson campaign became a popular juggernaut the likes of which the new nation had never seen before, and that the Adams forces were powerless to stop.

Not that they didn’t try.  Jackson was roundly pilloried for his marriage to his beloved wife, Rachel, whom he had the misfortune to meet while she was married to another man.  They were smitten with each other nonetheless, and lived together as man and wife for years in the early 1800s before she received her divorce.  The Jackson forces explained the oversight by stating that the couple thought Rachel had received her divorce, and quickly remedied it when they learned she had not.  Jackson’s mother was not even spared the vitriol.  One newspaper editor questioned Jackson’s parentage, printing that Old Hickory’s mother was a prostitute who had been brought to America by British soldiers, and who afterward married a mulatto with whom she had several children, Jackson being one.

These attacks, though, were of no avail.  Jackson captured 56% of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote over Adams 178-83.  The campaign masterminded by Van Buren expertly exploited the growth in importance of the popular vote in American politics, as the nation drifted away from the Founders and began to carve out a separate, more democratic, identity.  Politics, in many ways, became a form of entertainment and sport for the people, with the “Old Hickory” collectibles and Jackson’s mass appeal forming a common bond among the common man, whether he lived in New York State, Tennessee, or Florida.  So next time election season rolls around, and your neighborhood is once again awash in buntings, yard signs, pins, bumper stickers and coffee mugs promoting the candidates, give thanks to Andrew Jackson, and really Martin Van Buren. And remember that in America, campaign marketing and merchandise, in its own way, helped forge the many states into one Union.

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!

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

Sources

• Jules Witcover, Party of the People, a History of the Democrats, Chapter 7, “Jacksonian Democracy” (Random House, 2003).
• Jon Meacham, “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.” (Random House, 2008).
• Miller Center of the University of Virginia (www.millercenter.org); American President Andrew Jackson (http://millercenter.org/president/jackson).
• “The 1824 Election and the Corrupt Bargain” (http://www.ushistory.org/us/23d.asp).
• Public Relations Society of America, “Andrew Jackson—Founding Father of Politics As Usual” (http://www.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7630/105/Bonus_online_article_Andrew_Jackson_founding_fathe#.VIUW5ofq2EQ).
• John C. Calhoun, 7th Vice President (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Calhoun.htm).

Walt Whitman and the American Civil War

Walt Whitman was a famed and much liked nineteenth century poet. Even so, during the American Civil War, he had a number of issues to contend with, most notably when he thought that his brother appeared on the casualty list. Here, C.A. Newberry shares Walt’s Civil War story.

Walt Whitman by George Collins Cox in 1887.

The Battle of Fredericksburg set off a chain of events that provided a defining period in the life of famed poet, Walt Whitman. What may be surprising is that he wasn’t anywhere near the battle site when this sequence was set in motion.

This prominent battle took place in December of 1862. Historians have recorded this battle as one of the most monumental events of the Civil War. There were some 172,000 troops and 18,000 casualties. It was also significant due to the fact it was probably the greatest victory for the Confederate Army.

Family History

Long before the Civil War began, Walt Whitman Sr. married Louisa Van Velsor. They raised their family in and around Brooklyn, New York. Walt Whitman Jr. was the second of nine children. Three of his brothers were named after great American leaders: Andrew Jackson Whitman, George Washington Whitman, and Thomas Jefferson Whitman.

George Washington Whitman, who was ten years younger than brother Walt, lived up to his namesake when he answered the call to enlist just after the rebel attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. In the fall of that year George enlisted with the fifty-first New York Volunteers to serve for three years. George was actively involved in the Battle of Fredericksburg on those fateful days in December.

A Disturbing Entry

Back at home the Whitman family checked the daily newspapers and poured over the lists of wounded. One day the name “G.W. Whitmore” appeared on the casualty register. The family was apprehensive, fearing this was just a muddled version of George’s name. So, straight away, Walt set out on a quest to find his sibling in Virginia.

The Search for George

His journey to find his brother was fraught with challenges. At one point, while changing trains, he was pick-pocketed. He forged ahead penniless, until he was fortunate enough to run into a fellow writer who was able to loan him the funds to continue. When he arrived in Washington he spent his time searching through nearly forty hospitals. This search proved futile.

Desperate to continue the search, Walt was able to arrange transportation with both a government boat and an army-controlled train that delivered him straight to the battlefield at Fredericksburg. His hope was to discover his brother there. To his relief he was able to locate George’s unit and discovered that George had indeed been injured but with only a superficial facial wound.

After his arrival to the battlefield he began visits to the makeshift hospitals, which were mostly made up of deserted army barracks. It is well documented that Walt was greatly impacted after seeing a heap of amputated body parts lying outside. Walt then made the decision to stay with George at the Fredericksburg camp for almost two weeks. He spent his time logging entries in his personal journal and visiting wounded soldiers, both on the battlefield and the makeshift hospitals.

At the end of his visit Walt was asked to assist in relocating wounded soldiers to other Washington hospitals. On arriving in Washington he began to visit the soldiers that he had accompanied from Virginia, extending his rounds to include other wounded soldiers who were staying in the hospitals. His visits became routine, with his days spent tending to the wounded, reading aloud, helping soldiers to write letters to home, and distributing gifts.

Extensive Time in Washington

Walt’s stay in Washington lasted for eleven years. In this period he held varying jobs, including a clerk’s position at the Department of the Interior. But when James Harlan, who was the Secretary of the Interior, discovered that Walt was actually the author of Leaves of Grass, he was immediately released from this position. Secretary Harlan found the publication offensive and did not feel Walt should have a position in the department.

Nevertheless, he succeeded in the considerable task of supporting himself. He held jobs, received modest royalties, and was sent money by writer friends. The majority of his income was dedicated to buying nursing supplies and gifts for the wounded who he spent time tending. 

A Changed Man

At this point in time nursing was unorganized and haphazard. There was a lack of training and definition. Walt’s time as a nurse would probably be categorized as volunteering in later years. However, Walt took a great deal of pride in his status as a volunteer nurse and a ‘consultant’ to the wounded. And he even received an appointment from the Christian Commission, a branch of the YMCA.

Walt considered this glimpse into the military hospital world a cherished time. He would later share that this time period served as “the very center, circumference, umbilicus, of my whole career”.

To witness those effects one only has to read one of his pieces, Drum Taps:

Aroused and angry,

I thought to beat the alarum, and urge relentless war;

But soon my fingers fail’d me, my face droop’d, and I resign'd myself,

To sit by the wounded and soothe them, or silently watch the dead.

Walt Whitman was forever altered by this point in time. Historians recorded that war affected his well-being, both physically and mentally. This also led to a change in his writing, becoming more focused on recording his observations from the war and his hundreds of hospital visits. For us, he provided an invaluable glimpse into this significant point in history and will forever continue to speak to us through his poetry and beautifully written words.

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

Sources

The Walt Whitman Archive, edited by Ed Folsom and Kenneth M. Price, Published by the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (The Walt Whitman Archive is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which allows others to distribute and adapt our work, so long as they credit the Whitman Archive, make their work available non-commercially, and distribute their work under the same terms) (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

“Fredericksburg”, maintained by the Civil War Trust Staff & Board, www.civilwar.org. (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

History’s Favorite Nurses, Maryville University (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

Walt Whitman, American Writer and Civil War Nurse, by Elizabeth Hanink, RN, BSN, PHN, posted on Working Nurse (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

John Quincy Adams and the fight for the Union

John Quincy Adams was not a Founding Father, but he was a ‘Founding Son’. Here, William Bodkin continues his series on the presidents of the USA. He looks at a fascinating tale of how John Quincy Adams fought to preserve the Union against “States’ rights” over 50 years after the end of the American Revolutionary War.

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

John Quincy Adams, 1858. Painting by G.P.A. Healy.

Even though he was not a member of America’s Founding generation, John Quincy Adams had much in common with the Founders.  We can even call him their first son. For example, like his father, John Adams, John Quincy Adams’ time as president was likely his least important contribution to the Republic.  John Quincy Adams’ life was a litany of service to the nation; Ambassador, Senator, Secretary of State, President, and then, finally, Congressman representing his home district in Massachusetts.[1]  It was during his time in Congress that the younger Adams secured the esteem that often eluded his family.  His debating skills earned him the nickname “The Old Man Eloquent” and he stood, during a time when the American Union was being gradually torn apart by slavery, as a reminder of the importance of unity in the United States.

1839 was a pivotal year in this regard.  Adams was nearing the height of his post-presidential influence, which culminated in his 1841 argument of the Amistad case before the Supreme Court, where he helped secure freedom for Africans who had been kidnapped in violation of international law and treaties to be sold as slaves.[2]  1839 helped lay the foundation for the successes to come.

In December 1839, a fight for control of the House of Representatives was resolved only when Adams himself agreed to preside over the chamber.  Following the 1838 election, two delegations from New Jersey presented themselves in the House, one Democrat (pro-slavery), one Whig (anti-slavery).  Control of the House, which was evenly split between the two parties, hinged on which New Jersey faction was seated.  In the absence of a Speaker, usually elected by the majority party, the Clerk of the House controlled debate and called for votes.  But the Clerk was a Democrat seeking to preserve his party’s rule.  He refused to do anything, and would not call votes, even to adjourn.  After five days of chaos, Adams, then a Whig, rose and made an impassioned plea directly to his fellow Congressman to override the Clerk, whom he thundered was in defiance of the will of the people and who was holding the whole Congress, ironically enough his employers, in contempt.  When someone asked who would “put the question” to a vote since the Clerk refused, Adams, in complete disregard for parliamentary procedure, declared that he would.

A RALLYING POINT

Stirred by Adams’ speech, a Democratic member who was usually a bitter opponent of Adams, Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, proposed that the oldest member of Congress serve as temporary Speaker.  When he declined, Rhett then rallied Democrats and Whigs alike behind Adams.  As the chamber erupted in cheers, Adams was escorted to the dais to preside in the wholly manufactured role of “Chairman of the House of Representatives”, replacing the Clerk.  Adams filled the role for nearly two weeks until a compromise candidate for Speaker was settled on.[3] 

But while in December 1839 Adams was a rallying point for Democrat and Whig alike, in April of that year he used his status as Founding Son and former president to attack one of the Democrats’ favorite arguments supporting slavery, that of “states’ rights” over the federal government.  The occasion was an oration Adams delivered at the New York Historical Society celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Stated Constitution.[4]

Adams viewed “states’ rights” as an insult to the principles his father fought for in the Revolution.  Adams seized on the opportunity of the “Jubilee of the Constitution” to follow once more in his father’s footsteps. He strove to establish a unified theory of the American Founding, one based on the idea that sovereignty in the United States, i.e., supreme power and authority, rested not in “states’ rights” over the federal government, but in the power of the people over both the states and the federal government, each of which should be looked at warily as potential usurpers of the people’s power.

Adams based his argument in the Revolution itself, contending that the act of declaring Independence from Britain was one of all the people of the United States renouncing allegiance to the “British crown”, and seizing anew for themselves the “natural rights of mankind”.  Adams described it as the “whole people” declaring, “in their united condition,” that they were “free and independent.”[5]

Adams, like his father, believed that following the Declaration of Independence, the former colonies had, in truth, no government.[6]  The former colonists decided that the most practical course was to constitute themselves as independent states along their old colonial boundaries, and for the people of each state to draft their own state constitutions.  While this decision was correct, Adams believed that it led to the near fatal error of the new states, the decision to relax the Union that had fought and forged Independence into a “league of friendship” between “sovereign and independent states”[7], placing the states over the Union.  Adams argued that as a result of the Articles of Confederation, the “nation fell into atrophy” and the “[t]he Union languished to the point of death.”[8]

AN UNSETTLED DEBATE

Rebirth was needed, and it came, according to Adams, in the form of the new Constitution, with George Washington at its head.  Adams asserted that the Constitution was the perfect “complement” to the Declaration of Independence, as they were based on the same principles.   Adams believed that the Declaration and the Constitution were “parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government.”  The theory was that the “people were the only legitimate source of power” and that “all just powers of government were derived from the consent of the governed” and not the consent of the states.  In Adams’ formulation, “We, the People” of the American Union had again come together, as surely as they had to throw off the despotic rule of George III, to throw off the Articles of Confederation.  Adams derided states’ rights as “grossly immoral,” and the “dishonest doctrine of despotic stare sovereignty.”  Those who advanced it were advocating a theory of government that stood in direct opposition to the principles of the Founding Era.[9]

John Quincy Adams took this fight personally.  It had been the life’s work of his family for two generations.  As history tells us, however, the lawyerly arguments of John Quincy Adams did not carry the day.  It took the near apocalyptic bloodshed of the Civil War to preserve the Union.  And even that did not end the debate over the idea that states’ rights were superior to the federal government.  The argument continues to this day,[10] with various “popular” movements making the case for states’ rights and secession from the Union.[11]  Governors from various states have asserted that their state can handle any American issue better than the federal government, from containing Ebola, to immigration, to health care.

But there seems to be one key difference between John Quincy Adams’ era and the present day, and that is in the apparent unwillingness of any major public figure to make the case for Union, and why the American Republic, for all its flaws, remains better, stronger, and more free together than it ever could broken into its constituent parts.  Indeed, there seems to be no one to argue on behalf of all the American people why the more perfect union they established must endure.

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!

1. “The Election of John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts” on http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-election-of-John-Quincy-Adams-of-Massachusetts/

2. See, Teaching With Documents, the Amistad Case. (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/amistad/)

3. http://history.house.gov/Blog/Detail/15032404472

4. “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” by John Quincy Adams, Published by Samuel Colman, Astor House, 1839. (“Jubilee”).

5. Jubilee, p.6

6. See, e.g., Ellis, Joseph, “American Summer,” Chapter 1, “Prudence Dictates” (Knopf 2013).

7. Jubilee at 10.

8. Jubilee at 11.

9. Jubilee, 40-42

10. See, “Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-usa-secession-exclusive-idUSKBN0HE19U20140919

11. See, “Americans for Independence…From America” (http://www.ozy.com/acumen/americans-for-independence-from-america/35354)

Who Freed the Slaves in America?

Slavery finally came to an end in the United States during the 1860s. But who should take credit for freeing the slaves? The slaves themselves or the Union Army that defeated the Confederacy in the US Civil War? Hannah McDermott tells us what she thinks…

Fugitive slaves in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia. David Edward Cronin, 1888. Many fugitive slaves joined the Union Army in the US Civil War.

In a letter to Horace Greeley in August 1862, President Abraham Lincoln declared that his ‘paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery’.[1] Yet by the end of the American Civil war the enslavement of blacks had been formally abolished thanks in part to legislation such as the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as the post-war 13th Amendment to the Constitution. In popular memory, the man responsible for these great changes to American society is Lincoln; remembered as the ‘Great Emancipator’ and depicted as physically breaking the shackles binding African Americans to their masters. Though it is true enough that the inauguration of this Illinois statesman and his Republican administration provided Southern slave owners with an excuse to push for secession and defend their property from what they claimed to be an imminent threat, Lincoln was very clear in his presidential campaign and at the outset of his presidential term that his aim was not to touch slavery where it already existed, but simply to prevent its expansion. Was the President, therefore, as integral to the demise of black enslavement as has been suggested?

If the role of Lincoln as the driving force is to be questioned, it follows to ask what other influences were at play. More recently, some historians have done just this. In the wake of the social and political upheaval of the later 20th century, the American academy has produced a ‘new social history’, of which has led to a separate branch of Civil War historiography looking to the role of the slaves themselves in securing their own freedom. Historians such as Ira Berlin have emphasized the grass-roots movement of black slaves during the war, and their personal fight for freedom through escaping to Union territory and challenging the status quo. However, it is difficult to view these historical people and events in complete isolation. Thus, in this essay, I will examine the actions of slaves in conjunction with that of the Union army and also the administration in order to illustrate how the process was more complex and multi-layered than simply one person, or one group, as the harbinger of emancipation.

Slaves and the Escape to Union Lines

Slaves were far from the passive and docile creatures that some pro-slavery activists liked to suggest. A steady trickle made the passage North even before the Civil War began, where their presence shaped the anti-slavery activities of white northern men. Frederick Douglass, for example, was a former slave who had managed to escape from his southern house of bondage in 1838. Douglass brought a unique perspective that would influence the abolition movement since he was able to express the hardships of enslaved blacks, as well as demonstrate the intelligence and capabilities of African Americans to northern audiences.

It was during the Civil War, however, that the number of slaves running away from their masters reached its peak and was largely based on the knowledge that refuge could be sought within the lines of the Union army. Prior to the Fugitive Slave Act, those who escaped to ‘free soil’, non-slaveholding regions, were considered to have self-emancipated; during the war, proximity to free soil was increased as the Union lines crept further and further south.[2]

From the outset of war, thousands of African Americans flooded Union camps, sometimes in family units, and left army generals wondering how they should respond. After entering Kentucky in the fall of 1861, General Alexander McDowell McCook appealed for guidance from his superior, General William T. Sherman, on how he should respond to the arrival of fugitive slaves. McCook worriedly declared to Sherman that ‘ten have come into my camp within as many hours’ and ‘from what they say, there will be a general stampeed [sic] of slaves from the other side of Green River.’[3] General Ambrose E. Burnside faced a similar situation in March 1862, describing how the federally occupied city of New Bern, North Carolina, was ‘overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and plantations’ and that the ‘negroes…seemed to be wild with excitement and delight.’[4] Such encounters would continue throughout the war as slaves made the decision to leave behind their life of enslavement for the hope of a better life with the advancing ‘Yankees’.

The Union Army: Active and Passive Advocates of Emancipation

Though it is clear that slaves made the personal decision to runaway, it was one that was facilitated by the context of war. While there were exceptions to this, including stories of slaves found hiding in swamps only 100 feet from their master’s homes, most had a destination in mind when they fled. Archy Vaughn’s escape is a case in point. One spring evening in 1864, Archy Vaughn, a slave from a small town in Tennessee, made a potentially life-changing decision. As the sun went down, Vaughn stole an old mare and travelled to the ferry across the nearby Wolf River, hoping that he would be able to reach the federal lines he had heard were positioned at Laffayette Depot. Unfortunately for the Tennessean slave, luck was not on his side. Caught near the ferry, he was returned to his angry master, Bartlet Ciles, who decided that an appropriate form of punishment for such misbehavior was to castrate Vaughn and to cut off a piece of his left ear. [5] In spite of the barbaric outcome, that Vaughn was hoping to ‘get into federal lines’ is demonstrative of how many slaves departed plantations on the basis that they would be able to seek refuge within the lines of the Union army.[6]

Indeed, the role of the Union army was crucial to the shaping of the future of fugitive slaves. Though this took various shapes and forms, it is a contribution that makes it impossible to view the road to freedom as one that slaves traversed alone and unaided. Some generals took a pragmatic approach to the situation they faced when entering slave-holding territory. General Benjamin Butler and his ‘contraband’ policy are noteworthy in this instance as examples of the army capitalizing on the events of the war. In July 1861, General Butler wrote a report to the Secretary of War detailing his view on how runaway slaves should be treated by the Union army which would become known as Butler’s ‘contraband’ theory. Here he made an emphatic resolution, decreeing that in rebel states, ‘I would confiscate that which was used to oppose my arms, and take all the property, which constituted the wealth of that state, and furnished the means by which the war is prosecuted.’[7]  Hinting at the two-fold benefit of adding to the workforce of Union troops and damaging the rebellion’s foundation simultaneously, Butler’s theory that fugitive slaves were ‘contraband’ was the first to explicitly express the potential gains to be made from legitimizing the harboring of ex-slaves.

Other generals were more vocal of their hatred towards slavery, and more aggressive in the tactics they employed. One incident was General John C. Frémont’s proclamation of August 30, 1861, which placed the state of Missouri under martial law, decreed that all property of those bearing arms in rebellion would be confiscated, including slaves, and that confiscated slaves would subsequently be declared free.[8] Frémont’s proclamation at this stage in the war was provocative and quite blatantly breached official federal policy; slaves could be emancipated under martial law when they came into contact with Union lines, and this had certainly not been the case here.[9] Lincoln ordered that the general rescind the proclamation, but its initial impact was not lost, for it had signaled the possible direction that the focus of the conflict could be turned toward, and substantiated southern beliefs that the northern war aims were centered around an impetus to rid the nation of the evils of slavery.

Frémont was not alone in pushing the legal and political boundaries set by the administration, and similar occurrences repeated themselves throughout the war. Even when blocked by Lincoln, as in the case above, abolitionist Union officers were essential in the changing direction of the war. Whilst not all Union troops were politically motivated, the combination of those realizing the value of slaves in bolstering the war effort and those of an anti-slavery persuasion like General Frémont was an effective tool in aiding and sustaining the freedom of slaves across the United States.

The Republican Administration and Emancipation

In studying the response of the Union military it is easy to come to the conclusion that the federal government often lagged behind or was slow to respond to what was already happening within the Union army, or even that they were less supportive of the plight of the slaves during the war. Indeed Lincoln and his administration are often criticized on their attitude towards making the Civil War a war to free the slaves, particularly by historians who place the responsibility of slave emancipation on the efforts of the slaves themselves. Berlin describes the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation as ‘a document whose grand title promised so much but whose bland words delivered so little’, and further states that it freed not a single slave that had not been freed under the legislation passed by Congress the previous year in the Second Confiscation Act.[10] First of all, that the First and Second Confiscation Acts were the products of the administration should be noted. The Second, as referenced by Berlin, declared that any person who thereafter aided the rebellion would have their slaves set free.[11] Secondly, the notion that the Emancipation Proclamation was in essence no more than a grandly worded document without any backbone is false when it is understood how the proclamation’s inclusion of black conscription had wider repercussions for the Union military effort and the attainment of black freedom. Though examples of blacks serving in the military are visible before Lincoln’s proclamation, for instance Jim Lane’s 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Infantry formed in 1862, the new federal policy made this a much more frequent occurrence. This is also to say nothing of the emotional and moral impact such a document made on the psyche of the African American community.

Though it can be conceded that the Emancipation Proclamation positively contributed to emancipation efforts, it would be wrong to claim as James McPherson does that Lincoln played ‘the central role’ in ending the institution of bondage.[12] The same is true for evaluations of subsequent abolitionist legislation, notably the Thirteenth Amendment. Oakes’ emphatic declaration that the amendment, which formally prohibited slavery across the United States, ‘irreversibly destroyed’ slavery is correct in highlighting the importance of an anti-slavery constitutional amendment but simultaneously overshadows the role played by non-political actors in the fight for freedom.[13] The movement of slaves towards federal lines and the protection they were then given is surely comparable to the effects of the Thirteenth Amendment, despite being described by Carwardine as ‘the only means of guaranteeing that African Americans be “forever free”.’[14]

Instead, as this essay has demonstrated, the freeing of slaves during the Civil War is best understood as a multi-layered, interactive process. Slaves were not passive participators; they could and would act on the opportunities to leave behind a life of slavery for one of freedom. Though things might not always go to plan, as Archy Vaughn’s violent tale illustrates, the impetus to leave among enslaved African Americans was strong. Nevertheless, they did not free themselves. The action of slaves alone was not enough to ensure freedom, and the slaves themselves knew this. The decision to seek refuge with the federal army is indicative of how slaves predicated their choice to leave from the very beginning on the support of Union military power. Members of the federal forces were also not passive agents in the emancipation journey. While General Frémont, for example, may have identified the need to destroy slavery from the very beginning of the conflict, by the end of the war there was a shared sentiment among the Union forces that the use of ex-slaves in the fight against the South, menial tasks and armed battle included, was a vital component of the war effort. The federal administration realized this too; implementing policies that further aided and legitimized the support given by the army to slaves, as well as enhanced the contributions made by slaves to the achievement of Union victory. Slaves were freed, therefore, through the interaction of the mutually reinforcing interests of fugitive slaves and the Union war effort. It was this collaboration that enabled the mutually beneficial outcome in which the Confederacy was defeated at the hands of an emancipating Union vanguard.

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

1. To Horace Greeley, 22 August 1862 in Roy P. Basler (ed.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953-1955) v, 389

2. James Oakes, Freedom National: the Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865 (New York: London, 2013), pp. 194-96

3. Ira Berlin et al (eds.), Free At Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom, and the Civil War (New York, 1992), pp. 13-14

4. Ibid., pp. 35

5. Ibid., pp. 112-113

6. Ibid., pp. 113

7. General Butler’s “Contrabands”, 30 July 1861 in Henry Steele Commager and Milton Cantor (eds.), Documents of American History, 10th edn (New York, 1988) i, 396-97

8. Frémont’s Proclamation on Slaves, 30 August 1861 in Commager and Cantor (eds.), Documents of American History, i, 397-98

9. Oakes, Freedom National, pp. 215

10. Berlin, ‘Who Freed the Slaves?’, pp. 27-29

11. Second Confiscation Act, 17 July 1862 in United States, Statutes At Large (Boston, 1863) XII, pp. 589-92

12. James McPherson, ‘Who Freed the Slaves?’ in Drawn with the Sword (New York: Oxford, 1996), pp. 207

13. Oakes, Freedom National, pp. xiv

14. Carwardine, Lincoln, pp. 228

The end of an era? Swords in the American Civil War

By the 1860s swords played a lesser role in war than they did in earlier periods. Even so, they still had a vital place in some situations. Here, Mykael Ray looks at some of the most important swords at the time of the US Civil War and how they were used.

History has a lot to tell us about where we came from, and how it is we have everything we use every day. With all the important developments we have made through the ages, the advance in weaponry has always been key to a people’s survival. It is during the transition between these advances where things start to get interesting.

The use of the sword was vital in the ancient world, but it has become an obsolete technology.  The US Civil War was part of the beginning of the end for the production of swords for any practical combat use. Firearms were beginning to become more advanced, but the sword still had certain advantages. Below is a short list of swords that still had their place during this transitional period.

A US Cavalry Sabre, 1860s.

1832 Foot Artillery Sword

Crafted in 1832, the foot artillery sword was in circulation through 1872. It was modeled after the French foot artillery sword made in 1816, which in turn was designed after the ancient Roman gladius. Its hilt was made of brass that had a 4 inch cross-guard, its first difference from the gladius, which had no cross-guard at all. The blade itself was straight and double edged with a length of around 19 inches, which is dwarfed by the gladius’ 48 inch blade.

This weapon was not very popular, and wasn’t widely used despite the fact that thousands of them were issued. Its lack of range and minimal hand protection were most likely the largest deterrents, but it was a viable option for extremely close combat. The truly effective use for it was made in the swamps of the South, where it was most commonly used for bushwhacking. It became less of a weapon, and more of a tool for clearing vegetation and forming paths. The French make this assumption more valid with the nickname they gave it, coupe choux. Translated, this means “cabbage cutter”.

Though it remains uncertain how suitable it was for combat, it had its place in military dress.  Not serving as ceremonial swords either, they were considered to be more ornamental than practical, and would have been worn by an artillery regiment during formal occasions.

1860 Light Cavalry Sabre

Designed after the 1840 heavy cavalry sabre, this sword was made slightly smaller and lighter to make it easier to wield. The light cavalry sabre had a 35 inch curved steel blade. Its hilt was made of brass, and had a full brass hand guard that would reach all the way down to the pummel, and was carried in an iron scabbard.

Carried by most any soldier riding a horse, this sabre was mainly used during cavalry charges, where they would ride their horse’s head on into a line of foot soldiers, using the speed and height advantage to cut through enemy lines. This tactic was still popular due to the heavy use of the slow reloading muskets among foot soldiers. The curved design behind the sabre was to optimize the slashing motion used when attacking at speed and height.

Off of the horse, this weapon became more problematic. Its iron scabbard made it too clunky to carry on foot, as the material added extra weight, and the noise it would make gave away its wielder’s position. So, instead of wearing it on their person, they would attach it to their horse, making it readily available for the next cavalry charge, and leaving it behind with the horse when the rider had to dismount and carry on while on foot.

Though not the 1860 light cavalry sabre specifically, officers would use their sabres to issue orders as well. When giving orders to a regiment, visual cues would be more important than a vocalized order, either due to the need to be silent, or the possibility of overbearing background noise. Officers would waive and point, using their sabre as an extension of their arm to signal to soldiers out of earshot, or in the back of a formation.

1860 Cutlass

The 1860 cutlass sword was made specifically for the navy. It is often confused for a sabre, and based on its shape it is easy to see why. The differences however do make it an entirely different sword, despite the fact that it was designed with the sabre in mind. The blade of the sword still has a curve on it, but is overall much straighter and wider than the sabre’s. It is much shorter as well, being 26 inches long. The biggest difference is in the hilt, where it sports a full brass plate for the hand guard instead of a brass cage.

The design was to make fighting in close quarters as effective as possible. It was made short enough to be maneuverable in tight spaces, even when worn on the hip, yet long and heavy enough to be both a practical weapon and rigging tool. During ship boarding ventures, combat was often too tight to have effective use of most firearms, which was amplified even more when going below deck. This is why the cutlass was designed for not only slicing, but also thrusting, making it the weapon of choice for sailors.

When not in combat, the cutlass still proved useful on deck. During an emergency away from shore, it could easily have been used to cut ropes from riggings, and was heavy enough to chop through fallen boards. It would have been a much faster and effective means than using a knife.

Bowie Knife

Practically a sword itself, the bowie knife’s blade was between five and twelve inches long, and fairly consistently an inch and a half wide. Some have even been made to be 24 inches long. The blade is sharp on one side, and the tip is referred to as clip point, which is to say that the blade tapers in towards the point on the unsharpened side of the blade either directly, or concavely.

The uses for this knife are vast, making it the choice utility knife of the civil war. Its common uses were for hunting and skinning, and for self-defense. It has also been known to be used as a razor for shaving, a small hatchet for splitting wood, and a makeshift paddle; most likely while it was still in its leather casing.

Self-defense is the aspect that made it so popular, and is the reason it received its name. It was named after James Bowie, who made use of his knife in a brawl that preceded a public duel in which he killed a man who had just injured him by shooting him, bashing him on the head, and then stabbing him in the sternum. The story was so inspirational that even to this day, that knife is known as the Bowie knife.

Even though swords were still being used later in history, the Civil War proved that their effectiveness in battle was coming to a close. Mounted cavalry would soon start replacing their sabres for newly developed repeating rifles like the Carbine, and the development of the bowie knife proved that a short sword like the foot artillery sword was no longer a convenient secondary weapon. Regardless of where the weapons ended up, they played their part in military history, and still made an impact in a world where they coexisted with firearms.

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

Dr. Howard G. Lanham “Enlisted Swords, Model-1832 Foot Artillery Sword” https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox/149399ce643498b2

Ron S. “Model 1860 Light Cavalry Saber” http://www.americancivilwarforum.com/model-1860-light-cavalry-saber-209577.html

Richard Meckel “Swords” http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/uniform_sword.htm

Norwich University “The Most Important Developments in Human History” http://history.norwich.edu/most-important-developments-in-human-history/

Image reference

Memecry2, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-Kavallerie-II_1867.JPG