The 19th Century Whaling Industry, Lewis Temple and the Temple-Toggle Harpoon

The whaling industry was at its height in the nineteenth century as it helped power the Industrial Revolution. The center of the whaling industry in the US was in Nantucket and later New Bedford. But there were a number of breakthroughs that powered the industry. Here, Jackie Mead tells the story of Lewis Temple, a free African American who invented something very important for the whaling industry.

A statue of Lewis Temple in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Source: LGagnon, available here.

Hunting whales has been an integral part of Native American communities for millennia, but whaling had never been practiced on such a massive scale as it was in the 1800s. The Industrial Revolution demanded whale oil to light the factories, as well as the plastic-like baleen for lady’s corsets and spermaceti for mass-produced candles and perfumes. Whaleships became floating factories for processing the massive creatures, complete with tryworks for boiling the whale blubber into precious oil. A consumer might pay as much as $2.50 for a gallon—$80 today.[1] This meant whales were essentially swimming petroleum deposits, and massive fortunes could be made by those brave enough to hunt them down.

An Upstart City

Nantucket, an island off the coast of Massachusetts, was an obvious capital of the whaling industry. By the 1840s, however, they were being eclipsed by an upstart mainland town: New Bedford.[2] In 1851, Herman Melville wrote in his masterpiece Moby Dick, “New Bedford has of late been gradually monopolizing the business of whaling,”[3]and that “nowhere in all America will you find more patrician-like houses; parks and gardens more opulent, than in New Bedford.”[4]The city had a superior harbor that fit even the biggest of whaleships, and a rich industry sprang up around the waterfront.

One person that came to the city to make their fortune was a free African American named Lewis Temple. He was born either a slave or freedman in Richmond, Virginia around the year 1800. Temple arrived in New Bedford in 1829 and married Mary Clark, presumably also African America, and had two daughters shortly after.[5]A blacksmith by trade, he opened a shop on Walnut Street in 1836 and began producing the various metal objects required on whaling ships.

The Weapon of Choice

The most important tool of a whaler was his harpoon: a barbed iron point mounted to a long wooden handle. When thrown at a whale, the barbs would catch in the blubber and prevent the harpoon from dislodging. The crew would grab onto a rope tied to the harpoon and be pulled through the ocean as the whale tried to escape, a risky experience referred to as a “Nantucket sleigh ride.” When the whale was too exhausted to continue, they would then row close enough to stab the leviathan to death. 

If the harpoon came out during the chase, the whale would get away. Since almost all crews were paid through a cut of the profits, losing a whale was a significant hit to their paycheck.[6] 

In the first half of the nineteenth century, harpoon tips resembled arrowheads. These would frequently tear holes in the whale’s blubber instead of lodging in it, leading to angry whales and no profit. Toggling harpoons, which have a frontward cutting edge and a backwards sweeping barb that pivots (or toggles), had been used in the Arctic for centuries. New Bedford whalers were aware of this technology from hunting in Alaskan waters, but were unable to replicate it.[7]

A New Harpoon

Lewis Temple created the first iron toggle harpoon in his Walnut Street shop in 1848. It was similar to its Arctic predecessors, with a sharp point and swinging barb that was held in place by a pin. A small piece of wood held the head straight while it was thrown into the whale, breaking on impact and allowing the barb to pivot ninety degrees into the blubber. This was far more effective than the traditional harpoon, quickly becoming the weapon of choice for all savvy harpooners. 

Lewis Temple, Inventor

Lewis Temple never patented his invention. Although a gifted blacksmith, he never received a formal education.[8]The idea of obtaining a patent probably would not even have crossed his mind. Only three to ten percent of patent holders were African American, many choosing to file under the name of a white lawyer to ensure their product had a fair shot.[9]Since Temple was unable to write his own name, it was unlikely he could have hired one without help. With nothing to prevent them, other blacksmiths freely copied his idea and made their own improvements. 

The Temple family continued to grow, and Lewis began to train his son, Lewis Temple Jr., in blacksmithing. He moved shops several times, renting homes nearby for his family.[10]He was elected Vice President of the New Bedford Union Society in 1834, the city’s first anti-slavery group. It is also possible he knew a young Frederick Douglas in the 1830s, when the famous author was pursuing odd jobs at the wharfs.[11]

His lack of commercial success, despite his stroke of genius, may have been the motivation for the local firm Delano and Pierce to offer Temple a new shop in 1854. However, he was never able to work in it. 

Earlier that year, Temple was walking home at night and tripped over a plank left out by a New Bedford construction crew, sending him into a sewer ditch and injured beyond hope of recovery. His wife and children sued the city for negligence, winning $2,000 in March 1854. Temple died only six weeks later.[12]The local newspaperran a story describing how the Temple family had yet to receive their settlement payment, which was finally given to his widow in February 1857.[13]

Legacy

The New Bedford sailor and artist Clifford W. Ashley wrote in 1926, “It is safe to say that the Temple toggle harpoon was the most important single invention in the whole history of whaling.”[14]Although he was never able to profit from his work, Lewis Temple made a significant impact on the American whaling industry. His toggle harpoon helped make the city the richest per capita in the entire United States.[15]In 1880, $10 million (yes, 10 million 1880 dollars) was flowing through New Bedford, all the product of the toggle harpoon. Herman Melville wrote “all these brave houses and flowery gardens came from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. One and all, they were harpooned and dragged up hither from the bottom of the sea.”[16]

A statue of Lewis Temple stands outside the New Bedford Public Library. The artist depicts him standing in a blacksmith’s apron with his new invention in his hands, unaware of how it will change the industry forever.

What do you think of Lewis Temple’s role in the whaling industry? Let us know below.

[1]PBS, “The ‘Whale Oil Myth’,” 2008. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w

[2]PBS, “The History of Whaling in America.” https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/whaling-history-whaling-america/

[3]Herman Melville, Moby Dick(New York: Constable and Company, 1922): 8. 

[4]Melville, Moby Dick,40.

[5]New Bedford Historical Society, “Lewis Temple.” http://nbhistoricalsociety.org/Important-Figures/lewis-temple/

[6]Nathaniel Philbrick, In the Heart of the Sea(New York: Viking Penguin, 2000): 18.

[7]Sidney Kaplan, “Lewis Temple and the Hunting of the Whale.” Negro History Bulletin17 (October 1953): 8. 

[8]Kaplan, “Lewis Temple,” 7.

[9]Michael J. Andrews and Nicolas L. Ziebarth, The Demographics of Inventors in the Historical United States (2016): 8.

[10]Kaplan, “Lewis Temple,” 10.

[11]New Bedford Historical Society, “Lewis Temple.”

[12]Kaplan, “Lewis Temple,” 10.

[13]New Bedford Historical Society, “Lewis Temple.”

[14]Kaplan, “Lewis Temple,” 7.

[15]Derek Thompson, “The Spectacular Rise and Fall of U.S. Whaling: An Innovation Story.” The Atlantic(February 22, 2012) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-spectacular-rise-and-fall-of-us-whaling-an-innovation-story/253355/

[16]Melville, Moby Dick, 41.

The History of the Statue of Liberty

The Statue of Liberty is one of the most famous symbols of America. But the statue has a long history. Here Aliasgar Abuwala explains the French origins of the statue, how it took many years from being an idea to actually being erected in New York, and the importance of its symbolism in the twentieth century.

The Statue of Liberty. Source: Daniel Schwen, available here.

Throughout most of the 19th century, France had alternated between absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies and republican forms of government, with varying degrees of power held by elected representatives. The collective psyche of the French was undergoing a monumental change in its beliefs in royal traditions, equality and religion. However, the ideals of the French Revolution had taken root and France had many influential liberals both in and out of its government bodies.

One of them was Édouard René Lefèbvre de Laboulaye, a lawyer, author, academician and anti-slavery activist. Deeply influenced by the values enshrined in the constitution of the United States, he felt France and the U.S. were common partners in promoting these values. After the Union’s victory in the U.S. Civil War in 1865, he had the idea that France should present a monument to the United States to commemorate its ideals of liberty and democracy. In this way, he wished to infuse the same ideals into the consciousness of his countrymen.

Liberty Enlightening the World

Laboulaye put forward the idea to Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, the noted sculptor who had a passion for designing monumental structures. The sculptor wholeheartedly supported Laboulaye. Naming the statue was key for the project to take off. Liberty was a controversial term in 19thcentury Europe. It was associated with revolution and violence by many people. The statue had to be seen as a symbol of law and peace, showing the way to freedom. The statue called, Liberty Enlightening the World, would be an honourable and authoritative figure above political turmoil. The statue would be funded by the French and presented to the United States.

The project stalled due to the Franco-Prussian War, in which France’s emperor Napoleon III was captured and deposed. Laboulaye had been elected to the National Assemble and was instrumental in forming The Third Republic. These were ideal circumstances to generate support for the Statue of Liberty. Armed with references and letters of introduction given by Laboulaye, Bartholdi travelled to America to discuss the idea with influential people. 

As soon as Bartholdi’s ship sailed into New York Harbour, he decided that Bedloe Island, now Liberty Island, should be the site of the statue as it would be seen by all ships leaving or leaving the United States. Among the powerful people he met in America was President Ulysses S. Grant who assured him that obtaining the site would not be a constraint. Bartholdi travelled the length and breadth of America, but after returning to France, he confided to Laboulaye that the general response was not as enthusiastic as they had hoped. They decided to launch a public campaign and organized a group called the Franco-American Union.

Design and Symbolism

Bartholdi and Laboulaye had to come up with a figure that could best express the American idea of liberty. They decided on adopting the dominant image of Liberty in the United States, which was derived from the Roman goddess of freedom, Libertas. However, Libertas was popular all over Europe. Artists of the 18thand 19thcenturies often used the goddess to represent democratic ideals, but often in a manner that associated her with violence. Liberty Enlightening the World had to depict peace and progress and it was decided that Liberty would wear flowing robes and would hold a torch.

The statue also needed to be crowned. There were two kinds of headwear that statues of Liberty were traditionally donned with: a pileus, a kind of cap given to freed slaves in ancient Rome, and a helmet. Bartholdi chose a diadem instead.  The crown has seven rays which form a halo. It was designed to depict the sun and the seven continents. The rays of the sun are meant to reinforce the torch, by which Liberty Enlightens the World. 

Bartholdi designed the statue with strong classical contours to best set if off against the harbour. He wanted passengers on ships entering the harbour to have altering perspectives of Liberty as they sailed towards Manhattan. Reflecting the scale of the project and its solemn objective, Bartholdi scripted his thoughts: 

The surfaces should be broad and simple, defined by a bold and clear design, accentuated in the important places. The enlargement of the details or their multiplicity is to be feared. By exaggerating the forms, in order to render them more clearly visible, or by enriching them with details, we would destroy the proportion of the work. Finally, the model, like the design, should have a summarized character, such as one would give to a rapid sketch. Only it is necessary that this character should be the product of volition and study, and that the artist, concentrating his knowledge, should find the form and the line in its greatest simplicity.

Bartholdi wanted to place a broken chain implying freedom in Liberty’s left hand but thought it would be controversial in the aftermath of the Civil War. So he placed the chain under her robes, beneath her stride, and where it would be relatively inconspicuous In her left hand, Bartholdi placed a tabula ansata, a tablet associated with law and governance. Though even the master sculptor admired the United States Constitution, he chose the Declaration of Independence to be associated with the idea of Liberty. Hence, the ‘JULY IV MDCCLXXVI’ inscription on the tablet. The height of the statue had been decided at just over 151 feet or 46 meters.

Getting to Work

By 1875, France’s economy had recovered from the war. Laboulaye decided it was time to announce the project and seek public support. The Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia seemed the best time to do it. Laboulaye formed the Franco-American Union to help in raising funds for the project. Liberty Enlightening the World would be financed and made in France and America would be required to produce the pedestal on which Liberty would be mounted. The announcement was received with general enthusiasm; as would be expected French monarchists opposed the statue, if for no other reason but to spite Laboulaye who was recently elected a senator-for-life. 

Laboulaye organized fund-raising events designed to appeal to the rich and influential. A musical held at the Paris Opera on April 25 1876, featured a new cantata composed by Charles Gounod especially for the project. It was titled La Liberté éclairant le monde, the French translation of the announced name. However, Laboulaye was able to raise funds from all sections of French society, including schoolchildren and municipalities. Laboulaye asked for support in his political rallies; descendents of the French contingent who had fought in the American War of Independence contributed. French copper industrialist Eugene Secretan donated thousands of pounds of copper.

Bartholdi began fabricating the head and diadem of Liberty and the right arm bearing the torch. In May 1876, he sailed to the United States to participate in the Centennial Exhibition as a member of the French delegation. A huge painting of the statue was displayed in New York as a part of the Exhibition. The head and arm reached Philadelphia too late to have the sculpture recorded in the exhibition catalogue, due to which few could identify it as the Statue of Liberty. However, the exhibit became popular in the closing days of the festival and people climbed up to the balcony of the torch for a better view of the fairgrounds. The head and arm were displayed in Madison Square Park in New York for several years before they were transported back to France to join the rest of the statue.

Bartholdi turned to his former trainer and mentor, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, to design the internal structure of the statue. He suggested a wooden framework with masonry compartments filled with sand be used to support the thousands of pounds of copper skin. Viollet-le-Duc also asked Bartholdi to mold light-weight copper sheets by battering them onto the wooden structure, a technique known as repoussé. He would then use armature bars to attach the molded sheets. The master also helped his former pupil in designing Liberty’s torch and her arm’s support system.

Viollet-le-Duc died unexpectedly in 1879 and Bartholdi asked Gustave Eiffel to finish the internal construction. The creator of his future eponymous landmark designed a completely new support structure for the statue but retained Viollet-le-Duc’s repoussé technique and his skilful use of armature bars.

The Pedestal

Bartholdi made a third trip to the United States and urged Americans of the Franco-American Union to raise funds for the pedestal. Laboulaye turned to his fellow Union League Club members, a group that supported the Union in the Civil War. One of the members was William Maxwell Evarts, an accomplished statesman and lawyer, who was made chairman of the American Committee for the Statue of Liberty. Committees were formed in several states but the New York committee understandably took on most of the responsibility for the pedestal. The committee included 19-year old Theodore Roosevelt, the future President of the United States. 

However, Evarts would prove to be the key figure in the success of the fundraising campaign for the pedestal. The senior statesman’s committed involvement and his social and political influence validated the campaign in the eyes of the public and press. More important was Evart’s influence in the White House and with President Grant. After much persuasion, a joint committee of Congress passed a resolution officially accepting the Statue of Liberty as a gift from France on March 3, 1877. He was also instrumental in Congress contributing $56,000 towards the pedestal.

Famous architect Richard Morris Hunt was commissioned to design the pedestal. Bartholdi, the creator of Liberty Enlightening the World imagined the pedestal as looming ‘Fortress of Liberty’. He also discussed other designs, including a stepped pyramid with Hunt. From 1882 to 1884, Hunt experimented with numerous designs of his own. The architect and the French sculptor ultimately combined the ‘Fortress’ with Hunt’s ‘Pharos I’ design inspired by the Lighthouse of Alexandria, one of the seven wonders of antiquity. Hunt’s pedestal fused in harmony with the colossal statue above it and remains an important monument in its own right.

Hunt’s other notable works include the New York Tribune building, the Lenox Library and many more. Hunt also founded the American Institute of Architects in 1857 and served as its first secretary. Hunt received $1,000 for his work on the statue, which he donated to the pedestal’s construction.

Statue of Liberty Unveiled by Edward Moran.

The Symbol of Liberty

In 1886, the Statue of Liberty was dedicated as the symbol of democracy, the ideals of the Enlightenment and equality for all. However, the struggle for liberty and justice for all was still a reality for a section of American society. African Americans were loath to embrace the symbol of a nation, which would not include them as equal citizens. The Statue of Liberty would not help them achieve equality and justice in the truest sense for another century.

America had long been a nation of immigrants, but when nearby Ellis Island became an immigration centre in 1892, the Statue of Liberty became a welcoming figure as the ships sailed into the harbour. Over time, the Liberty emerged as the ‘Mother of all Exiles’, a beacon of hope for generations of foreigners who had dreamt of a better life in the New World. President Franklin D. Roosevelt further solidified the statue as an immigration icon in his speech on its 50th anniversary when he described immigration as a central part of America’s history. However, the symbolism ignored the real difficulties of settling in the United States, particularly for immigrants from non-European countries.

The two World Wars further advanced the Statue of Liberty as an emblem of freedom for the poor and persecuted people of Europe. The islands of New York harbour had long served as military bases and the statue came to be associated with the US military as well. In wartime, the monument achieved renewed significance for soldiers sailing out to fight overseas. It became an image they may never see again. 

Pictures of the Statue of Liberty were used to sell war bonds and mobilize war efforts in the country. It also reminded Americans that the statue was a gift from embattled France. Servicemen and women returning from war were moved by the sight of Liberty as they sailed back into the harbour. Even after 9/11, the Statue of Liberty was invoked to express American horror, anguish and rage. 

The Statue of Liberty was originally intended to serve as a lighthouse under the administration of the U.S. Lighthouse board. However, though the torch had been electrified, the statue had not been designed to serve as a lighthouse. After some decades under the U.S. Department of War, the Statue of Liberty was eventually turned over to the National Park Service in 1937. Norman T. Newton, the landscape architect of the National Park Service transformed Liberty Island into a park befitting the national monument.  In 1984, the statue was included in the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

What do you think of the importance of the Statue of Liberty? Let us know below.

This article was written by Aliasgar Abuwala of Travel Back Through Time.

The role of Black Haitian Soldiers in the Siege of Savannah during the American Revolution

The American Revolution (1776-1783) was a key event in the making of the modern world. France helped the American rebels to gain their independence in many ways. One of them was by sending black Haitian soldiers to fight at the Siege of Savannah – which is particularly curious considering the position of people of color in the thirteen colonies and Haiti at the time. Jordan Baker explains.

King Henry I of Haiti, or Henri Christophe, who is said to have been a drummer boy during the Siege of Savannah.

You've probably heard how France fought on the colonists' side in the American Revolution. But in 1776, France was a world empire, with territories in the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and India. So, when war broke out in Britain's thirteen American colonies, and Louis XVI saw an opportunity to strike a blow against his kingdom's oldest foe, France sent more than just Parisian troops. In October 1779, around 500 black Haitian soldiers reached the port of Savannah, sent by the French Empire to 'free' Georgia - one of the biggest slaveholding colonies at the time - from the British.1 So, black soldiers from France's largest slave colony, came to help give independence to British colonists who themselves enslaved black people.

It just goes to show how fluid notions of race are over time. To contemporary Americans, free black men, no matter from where they hailed, could never fight alongside white slaveowners - but they did. In fact, many of these soldiers wanted to prove just how different they were from the enslaved Africans in both Georgia and Saint-Domingue. Indeed, this dichotomy between enslaved and free blacks proved a rather common occurrence in the colonial world, as ‘freedmen’ were anxious to distinguish themselves from the lowest social class on the eighteenth-century totem pole.

Free men of color in Saint-Domingue

Since the seventeenth-century, free men of color had played a prominent role in French Saint-Domingue. Strangely enough, they often served as overseers of the island’s numerous plantations.3 In fact, many free men of color owned slaves of their own. Owning land at higher elevations in Saint-Domingue’s hill country, these black slaveowners often owned several dozen African slaves who they used to plant, grow, and harvest vast amounts of coffee and indigo.4 This group of black planters felt themselves to be every bit as French as the guy next door. I mean, why not? They spoke French, dressed like Europeans, and even owned people! But as the decades wore on, this group of free blacks became subject to ever increasing, racially-based, prejudice.5

And so they came, hoping to prove themselves the “virtuous Frenchmen” they knew themselves to be. Known as the Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint-Domingue, or Saint-Domingue Volunteer Infantry, this group of soldiers constituted the largest contingent of troops of African descent to fight in the American Revolution.6 According to legend, a twelve-year-old boy, named Henri Christophe, sailed with the Volontaires. Supposedly freed from slavery at an unknown, but early, age, Christophe came with the Saint-Domingue forces as a drummer boy. Twelve years later, that drummer boy enlisted in the Haitian militia, and quickly rose to the rank of officer before becoming the first President and King of Haiti.7

The Siege of Savannah

The Siege of Savannah lasted for over a month, stretching from September 16 to October 18, 1779. The Comte d’Estaing (whose full name was quite a mouthful, Jean Baptiste Charles Henri Hector, Comte de’Estaing) was named the commander of the Siege, responsible for taking Savannah back for the Americans. In the weeks leading up to the decisive confrontation, d’Estaing attempted to use French naval power and the presence of the American ground forces outside the city to persuade the British to surrender. Ultimately, due to British naval savvy and some luck, these efforts bore no fruit - so the French navy began to bombard the city with cannon fire. From October 3 to October 8, the city of Savannah, rather than the British defenses, suffered the destruction brought on back the cannons. But the British refused to surrender, and so, due to the outbreak of scurvy and dysentery among his ranks, and a shortage of supplies, d’Estaing was forced to assault the city.8

When the actual battle got underway, it proved disastrous to the American troops and their allied forces (including the Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint-Domingue). Tipped off by American deserters, the British troops defending Savannah were more than ready for the attack, easily repelling the oncoming mélange of French, American, and Haitian troops. All told, the Franco-American attackers finished the battle with 244 killed, 584 wounded, and 120 taken prisoner - a total of 948 casualties. The British, however, lost 40 men, had 63 wounded, and reported 52 missing - totaling 155 casualties.9

Due to their bravery in battle and reported loyalty to d’Estaing, the Chasseurs-Volontaires took some of the heaviest losses of any regiment. By the end of the battle, 168 Haitian soldiers lay dead, and another 411 were wounded.10But many of the Haitians present for the siege and subsequent battle survived. These survivors of the Siege of Savannah and the American Revolution in general would go on to play an important role in the liberation of their Caribbean homeland. 

While the Franco-American assault on Savannah ultimately failed, men such as Christophe brought back ideals of republicanism, and the knowledge that rising up against one’s colonial overlord was indeed possible. While not all gens de couleur fought in or supported the Haitian revolution, many came back from the Siege of Savannah battle hardened, and with the desire to form a new government in which they no longer occupied some strange middle ground between freedom and slavery.

Jordan Baker writes at the East India Blogging Company here.

Sources

1. Cindy Wong, "Savannah, Georgia: Saint-Domingueans or Haitians in the American Revolution," Miami Herald, June 2002.
3. Laurent Dubois, Slave Revolution in the Caribbean, 1789-1804,(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 15
4. Dubois, Slave Revolution in the Caribbean, 16.
5. Dubois, Slave Revolution in the Caribbean, 16.
6. "Haitian Monument in Franklin Square, Savannah, GA"
7. "Haitian Monument in Franklin Square, Savannah, GA"

8. “Siege of Savannah,” Wikipedia 

9. Ibid

10. “Haitian Soldiers at the Battle of Savannah (1779),” blackpast.org

A Brief History of Popular European Noble Titles

Noble titles have played an important role in European history for centuries. They have often historically been bestowed upon important people by rulers and passed down the generations through powerful families. Here, Matt Kirkman considers the history of a variety of noble titles across Europe.

Edward, the Black Prince. Edward was the first Duke of Cornwall in the 14th century.

The concept of titles is a fascinating one, especially when we look at it from an anthropological point of view. Across history, we have used them to establish some form of hierarchy so that the order is understood by all. Europe is known for its rich history; a history that has one of the most diverse collections of cultures across the ages. Noble titles in Europe are interesting, and they play an integral role in the history of the continent.

They are part of European culture, and have helped shape society in order for it to become the way it is today; there are even titles for sale, which are used to this day to bring a little sophistication to some families. This article will take you through some of the most well-known titles and the ways in which they were formed and relate to each other.

The History of Duke and Duchess

Duke and Duchess are the ranks directly under the monarchy and are the highest in terms of nobility. In its furthest origins, it comes from theLatin word dux, meaning leader, which was used to refer to a military commander without an official rank. The male is a Duke, and his wife is referred to as the Duchess. However, it is interesting to note that Queen Elizabeth II is referred to as a Duke for her ruling lands.

The title in its current form dates back to the Medieval period, and it is not exclusive to England. It’s actually held across the entirety of Europe as a royal title; it’s just that the name may end up differing due to the language. In fact, it was first used in lands that make up modern-day Germany before being adopted by neighbouring countries and spreading. Dukes and Duchesses are normally referred to as Your Grace.

It used to be that a Duke reigned over hisDuchy; an area of land, or even country, that belonged to him. This was a key part of a dukedom up until they lost most of their sovereignty in the 19thcentury. It is now only a title as opposed to coming with responsibilities, although this has almost always been the case in Britain. The vast majority of Dukes have inherited their titles as they have been passed down for generations.

The History of Baron and Baroness

Baron and Baroness do not rank as highly as many may think, and is actually only two above Knight. However, it does still hold a great deal of respect, and it is often a hereditary title. It is of French origin and was quite prevalent there as well as across other European countries such as Britain, Scandinavia, and what was to become Germany and Italy.

Withinfeudal Europe, the rank of Baron referred to a man that pledged his loyalty and services to his superior in exchange for land that he would be able to pass down to his heirs. Some barons even had their own subordinate barons, but this practice was abolished by Edward I in England when he realised the potential dangers it implied both fiscally and politically.

While the title was scattered across much of Europe, it has the most history in Britain and France. In France, the ranking of baron changed several times over the centuries. It was at its most powerful in the 13thcentury, before being demoted to a position below viscounts in the 14thcentury. Despite this, the Barons remained more influential in terms of power and possessions, so their demotion did little to lessen the authority they held. It remained a hereditary title until the 17thcentury, when Louis XIV sent letters out promoting people to Baron, so lessening the rank in the eyes of many.

It held more power in what was to become Italy, giving those who held the title the ability to give out the death penalty, wage private war, and even have a right to mint money. Their powers were extensive, and this was especially the case in the south, and it was a recognised title up until 1945. For Spanish Barons, the height of power was in the late Middle Ages, where they became more influential than their French counterparts. The title was, however, abolished in 1812.

The History of Marquis and Marchioness

Marquis and Marchionessis a historically noble rank, and even today it is seen as quite influential. It sits directly below Duke and above Count. In its origin, the title Marquis referred to a Count or Earl that held frontier land, but it is a significance that has long been lost. This old meaning behind the title also meant that they were able to hold more than one county, which actually left them almost on the same authoritative level as a Duke. The title was most prevalent in Western Europe.

Interestingly, the British word for Marquis is actuallyMarquess, with the Marchioness being his wife (or a woman who holds the title herself). However, it is often spelt in its French form Marquis. Many are still around in Great Britain, as well as across Europe. The lines between a Marquis and a Count have often been thin and blurred, which has often led to a great deal of rivalry between the two.

In fact, it was the difficulty in differentiating these ranks that brought the title of Marquis into disrepute in the 17thand 18thcenturies in France. It was seen as being self-made and pretentious, and a title that was abolished after the French Revolution. It was eventually revived by Louis XVIII, and he made sure to give them clear differentiation from the ranks of Duke and Count.

In territories that were to become Germany the title goes back to the10thCenturyas regions made a bid to strengthen their Eastern frontier. They were expected to secure their locations as well as push forward, and the title eventually became one that was handed down over generations. This is also how German Duchy’s spread across countries like Austria.

In modern-day Italian territory and Spain, the title was used in the same way as the other countries; for those who owned and secured frontier land. However, as the title began to become more important  and was passed down the generations, both countries eventually abolished it in the 14thcentury. It is a title you rarely hear in the modern world.

The History of Count and Countess

Counts and Countesses are theequivalent to Earls. They rank after a Duke, or a Marquis for countries that still have this title. It holds its origins in the Roman Empire, where the position, known as comes, was a high-ranking courtier or military official that was close to the Emperor. They were often charged with tasks such as strengthening the frontier, and it later evolved into the term Count for military officials without a specific ranking.

In the Middle Ages, Counts were usually appointed by a Duke or a king, and they were not in charge of armed forces. In fact, you would normally find them ruling a county and keeping things in check, with the Bishop as their rival. It was not a hereditary title in the beginning, especially when it was still referred to as comes. It was a given title, and not one that was passed down, but this changed in the Middle Ages. In fact, many Counts, Earls, and Countesses still exist within society across Europe.

In lands that were to become modern-day Germany, the title actually became hereditary in the 10thcentury, which was quite different from the other countries on the continent. In Italy, it works quite differently as the title is bestowed upon people by the Pope and other sovereign members of society – and this practice continues to this day. This is done quite liberally as well, so you may find there are more Counts in Italy than other European countries.

France lost its Counts when they were turned into the vassals of Dukesby AD 900. They lost their defining features as feudalism swept the land, and became more like lords with land than Counts. In the 12thand 13thcenturies, many of the lords styled themselves in the way of a Count, but they did not hold the official title. The titles were eventually restored towards the start of the 14thcentury, and they were made hereditary, but they held very little power or authority.

Conclusion

Hopefully, this article has piqued your interested and been something that you have found both interesting and informative. The history of European titles is sometimes surprising, and its rich past is one that should be appreciated by all. It is interesting to see how names can be quite similar across different countries, and that many of them have the same word of origin. There’s so much to discover, and these are just some of the titles that exist; there are hundreds more.

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

The Failure of America’s Attempts to Resolve Slavery before the US Civil War

Slavery was sadly familiar during the early decades of an independent America. Here, Ian Craig discusses the failure of compromise during the years from 1789 until the US Civil War. In particular he considers the sectional divide between the North, South, and – later – Western American states.

You can also read Ian’s series on President James Buchanan and the US Civil War here.

The official White House portrait of President Zachary Taylor. Taylor played a key role in the Compromise of 1850.

In the history of the United States, the nation has long been divided along sectional lines, most notably North and South.  In 1789, when the Constitution became the law of the land, compromise had been used to get the states to agree on the new form of government.  The Three-Fifths Compromise was one such example.  Slavery was deeply rooted in the economy of the South, while the North began to rely heavily on its manufacturing industry. When it came time to decide representation in the new Congress, the Southern states demanded that their slave population be counted toward their population total.  Since the North did not support slave labor and had a growing abolitionist movement, it disagreed with the South’s proposal.  Instead, the authors of the Constitution, including James Madison, came up with a compromise.  The South’s total slave population would not count towards representation, only three-fifths of its slave population would be counted towards each southern states’ population.  This compromise managed to win support on both sides, but the debate and compromise over slavery did not end there.

When President Thomas Jefferson agreed to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, he had no idea that it would help spark further debates over slavery.  The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States with most of its territory lying northwest of the Mississippi River.  The acquisition of such a vast territory was seen by many Americans as progress for the young nation.  No one considered the idea that as more territory was added to the nation, that slavery’s expansion would take center stage.  In 1819, the first debate over slavery’s expansion into the western territories took place.  Missouri, which was relatively more north than south, wanted to enter the Union as a slave state.  However, this would upset the balance of power between slave and free states in the Senate.  The South needed to maintain this due to the fact that the North’s greater population often gave them more support in the House of Representatives.  In an attempt to put an end to the issue, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky came up with a compromise.  He called for slavery to be banned in the region northwest of Missouri and for Maine (formerly part of Massachusetts) to enter the Union as a free state.  This compromise was agreed to and attempted to hold the nation together for another thirty years.  However, when the compromise was passed in 1820, it merely put a temporary fix on the growing issue of slavery.  It did nothing to settle the growing sectional divide the nation was facing as well.

Sectionalism in the US

Sectionalism was deeply rooted in the United States.  When the nation was founded in 1776, many Americans had more loyalty to their individual states rather than the nation as a whole.  This was because many felt that their own state governments represented their best interests because they were their neighbors and friends in some cases. In conjunction with this, many did not trust the new federal or central government.  This goes back to the trade off between having a king thousands of miles away to having many “kings” a mere couple hundred miles away.  It was for this reason that the original government of the United States, under the Articles of Confederation, was made relatively weak.  Under the Articles, there was not one single leader, but many in a representative body or congress.  This Congress was led by a president, but this person was by no means the President of the United States.  In addition, the government had no power to collect taxes or to raise them nor could it regulate trade or create a standing army and navy to defend the nation.  In these terms, the States had all the power as it was intended to be.  Therefore, the Continental Congress had to ask the states to raise funds and relied on the states to provide their militias in times of war.  The Articles left the federal government extremely weak, the Founding Fathers did not want to have a repeat of the rule they had under King George III and Great Britain.   

The federal government would become much stronger when the Constitution was passed in 1789; however, the individual loyalty to one’s state remained.  Often America was referred to as “these United States” instead of a single nation “The United States.” It is this sentiment that began to take hold after 1820. In 1848, when the U.S.-Mexican War came to an end, more territory was added to the nation through the Mexican Cession.  This included land that would become the American southwest and California.  When gold was discovered in California in early 1848, prospectors and settlers flocked to the territory causing its population to rapidly increase.  By 1850, California was ready to enter the Union and become the thirty-first state. However, the majority of the population had come from areas that did not support slavery and as a result, California had wished to enter as a free state.

The Compromise of 1850

This concept had re-opened the door for slavery’s debate in the nation.  Although it had never gone away, it now became a topic for discussion for many. President Zachary Taylor wanted to see California admitted into the Union as soon as possible.  He recognized the sizzling debate of slavery which was growing over the nation, but he felt that a quick admission would solve the issue. In contrast, allowing California to enter the Union as a free state would upset the balance of power in the Senate. Something had to be given to the South for compensation.  This led to the Compromise of 1850 which began under Henry Clay but was resolved under Senator Stephen Douglas.  

In order to appease both sides, Douglas was able to come up with five resolutions that would require a vote. They included allowing California to enter as a free state, the ban of the slave trade in Washington D.C., the creation of a new Fugitive Slave Law, that popular sovereignty be allowed in the territories of Utah and New Mexico, and that Texas’ border dispute with New Mexico be resolved.[1]  President Taylor threatened to veto the legislation if it came to him because he did not want any chance of slavery entering the western territories.  This surprised those in the South who believed that Taylor, a Southerner himself, had betrayed them.  In July 1850, the president’s unwillingness to compromise seemed to be taking hold.  However, President Zachary Taylor died of presumed food poisoning after eating cherries and drinking a pitcher of milk.  His vice president, Millard Fillmore, had no issue signing the Compromise of 1850 as he believed he had once and for all settled the question of slavery’s expansion.  Instead, he only made the issue much worse. 

Disputes in the 1850s

The passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 meant that the North no longer became a safe haven for escaped slaves.  Instead, those in the northern states were required by law to aid slave catchers in their retrieval of runaway slaves.  Any violation of the law would result in fines and even jail time.  With this act in place, the federal government was essentially allowing slavery to continue while keeping it enforced.  In the eyes of the North, this was a betrayal by the federal government as it appeared to be helping the South continue slavery not end it.  By 1854, the debate which was thought to have ended with the Compromise of 1850 heated up again.  Under the Kansas-Nebraska Act, governments were formed for the territories of Kansas and Nebraska allowing for popular sovereignty.  At the same time, the Missouri Compromise, which had banned slavery in those territories for thirty years, was repealed.  This caused much concern for those in the North.

Although the Kansas-Nebraska Act which was also authored by Stephen Douglas, attempted to appease both sides, it ended up causing much violence in the region.  When Kansas wanted to enter the Union as a free state, pro-slavery settlers from neighboring Missouri crossed the border illegally.  This resulted in the election of a pro-slavery government.  In what would become known as “Bleeding Kansas,” pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces would battle for control of the territory.  This would continue until President James Buchanan sent the military to secure fare elections; however, it wasn’t until 1861 that Kansas was admitted as a free state.  

The sectional wound that the nation felt only became worse after the 1854 Act.  “Bleeding Kansas” was a snapshot of what would come during the US Civil War.  Compromise failed in many ways, but ultimately if failed because the sectional wound between the North, South, and eventually the West, was never resolved. Each compromise or act only put a temporary bandage on a wound that needed stitches to fully heal.  However, all sides refused to find that resolution because they all believed their point of view was correct.  They did not have any regard for the integrity of the nation, instead it was for their individual homes or states.  When the Civil War broke out and South Carolina seceded from the Union, a man who would go down in history was offered a much different path. President Lincoln authorized Francis P. Blair Sr., an advisor, to offer Robert E. Lee full command of the Union Army to put down the rebellion in the South.  Despite his loyalty to the United States, Lee refused because he could not help lead an invasion of his native home Virginia and the South.  Like Lee, many others felt the same way in taking up arms to either defend or fight against the United States.

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

[1]James McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction 3rded, (McGraw-Hill, 2001), 74. 

5 Amazing Archeological Discoveries Made by Ordinary People

Archeologists always amaze us with their discoveries. Many of these findings are the result of many years of research. But, some of them were found accidentally by ordinary people who didn’t know that such historical treasures were only a few feet underneath them. In this article, Alex Lemaire tells us about five discoveries made by accident.

The Lascaux paintings in France. They were discovered by teenagers in 1940. Image source: Prof saxx, available here.

Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter

While doing his homework, Daniel Kristiansen, a 14-year Danish boy, and his father Klaus found the wreckage of a German plane that crashed during WW2 in their family-ownedfarm.

The history teacher gave his students a school assignment about the Second World War. Daniel asked his father if he could help. Klaus wanted to teach his son about the history of the area using a different approach. He wanted his son to interact with the historical information instead of just consuming it passively.

Klaus was told by his grandfather about a German fighter that crashed in the farm in the last years of the war when Denmark was still occupied by the Nazis. He didn’t know its exact location and he didn’t expect to find anything because he thought that the wreckage was removed. However, he wantedto give it a shot.

The kid and his father used a metal detector to scan the field. And after a few moments, the device indicated the presence of some buried metal pieces. They dug for a few feet to find the plane’s engine block and the pilot’s remains. They called the authorities immediately. 

The Explosive Ordnance Disposal made sure there were no unexploded bombs and the fighter’s ammunition was safe. The archeologists examined the wreckage. They were able to identify the pilot, the date when the plane crashed and other details about its mission. The airplane’s parts were handed over to the Historical Museum of Northern Jutland Denmark.

Ötzi the Iceman

On September 19, 1991, two German tourists Helmut and Erika were walking in the mountains on the border between Italy and Austria when they found a dead body. It was well preserved; they thought it belonged to someone who recently died. They reported that to the authorities. The police came to the scene and tried to remove the body, which was buried in the glacier. But the first attempt failed due to the bad weather. The body was finally exhumed with some of the man’s belongings. Archeologists estimated that based on the axfound on the site, the dead body was four thousand years old!

Scientists examined thecorpse and the items found with it extensively. They estimate that Otzi was 45 years old when he died, was 5 feet 3 inches tall (160 centimeters), weighed 110 pounds (50 Kg), and lived somewhere between 3400 and 3100 BCE. 

The body was well preserved after all of these years because it was covered by ice moments after the death. Even the blood cells were still intact which makes them the oldest human intact blood cells ever discovered. Otzi’s body, clothes, andtools were reconstructed. They are on display on the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology in Italy. They offer a unique snapshot of our way of life during that era.

Hoxne Hoard

One of the most famous and precious artifacts displayed in the British Museum is the Hoxne Hoard. It consistsof 14,865 coins, 200 silver tableware,andgold jewelry. It was found on a field, in the village of Hoxne, in the UKin 1992 by Eric Lawes.

Eric’s friend, Peter, is a farmer. When he was working in his farm, he lost his hammer. He called his friend and asked him if he could give him a hand. Eric used his metal detector to look for it. Instead of finding it, he found a hoard inside a wooden box. (They later found the cheap hammer that is on display alongside the gold and silver coins and the precious jewelry in the museum).

The two men reported their discovery to the authorities. A group of archeologists unearthed the treasure and scanned the whole area with metal detectors to make sure nothing was left behind. This trove was large - the expert in the British Museum needed a month to clean and examine these relics.

Pompeii and Herculaneum

Pompeii and Herculaneum are two ancient Romancities. They were buried under feet of ash and cinder, which preserved them in very good condition for hundreds of years. They are amazing time machines that helpus visualize many aspects of Roman life 1600 years ago.

In AD 79, Mount Vesuvius erupted sending tons of ash many miles away and burying the two cities entirely and killing thousands of people instantaneously. Organic materials were carbonized. Wooden objects like doors are still in goodshape. Human bodies turned into statues. Even foodwas preserved.

The two cities were forgotten for centuries until they were discovered while digging the foundations of a newbuilding.Herculaneum is smaller than Pompeii but its residents appear to be wealthier. Colored marble was used extensively in its houses. Around 11,000 people lived in Pompeii. This estimation is based on the number of buildings in the city.

These two cities are the largest continually exacted archeological sites in the world. Many parts of the city are still buried after centuries of hard work to unearth them. However, the biggest challenge isn’t to remove the volcanic ash, it is to preserve what has been already excavated. Because the buildings are now exposed to the elements of nature, they will deteriorate faster if measures are not taken.

Lascaux Cave

The Lascaux Cave is situated near the village of Montignac in southwestern France. Its interior walls and ceiling are covered with over 600 prehistoric paintings. The paintings depictmostly animals that lived somewhere around 17,000 years ago. Many of these animals are extinct like rhinos and lions.

Four teenagers made this discovery on September 12, 1940 after looking for their dog who had fallen into a hole. They decided to explore what’s inside. So they widened the hole and threw some rocks to estimate how deep it is. They entered the cave after they made sure it was safe to get inside and they found the jaw-dropping paintings.

The cave was opened to the public on July 14, 1948. There were around 1200 visitors per day. But the heat, humidity and the deterioration of the air quality along with other factors damaged the paintings. To protect the cave, the authorities decided to close it to the public in 1963. The Lascaux Cave was enlisted in the UNESCO's World Heritagelist in 1979. For those who want to enjoy these breath-taking paintings, you can visit Lascaux 2. It is a replica of the original cave and only a few hundred feet away from it.

Have you made any amazing discoveries? Let us know below if so.

Article written by Alex Lemaire of https://metaldetectorplanet.com.

The Differences in Christian Ideology that led to Major Differences Between the North and South of the USA

Christianity has had a major influence in America since the early European settlers moved there. Here, Daniel Smith considers how different Christian ideologies predominated in different parts of America – ultimately leading to differences between the North and South that lingered for a long time.

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), and Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here).

Benjamin Franklin Drawing Electricity from the Sky: Painting by Benjamin West, circa 1816. Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin often cited Scripture.

To understand the differing ideology behind the split regions of America, from North to South, you need to understand first that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. In the early 1600s, when the first Europeans landed, they established settlements. Within every settlement was a Charter. This document solidified the legal framework for the colony to be run by. Within each colony’s Charter, you would have found reference to the Bible in one mention or another. Now let us fast forward a little bit in time to bring you into the know on – why,the colonies civil governments were run in the manner that they were… it’s called religion.

In the 1600s there were three American regions that had settlements in place. These three regions consisted of the Northern, Middle, and Southern colonies. Each colony had a separate form of Christian doctrine it followed, all depending on the region that you lived. Three distinct Christian movements came out of these regions, in major geographical areas. This was important because their views of church government determined their colonial form of civil government. This gets complex, but it is important to understand that with all sects of religion come subtle and major differences in how laws and morals are navigated. 

The Southern colonies were the stronghold of Episcopalians’, who emphasize strong apostolic leadership. Southern government was well known for their aristocratic monarchial form of government. The effects of this form of church government would be apparent when the first representative assembly in America began in 1607 at the church in Jamestown, Virginia with Reverend Bucke leading the Burgess in prayer. The Burgess were considered the “plantation elite” at that time. The Reverend would be known to ask God to guide and sanctify their proceedings to his own glory and the good of the plantation. Jamestown would go on to issue laws requiring church attendance. In doing so, the thought process behind the decree was believing that men’s affairs cannot prosper where God’s service is neglected.

The Northern colonies were dominated by Congregationalists. A decade or two later, the Middle colonies dominated by the Presbyterian, and Reformed Catholic faiths merged with the Northern colonies. New England had the first American settlement settled in 1620. After decades of trying to expose the corruption in the Church of England, and showing little effect, they left for the New World. Puritans at Boston (1630) were known for their fundamental, or strict legalistic ways of Christianity that was dominated by the hierarchal Catholic denomination; whereas the Separatists (or Protestants) at Plymouth Bay colony emphasized the personal relationship and accountability to God without the strict adherence to the legalistic and ritualistic aspects of Catholicism. 

It is important to note the major Puritan drawback was that they were still holding onto the idea of a State church. They saw nothing wrong with that, and compelled religion (as in Europe). The disapproval of issue in England was that Church and State were corrupt and unbiblical in many aspects. Eventually Protestant and Puritan ministers would work together with their theology to allow for more freedom of conscience and individual liberty.

FAST FORWARD

A Christian Nation is molded by its formof government, not whoformed it. If the form of a nation’s government is molded by Biblical ideas, then the nation isa Christian nation. Now let us fast forward a little bit in time. In 1867 The North American Reviewstated that “The American government and Constitution is the … political expression of Christian ideas.”[1]Our founders were all collectively convinced of this truth. Even unconventional believers such as Benjamin Franklin often cited Scripture. 

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin said: 

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it’ [psalm 1237:1]. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builder of Babel [Genesis 11].”[2]

The ideas embodied in the U.S. Constitution stem primarily from the Bible. The Founders reasoned from the Bible far more than any other source. This was once taken for granted by Americans until modern revisionist historians began to promote the view that nationalistic enlightenment thinkers were the major influence behind the Constitution. 

How can we know for sure? Dr. Donald Lutz, a professor of political science from the University of Houston, conducted an exhaustive ten-year research of about 15,000 political documents of the Founders’ era (1760-1805), and recorded every quote or reference to another written source. This list of the 3,154 citations of the Founders was analyzed and published in Volume #78 of the American Political Science Review in 1983. The results would give quite an accurate measure of the influence of various sources of thought on the Constitution. The results were surprisingly contradictory to modern scholarship. By far, the most often quoted source of their political ideas was the Bible.

This would account for over one-third (34%) of all their citations. Another 50% of all references can be attributed to authors who themselves derived their ideas from the Bible. Therefore, it can be said that 84% of the ideas in our Constitution are based directly or indirectly on the Bible.[3]The Bible and civil liberty are inseparable. Even Newsweek, on December 26, 1982, acknowledged after a major analysis of the Bible’s influence in America, that, “Now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution is our Founding document.”[4]

Some historians recognize that Franklin’s reference to “the Sacred Writings” (Scripture) and to “the builders of Babel” (Israel) in the Convention’s search for “political truth” (Christ’s teachings) was not a strange coincidental fluke. There was absolute meaning. So now that you understand a little more on how important religion and the colonial governments were so closely knitted together, it’s also important to note that even though not all Colonial Americans were Christians (although most were), all of them understood the importance and adherence of living by Christian principles. Simply put, they all ultimately believed that Scriptures “guidelines” were the right way of doing life.

CHRISTIANS DIVIDED

There is a paradox to Christianity, and from a non-denominational standpoint, that paradox is the fundamental ideology of Old Testament Scripture. This should be considered a true error of Christian tradition. Well, how is that so? With every sect of Christianity, there is a molded tradition made out of how the Holy Bible is transliterated to Christian leaders and individuals alike. With the division of Christianity as a religion comes an inevitable vacuum, and that is the molding of Scripture to fit mankind’s agenda. This is of course part of the doctrinal fallacy that Scripture warns Christians about falling into belief over.[5]

There always seemed to be a struggle between morality, temperance, education, and slavery. When these struggles become so heavy that they bleed out from the individual and into the churches – these internal struggles then bleed into politics and society. This is where the formation of civil government becomes very complex. Especially when it comes down to moral and spiritual beliefs. It becomes even more complex when you attempt to figure out how to codify laws for society to live by. This is where Christian principles come into play. The Colonists had already been living by a codified system, laid out through history based upon Christian values and laws.

Through a typically organic process called “gradualism”, Colonial America began to grow and adjust their laws (and morals) accordingly to their ways of doing life. With this societal gradualism occurring subtly since the early 1600s, it’s easy to see how certain aspectsof life’s principles can get twisted to fit people’s personal agendas. One man in particular, was a Northerner by the name of John Brown. He was a devout Calvinist. Mr. Brown was very much a “fire and brimstone” style of believer. 

Calvinists’ doctrine of salvation by election; the belief that worldly success was a sign of God’s favor; the concept of the “calling,” according to which all people are called by God to vocations that, no matter how great or humble, are equal in his sight and whose diligent performance is a sacred duty; and the injunction against a waste, according to which wealth must be used for the glory of God through stewardship to mankind rather than squandered off in consumption and easy living. 

With that, he also thought that because he was in a place of political positioning, that it was God’s will that he must have undertook a mission to help ignite the firestorm that ultimately freed the slaves. God does not grant permission to do Hiswill, however he did providentially use Mr. Brown as one of the dozen catalysts to actually advance the opening salvos of the Civil War. We will get to Mr. Brown’s story later. Christianity was the base foundation of how society was written for the North American colonies. It is always unfortunate when a few misled leaders push these personal twists that ultimately expand into their local communities, thus the Northern and Southern regions of the United States. Regardless of doctrinal belief of Christianity, national sins are what collapses a nations successes and longevity. Two national sin examples would be slavery and greed.

COMPROMISING MORALS & ETHICS         

Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance Act in 1787 and 1789, which prohibited slavery in the new states. Congress also banned the exportation or transfer of slaves from anystate in 1794. It is evidence enough that all intentions of that generation were united in an effort to abolish slavery. England banned slavery in 1834 by the stroke of a pen. As new generations of Americans rose up to take the reins, they had seemingly less convictions on the matters of greed and slavery than their fathers before them. 

They began to compromise their morals and ethics. This was due to greed. The trend towards emancipation came to a halt in the South, and even churches began to justify slavery for the first time around 1810. By that date, all slave trading had been made illegal; however slave owning itself became more firmly entrenched in the South. Between 1810 and 1820, America experienced not only growth but also its share of social problems associated with its polarization of “cultures.” 

It was truly the first time America began to see morality wane and ethics bending to make ends meet. Specifically, the morals and ethics that were a big social issue for Yankee and Antebellum societies were drunkenness, prostitution, ignorance, and above all, slavery.[6]Of course with every issue in America there is always an argument to the story. Protestantism experienced a modernization of ethics during the industrial-era of America. In fact, the temperance movement coincided at the exact same time as the industrial revolution.

It was the temperance movement in America that gave way to the reforming movements throughout the entire country, regardless of blue or grey ideology. These movements grew out of the Second Great Awakening. A Christian revival nationwide, with a refocus on man’s accountability to Jesus Christ, instead of only being held accountable to themselves. It was through the temperance movement that soberness, education, woman’s rights, and anti-slaveryfinally became front-and-center social issues for both the American North andSouth. 

What do you think of the author’s arguments? Let us know below.

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

[1]Hall, Verna M. 1980. The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (CHOC).San Francisco. p. 198.

[2]Madison, James. 1987. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

[3]Lutz, Donald. 1984. "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th Century American Political Thought." American Political Science Review189-197.

[4]Newsweek. Dec. 26, 1982. "Historians Acknowledge American Biblical Link." Newsweek

[5]Read: Book of Matthew. TheHoly Bible.

[6]J. C. Furnas, The Americans: A Social History(New York, 1969) p. 505

Why did World War Two happen? How the Fascists Hitler, Mussolini, and Horthy Led to the Outbreak of World War Two

The causes of World War Two are varied, but some factors are more important than others. Here, Seth Eislund explains that fascism was the primary factor that led to World War Two. He considers Mussolini’s fascist Italy, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and Horthy’s fascistic Hungary.

Seth has previously written an article on whether the Nazis achieved their domestic aims – here.

Miklos Horthy and Adolf Hitler in 1938.

From November 1918 to September 1939, Europe existed in a fragile state of peace known as the interwar period. Political frustration and economic woes plagued European countries, especially Germany and Hungary, both of which endured a crippling defeat at the hands of the Allies. Germany and Hungary lost large swathes of territory to the Allies and faced grave economic depression and inflation. Even Italy, which had been on the winning side at the end of the First World War, endured “an inconclusive but costly victory.”[i]Hoping to return their countries to greatness, many Italians, Germans, and Hungarians eagerly adopted an ideology called “fascism,” which was promulgated by a former syndicalist named Benito Mussolini. Fascism emphasized expansionism, extreme nationalism, anti-Marxism, and anti-liberalism.[ii]Ultimately, due to its nationalist, expansionist, and warlike tendencies, fascism was the primary factor that shattered the fragile peace of the interwar period and incited the Second World War.

Italian Fascism

Benito Mussolini’s fascism promoted a love of warfare, nationalism, and expansionism, values which were implemented in Italian foreign policy and helped instigate World War II. In 1932, Mussolini wrote that fascism “believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.”[iii]Mussolini stated that fascism was inherently violent, and that violence unleashed peak human potential. Peace, on the other hand, neutered human potential and was therefore detrimental to humanity as a whole. Thus, in Mussolini’s worldview, war was a moral good that must be constantly waged to further human progress. Mussolini linked this line of reasoning with imperialist rhetoric, saying that “the expansion of a nation… is an essential manifestation of vitality.”[iv]To Mussolini, fascism was centered around a “nation,” or a “people,” which needed to expand their territory through any means necessary. Unsurprisingly, Mussolini’s fascism saw the Italian people as destined to expand throughout the world. These expansionist and nationalist motives explain why he invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and ultimately sided with Hitler in his conquest of Europe. Hence, Italian fascism aimed to foment conflict, and, as such, it exacerbated the tensions that ignited World War II.

German Nazism

Similar to Italian fascism, German Nazism combined a policy of nationalism, expansionism, and racism that aimed to start another war on European soil. Like Mussolini’s fascism, Adolf Hitler’s Nazism was a nationalist and expansionist ideology. Nazism claimed that Germans needed to conquer new territory and supplant the people who lived there. This was because Germans were members of the Aryan race, which was superior to all other races.[v]Days before he invaded Poland, Hitler articulated his desire to obtain more “living space,” or lebensraum, for the German people. He emphasized that war was necessary to obtain land for the survival of the Aryan race, and only by exterminating the Poles “shall [Germans] gain the living space which [they] need.”[vi]Hitler’s words show that the invasion of Poland, and consequently World War II, were inextricably linked to his Nazism. Waging war enabled the Aryan race to take the land it so desperately needed, purge “inferior races,” and achieve hegemony over the world.

Hungarian Fascistic Ideology

While not as fascist as Italy or Germany, Hungary adopted a fascistic ideology that contributed to the outbreak of World War II. Suffering tremendous territorial losses following World War I, Hungary became “barely one-third of its prewar size.”[vii]Consequently, many Hungarians were enraged at the punitive peace imposed upon them by the Allies, vowing to restore Hungary’s territorial and political status. Fascistic ideas gained traction, and under the auspices of Admiral Miklós Horthy and Captain Gyula Gömbös, Hungary became increasingly authoritarian during the interwar period. Gömbös allied Hungary with Italy and Nazi Germany, since he wanted to restore the territory Hungary lost after 1918.[viii]As a result, Hungary participated in the German annexation of Czechoslovakia by annexing regions with Hungarian nationals, which drew international outrage and panic.[ix]Ultimately, by abetting Germany’s dissolution of Czechoslovakia for its own gain, Hungary helped destabilize the already fragile peace in Europe and initiate World War II.

In Conclusion

Fascism was primarily responsible for causing the Second World War, as its emphasis on nationalism, expansionism, and warfare escalated tensions in interwar Europe. Mussolini’s fascism saw war as a moral good and proclaimed that the Italian people needed to expand their territory, which led Italy to invade Ethiopia in 1935. Similarly, Nazism viewed Germans as members of the “master race” which needed “living space” to survive, a belief that led Adolf Hitler to invade Poland in 1939 and start World War II. Lastly, Hungary aligned itself with Italy and Nazi Germany, annexing parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Therefore, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and fascistic Hungary plunged the continent into the most devastating war in history.

What do you think was the primary cause for World War Two? Let us know below.

[i]Robert O. Paxton and Julie Hessler, Europe in the Twentieth Century, 5th ed (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth - Cengage Learning, 2012), 180.

[ii]Paxton and Hessler, 179.

[iii]Benito Mussolini, “Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932,” Internet Modern History Sourcebook, edited by Paul Halsall (New York, NY: Fordham University, 2019), accessed May 5, 2019, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp.

[iv]Ibid.

[v]Paxton and Hessler, 284.

[vi]Louis P.  Lochner, What About Germany?(New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942), 1-4.

[vii]Paxton and Hessler, 191.

[viii]Paxton and Hessler, 302.

[ix]Paxton and Hessler, 345.

Bibliography

Lochner, Louis P. What About Germany?New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942.

Mussolini, Benito. “Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932.” Internet Modern History Sourcebook, edited by Paul Halsall. New York, NY: Fordham University, 2019. Accessed May 5, 2019. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp.

Paxton, Robert O., and Julie Hessler. Europe in the Twentieth Century. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth - Cengage Learning, 2012.

The Shocking Reality of Nuclear War Brought to life at Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker

Museums are important in helping us connect with the past and with historical events – but not all museums are equal. Here, Shannon Bent explains why she thinks Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker in the UK plays a chilling but important role in teaching and reminding us about the Cold War – and the power of nuclear weapons.

This follows Shannon’s articles on Berlin’s Checkpoint Charlie (here) and Topography of Terror (here).

Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker. Source: Espresso Addict available here.

I’ve been studying history for quite a while now. I am only 22, yes, but if you count school and the years I spent doing exams, plus my nerdy extra-curricular research and reading, I’m fairly well versed in the general history of the world. I studied war specifically for three years and like to think I am continuing to each day with my work and personal reading. There isn’t much about war that scares me anymore, besides perhaps a gas mask which I do not wish my eyes to linger on for long; a fear born out of an episode of TV show Doctor Whoback in 2006. But aside from irrational fears made from fiction and exacerbated like a child’s head does, there aren’t exactly many elements of war left that give leave that sick, anxious feeling in my stomach. Many would call it desensitisation, and I am inclined to agree to an extent. Being exposed to images of the trenches, the Blitz, the Holocaust, time and time again, I guess I would have to agree the actual images start to lose an impact. Never the meaning though, and what it represents. The day I no longer find the thought of these events appalling is the day I want someone to fire me from the sector, because from that moment on I would consider myself useless.

Changing Warfare

However, in defence of the desensitisation argument, I would also argue that these elements of war perhaps do not scare me because I am aware they will never be repeated on a major scale. Never again will a world war be fought on soil, with soldiers dug in shelling each other across an empty space of land that belongs to no man. Never again will two countries bomb civilians in a tit for tat fashion to break morale. War doesn’t work like this anymore. The next major war won’t be fought with boots on the ground, with an occupying force in a country, or with the movements of heavy weaponry. The world faces a far worse fate than that. Total war has been replaced by the potential for total annihilation. Nuclear war is now the only warfare left on the cards, and the only element of conflict that terrifies me to my core. Why? It will be the most catastrophic thing the world has ever seen. Correction; the world won’t see it. Because there won’t be a world left, just by sheer nature of the implement.  

Now this may all seem very dramatic and like I am scare-mongering. And I’ll admit, to an extent I am. Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD theory, is the best thing to come from nuclear weapons and makes me 90% sure the world is safe for a little longer. This concept states that while two opposing countries both hold nuclear weaponry, they will never fire upon the other, for the second they do, they will also be fired upon themselves, therefore destroying themselves. The fear of what it will do to them and their own people prevents them from inflicting it upon others. Kind of scary, kind of neat. I suppose if the world must have nuclear weaponry then let us kept this mind set flowing amongst as many countries as possible. It will keep us safe for now. But there are constant reminders of how close we have already come to utter decimation.

Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker

There is a bunker, mostly in the middle of nowhere, near a town called Nantwich in the UK. This bunker is known as Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker. And yeah, not so secret. But that’s the beauty of it. This bunker was to be one of a network across the UK that would have taken politicians and other groups of vital and important people into them upon the event of a nuclear attack. The bunker is mostly in the state it was left in; room after room of technical equipment, radios, med bays, shelters. It really is the perfect step into the past, specifically back to around 1962 and the event of the Cuban Missile Crisis; the moment the world held its breath and nuclear war was an inch away from actually happening. This event, in comparison to many parts of major warfare, is fairly recent history. My dad was five at the time. That isn’t all too long ago! My grandfather was part of the Royal Observer Corps, and his job was to effectively be waiting and looking out for the nuclear missiles that could come the way of Great Britain. Not that my dad knew it at the time, but the days of October 16thto October 28th1962 must have been some of the most stressful days of my granddad’s life. For him and hundreds of thousands of other people across the world, of course. 

The Cuban Missile Crisis began when Soviet Russia placed armed nuclear missiles onto the island of Cuba, then run by Fidel Castro. America’s answer to this was to blockade Cuba and demand for them to be removed. What followed was probably the most tense 13 days of President Kennedy’s life as he tried to negotiate these missiles off the island.

The range of the missiles covered nearly the entirety of America. And let’s face it, with the way nuclear weaponry works, even areas outside of range weren’t exactly safe! This was the closest that the world has ever been to full out nuclear war. If the US had been fired upon, it would have retaliated, and chances are the UK, due to treaties and agreements, would have followed suit. We would’ve been looking at full world destruction in seventeen minutes. That is the closest the world has come to full destruction. That we know of at least. I won’t go into all the conspiracy theories on the number of times something similar has happened since and we have never been told about it, because we would be here all day. But that’s exactly my point. The reason this topic and this type of warfare still has the ability to scare me so much is because it could still happen. We have some pretty mad and unpredictable leaders out there at the moment. Trump, Kim Jong-un, Putin. They’re erratic and power crazy; I feel like if they were bought the wrong type of eggs for their breakfast in the morning, by 11:30 they would’ve decided to launch a nuclear weapon at the country their chef was from, providing it wasn’t their own of course.

The Realities of Nuclear War

And this is what Hack Green so chillingly brings to life. From this museum you can begin to understand the conditions that people worked in - underground for days on end without seeing daylight. You squint when you walk out at first, after having spent at least four hours in a concrete box with no windows. This museum also provides a fantastic element of fear to the proceedings, without being ‘cheesy’ or ‘crude’. They have ghost walks, and these are rather popular, but sometimes you can’t blame a site for capitalising on its theme. The element of fear it brings to the everyday visitor, however, is far more subtle. In the background there are multiple warning alarms and sirens going off. Occasionally an announcement will sound for everyone to take shelter. The control rooms house radar and machines that ominously bleep. Geiger counters crackle threateningly in the distance. This exceedingly clever atmospherics is something that many museums are now beginning to adopt; adding in those noises that people would’ve heard every day they were there, bringing their world to yours. One room in the bunker is a sort of cinema room, and in here they show the BBC’s Threadsfrom 1984. This is the definition of chilling; a film set during the nuclear apocalypse of Great Britain and details what would happen to the population. I would highly recommend checking it out (Amazon US| Amazon UK)

Witnessing the implications of what these people were working on through visuals only adds to the tension of the place. Perhaps one of the key aspects of the bunker is the bomb shelter, a room with the full sirens and noises of lighter bombing. However, every few minutes they simulate the noise of the nuclear bomb falling. This near as damn stops your heart. Obviously, the noise level is replicated to a safe point, (no ear drums are hurt in the duration of the simulation) but that only makes you more aware of the earth-shattering noise that would have been experienced. It really gives you a jolt. You then step back out, and in perfect curation style, you continue your journey around the museum to discover what would have happened post-bomb. This genius way of subtly taking the visitor around a timeline as if you were a member of the workforce in the bunker having to combat the issues faced gives a fantastic immersive experience. The museum is everything a museum should be; giving you a reality check about your own life as you experience, just for a moment, someone else’s. 

Conclusion

I have to admit, I left with a rather sick feeling in my stomach. It was a hot day and the light was blinding as we walked out. I got in the car and looked back at the imposing yet unassuming structure of the bunker and thought ‘one day everything I’ve just seen from history could be a reality’. Einstein once said, in the perfect eloquence he always had; ‘I do not know with what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.’ Hack Green beautifully (perhaps a bad choice of adjective, but you follow my point) presents what will happen before those sticks and stones. It gives a brilliantly immersive reality to those that wish to understand just how much of a knife edge we once sat on, and continue to, in my opinion. Take a deep breath as you enter though; the inspired curation and presentation of this museum serves as a stark reminder of the power we hold against each other. Hack Green in essence masters what science has still failed to achieve; time travel. But perhaps not just the past, maybe the future too.

What do you think of the article? Have you visited any nuclear bunkers? Let us know below.

King Henry VII of England: His Life and Reign of Suspicion

King Henry VII of England (reign from August 1485 to April 1509) was the first King of England of the Tudor Dynasty. He had a difficult reign at times – he had to fight to gain the English throne and fight to keep it, meaning that he was often suspicious of others. Juliana Cummings explains.

A young Henry Vii.

Birth of a Monarch

History tells us so much about King Henry Vlll; he had six wives, he was terribly fat etc. But we often don’t hear enough about his father, the Lancastrian Henry Tudor. While Henry Vlll feared illness, his father seemed afraid of something deeper. Despite being an admirable  warrior who earned his crown, Henry Vll lived much of his reign in fear.

On the 28th of January 1457, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond, gave birth to  a son. She was only thirteen years old and the delivery almost killed her.  That son, was Henry Tudor, the future King of England. Henry’s father, Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond had been dead for three months.

Henry Tudor was placed under the protection of his Uncle Jasper Tudor at Pembroke Castle until trouble began again between the Houses of Lancaster and York. Pembroke was seized, Jasper Tudor escaped, and four year old Henry Tudor was taken into custody by Yorkist Sir William Hebert. While Henry’s time with Herbert could be looked at as a time of imprisonment, he was treated like anything but a prisoner. He was well cared for and brought up quite honorably by William Hebert’s wife. Henry would stay with the Hebert family for roughly eleven years until Hebert was killed in battle and Henry was reunited with his Uncle Jasper. 

In 1470, the Lancastrian King, Henry VI was back on the throne but in 1471, Yorkist Edward lV reclaimed the throne once again and Henry Vl, along with his heir, were murdered. There now remained one Lancastrian with a claim to the throne; Henry Tudor. It was Henry’s mother Margaret, who provided the royal bloodline that gave him that claim.  And, albeit small, it was a claim. Margaret was the great granddaughter of John Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward lll. This gave her confirmation that her son had every right to seek the crown. But Richard lll, Edward lV’s brother, felt he had a right to the crown as well. And when Edward died on April 9, 1483, it was Richard who declared himself King.

A New King

Jasper Tudor would take the teenage Henry under his protection for the next fourteen or so years. With his mother’s financial support, and the help of the French and the Scottish, Henry Tudor would set sail for the Welsh shore. On the seventh of August, 1485, Henry Tudor and his men landed at Mill Bay in Pembrokeshire. He was twenty eight years. He dropped to his knees and asked God to favor his cause. And because Wales was a Lancastrian stronghold, Henry had their support as well. His army, although a bit muddled, would grow to nearly 5,000.

Despite the fact that King Richard lll had a bigger army, it was Henry Tudor who would prevail at Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485. With the support of his step father, Lord Thomas Stanley, Henry and his army pulled Richard from his horse and pummeled him to death. And it was Stanley who would then place Richard’s bloody crown on Henry’s head. At Westminster Abbey, on October 13, 1485, Henry Tudor was crowned King of England.

Henry’s reign would prove to be one of great fear for the new king. He knew that what had happened to Richard lll could happen to him and he was continuously reminded that his throne wasn’t far from being in jeopardy. His first action in securing his reign was to marry. During his time as King, Richard was believed to have locked up his two nephews, the sons of his brother Edward, in the Tower of London in fear that they would try to usurp his throne when they were of age.  The detainment of the two boys divided much of Yorkist England and the supporters of the nephews needed somewhere to turn. They turned to Henry Tudor. They also pledged to give him their support if he married Edward lV’s Yorkist daughter, Elizabeth. Henry’s mother Margaret along with Elizabeth’s mother, Elizabeth Woodville, greatly supported the union between their children. Henry’s marriage to Elizabeth York would not only strengthen his position as King but it would become a time of great love for them both. Elizabeth was intelligent and beautiful and Henry adored his new bride. And more importantly, she provided him with a male heir soon after their marriage.

Increasing Threats

While Henry Tudor continued to try to convince his people that he was the rightful King, many of them didn’t believe it.  One of them was the de la Pole family, specifically John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. His claim was that Richard lll had already named him as the successor. In the year 1487, de la Pole would show to be a real threat to Henry Tudor. He was able to gather financial and military support from German and Swiss Mercenaries as well English rebels who were most likely supporters of Richard lll. But at the Battle of Stoke Field in June 1487, Henry Tudor and his battle hardened army would crush de la Pole’s men. And luckily for Henry, John de la Pole was  also killed in that battle. 

In 1493, Henry Tudor faced another very real dilemma.  Yorkist exiles began to devise a plot to throw Henry from his throne.  A man named Perkin Warbeck, considered a pretender, claimed to be Richard of York, the younger of the two Yorkist brothers who had been locked away in The Tower over ten years ago.  Warbeck claimed that he escaped The Tower long ago and at nineteen years old would fight to take the crown back. The Yorkist exiles didn’t hesitate to use Warbeck as their scapegoat. And for those that believed the two cousins to be dead, Perkin Warbeck would test their loyalty to King Henry. 

This uprising would send Henry Tudor into a downward spiral of paranoia and fear. He began to place spies everywhere; in people’s private homes, in the confessionals, even in his own palaces.  By having this collaboration, The King was able to trace one of his enemies right to his Chamberlain, William Stanley. Stanley, who had fought alongside him at Bosworth, was found with Yorkist jewelry and enough money to raise his own army.  Henry Tudor chose not to use clemency and William Stanley was beheaded in February of 1495. Realizing that support for the Yorkist imposter was growing, Henry grew even more vigilant.  He kept to his apartments when at court and seemed to go into a lockdown in his privy chamber. Only a small group of his most trusted advisors were permitted in his company. He began obsessing over how the court’s money was spent and resorted to micro managing everything, even down to what to pay the servants. He continued to build his network of spies to track Warbeck’s every move. Warbeck, who been staying in what he believed was the safety of Ireland and Scotland had made a few failed attempts at invading England. His last attempt was on September 12, 1497, with only 120 men.  But Warbeck was captured and sent to the Tower. He was hung for treason in November of that same year.

The Changing of a Kingdom

With the threats of Warbeck and de la Pole no longer there, King Henry Vll was able to feel enough confidence that his Kingdom was at peace. While he still kept an ever watchful eye on any known enemies, he was able to focus his attention on other matters.  By the year 1500, his wife Elizabeth had already delivered him another son. Little Henry, or Harry,  as they called him, was now nine years old. And the King and Queen’s daughter, Mary, was three years old. In 1501, Princess Katherine of Aragon would arrive in England as the betrothed of Henry’s oldest son, Arthur. Katherine came from powerful parents, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Her marriage to Arthur would strength England as it would now have the allegiance of Spain. The wedding was a splendid one and there was much celebration in the county over the union of the Prince and Princess.

Sadly though, Prince Arthur’s marriage would be a short one. On April 15, 1502, Arthur succumbed to the sweating sickness and died.  Henry was absolutely devastated. Not only because of the loss of his son but because the death of the heir to the English throne would have a huge political impact on the country.  The future of England now fell on eleven year old Harry. 

Things would only get worse for Henry Tudor. On February 11 that next year, Henry’s beloved wife, Queen Elizabeth, died in childbirth. The King was beside himself. His marriage to Elizabeth had been one of happiness and love and her death not only threatened to tear him apart, but England as well. Many of England’s Yorkist supporters had only chosen to recognize Henry as King because of his union to Elizabeth. With her being gone, it left these people open to consideration about where their loyalties now lay.  This caused the King to become paranoid once again and he was convinced he spotted  treason everywhere he turned. 

Henry got desperate and decided that if he couldn’t make his people like him, then he would make them fear him. He did this by giving people fines for the smallest things, which in turn indebted them to The King. Henry devised a new council called the The Council Learned in the Law, which answered only to The King and would overlook all other legal laws. Edward Dudley, one of the nation’s most prominent lawyers, went to work for The King’s new council.  His expertise alone allowed him to enforce and stretch laws which would ultimately lead to charges on the townspeople.

The Aging King Henry Vll was in a constant state of fear and resentment towards his people.  And he not only worried about his own health, he began to obsess over the fear of his son and heir, Harry. He was terrified that Harry would catch an illness or get seriously injured and so he kept him away from people as much as possible and refused to let him participate in jousts.  But these restrictions would be hard for Henry to carry out.  Harry was now a grown teenager, who towered over his father at more than six feet. Harry was handsome and athletic and had been building his loyalties with the common people as well as in the tiltyard. He was charismatic and had a way with people.  More and more people came to really like Harry and began to form alliances with the soon to be new King.

Death

When Henry Vll lay on his deathbed, perhaps his biggest threat was his own son. Young Harry had promised to be a different kind of king. One of fairness and goodwill. When Henry Tudor died on April 21, 1509 at Richmond Palace, less than fifteen people knew that he had died. His death was kept a secret for two days. While arrangements were made, the new King, Henry Vlll, wanted the people of England to understand that he was different. He ordered the much resented Edmund Dudley executed for treason.  Thomas More, who would become one of Henry Vlll’s closest advisors, said that the new king was like the Spring. He was new and refreshing and offered a time of rebirth. However, if Henry Vlll was the Spring then his father had to have been the Winter; a time of darkness and solitude. 

But despite the sometimes tyrannical reign of Henry Vll, he was a man who fought for what he believed was his. With what seems like the odds being against him for most of his life, he came out of exile and battled his way to the top. He was successful in putting his heir on the throne and succeeded in building possibly the most famous dynasty in England’s history.

What do you think of King Henry VII? Let us know below.

Finally, you can find out more about Juliana on The Savage Revolt site here.

References 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Tudor

https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2017/09/henry-tudor-at-raglan-castle.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stoke_Field

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/execution-perkin-warbeck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Learned_in_the_Law