The American Civil War: The Legacy of Social and Economic Control

The American Civil War ended in 1865, but its effects lasted a long time – and even linger to this day. Here, Daniel L. Smith returns and presents his views on how economic and social control emerged from the Civil War and last to the present in America.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Freedmen voting in New Orleans in 1867.

It's far from over. In fact, it was never over. Here's a historical clarification to give an insight and some background information into the political 'shadow-war' occurring today in Washington DC and within states nationwide. And that is just the fallout of the ongoing American Civil War. American historians James McPherson and James Hogue, both prominent intellectuals whose area of expertise are in the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, gave an eye-opening account on the forecast of the Democratic Party’s intentions for America in 1857 and beyond.

​“Slavery lies at the root of all shame, poverty, ignorance, tyranny, and imbecility…” With a direct emphasis on the rogue political tactics used to obligate the whole mass of society, “the lords of the lash” (speaking of Democratic politicians and business elites) who “are not only absolute masters of blacks [but] of all non-slave-holding whites, whose freedom is merely nominal, and whose unparalleled literacy and degradation is purposely and fiendishly perpetuated.”[1]

R. H. Purdom would give an early warning: "Decided course for the speedy suppression of the intolerable abuses” taken on by workers was absolutely necessary for the “permanent welfare of the institution of slavery itself.”[2] Mr. Purdom was a master mechanic who stood up to address a meeting in Jackson, Mississippi. He gave a stark warning to the elite’s controlling the southern economy. By this point, even the poor working white class were ready to turn coat on their own institutions.

In September 1865, a prominent leading Democratic politician (just recently pardoned by the federal government after losing the Civil War) publicly scoffed at any idea of the Democratic Party remaining loyal or maintaining good relations with the newly re-established United States government. Even Wade Hampton, one of the South’s wealthiest elite farmers, would mention immediately after the Civil War that it “is our duty” (talking of the post-war Confederates who were legally pardoned of treason) to support the President of the United States; however their loyalty to the new government would only stay intact if “he manifests a disposition to restore all our rights as a sovereign State.”[2]

After war’s end

Even though rebellious military action ceased weeks after the loss, the Democratic Party of the post-Civil War period only declared a momentary political ceasefire. And although they had formally lost, they did not willingly capitulate to the federal government (the Union) at the moment of military surrender. Between April 9 and November 6, 1865, a nearly invisible ‘shadow war’ marked the 'beginning of the end' for the future of political and social cohesion within America.

Democrats had regained power in most Southern states by the late 1870s. Later, this period came to be referred to as "Redemption". From 1890 to 1908, the Democrats passed statutes and amendments to state constitutions that effectively disenfranchised most African Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites. They did this through devices such as poll taxes for voters and literacy tests to “qualify” to vote (among other underhand tactics). By the late 1950s, the Democratic Party began to embrace the Civil Rights Movement, and the old argument that Southern whites had to vote for Democrats "to protect racial segregation" grew weaker.

The Democratic Party realized that regardless of the outcomes of the Civil War and Reconstruction, the policy of "slavery-by-color" was over. Segregation also became incompatible with their party’s ethics, which is to oppress the poor regardless of color. So what did they do? Modernization had brought factories, national businesses and a more diverse culture to cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, and Houston. This attracted many northern migrants, including many African Americans. They gave priority to modernization and economic growth over preservation of the "old ways" of the Democratic Party, but they wanted social and economic control, a process which had started earlier.

Social and economic control

Between 1865 and the late-1880s, prices were falling and people's incomes increased six-fold, so offering American's more purchasing power.[3] The politicians of the New South began feeling the pressures of big businesses complaints that the increased wages were rising fast. It is because of this major economic shift that the attack on the greedy worker was to begin. There was another shift as well. A social one. Now the freedmen (former slaves) and previously non-slave-holding whites, were able to climb the free-market ladder unhindered. For the Democratic Party, it was time to shift the focus to social and economic control.

"Cut their wages to begin with. Make them work harder. To align their interests with their employers, put wage earners on piecework (part-time). Above everything, do something to stop skilled workers from setting the pace of production and spreading to co-workers their spirit of 'manly' resistance to speed-ups" (hostile resistance to forced increases in manual labor). Much like the post-Modern Institutions of Fast Food, Gas, and Retail, one laborer wrote: "You start in to be a man, but you become more and more a machine.... It's like any severe labor. It drags you down mentally and morally, just as it does physically."[4] Of course the Iron Workers during those times had it painstakingly hard physically, but the shift today has moved to being exhausting mentally.

With the Covid-19 Pandemic, Republicans are screaming at Americans to "get out and live!" They want to encourage financial independence and societal success. The Democrats are screaming at Americans to "stay home and save lives!" At this point, for what? One Democratic politician was quoted recently as telling Americans that they should just stay home and "get paid" with the federal government paying out a basic universal income for everybody. And in the future? Who knows, but the way things look, it could possibly be by something as simple as misleading everybody into eventually doing everything from home -and only home.[5]

It is apparent through history's evidence that control is the Democratic Party's modern end-game.

At least it seems that way.

​Enough said.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Bibliography

​[1] McPherson, James M., and James K. Hogue. "The Problems of Peace and Presidential Reconstruction, 1865." In Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, 543. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

[2] Beatty, Jack. "The Problems of Peace and Presidential Reconstruction, 1865." In Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900, 543. New York: Vintage, 2008.

[3] “Mechanical Association,” Mississippian State Gazette, Dec. 29, 1858, 3.

[4] Perrow, Charles. "A Society of Organizations." Theory and Society 20 (1991), 791. doi:10.1007/bf00678095.

[5] Chris Talgo, Opinion Contributor. "Universal Basic Income and the End of the Republic." TheHill. Last modified May 12, 2020.https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/497244-universal-basic-income-and-the-end-of-the-republic.

The Man who Proposed a Jewish State in the 19th Century

Jewish people have been the victim of great discrimination over the centuries. But in 1890s London, one man had a plan that would help to overcome this – an idea that would one day become reality. Here, William Philpott tells us about Theodor Herzl’s attempts to gain support for a Jewish state.

Theodor Herzl in 1897.

The oldest hatred

In November 1895, a young journalist and playwright arrived at Charing Cross Station. Knowing no-one and armed only with a letter of introduction, he set about trying to garner support for what he referred to as his ‘old, new idea’, a scheme which would require a high level diplomatic strategy coupled with substantial funding and he targeted the wealthiest and most influential members of Jewish communities.

Born in Budapest in 1860, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the period known as the European Enlightenment, Theodor Herzl’s subsequent university studies in Vienna initially took him into the legal profession which he later gave up to become a writer. 

In 1894 as the Paris based correspondent of the Vienna based Neue Freie Presse[i] he observed the Dreyfus Affair, where a Jewish French army officer had been charged, found guilty and sentenced to life servitude on Devils Island. What especially disturbed Herzl was the reaction by many observers that Dreyfus was not simply a traitor who happened to be a Jew, but a traitor because he was a Jew. It later transpired that he was completely innocent, the victim of a cover up and the stench of anti-Semitism was integral to the whole affair.

The following year Herzl was in Vienna and witnessed the mayoral election success of the Christian Social Party led by Dr Karl Lueger, a rabid anti-Semite whom Hitler subsequently claimed was a major inspiration for his own transformation to anti-Semitism. 

It was these and other events, coupled with pogroms regularly perpetrated on Jewish communities in Czarist Russia, which Herzl to conclude that as anti-Semitism continued to exist and even thrive in enlightened societies, assimilation had not and could not provide a solution to the Jewish Question. His analysis was that of all the peoples’ of the world, it was the Jews alone who were denied what others took for granted, a state of their own. His prognosis was that only through possessing such a thing would Jews be accepted as having the same value as every nation.

Herzl is widely regarded as the founder of modern political Zionism and proposed that an area of land be purchased large enough to accommodate any Jew needing refuge. To legitimise his scheme he also sought a charter, recognised and sanctioned by international law under the protection of one of the major powers. His focus for land was the Ottoman Empire which had ruled over Palestine for four hundred years.

An astounding proposal

British influence had spread across much of the world and consequently Herzl began his quest at the very seat of its empire visiting on ten occasions in his quest to gain political and financial support for his proposal.

His first contact was made after a hansom cab ride on a foggy evening to the home of the writer Israel Zangwill in Kilburn. Zangwill was quickly sympathetic and opened doors for Herzl to meet other members of the Anglo-Jewish community.

A gathering was hastily arranged to enable Herzl to address the Maccabeans, a group of writers, artists, philosophers and professional men regarded by themselves as ‘such Jews as are untainted by commerce’[ii] who met regularly for dinner and discussion. Although broadly supportive, their political influence and financial standing was not at the level Herzl sought.

When he met Sir Samuel Montagu, a banker and MP for Whitechapel, he appeared sympathetic to Herzl’s scheme but notably failed to make any firm commitment.

In Rabbinical circles, an early sympathiser was Rabbi Simeon Singer who accompanied Herzl to the Bayswater Synagogue and Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler invited Herzl to his home in Finsbury Square; however, he did not commit to support the proposal and soon after became an ardent opponent.

The one journey outside London was to meet Colonel Albert Goldsmid at his regimental home in Cardiff. He had worked for the wealthy Baron von Hirsch who was funding several settlement programmes particularly in Argentina, for Jews seeking to escape pogroms and poverty. Upon hearing Herzl’s proposal, Goldsmid flamboyantly announced ‘I am Daniel Deronda’[iii] the Jewish hero in the book of the same name by George Elliot.

Returning to London, an encouraging offer was made by Asher Myers, editor of the weekly Jewish Chronicle who invited Herzl to submit an article outlining his idea, for inclusion in a future edition.

At the end of his first visit to London, although Herzl was in optimistic mood, in practice few of those he had sought support from had rallied to his scheme and were at best lukewarm or ambivalent.

The article for the Chronicle appeared in January 1896 along with an editorial comment declaring ‘that this is one of the most astounding pronouncements which have ever been put forward on the Jewish Question’ but concluded ‘We hardly anticipate a great future for a scheme which is the outcome of despair’.[iv] As predicted by Myers, Herzl’s article generated little response from its readers.

A false Messiah

However, by the time Herzl returned to London the following summer he had already published his full proposal in a pamphlet. Originally published in German[v] and which became commonly known as The Jewish State, it was quickly translated into several languages including Yiddish, Russian, Romanian, Polish and English.

The publication aroused concerns among many influential Jews, some of whom regarded it as a dangerous folly. Herzl again met with Montagu at the House of Commons, but on this occasion he recognised that the Member of Parliament was prevaricating which was an indication of what was later to become outright opposition. Nonetheless, Herzl began to understand why English Jews should wish to cling to a country where one of their own could now freely enter that place as a master.

Another false dawn appeared when the journalist Lucien Wolf asked to interview Herzl for the Daily Graphic newspaper which was based in the Strand. The interview took place in Herzl’s suite at the Albemarle Hotel, Piccadilly but the final result in print implied that a mystical shroud covered the whole project and Herzl was a ‘new Moses’[vi] who had stepped forth to fulfil the prophesy of a return to Palestine. This was not the practical endorsement hoped for.

Even Zangwill, was now writing that although Herzl had initially startled the community, it had been a seven day wonder and ‘has rather simmered down now’[vii]

Disappointed by the general lack of support from the most influential members of Anglo-Jewry, Herzl accepted a surprise invitation to speak at a mass meeting in the east end of London. On an oppressive Sunday afternoon in July, the Jewish Working Mens’ Club, Gt Alie Street was adorned with posters announcing his attendance. He generated support from many poor Jews who lived and worked in Whitechapel and subsequently described his feelings as he sat on a platform amid overwhelming heat as seeing and hearing ‘my legend being made…..I am the little people’s [sic] man’[viii]. Neither Montagu nor Goldsmid attended.

During his week-long visit, Herzl also met more members of the community and one such meeting took place at the Bevis Marks synagogue. However, he did not fare well and was roundly criticised for both his scheme and his decision to attend the meeting in Whitechapel which was regarded as unnecessarily exciting the masses.

He was challenged by the scholar Claude Montefiore who saw this new political Zionism as a direct threat to Judaism itself and dismissed Herzl as just another false messiah who would ultimately fail as others before had done. The bullion dealer and philanthropist Frederic Mocatta said that the very idea of funding such a scheme would be a great risk to both finances and reputation and could not guarantee the twin objectives of securing land and a charter. He and others mocked what they saw as Herzl’s naivety at the very idea of handing over vast sums of money to the corrupt Turkish Sultan in the belief that the land would be forthcoming.

Even Joseph Prag, a leading light in the Hovevei Zion[ix] movement, the headquarters of which was at Bevis Marks, which was already implementing a limited settlement programme in Palestine, was opposed to the idea of a state and eventually dismissed Herzl with a curt ‘goodbye Dr Herzl’.[x]

To Basel and back

By the time Herzl left London for the second time he had concluded that a great gathering should be organised which would internationalise his proposal and in August 1897 the first Zionist Congress was held in Basle, Switzerland. 

Of the two very wealthy Barons’, Edmund Rothschild who was himself funding several settlements in Palestine wrote, ‘I tell you frankly that I should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish Colony. It would be a ghetto with the prejudices of the ghetto’[xi]. The other, Maurice von Hirsch, who was funding Jewish settlement in Argentina would have nothing to do with the scheme. Herzl now declared ‘This is the cause of the poor Jews, not of the rich ones. The protest of the latter is null, void and worthless’.[xii]

Progress continued and in 1898 Herzl addressed a mass meeting at the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End. A conference was held at Clerkenwell Town Hall resulting in the formation of the English Zionist Federation subsequently inaugurated at the Trocadero, Piccadilly. However opponents were active too and in November, Chief Rabbi Adler preached at the North London synagogue on the subject of ‘Religious versus Political Zionism’.[xiii]

Two years later, perhaps influenced by the development of Zionism in England, the fourth congress was held at the Queens Hall, Langham Place. Herzl arrived one week before the start of the congress but was suffering from a fever. After a few days of confinement to his bed at the Langham Hotel, he was able to attend a rally of English Zionists and the following day was at a garden party in Regents Park.

After a restful night Herzl addressed the Congress and two important objectives were achieved. The first was to gain coverage in the mainstream British media which was generally sympathetic to the idea of a return of Jews to their historic home. The second was the agreement to establish the Jewish Colonial Bank, which he insisted be registered in London, subject to English law and proposed an initial capital of fifty million pounds although in the absence of commitments from wealthy Jews he envisaged public subscription playing a major role.

By then the Zionist movement had taken root throughout the Jewish world, although many such as Anglo-Jewry felt comfortably ensconced in the country where they lived and remained implacably opposed to the very principle of a Jewish homeland.

The final appeal

Since the early 1880s large scale immigration of poor Russian and Polish Jews in particular into the east end had resulted in growing concerns and one response was the creation of the British Brothers League which held a mass meeting at the Peoples’ Palace in Stepney in January 1902. That year Herzl returned to London following an invitation to speak to the Royal Commission into alien immigration and the established leader of the Zionist movement proposed that support of the British government for a Jewish state would reduce the number of those arriving in the UK.

It is possible that Herzl’s representation at the Commission indirectly led to negotiations the following year with Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary about the potential to allow large numbers of Jews to settle in east Africa under some form of self-government, although the scheme was eventually aborted. 

However, time was not on his side and Herzl died in Austria of a heart condition two years later aged forty-four. He had not been the messiah who had led his people back to the Promised Land but he had created and presided over an international movement. Despite many external and internal obstacles during the next four decades, the establishment of the Jewish state to which he had dedicated the last nine years of his life did materialise, the impact of which still resonates in many parts of the world today, over one hundred and twenty years later.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

[i] New Free Press. 

[ii] The Origins of Zionism. Vital. 1990 pp257

[iii] The History of Zionism. Laqueur. 2003 pp101.

[iv] Vital pp258.

[v] Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Losung der Judenfrage. Published by Breitenstein. 1896.

[vi] Daily Graphic. Monday July 6th 1896

[vii] English Zionists and British Jews. Cohen. 1982 pp27. After Herzl’s death, Zangwill formed the Jewish Territorial Organisation (Ito) to identify and secure land other than Palestine for large-migration. 

[viii] Laqueur. pp101.

[ix] Lovers of Zion. 

[x] The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (1-5). Patai. 1960. 

[xi] Zionism the formative years. Vital. 1988 pp141. 

[xii] Vital. 1990 pp257.

[xiii] Cohen pp96.

Did Settlers Commit Genocide in America?

There were several great periods of migration across America. The settlers performed various cruel activities; however was there genocide? Here, Daniel L. Smith returns and presents his views on the question. 

Daniel’s new book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

"Protecting The Settlers". Illustration by JR Browne for his work "The Indians Of California", 1864. Portraying a massacre by militia men of a Native American camp.

It was certainly polarization issues that made the 19th century a true “wild west," and I really find "wild west" fits in every sense of the phrase.

​The American Settler’s from the east came over the Rocky Mountains with both broken dreams and real optimism for a new successful life. Each miner, settler, businessman (or woman), and government employee had their own personal reasons for leading a new life in California. The financial burden of the 1837 financial collapse was a national hardship, and encouraged the soon-to-be settler headed out west.[1] American economist Martin Armstrong wrote, “The U.S. entered a serious economic depression following the failure of the New Orleans cotton brokerage firm, Herman Briggs & Co in March of 1837. Inflated land values, speculation and wildcat banking contributed to the crisis, which became known as the “Hard Times of 1837-1843.” New York banks suspended payments in gold on May 10th and financial panic ensued. At least 800 US banks suspended payment in gold and 618 banks failed before the year was out.”[2]

With the discovery of gold in California and the resulting influx of immigrants, it seemed almost inevitable that the U.S. government would openly authorize the 1862 Homestead Act. This decree would guarantee all American citizens permanent private ownership of newly acquired territory west of the Mississippi River.[3]  Economic growth would boom for the nation given the limitless resources of the newly acquired land. Timber, hunting, fishing, mining, commercial business, and government would take over. It was the principal economic body that California would come to offer a rapidly expanding nation, which was recovering from a financial meltdown. This new economic and cultural opportunity didn’t just benefit the legitimate law-abiding settlers, but this new world also opened up to the criminal and unprincipled elements of American society as well. This was a somber reality to the preceding historical events throughout the mid-19th century.

Violence

This same reality applies to the cultural similarities in unprincipled behavior that both settlers and Native Americans exhibited between each other, as both played a part in antagonizing the other. I stand with Michael Medved by saying that the word genocide does not truly apply to the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American Settlers. Further, in “the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness --- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.”

“But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality. Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World.”[4]

Guns, Germs, and Poor Ethics

UCLA professor Jared Diamond, author of the acclaimed bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, writes:

"Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Colombian Native American population. The most populous and highly organized native societies of North America, the Mississippian chiefdom's, disappeared in that way between 1492 and the late 1600's, even before Europeans themselves made their first settlement on the Mississippi River.” (page 78)

“The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers.” (page 212)

“As for the most advanced native societies of North America, those of the U.S. Southeast and the Mississippi River system, their destruction was accomplished largely by germs alone, introduced by early European explorers and advancing ahead of them" (page 374)

Obviously, the decimation of native populations by European germs represents an enormous tragedy, but in no sense does it represent a crime. Stories of deliberate infection by passing along "small-pox blankets" are based largely on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter and bloody French and Indian War. By that time, Native American populations (including those in the area) had already been terribly impacted by smallpox, and there is no evidence of a particularly devastating outbreak as a result of British policy. Medved writes, “For the most part, Indians were infected by devastating diseases even before they made direct contact with Europeans: other Indians who had already been exposed to the germs, carried them with them to virtually every corner of North America and many British explorers and settlers found empty, abandoned villages (as did the Pilgrims) and greatly reduced populations when they first arrived.”[5]

Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond's book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements - have been the rule rather than the exception.

Finding evidence

I have found a lot of evidence difficult to obtain through large institutions bureaucratic archives. These are crucial for a more thorough and explicit observation on specific events that had occurred in relationship to the unprincipled behaviors and actions of those few individuals or groups. Some of the evidence that I have been able to successfully retrieve truly illustrates this particular viewpoint. Is this finally a small beam of light on the topic of relational nuances that occurred on both sides of the cultural aisle? The truth of the matter is that all of the overall regional hostility came down to certain specific cultural customs or traditions, which also included the erosion (or complete absence) of any personal ethical and moral values.

The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents America’s "original sin" fails to put European contact with these often struggling societies in any context and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in all Americans ignorant of the facts.

Finally, a nation ashamed of its past will fear its future. "One of the most urgent needs in culture and education for the United States of America is discarding the stupid, groundless and anti-American lies that characterize contemporary political correctness. The right place to begin is to confront, resist and reject the all-too-common line that our rightly admired forebears involved themselves in genocide. The early colonists and settlers can hardly qualify as perfect but describing them in Hitlerian, mass-murdering terms represents an act of brain-dead defamation."[6]

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Smith, Daniel L. "New American Settlers." In 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California: The American Settler's First Documented Accounts of their Unwelcome Arrival, 20. Publication Consultants, 2019. Print.

[2] Armstrong, Martin A. "Panic of 1837." Princeton Economic Institute. Last modified January 12, 2014. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/panic-of-1837/. 

[3] "Act of May 20, 1862 (Homestead Act), Public Law 37-64 (12 STAT 392); 5/20/1862; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789 - 2011; General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11; National Archives Building, Washington, DC." DocsTeach, 20 May 1862, www.docsteach.org/documents/document/homestead-act. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.

[4]Medved, Michael. "Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans." Townhall. Last modified September 19, 2007. https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject-the-lie-of-white-genocide-against-native-americans-n989275.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

The Radical Nature of American Politics: A Perspective

America’s society seems increasingly divided these days – but such division has deep origins. Here, Daniel L. Smith offers his perspective on the division of American society and his take on radical politics by going back to slavery and the US Civil War.

Daniel’s new book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

An 1884 depiction of a cotton plantation on the Mississippi. Such plantations were key to the southern US economy for much of the 18th and 19th centuries.

When America was established, it was based not in only one region, but three regions. Northern, Middle and Southern Colonies - each with their own various political charters and slightly differing Christian doctrine. Political and cultural expansion is a complex political and cultural process that takes decades to accomplish, but only at a snail’s pace. The American Colonies started off representative of what the nation would come to be founded upon—an orderly Christian society. One based upon the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, guaranteeing prosperity, as promised in Scripture. Over time, corruption of American doctrine and certainly poor pastoral leadership weakened throughout our nation’s existence, and would give way to the adaptation of certain aristocratic principles, including the slave-driven aspect of the economy in the South.

This flaw in their radical method of economics, politics, and culture would begin to slowly emerge over time. The Democratic Party officially formed in the 1828 election when Andrew Jackson ($20 bill) defeated (Federalist) John Quincy Adams in the presidential election that year. Now before moving ahead, we have to step back for a moment and look at the economics of the South at that time. The economy of the South was largely based on agriculture. Cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar cane, and indigo (a plant that was used for blue dye) were sold as cash crops. Cotton ultimately became the most important staple crop after Ely Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin. More slaves were now needed to pick the cotton and as a result of this slavery became absolutely essential to the South’s economy.

Moving ahead, lead positions in the local governments of the South were typically elected by the minority of farm owners, whom also were elected due to their status as the wealthy farm-elite. Because of this, the South’s policies were ultimately determined by the upper-class plantation owners and their families. It was primarily children of plantation owners who received education. Essentially, the South revolved around plantation life. It’s no surprise that the Southern government municipalities were all monopolized by the "Democratic Elite", this gave the government and business elite the ability to manipulate the decentralized laws set in place for individual states and local governments. Remember, slaves were considered property and not of human value, so giving them zero political or human rights whatsoever.

The Confederacy (composed of Democrats, along with some radical Republicans) fought and lost the Civil War with the fundamental basis of slavery as their way of life. May I remind you all that just because you lose a war it does not mean that you completely lose or even change your ideology? The slaves were 'freedmen' with no social or economic safety net, nor given any formal re-education into American society. At the end of the Civil War, much of the conquered Confederacy lay in ruins. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 and 1868 placed most of the southern states under military rule, requiring Union Army governors to approve appointed officials and candidates for election.

Enfranchised to Disenfranchised

They enfranchised African-American citizens and required voters to recite an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, effectively discouraging still-rebellious individuals from voting, and led to Republican control of many state governments. This was interpreted as anarchy and upheaval by many residents. However, Democrats had regained power in most Southern states by the late 1870s. Later, this period came to be referred to as "Redemption". From 1890 to 1908, the Democrats (who will now also be called the ‘radicals’ for the rest of this article) passed statutes and amendments to their state constitutions that effectively disenfranchised most African Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites. They did this through devices such as poll taxes to vote and literacy tests to “qualify” (among other underhand tactics).

By the late 1950s, the Democratic Party again began to embrace the Civil Rights Movement, and the old argument that Southern whites had to vote for Democrats to protect segregation grew weaker. The Democratic Party realized that regardless of the outcomes of the Civil War and Reconstruction, the policy of "slavery-by-color" was over. Even segregation became an option not viable to their party’s ethics, which was to oppress the poor regardless of color. So how did they do this? Well, modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and a more diverse culture to cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte and Houston. This attracted millions of northern migrants, including many African Americans. They gave priority to modernization and economic growth over preservation of the "old ways" of the Democratic Party.

The radicals shifted their focus to an emphasis on societal engineering that would ultimately program our society into being ego-driven, self-centered, ignorant, and constantly pushed by the media to chase a never-to-arrive dream of money, fame, and power. This new programming in our society started with television (ads and sitcoms) and its ability to mass-manipulate American society, full well knowing that the most vulnerable place to attack a person’s psyche is their own home and place of comfort. Scientists, psychologists, and technologists have all contributed to this - knowingly and unknowingly. Radical leaders have set up institutions specifically aimed at buying up mainstream media outlets and funding universities for the benefit of pushing their political agenda and ethos. Keeping the average family divided morally, and constantly in debt -- morally and financially. This ultimately attacks one’s own personal and fundamental direction in life.

A Wake Up Call

President Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat) was a President whom I believe is the first President to come into the full knowledge of certain political shifts and the public’s manipulation. The quote appeared for the first time anywhere on page 33 of Ronald Kessler’s book, Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World’s Most Powerful Institution, published in 1995. Johnson, like other presidents, would often reveal his true motivations in asides that the press never picked up. During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them (African Americans) voting Democratic for two hundred years.” Further, “That was the reason he was pushing the bill,” said MacMillan, who was present during the conversation. “Not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic Party. He was phony from the word go.” The “MacMillan” referenced above was Ronald M. MacMillan, a former Air Force One steward Kessler interviewed for Inside the White House.

This example illustrates today's radical establishment, which does not reflect the earlier Northern-Democratic party of the early 19th century that carried moderate principles. It seems as though radical policies had been adjusted to remake the Democratic Party of the 1860s. This is not a political rant slamming the Democratic Party, as much as it is a historical discussion to certain facts pertaining to our political and cultural origins. America has been fighting the same cultural battles since the Civil War; however, these battles are being fought in the much larger context of what is American culture.

The information received by the public is much more complex to grasp today; indeed it is harder than ever to find an individual understanding of what “truth” actually means. I guess Phil Collins was right when his band Genesis made the music billboards in the late 1980s with their hit song “Land of Confusion.” It was not just a play on American societal direction and what was to follow in the aftermath of the 1980s, but a seriously powerful and honest observation by a common man with a gift. Misleading the public is a serious pitfall that will have consequences for our society.  Discernment about everything today from our life choices made daily, to the information we are taking into our heads.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne?  What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two (here), we discussed the sons of George III and how the lack of heirs prompted the events that led to Victoria’s birth.

Here in part 3 we’ll consider Victoria’s children with Prince Albert, how the genetic disease hemophilia spelled disaster for Europe in the 20th century, and various ‘what if’ scenarios.

Denise Tubbs explains.

Prince Albert, Queen Victoria and their nine children, 1857.

To start, let’s consider hemophilia. It is a disease whereby a person’s blood does not clot. Clotting of blood is essential as clotting helps stop bleeding. As a result, the affected person will bleed for longer than those without the disease. They will bruise easily, take longer to heal, and can bleed internally. Any of these can lead to death. In the 19th century, a disease like this would likely result in a limited life span.  A lot has been learned about the disease since the time of Victoria and her immediate family. In fact, al lot of what was learned was from the study of Victoria herself and her children. 

So how does one get a disease like this? We already established that it is a genetic disease; so, the individual must carry that gene and then pass it to their children. Putting on our high school biology hats we learned that humans have 46 Chromosomes. So 23 from mother and 23 from father combine to make the next person. In that same class we learn about dominant and recessive genes. A large ‘X’ for example would denote a dominant gene, while ‘x’ means recessive genes. Now, women’s chromosomes are represented by ‘X or x’ symbols, and men are just ‘Y’. Hemophilia is a recessive disease that is carried in the ‘x’ chromosomes. Since we know that men only inherit one ‘x, X’ from their mother, the man will inherit one or the other. Men will have a 50/50 chance of getting the disease from their mother. And yes, in case you’re thinking, women can get hemophilia but only if she receives both recessive ‘x’ genes. 

Victoria’s impact

Victoria was a carrier of the disease and had a total of nine children with Albert. Of her four male children, only one had the disease. Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, made it to adulthood and had two children; but the disease killed him after a fall in 1884. His daughter Alice would inherit the gene from her father and went on to pass it to her son Rupert of Teck. This would become a pattern in all of Victoria’s children, influencing the world. 

Calling Victoria the ‘Grandmother of Europe’ was an understatement. All her children made it to adulthood, and all married into prominent families of Europe. And she would have a total of 87 grandchildren. Through this, her daughters brought the disease right into the heart of Europe. Daughters Beatrice and Alice both would pass on the gene to their daughters: Alix (future Empress Alexandra of Russia), Irene, Victoria (future Queen of Spain) all carried the disease. We already know how the story ends for Empress Alexandra and her son Alexei, Tsarevich of Russia. His disease would in part be the catalyst for the fall of the Russian Empire. 

But what of the other two? Beatrice’s daughter born Victoria Eugene married into the Spanish royal line. Later as Queen of Spain two of her three sons inherited the disease. Alphonso, Prince of Asturias, died after a car accident; his injuries exacerbated by the hemophilia inherited from his great-great grandmother Victoria. Eerily his brother Infante Gonzalo of Spain also died in a car accident years before and also had the disease. 

Irene, or Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine, had three sons with her husband Prince Henry of Prussia. Two of her sons would inherit the disease, with one (Heinrich Viktor) dying at age four. The other son Prince Waldemar Wilhelm not only lived to adulthood; he lived the longest of all the men afflicted with the disease. Waldemar lived until the age of 56, by far the oldest of any of his cousins. During the final stages of World War II, Waldemar had fled the safety of his home in Bavaria when word came of a Russian advance. He relied on blood transfusions to keep his hemophilia in check. 

After leaving Bavaria, he and his wife made it to the town of Tutzing and Waldemar was able to get a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the United States entered the city and took over all available resources.  The army had moved all medical supplies and personnel to the nearby concentration camp of Dachau. With no other option of medical assistance Prince Waldemar died in May of 1945, due to complications from the disease.

The importance of Victoria’s family

In looking at the impact of Victoria and her family, clearly, we see that this one family controlled more than just the fates of each other. They also held the world in its hands. Even after her death, her eldest son Albert (later Edward the VII) came to be called the ‘Uncle of Europe’ because of the number of relations by blood and marriage. Indeed, if Victoria had not been born, the world could look very different. It’s an interesting thing to contemplate - a lot of ‘what if’s’ begin to emerge. 

Starting with the circumstances of Princess Charlotte. If she had lived, and by extension her child (who was a boy), the line of Hanover would have continued through him. We can only guess who he would have married and subsequently the impact it would have had on Europe.

But in a situation where Charlotte had lived, and her son did not, there are two scenarios. Firstly, that the young age of Princess Charlotte would surely have allowed another chance to have a child with Prince Leopold. This could have prevented his crowning of Leopold as the first king of Belgium. Leopold stayed in London after Charlotte died, and the Belgian revolution resulted in a list of candidates to take the throne of the country. Leopold, who had already turned down the crown in Greece, may have opted not to take the crown and instead remain with his wife. With no Leopold as the king of Belgium, it could also mean that his son Leopold II would not have been born and the exploitation and atrocities in the Congo would not have happened.

The second scenario is that with Charlotte surviving and the child dying, there would still have been a succession issue since she and Leopold were still childless. It could be theorized that if she had become pregnant with a second child and still died, the crown is in the same position as before. Only in this scenario, if Victoria is not born, the crown would go to Ernst Augustus and subsequently his son George. The line of Hanover would then exist in Britain and Germany through the unification of Germany in 1866.

There are more ‘what ifs’ out there, regarding the line of Victoria; however I think these are probably the two largest. 

What do you think would have happened if Princess Charlotte of Wales had not sadly died? Let us know below.

Richard Kyle Fox: The Irish-born publisher whose Publication Documented America's Gilded-Age

Standing on the roof terrace of his recently opened publishing house at Franklin Square, Lower Manhattan on May 24, 1883, Richard Kyle Fox witnessed the opening of The Brooklyn Bridge. As the festive nuptials between Manhattan and Brooklyn proceeded, the millionaire's decision to send out ten thousand invitations to his palatial new building ensured that many of New York's dignitaries were afforded a unique vantage point from which to witness this "wire wedding" extravaganza.

Though President Chester A. Arthur could not avail of Fox's hospitality on this occasion due to his ceremonial engagements, he did find time to give a special salute by "doffing his cap repeatedly to the cheers that resounded from the gay and festive sporting palace." Who was Fox and how had he achieved such eminence?

Liam Hayes explains.

Richard Kyle Fox, c. 1908.

Born in Belfast on August 12, 1846, Richard Kyle Fox truly was the epitome of that "rags to riches" narrative popularised in many a Horatio Alger novel. Before arriving at Castle Garden immigration station (now Castle Clinton) in 1874, Fox's formative years were spent as an office boy at the Banner of Ulster newspaper and later as a debt collector for the Belfast News-Letter.

His background in the publishing industry in the Old World served him well as he almost immediately found employment. Following a brief period at the Commercial Bulletin, Fox secured a full time position at the then struggling National Police Gazette, a weekly newspaper which was mainly concerned with exposing rogues, racketeers, and all things nefarious.

Such was the Irishman's impact at the Police Gazette's advertising department, he was able to relieve the owners of their debt-ridden rag within a year in lieu of wages owed to him. Now at the helm, Fox doubled the pages to sixteen, began printing on eye-catching pink paper, and targeted young men who frequented Gotham's myriad of barrooms, brothels and barbershops. The Fox journalistic doctrine was simple: "Tell your story in three paragraphs at most; if you can't tell it in three, tell it in two, and if you can't tell it in two, get the hell out of here!"

An 1891 version of the National Police Gazette.

Boxing promoter

Fox's breakthrough occurred in 1880 following his decision to cover the much anticipated pugilistic contest between Tipperary's Paddy Ryan and Joe Goss of England. The fight, in which Ryan was victorious, created an unprecedented demand for the Police Gazette, and the accompanying woodcut illustrations of the event afforded those unable to travel to the illegal prizefight at Collier's Station, West Virginia a unique journalistic experience.

Subsequently entering the surreptitious world of prizefight promotion, the young publisher eventually encountered a young braggadocious Bostonian by the name of John L. Sullivan. Sullivan and Fox's less than cordial relationship, supposedly ignited by the former's refusal to accept the publisher's hospitality at Harry Hill's notorious Bowery entertainment establishment, ensured an evidently convenient discord, as both men profited handsomely from the publicity.

Becoming the biggest boxing promoter in the United States by pitting opponents against Sullivan, sales of Fox's Police Gazetteincreased rapidly. The practice of awarding championship belts was popularised by Fox, including the famous Police Gazette Diamond Belt. Other belts included Jack "nonpareil" Dempsey's middleweight belt, Jack McAuliffe's lightweight belt and Ike "Belfast Spider" Weir's featherweight championship belt. For his contribution to the fistic phenomenon of the late 1800s the publisher was posthumously inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1997.

Sports promotion

In addition to the Police Gazette's boxing coverage, the prescient publisher also promoted all manner of athletic contests, including wrestling, weightlifting, baseball and many peculiar feats of human endeavour, most notably the exploits of French-Canadian strongman Louis Cyr and famed Irish-American wrestler William Muldoon. Annie Oakley, the celebrated female sharpshooter from Ohio was extremely proud of the medal awarded to her by Fox. In 1896 he sponsored Frank Samuelsen and George Harbo's successful crossing of the Atlantic Ocean in an eighteen-foot rowboat. In all, Fox is estimated to have donated almost $1 million in trophies and medals.

Not confining his publication to sports, Fox's Gazette was teeming with titillating woodcut illustrations of Gilded-Age beauties, voluptuous Victorian ladies, and many of the leading stage soubrettes of that era.

It was for the gratuitous nature of these illustrations that Fox came to the attention of Anthony Comstock (1844-1915), United States Postal Inspector and founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. "These weekly illustrated papers are staunch, well-constructed traps of the devil, capable of catching and securely holding the mind and heart of the young, until they yield a ready service to the father of all evil," wrote the Connecticut native in 1883. Comstock had Fox prosecuted on many occasions but this only resulted in increased interest and circulation for the wily Belfast man’s weekly. 

As the 1800s drew to a close, Fox was spending more and more time at his new offices in London's Fleet Street. He became a popular figure amongst Britain's aristocracy and was made an honorary member of the infamous Pelican Club. When Hugh Lowther, the extravagant Earl of Lonsdale required a lightweight carriage for his much anticipated race against Lord Shrewsbury in March, 1891, Fox had one specially shipped-over from New York.

Legacy

Richard Kyle Fox died on Nov. 24, 1922, at his home in Red Bank, New Jersey. He was interred in an elaborate, Egyptian-themed mausoleum at Woodlawn cemetery in the Bronx, New York. His beloved National Police Gazette, once the most popular perusal wherever men gathered to escape the confines of Gilded-Age propriety, had long been imitated and succeeded by the larger daily newspapers of media moguls such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.

Fox's Police Gazette went bankrupt in 1932 and changed ownership many times before it eventually ceased publication under the ownership of Canadian publisher Joseph Azaria in 1977. The Police Gazette building (once one of the most impressive buildings in New York) from where Richard Kyle Fox had proudly witnessed the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 had been demolished a decade earlier. The building’s ornate railings, their glorious gilding long since disappeared, were fortunately salvaged by Pop-Art aficionado Ivan Karp and later donated to the Brooklyn Museum by the William and Marian Zeckendorf Foundation.

What do you think of Richard Kyle Fox? Let us know below.

Abraham Lincoln: The Story of how he Became a Wrestling Champion

Widely considered the greatest President in American history, much has been written about the man, the myth, the legend: Abraham Lincoln. From his acclaimed debates with Stephen A. Douglas, to his creation of the Emancipation Proclamation, to the Gettysburg Address, and finally his tragic death by the hands of John Wilkes Booth after the Civil War, President Lincoln will forever be an icon of US history. Even Lincoln’s childhood and early adulthood has come under scholarly examination. However, what is less spoken of is the strange but prolific wrestling career of the Great Emancipator. Brenden Woldman explains.

A painting of Abraham Lincoln reading as a boy. By Eastman Johnson, 1868.

In the moderately sized city of Stillwater in Payne County, Oklahoma stands the National Wrestling Hall of Fame. Enshrined within those hallowed halls are America’s greatest wrestlers, from collegiate athletes to Olympic champions. But there is one man who was granted a spot within the Hall for his grappling tactics within the ring, and earned him an “Outstanding American” honor.[1] Though his gangly stature became a point of insult for his political rivals and contemporaries, with one man once telling Lincoln that he did not possess the “features the ladies would call handsome,” the future president as a young man was, surprisingly, built from stone.[2]  Lincoln may have been a thin, wiry young man standing at 6 feet, 4 inches and 180 lbs., but years of working manual labor as both a farmer in the Kentucky backwoods as well as a rail splitter helped forge a naturally strong specimen of a man who towered over any and all who stood beside him.[3]

Wrestling fame

Though he had no dreams of sporting grandeur, the future president, like many of his contemporaries who worked manual labor jobs, enjoyed physical activities like wrestling as a leisure activity. But just like in his political career Lincoln was a calculated and ambitious wrestler. Still, conversely to his political persona the young Lincoln was a confident sportsman who could be simply described as cocky. Lincoln’s confidence in his ability stemmed from his mastery of the “catch-as-catch-can” manner of wrestling, a brawling and combative style known for its bull-like aggressive rushes and hand-to-hand combat tactics to the opponent. Nevertheless, this bar fight style of wrestling still needed more than a hint of skill to pin a rival.[4] Lincoln’s rare mix of thin and wiry but broad, strong, and smart athlete made him nearly impossible to beat. His physical prowess made Bill Green, a local store owner from New Salem, Illinois, note that “[Lincoln] can outrun, outlift, outwrestle and throw day any man in Sangamon County,” after the young man beat multiple opponents in one day.[5] Moreover, Lincoln matched his reputation as an in-ring force with his loud public trash talking. After decisively defeating another opponent with a single toss in the ring, Honest Abe being as honest as he could be looked into an entire crowd and challenged any and all who dared to face him. Lincoln shouted, “I’m the big buck of this lick. If any of you want to try it, come on and whet your horns.”[6]Unsurprisingly, there were no takers.

The legend of Lincoln the wrestler continued to grow during the late 1820s and into the early 1830s. But what made Lincoln a local wrestling legend came in 1831, when the Great Emancipator was only 22 years old. Lincoln was quietly tending to the store he worked at as a clerk in New Salem when his boss Denton Offutt out of the blue challenged any of the local Clary’s Grove Boys to a good natured wrestling match with his star clerk.[7] The Clary’s Grove Boys, who were known for their rowdy, fraternity-like attitude toward frontiers life, enjoyed drinking and fighting more than anyone around.[8] After Offutt boasted that no one could beat his employee, the Clary’s Grove Boys’ “champion wrestler” Jack Armstrong took the challenge, believing, that he “had found only another subject by which [they] could display its strength and prowess.”[9] Lincoln accepted the challenge, getting up from behind his counter, and prepared to wrestle the feared Armstrong. 

Confident that he could outmatch the taller but gawky Lincoln, Armstrong felt no fear. Who could blame him? Lincoln had been, and would continue to be, judged by his physical appearance his entire life. However, soon after the match began, the Clary’s Grove Boys champion realized he had bit off more than he could chew. Lincoln from the start was able to control the match due to his enormous reach, forcing Armstrong to fight dirty as a means of desperation.[10] Annoyed by the lack of sportsmanship, Lincoln lost his temper and, according to legend, won the match by grabbing Armstrong by the neck, raising him above his head, shaking him around, and slamming him on the ground.[11] The crowd was shocked by Lincoln’s clear victory, and the rest of the Clary’s Grove Boys were angered by the result. Enraged, the Clary’s Grove Boys began to threaten Lincoln. Luckily, Armstrong bounced back up and defended the future president. Smiling, Armstrong looked at his friends and said, “Boys, Abe Lincoln is the best fellow that ever broke into this settlement. He shall be one of us.”[12]

A very impressive career

Lincoln gained the respect of Jack Armstrong and the rest of the Clary’s Grove Boys. As a result of his victory, the young Lincoln gained the reputation as the champion wrestler of New Salem, gladly taking on, and easily defeating, any and all opponents who came to challenge him. Amazingly, Lincoln was nearly impossible to beat. According to historians who have researched the win/loss record of Honest Abe, Lincoln has only one confirmed lose in allegedly more then 300 matches over the course of 12 years.[13] That sole lose came at the hands of Pvt. Lorenzo Dow Thompson, the St. Clair wrestling champion whom Lincoln met when he was a Captain during the Black Hawk War. Upon hearing of Thompson’s prowess at wrestling, Lincoln was certain in his own ability and “told my boys I could throw [Thompson].”[14] As confident as ever, Lincoln set up a match between himself and the private when both of their regiments had down time from fighting. Unfortunately, much like how Armstrong underestimated Lincoln, Lincoln underestimated Thompson. Though still in his physical prime, Lincoln realized rather quickly after the match began that he was wrestling “a powerful man” in Thompson, and that “the struggle [of winning] was a sever one.”[15] Shockingly, Lincoln for the first time in his career was thrown out of the ring and lost the match. When his men came to the defense of their captain claiming Thompson had cheated, Lincoln laughed and said Thompson won fairly. When asked how did he know, Lincoln simply said, “Why, gentlemen, that man could throw a grizzly bear.”[16]

In retrospect

There is something funny when we read or write about famous historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. For the most part, we think we know everything there is to know about a figure because we have been indoctrinated about the “greatest hits” of these figures. We all know about the stoic Lincoln who unified the Union during the Civil War, freed the slaves, and was assassinated, but we should never think we know everything about someone. Moreover, the importance of Lincoln as a wrestler transcends something more than an interesting tidbit of information about America’s greatest president. Lincoln learned about his own strength and confidence as well as humility through the sport. Writer and historian David Fleming said it best, noting that “when his wrestling skill diminished, Lincoln’s leadership qualities emerged.”[17] Without what he learned from wrestling, Abraham Lincoln would not have been the same man that became America’s sixteenth President.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln’s wresting career was important for his later political career? Let us know below.

 

You can read Brenden’s previous article on US politics: Violence in the Senate – Slavery, Honor and the Caning of Charles Sumner here.

[1] Christopher Klein, “10 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln,” History.com (A&E Television Networks, November 16, 2012), https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-abraham-lincoln)

[2] Susan Bell, “Lincoln's Looks Never Hindered His Approach to Life or Politics,” USC News (USC, February 19, 2015), https://news.usc.edu/75846/lincolns-looks-never-hindered-his-approach-to-life-or-politics/)

[3] “The Railsplitter: Abraham Lincoln: An Extraordinary Life,” National Museum of American History (National Museum of American History, n.d.), https://americanhistory.si.edu/lincoln/railsplitter)

[4] Bob Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” National Wrestling Hall of Fame (National Wrestling Hall of Fame, n.d.), https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/)

[5] David Fleming, “The Civil Warrior,” Sports Illustrated (Sports Illustrated, n.d.), https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/02/06/the-civil-warrior-on-the-us-frontier-young-abe-lincoln-was-a-great-wrestler-and-sportsman)

[6] Klein, “10 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln,” https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-abraham-lincoln

[7] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/, R.J. Norton, “Abraham Lincoln's Wrestling Match,” Abraham Lincoln Research Site (Abraham Lincoln Research Site, n.d.), https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html)

[8] Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[9] Dan Evon, “Is Abraham Lincoln in the Wrestling Hall of Fame?,” Snopes.com (Snopes.com, n.d.), https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

[10] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/

[11] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/, Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[12] Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[13] Bryan Armen Graham, “Abraham Lincoln Was A Skilled Wrestler And World-Class Trash Talker,” Sports Illustrated (Sports Illustrated, February 12, 2013), https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-was-a-skilled-wrestler-and-world-class-trash-talker)

[14] Evon, “Is Abraham Lincoln in the Wrestling Hall of Fame?,”https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

[15] Ibid.,

[16] Ibid.,

[17] Graham, “Abraham Lincoln Was A Skilled Wrestler and World-Class Trash Talker,” https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-was-a-skilled-wrestler-and-world-class-trash-talker

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne? What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two we look at the sons of George III who all found themselves suddenly in need of wives in order to continue the Hanover line.

Denise Tubbs explains.

George III in the 1770s. Painting by Johann Zoffany.

Great Britain has had its share to succession crises over the centuries. The legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and their subsequent children has been debated for over 500 years. During the reign of Elizabeth I, succession was a huge topic since she refused to marry. Even spanning back to 1066, the Battle of Hastings between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson started as a result of a succession crisis. So, what is it about this crisis that separates it from the rest? Well, no other royal house had more effect on world events for the next 100 years. 

George III had a lot of kids. A total of 15 children - nine sons and six girls. Of his daughters, two never had children, two were never married, one died in childhood, and the last had no surviving children. The continuation of the house of Hanover lied solely with his sons. His son the future George IV and Ernest Augustus both had only one child. Ernest Augustus had a son days apart from Victoria, missing the title of heir by a mere three days (Victoria was born on May 24, 1819 and George was born on May 27, 1819). The future William IV had a total of 10 children. Unfortunately, none of those 10 were legitimate. Prince Augustus Frederick had three children from his marriage; however, because he got married in secret and without the permission of his father, all were deemed illegitimate. Prince Frederick married, but had no children. Prince Adolphus has children but not until after the births of Victoria and Prince George. Lastly, Prince Edward had one child with Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (she was the sister of Prince Leopold, Charlotte’s husband) before dying at the age of 52. This child was Victoria.

The line of succession

Since George IV was the oldest son and heir apparent to his father’s throne, that made his heir Charlotte. But when she died in 1817, the new heir apparent would have been the second oldest son of George III, Prince Fredrick. He would die in 1827, so the heir became the third oldest son of George III, William. At the time of Charlotte’s death William, Edward and Adolphus were not married. Ernest Augustus had married two years prior. All three unmarried princes were pressured by the public to do away with their bachelor life, marry and have a child before the line had no one left. The three of them would get married in rapid succession of each other - all getting married in 1818.  

So, let us recap since this was a lot of information. By 1817, George lost his only child and heir in childbirth, Charlotte. At the time of her death, William, Edward, and Adolphus were not married nor had any legitimate children. Ernest Augustus was married but had no children yet. Frederick was married but with no children. Augustus had children but they were ruled illegitimate. If William became king after George IV, and none of the remaining sons got married, William’s heir would be Ernest Augustus (Edward would be dead by 1820, so he and Frederick will be out of contention). Ernest Augustus had a son in 1819, so the throne would have passed to him next. If his son had no heir and the remaining sons were still alive the succession would have passed to Augustus and Adolphus. The line would die after Adolphus. 

This meant that the first son to have a child would be the father of the future of the country. The game is set, and as mentioned above, Victoria is born three days before her first Cousin George of Hanover in 1819. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, there would have been no need for those three sons to make their rush to the altar. Victoria, as a result, would not have been born and her direct descendants who had a major effect on world history as we know it today would be drastically altered. Furthermore, even with Charlotte’s, if Victoria was born after George of Hanover she also would not have been in direct line to the throne. There are then two what if possibilities: of Victoria never being born or born after her cousin.

Next up we will look at the children of Victoria and the effect they would have on world events. 

Now, read part 3, the final part, here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

What do you think of this royal succession? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia

PBS drama Victoria

Harriet Tubman: A Black US Civil War Heroine who Led a Spy RIng

The American Civil War created all manner of heroines. One such person was Harriet Tubman, a courageous African-American lady who led a spy ring and fought slavery during the US Civil War. Melissa Havran explains her courageous life.

Harriet Tubman in the 1860s.

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is feeling that fear, insecurity, and doubt, but deciding that something else is more important. It's a quality that separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. Harriet Tubman, I believe, epitomized what it meant to be courageous. She believed in what she was doing, and continued to do it, regardless of the dangers involved.  As I began to research her role as a spy, I couldn't help but to question my own courage. If faced with the same dilemma, would I have been able to make the same choices Harriet made, even if those choices were a threat to my own wellbeing? Her story continues to amaze me. 

They called her “Moses” for leading enslaved people in the South to freedom up North. But Harriet Tubman fought slavery well beyond her role as a conductor for the Underground Railroad. As a soldier and spy for the Union Army during the Civil War, Tubman became the first woman to lead an armed military operation in the United States in what is known as the Combahee Ferry Raid.

By January 1, 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, Tubman had been in South Carolina as a volunteer for the Union Army. With her family behind in Auburn, New York, and having established herself as a prominent abolitionist in Boston circles, Tubman, at the request of Massachusetts Governor John Andrew, had gone to Hilton Head, South Carolina, which had fallen to the Union Army early in the war.

Spy ring

For months, Harriet Tubman worked as a laundress, opening a washhouse, and serving as a nurse, until she was given orders to form a spy ring. Her orders came as a result of her role gathering clandestine information, forming allies and avoiding capture, as she led the Underground Railroad. In her new role, Tubman assumed leadership of a secret military mission in South Carolina’s low country.

Tubman partnered with Colonel James Montgomery, an abolitionist who commanded the Second South Carolina Volunteers, a black regiment. Together, the two planned a raid along the Combahee River, to rescue slaves, recruit freed men into the Union Army, and obliterate some of the wealthiest rice plantations in the region. 

Montgomery already had 300 men and, combined with the 8 scouts Tubman had recruited, the two were able to map the area and send word to slaves when a raid would take place.

One characteristic that made Tubman a successful spy ringleader, was that she could get black people to trust her when the Union officers knew that they were not trusted by the local people.  Perhaps the most interesting piece of this story is that Tubman was indeed, illiterate, yet she had great success as a spy leader. Since she couldn't read or write, she also couldn't write down any intelligence she gathered. Instead, she committed everything to memory, guiding the ships towards strategic points near the shore where fleeing slaves were waiting and Confederate property could be destroyed.

While it seemed Tubman, for the most part, was able to compartmentalize her role as spy, some of her missions seemed to have more of an effect on her than others.

On one particular raid, where Tubman and Montgomery were working together to bring gunboats up river, Tubman vividly recalled the horrific scene that day with running slaves, women, babies and crying children being chased down by rebels and killed.

Legacy

After researching Tubman’s life as a Union spy, what stands out most is that she was recognized a hero, but never paid - largely because she was a black woman. Often, Tubman’s brave work was documented by local newspapers. She was never referred to by name, but instead as "She Moses", because just like Moses, she led an enslaved people to freedom. Perhaps writing that a black woman was leading Montgomery’s band of 300 men was unfortunately a little too much for the 1860s.

But Tubman’s anonymity came to an end in July 1863 when Franklin Sanborn, the editor of Boston’s Commonwealthnewspaper, picked up the story and named Harriet Tubman, a friend of his, as the heroine.

In the end, Tubman petitioned the government several times to be paid for her duties as a soldier and was denied because she was a woman.

Tubman would eventually get a pension, but only as the widow of a black Union soldier she married after the war, not for her courageous service as a soldier.  To think of the lives saved because of the courage of another is truly what makes Tubman’s story stand out as one of the greatest in American history. If we all possessed this incredible characteristic of courage, I often wonder how our world would be different.

What do you think of Harriet Tubman? Let us know below.

Kobe Bryant quote source: https://www.goalcast.com/2018/12/28/kobe-bryant-quotes/

The Importance of the Telegraph in the US Civil War: Part 3 - The Union’s Use of the Telegraph

The American Civil War (1861-65) saw a breakthrough in various technologies. One of particular importance was the telegraph, a communication technology that had grown greatly in significance in the years before the US Civil War broke out. Here, K.R.T. Quirion concludes his three-part series on the importance of the telegraph in the US Civil War by looking at the role of the telegraph in the later years of the Civil War and its importance in the Union’s victory.

You can read part 1 in the series on the history of the telegraph in the 19th century here and part 2 on the telegraph in the early years of the US Civil War here.

Wagons and men of the U.S. Military Telegraph Construction Corps. Brandy Station, Virginia, 1864.

President Lincoln in the Telegraph Office

As an early adopter of the telegraph, Lincoln realized the importance of building a strong telegraphic infrastructure within the government and the military. With the Union facing the prospect of a 1,000-mile battle front, the telegraph gave Lincoln an unprecedented ability to “converse with his military leaders in the field as though he were in the tent with them” and power to “assume the role of commander-in-chief in a more titular sense.”[1]

Before Lincoln could exercise any degree of control over the nation’s dispersed military forces, it was necessary to organize the telegraphic capabilities of the Union. At the start of the Civil War all government telegraphs passed through one central communications hub, not even the War Department had its own separate line. [2]The organization of the USMTC soon remedied that deficiency when its headquarters were established inside of the War Department. By March of 1862, the telegraph had become so vital to the prosecution of the war that Secretary Stanton moved the USMTC telegraph office into to the “old library room, on the second floor front…adjoining his own quarters.”[3]In short order, the telegraph office of the War Department became Lincoln’s “Situation Room, where the president not only monitored events through incoming messages but also initiated communications directly to the field.” Lincoln spent more time in the telegraph office than in any other location during his presidency.[4]

Lincoln Takes Command

At first, Lincoln’s telegraphs were few. In the last six months of 1861, Lincoln sent only thirteen telegrams.[5]Despite this infrequency, the President exhibited no qualms about using the telegraph to “issue instructions regarding the disposition of troops.”[6]In these early telegraphs, Lincoln began exercising the authority of the commander-in-chief in a direct way. In one telegraph to John C. Fremont, the President ordered the General to begin deploying his troops in Kentucky. [7]Lincoln even went so far as to countermand Fremont’s own dispensation of his troops. [8]These first forays in taking direct command of Union troops were on a “glimmer of what was to happen.” [9]By 1862, the president had begun using the telegraph as means of directly communicating with commanders in the field without the filter of their commanding general. [10]Part of this direct action by Lincoln was brought about by has frustration with General George B. McClellan’s hesitancy to engage the enemy.

In May, the President traveled to the front lines of McClellan’s Peninsular campaign to see the work first hand. Upon arrival, Lincoln discovered that although the Union occupied Fort Monroe, the General had done nothing to silence the Confederate ironclad the Merrimac, or its base of operations at Norfolk, both of which resided just across the waters of Hampton Roads. Furious with McClellan’s complacency, the President took it upon himself to capture Norfolk and began “directing the movements” from his mobile White House at Fort Monroe. [11]

Having taken action and tasted the fruits of his decisiveness, Lincoln thereafter began issuing “explicit and direct command to his generals” through the telegraph network. [12]His deepening involvement with the intricacies of the war led Lincoln to practically live in the telegraph office, going so far as to request a cot be set up in that room so that he could remain in proximity to the wires rather than return to the White House. [13]The cipher and telegraph officers of the War Department on whom Lincoln relied said of the President that the “Commander-in-Chief…possessed an almost intuitive perception of the practical requirements of that….office, and…was performing the duties of that position in the most intelligent and effective manner.” [14]All of the “intuitive perception” in the world would have been useless however, had it not been for the amazing power of the telegraph.

Union Military Commanders Use the Telegraph

Lincoln was not the only Union commander who learned to use the telegraph to project himself across the vast lengths of the battlefront. It was in fact the “Young Napoleon” George McClellan himself that first grasped the great potential of this new technology. Later, General Ulysses S. Grant would perfect the use of the telegraph giving him a precision of control over the movements and actions of his troops unheard of before in the history of warfare.

McClellan had experience with commanding through the telegraph before he was appointed to lead the Union army. Fresh out of West Point, the Army sent McClellan to Europe as an official observer of the Crimean War. There he witnessed the first application of the telegraph in battle. Following that, he resigned his commission to become a railroad executive, where he became intimately acquainted with the telegraph. Thus, when he rejoined the army at the start of the Civil War, there was perhaps no military commander better suited to make use of this new technology.

Within the first few months of the war, McClellan enlisted the services of a Western Union Executive, Anton Stager, to organize a military field telegraph. It was soon after this that Stager was assigned to oversee the operations of the USMTC. In short order, McClellan, because of the telegraph, was able to exert unprecedented tactical communication with his command which allowed him to rapidly change battle plans. [15]He brought his experience with using the telegraph network with him once he was appointed to lead the Union’s forces. Once in Washington, McClellan’s headquarters were quickly “festooned with wires connecting him to all the fronts and making [him] the hub of military information.” [16]

Unfortunately for the President, all the information in the world could not get McClellan to move. The commander who would most effectively employ the telegraph was Ulysses S. Grant. Greely writes that:

From the opening of Grant’s campaign in the Wilderness to the close of the war, an aggregate of over two hundred miles of wire was put up and taken down from day to day; yet its efficiency as a constant means of communication between the several commands was not interfered with. [17]

The lines of the USMTC bound the corps of the Army of the Potomac together like “a perfect nervous system, and kept the great controlling head in touch with all its parts.” [18]Never after crossing the Rapidan did a single corps lose direct communication with the commanding general. 

Grant, more than any commander before him, employed the telegraph for both “grand tactics and for strategy in its broadest sense.” [19]From his headquarters in Virginia, Grant daily issued orders and read reports on the operations of his commanders who were dispersed across the vast battlefront of the Confederacy. With Meade in Virginia, Sherman in Georgia, Sigel in West Virginia, and Butler on the James River, Grant commanded a military force exceed half a million soldiers and conducted operations over eight hundred thousand square miles. [20]In his memoirs, General William Tecumseh Sherman said that, “[t]he value of the telegraph cannot be exaggerated, as illustrated by the perfect accord of action of the armies of Virginia and Georgia.” [21]

Conclusion

The successful application of the telegraph by the Union was the result of the concerted effort of Lincoln, his military commanders, and thousands of skilled USMTC operators. By the end of the Civil War, the USMTC had constructed 15,000 miles of dedicated military telegraph lines. [22]These lines were operated in addition to the thousands of commercial lines which were taken over by the federal government. Together this vast telecommunications network brought the President, the War Department, and the commanding generals “within seconds of each other”, though enemy fortifications or even thousands of miles of wilderness might have intervened. [23]

This intricately organized network allowed Grant to utilize the full potential of the telegraph. Grant more than any other commander besides Lincoln, learned to project himself using this new technology. In this way, Grant was able to strategically maneuver his forces across the battlefields of Virginia, Georgia, West Virginia and elsewhere with rapidity and precision. As Plum writes, the telegraph was of “infinite importance to the Commander, who, from his tent in Virginia, was to move his men upon the great continental chess-board of war understandingly.” [24]Grant acquired a precision and speed with this powerful new technology that allowed him to out maneuver his opponents. He used this power to command his army in ways that were unthinkable to previous generations of military leadership. With a clear picture of the immense theater of war and a powerful means of mobilizing his units Grant was able to cut off reinforcements to General Lee and shorten the conflict. [25]

 

How important do you think the telegraph was in the Union’s victory in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Remember, you can read part 1 in the series on the history of the telegraph in the 19th century here and part 2 on the telegraph in the early years of the US Civil War here.

[1]Tom Wheeler, Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War, (New York, NY: Harper Business, 2007), 65. 

[2]Ibid., 1.

[3]Bates, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office: Recollections of the United States Military Telegraph Corps during the Civil War, 38.

[4]Wheeler, Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War, 10. 

[5]Ibid., 40.

[6]Ibid., 42.

[7]The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed., Roy Basler, (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), vol. IV, 485. 

[8]Ibid., 499.

[9]Wheeler, 41.

[10]Ibid., 44.

[11]Bates, 117.

[12]Wheeler., 54

[13]Ibid., 77.

[14]Bates, 122.

[15]Edward Hagerman, The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare: Ideas, Organization, and Field Command, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), 37.

[16]Wheeler, 40.

[17]Greely, “The Military-Telegraph Service.”

[18]Ibid.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Plum, Vol. II, 140.

[22]Greely.

[23]Ibid.

[24]Plum, Vol. II, 128.

[25]Greely.