How Ulysses S. Grant Saved Native Peoples in 1850s California

In the mid-nineteenth century there were a number of settler communities in northern California. These communities often came into conflict with native peoples. Here, Daniel Smith explains how future US President Ulysses S. Grant helped to save some native people from settler violence in the region in the 1850s.

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

Members of the Klamath in canoes in the 19th century.

Arthur Wigmore was a settler to northern California from Missouri. He lived near Lower Rancheria on the Eel River. Settlers from back east, such as Mr. Wigmore, would come to farm the land among other choice career opportunities. In September of 1854, he was murdered and thrown into a local marsh. After an investigation by officials and locals, it was made clear that a native known by the locals as “Billy” was the one who had killed him.

As soon as word of “Billy’s” accusation reached the local natives of the Lower Rancheria, they, apparently knowing or having good reason what to expect in response to this accusation, fled into the elevations of the Trinity Mountains. Over the course of a few days, meetings were held and plans were in the works to find and arrest the murderer of Mr. Wigmore. During the course of this time, one citizen “enlisted into their service a small band of renegade” natives to hunt down the perpetrator. After a day or two, the natives returned with a newly decapitated head claiming it to be that of “Billy.”[1]

Around that same time, then Commander of Ft. Humboldt Colonel Robert Buchanan sent out Captain Henry Judah to arrest any natives implicated in the murder. Judah, proving an effective leader, surprised a camp of about 100 local natives—two of whom confessed to the murder. Judah detained the two perpetrators and escorted them back to Ft. Humboldt to await civil authorities’ intervention—leaving the rest of the tribe alone.[2]

Released Without Charges

A communications breakdown would occur at this point, as the citizens of the county called upon the Commander of Ft. Humboldt to punish them—which he would not. Buchanan held firm that he had “no authority to punish the Indians for the murder of Wigmore, even after admission of guilt” occurred. At that moment in time, it was seen as not the place of the civil authorities to give legal trial to prisoners captured by the military. In the end, the two local natives were released without charges and let back to their tribe.

This incident stirred negative sentiments from the settling citizens of these industrious towns across the entire western region of Northern California. For about a year afterwards there was no outbreak of hostility. The local native tribes, however, were completely restless though and the miners in the mountain and foothill districts of Humboldt and Trinity counties were well aware. There was serious trouble on the horizon and the miners’ knew it.

Orleans Bar is located on the Klamath River that forks the Trinity River in Humboldt County.[3] In 1855, the miners along the Klamath River passed local ordinances that “all persons detected in selling fire-arms to the Indians should have their heads shaved, receive twenty-five lashes and afterward be driven from camp; and also that all the Indians in the vicinity be disarmed.”[4] In following through with the last resolution passed, a delegation of miners visited a handful of ranches and the weapons discovered there were confiscated.

The Klamath's Grace

A few tribes, though, would be reluctant to hand over their firearms to the entrustment of the miners, regardless of the reason or cause. In response to the local tribes’ disagreement, an armed company of miners was formed.  They punctually marched to the nearest ranch withholding firearms and demanded their surrender of weapons. The natives responded with a quick volley of fire from their firearms to the miners’ sudden surprise. After the melee that followed, several miners would lay dead and others would scatter wounded.

Instead of fighting, the miners retreated under attack to Orleans Bar and sent for military assistance from Commander Buchanan at Fort Humboldt. He sent Captain Judah up to the Klamath River as a response—with very little reaching effect. Partially this reason is due to his non-consent and unwillingness to lay waste to all of the natives living on the Klamath under such an isolated issue of murder in this nature. For instance, “Billy” was known around the neighborhood personally. This would further make it a domestic issue. More than that though, Captain Judah was recalled by the U.S. Army before he could even make any standing order on how to deal with the situation.

At this same time, at various areas above Orleans Bar the situation was equally as bad. At the split where the Klamath and Salmon rivers meet, there was a stout anxiety in the mining communities and they wanted to kill all of the local Klamath natives once and for all. The determination to carry out a massacre massacre was quickly thwarted by United States Army soldiers and among them was a young Captain-in-Charge by the name of Ulysses S. Grant. This is that same man who would later “rise to the highest distinction in the profession of arms and the highest office in the gift of his countrymen.”[5] Captain Grant curtailed the miners’ hostility and agitation that day, using a show of force as well as masterful communication skills. It would have been a day where the ends at that moment would have not justified the means. Without Grant's assistance, the miners would have dealt a swift end to the Klamath River tribes.

Daniel’s new book, 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California, is available here: Amazon US| Amazon UK

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), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), and the First Anglo-Dutch War (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Bibliography

1.             Hittell, Theodore H. "State Growth | Treatment of Indians." In History of California, 913-915. San Francisco: N. J. Stone & Co., 1897.

2.             Indian Wars of the Northwest, by A.J. Bledsoe, San Francisco, 1885, 161-163, 179-181.

3.             U.S.G.S. "GNIS Detail: Orleans." United States Geological Service. Accessed December 8, 2019. https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq:3:0::NO::P3_FID:264396.

A History of the Media and the American Presidency: Part 1 - Vice President John Adams and His Battle with the American Media (1789-1793)

When looking back at the history of the media’s role in the American Presidency, it is easy to see many comparisons to today.  President Donald Trump’s dilemma with the media is not much different than that two of his predecessors faced, John Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Both men lived in a time that saw vicious attacks on their character by the media. President Adams was seen as a monarchist despite the role he played in America’s independence. President Jackson was referred to as “King Andrew I” because he utilized the full power of the presidency, something that his predecessors had failed to do. 

In a three-part series, this work will look at how the media played a role in characterizing both Adams (as vice president during his first term and as president) and Jackson (as president) while also looking at how both men battled against their relentless attacks.

Here, Ian Craig starts the series by looking at Adams’ time as Vice President (1789-1797).

You can read Ian’s previous article on possibly the most important reason for the American Revolution here.

Portrait of John Adams while he was Vice-President in the 1790s.

America’s First Vice President and the Media

Adams’ first battle with the media as vice president came while he led a debate in the Senate.  According to the Constitution, the vice president will serve as the president of the senate.  However, the role of vice president was largely intended to be ceremonial and had little power.  This meant that in the Senate, Adams had no real authority but to break tie votes. This was something that Adams had to learn the hard way.  One of the first debates in the Senate was over what the president should be addressed as. Adams opted to lead the way in this debate much to the displeasure of the senators.  Adams believed that “if the central government was to have greater authority and importance than the state governments, then the titles of federal office ought to reflect that.”[1] This meant that the president of the United States needed a title that was befitting of such an office.  Adams gave such suggestions as “His Majesty the President.” Some senators supported Adams’ desire for titles in debating the title “His Highness the President of the United States.”  However, this did not sit well with many people nor the media at the time.

The media was quick to point out that the Constitution forbade titles of nobility in the United States. It was at this point that many came to suggest that Adams’ time abroad had tainted him to the monarchies of Europe. To John Adams, this was not the case and he simply believed that respect should be given to the central government and to those who held office within it.  This was his idea of helping to secure the sovereignty of the government both at home and abroad.  This explanation did not stop the media from its continued attacks on Adams’ character and his intentions.  In 1791 Thomas Paine had published a work called The Rights of Man.  Thomas Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, had sent it to a publisher in Philadelphia calling it the answer to the “political heresies that have sprung among us.”[2] The publisher printed the work with Jefferson’s own words on the front page causing the public to link political heresies to Adams.  This did more to hurt the Vice President and his credibility seeing that his friend and soon to be chief rival viewed him in such a way.  Of course, Jefferson had not intended for the publisher to spin his words in that way nor make the connection that Adams wanted to take away the rights of man. 

Adams’ Defense

The Media jumped on this and the New Haven Gazette called Adams an “unprincipled libeler” who loved monarchy and had an antipathy to freedom.[3] In response to the newspaper’s claim, Adams said “if you suppose that I have ever had a design or desire of attempting to introduce a government of kings, lords, and commons, or in other words a hereditary executive, or hereditary senate, either into the government of the Unit States…you are wholly mistaken.”[4] To put it simply, the Vice President’s insistence on titles had made him increasingly unpopular and his continued desire to share his opinions in the Senate made him even more so.  The media and rivals began to paint a picture of Adams as a monarchist instead of the democracy seeking founding father he was.   In addition to this attack, the Republican media in the Aurora called him a “gross and shameless monarchist.” They went further and called him “unfit to lead the country” below the headline “An Alarm'.[5] The Boston Chronicle suggested that if Adams had his way “the principle of hereditary succession would be imposed on America to make way for John Quincy.[6]

Adams for the most part remained silent on the attacks, but they did hurt him dearly. However, Adams did not respond to such accusations outright because he believed it was beneath his office to do so.   Writing in the Colombian Centinel under the name “Publicola”, John Quincy came to the defense of his father.  He took aim at Jefferson and his sponsored work The Rights of Men.  John Quincy stated that essentially Jefferson had suggested that all who had a different political opinion from his own supported heresy.  John Quincy could not comprehend how such a respectable man as Jefferson could make such a claim.[7]   Jefferson did apologize to Adams, but their friendship would never be the same. Eventually, Adams came to understand his role as Vice President and was over time, largely forgotten and spared from the media’s attacks until his presidency.

What do you think of John Adams’ battles with the media? Let us know below.

[1]David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 405. 

[2]Ibid, 429. 

[3]Ibid, 431. 

[4]Ibid, 431. 

[5]Ibid, 462. 

[6]Ibid, 462. 

[7]Ibid, 430

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 4 – How the War Impacted Germany

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers how the war ended, how Germany got the blame for the war, and the lasting impact in Germany.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here, part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here, and part 3 on the roles of the Great European Powers in the build-up to war here.

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles 1919.

Welcome back! We’ve covered a good deal of information during he first three parts of just how the world spiraled into chaos in 1914. But now the answer to the question that brought us here. Why did Germany get the blame? After all, the conflict would not have occurred without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. He wasn’t even German, but Austrian. And what about those Austrians? Shouldn’t they carry some of this blame? They were the ones who wanted to fight in the first place. Germany had no direct reason to be involved other than having a treaty of military aid to Austria. 

So besides all that, let’s start with the most obvious reason: They were the first to invade anyone. Up until they crossed into Belgium in August 1914, no one had fired a shot, and no one had really believed that hostilities were that far gone. Things could have cooled, especially with Great Britain, if Germany had only got out of its own way. Arrogance and their determination at being seen as a major player is what started the war.

The War’s Progress

As the war progressed its long four-year ordeal, Germany, along with the rest of the Central Powers (that also included the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, who need their story told all on its own), began to crumble under the weight of starving troops, starving populations, and radical ideals bubbling to the surface of their cities. In 1917, Germany sent for a secret weapon to knock one of the fronts off its back. They chose the Eastern Front because Russia was simmering with revolution. That weapon was Vladimir Lenin. They paid his passage to Russia, arriving from exile like a missing hero ready to take the lead. By the end of 1917, Germany has knocked Russia out of the war by using the cries of revolution to do it. 

In Austria, things were going bad to worse. In 1916, the old Emperor Franz Josef died. His successor was the great nephew of the Emperor’s brother. Charles I, also known as Karl IV (in Hungary), became the ruler of the country at a time when change was a dangerous game. He would only be emperor for two years before abdicating his powers and abolishing the monarchy. The young King himself would be dead within 4 years of the war’s end. With the end of Austria-Hungary the land that made up the country was officially split. Austria became its own country and so did Hungary.

The Ottoman Empire

Of the other members of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire (known at the time as ‘the old man of Europe’ because they had been around since 1453) also came to a close. The sultan was deposed, although he had been nothing but a figurehead for quite some time. In fact in 1918 the Ottomans were forced to give up after the armistice between Bulgaria and the Allies. Suddenly the Ottomans had no help from them, Austria-Hungary had already begun to disintegrate, and Germany no longer had the manpower to send relief.  The Ottoman Empire signed its own armistice with Great Britain in October of 1918, just one month before the official end to the war.

In its peace terms, the Ottoman Empire was to be occupied by French, Italian, and British troops. It also stipulated that the Ottoman Empire be carved up into smaller countries; effectively ending the country as a whole. The area known as the Ottoman Empire became separate countries; including Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the boundary lines of Palestine, and the preliminary decisions of establishing land for a Jewish state. Turkey would end up changing their capital’s name from Constantinople to Istanbul.

Meanwhile, still in a position of power, the generals of Germany were beginning to see the unrest in their troops. Before long it becomes apparent that they had lost all control of their armies, and the rise of democracy became the voice of the people. While trying to salvage some remnant of the country, Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate the throne. But, unlike Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Germany did not cease to exist. The country remained unified but was now a democracy. Their elective body became known as the Weimar Republic, had control over the country and helped negotiate the ending of the war. This is why Germany is blamed. Solely for the reason of ‘last country standing.’ The season of revolution arrived and in its ruins only Germany, for the most part, remained intact. I believe had any one of the other belligerents, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire been left with some power, the blame would have been split. Since neither country existed anymore, combined with the desire to teach Germany a lesson, is how this blame came to pass. 

Accepting Terms

On a train near one of the battlefields, the representatives of the new Germany Republic were forced to sign the official Armistice. Later on at the official signing of the Treaty of Versailles they were given no chance to negotiate the terms of the treaty. All the decisions were made by the victors, including a rather smug France who implored the peace talks be decided in Paris to begin with. This brought rise to the belief that those who signed for Germany were no more than traitors to their country. Hitler used parts of this to imply that Jewish politicians were to blame for surrendering so easily.

The terms of the treaty were as follows: German land was handed over to other countries. France acquired the Rhineland, and additional lands were split between Denmark, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia. The bulk of the land was given to the newly formed country of Poland; and any colonies that Germany had were also divided up amongst the allies. From a military perspective the treaty stipulated that the army be reduced to 100,000 men, and all remaining tanks were to be destroyed. The Air Force was dismantled and any German U-Boats were to be destroyed. Essentially the country was gutted and stripped of everything that made them proud.

The final terms of the treaty were the worst of all. Germany was ordered to repay the war debt that had accumulated over the course of the war. They were charged 132 Billion Gold Marks, with a requirement of 50 Billion to be paid in full. If we adjusted for inflation, that would be $393.6 billion dollars (using the year 2005 as a point of reference). This threw the country into shambles. The citizens had lost all faith and credibility in the Monarchy and the military. While the war started with the Kaiser playing an active role in the planning and decision making, by its end he had been completely in the dark as to what was actually happening in his own country. The two generals who essentially ran the country during this time were Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenberg. Of these two, you could argue that Ludendorff was more responsible for decisions with a warped sense of reality to the loyalty of the German people and their troops.

Germany Post-war

With the Weimar Republic formed, Germany began elections under a new democracy and the former Kaiser went into exile. He ended up living the rest of his life in the Netherlands. He always thought that one day he’d return to his post but it never came. He sadly had hopes that with Hitler’s rise, he would return to prominence. But like so many others, he too was placed under Nazi Occupation in the last years of his life. 

The new government began paying the war debt immediately. Then when Hitler rose to power in the 1930s he ordered the debt not to be paid. The country would not begin to pay that debt again until after WW2. The total war debt would not be paid in full until the year 2010, some 92 years since its enforcement.

So what are your thoughts? Does Germany deserve the blame? Or is the perception of their guilt clouded by revisionist history? It’s a debate that will probably go on forever. The only thing we can all agree with is that the end of the war in 1918 was not a real peace treaty; it was merely an agreement to stop fighting - placing a band-aid on the sore spot to be dealt with at another time. Do you think if those who signed the armistice of 1918 would have done something different, if they knew what was to come within 20 years? We’ll never know.

Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

The Lack of Christmas Traditions in America in the Mid-19th Century: ‘Olden times’

Today’s Christmas traditions have evolved over time in different countries. But in America, there were few shared Christmas traditions in the mid-19thcentury. Mac Guffey tells us about Christmas in America in 1855.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here), on Franksgiving (here), and the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two (here).

Kriss Kringle's Christmas Tree. Philadelphia, 1845.

Christmas time is here again!

“. . . the time of merry-making, social re-unions and every kind of feeling among all classes . . . Krisskringle is presumed to hold sway . . . by the wondering and expectant little ones . . . he is supposed to let himself down the dark mysterious chimney, and stuff their carefully hung-up stockings with sugar-plums, pretty toys and nameless other nick-nacks. Fond pa­rents forget their own care-laden years, and grow young in the delight and smiles of their children; green garland and branches and grateful looks give an air of freshness and festivity to the plainest home.”[1]

When this description appeared in the December 22nd edition of New York City’s The Evening Post, Franklin Pierce was the President of the United States - the Civil War was six years away – and Abe Lincoln was still a Whig. Yes, it was Christmas time - in antebellum America.

It was part of an opinion piece, written by Julia Logo, a correspondent for The Evening Post. The main thrust of her lengthy article was that the way Christian countries celebrated Christmas reflected the feelings of their people, and the traditions that they developed became a “bright imagery, that time seem not able to efface.”

Unhappy Christmas?

But she was not impressed with the way America celebrated Christmas – at least in 1855.

“In our own land, each one is left to commemorate this day as best suits his tastes and inclinations. It is not throughout the United States, and as is the case with most countries of Europe, a . . . popular festival. With the exception of Philadelphia, New Orleans and some few other towns of the Middle and Western States, there is but little geniality and harmony of feeling manifest­ed in its observance.” 

Not only was the enthusiasm for Christmas and the spirit of Christmas lacking in America, but also about the different dates on which it was observed in the different cities in this country:

“What strikes me as strange, Mr. Editor, is the vast difference in the sister cities New York and Philadelphia . . . In New York, but little attention is paid to the observance of Christ­mas, farther than the ringing of bells and preaching at some of the churches; here, New Year’s day takes the place of Christmas as a popular day of amusement and festivity. In Gotham childhood is the favorite protégé of Santa Claus, and [the children come]on this day for a full share of fanciful bounties, which the jovial patron is supposed to dispense in much the same mysterious manner as good old Krisskringle.

And Logo was not above some pointed barbs regarding her preferences about Christmas date OR the name of the mythical gift-giver!

“Through some comical misrepresentation of ideas and tradition, Santaclaus has been permitted by the Gothamites to hold his levee in their gay metropo­lis on the first day of the year, instead of the day al­lotted to that worthy spirit in most Christian countries in Europe, which is about the first of December.” [1]

She explained the manner in which Christmas was kept in other countries - the St. Nicholas Day traditions and superstitions in Switzerland, the different times for celebrating the festival among the Germans and the different names they had for Him who gave humanity its first Christmas gift.

“In some parts of Germany, it is Christmas morn, but more frequently Christmas eve that is dedicated to the presentation of gifts of every variety of form, shape and purpose, that the loving heart and skillful hand can suggest and perform . . .they have in some parts such rough, and ready genii, as Krisskringles, Beltsnickles, etc.; but these are all subservient to the beautiful “Christ-kind’’ (Christ-child,) who is the ruling spirit of the feast.” [2*]

But Christmas time was different in America. To Logo, it lacked a commonality, popularity, and the set of traditions like other Christian countries. This country had bits and pieces of every type of Christmas in the world – and even areas with none at all.

In other words – in 1855 - America was still looking for its way to celebrate Christmas. 

The View Now

In the 1965 TV special, A Charlie Brown Christmas,the Peanuts gang danced around the stage singing, Christmas Time Is Here.  One part of the song goes:

“Olden times and ancient rhymes; Of love and dreams to share.” [3]

From all of those ‘olden times’ the immigrants brought with them, America gradually found its own ‘Christmas Time’ traditions. Although our traditions - as Julia Logo noted 164 years ago - are a cultural mish-mash, they reflect the single, most salient feature of this country - America itself is a mish-mash of world cultures.

We should always be thankful for that diversity. Besides, who wants to find coal in their stocking on Christmas morning?

What do you think of American Christmas traditions? Let us know below.

References

[1] Logo, Julia. “Christmas Festivities.” The Evening Post – Saturday, December 22, 1855.

[2*] ‘Beltsnickles’ refers to Belsnickelwhich is an adaptation of Pelz Nichol, stemming from St. Nicholasand the December 6th gift-giving holiday commemorating his death. Krisskringleand Santaclausboth originated with the Dutch - a corruption of Christkindlein, or Christ Childand Sinter Klass, the shortened form of Sint Nikolaas(Dutch for Saint Nicholas). 

[3] “Christmas Time Is Here” a song written by Lee Mendelson and Vince Guaraldi for the 1965 TV special A Charlie Brown Christmas.

Where does Santa come from? The Origins of Christmas Traditions

It’s that time of the year again.

Santa Claus, reindeer, singing carols, putting up trees and decorating them while putting presents underneath, dealing with the struggles of shopping, and the after-holiday debt.  All the traditions that come with Christmas… But what are the origins of this special time of the year? Johann Hollar explains.

You can read Johann’s first article on the site on Chinese legend Mulan here.

A 1907 postcard with Santa Claus and his reindeers.

The Beginning of Christmas

For those of you who have gone to church for the many Sundays in your life I know that you are aware of the fact that December 24 and 25, are the days that honor the birth of The Savior Jesus Christ.

Originally the holiday was known as Saturnalia by the Romans.  It was during the same month as Christmas.  Executions were halted and conflicts were forbidden from being started during this time.  Decorating the houses, gift giving, feasting, and giving to the poor were also common during this festival.  There was also gambling, socializing, and playing music. (1)

Yule time

The reference to “Yuletide Carol” in the popular Christmas carol refers to the ancient Germanic calendar during their lunar year known as “yule” thus referring to the winter solstice, which we nowadays would refer to as December and January

It is also said by scholars, that this particular holiday is connected to the Norse god Odin and the Anglo-Saxon pagan name Mōdraniht or “Night of the Mother”, during which ritual sacrifices may have been made. (2)

Christmas Tree

While using plants to symbolize the Winter Solstice wasn’t uncommon in pre-Christian times, it wasn’t until the time of the reformer Martin Luther that he cut down a fir tree and put a small candle on one of the branches.

It would not be until the early 17thcentury that Christmas trees would become a ‘thing’.  There was much opposition to them from the clergy because of the use of Jesus Christ in such a celebration.  Oliver Cromwell was a loud opponent in this, claiming that this heathen tradition with Christmas carols and being joyful was desecrating a sacred event.

It would not be until 1846, during the ninth year of the reign of Queen Victoria, when she and her husband Albert were sketched for the Illustrated London Newswith their children outside Windsor Castle that Christmas trees became more popular.  German immigrants brought their traditions to England and after Queen Victoria started celebrating Christmas with the fir trees it quickly became a custom all over England.

The Christmas tree became more popular in the United States after President Franklin Pierce (1853-57) had a Christmas tree brought into the White House.  President Calvin Coolidge was the first President to have the tree lighting ceremony on the White House lawn in 1923. (3)

Santa Claus

Jolly old Saint Nick himself has quite the tale behind him.

The inspiration behind Santa Claus began in the fourth century CE (Common Era) where he was known as St. Nicholas and was a Bishop.  It was also said that St. Nicholas himself was a very rich person from when his parents died at a young age.

What made him such a legend was that there was a poor man who had three daughters and had no money to give as a dowry.  One night, a bag of gold was dropped down the chimney for the first daughter and then later the second.  When it came time for the third bag of gold, Nicholas was caught by the father.  He had beseeched the father not to tell anyone, but news got out anyway and Nicholas was given the title of Saint.

It would not be until the sixteenth century, after the Reformation, that the early concept of Santa Claus came to be.  The subject of Saint Nicholas had become unpopular, but someone needed to deliver gifts during this occasion.

In England he was known as ‘Father Christmas’ or ‘Old Man Christmas’, in France he was known as 'Père Nöel'.  He would be known as Kris Kringle in the early USA and would later be called ‘Santa Claus’ when Dutch immigrants came to the USA and would combine Kris Kringle with Saint Nicholas, thus coming up with the word ‘Sinterklass’ or as we know him today - ‘Santa Claus’. (4)

Mistletoe

Enjoy kissing someone under the Mistletoe?  The concept of hanging Mistletoe was first undertaken during the Greek festival of Saturnalia and later it would symbolize marriage.

The Mistletoe was said to promote fertility and even life-giving power.

In Nordic culture, it would be considered a peace-plant that ceased all conflict - or even for couples to kiss under to cease hostilities.  Later, in eighteenth century England, it would have a certain magical appeal and be called a kissing ball.

Today, kissing under Mistletoe is done mostly by couples married to symbolize their continued love for each other or an unmarried couple’s symbol that they are not only lovers, but in the hopes that they will one day be married.

Conclusion

Whether or not you celebrate Christmas, you can still be merry for the holidays in knowing that these holidays have such a rich and vibrant history.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, a Happy Holiday, and of course, peace and goodwill unto all.

What do you think of the history of Christmas traditions? Let us know below.

References

(1) https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/saturnalia

(2) https://www.bustle.com/articles/131538-what-does-yuletide-mean-an-investigation-into-this-weird-christmas-word

(3) https://www.zmescience.com/science/history-science/origin-christmas-tree-pagan/

(4) https://www.whychristmas.com/customs/fatherchristmas.shtml

(5) https://www.theholidayspot.com/christmas/history/mistletoe.htm

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 3 – Ever Greater Tensions in Europe

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers the roles of Russia, Germany, France, and Britain prior to war breaking out in August 1914.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here and part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here.

German troops marching through Blankenberge, Belgium in World War I.

We ended part two with Austria beginning to mobilize towards war. The generals had a plan; and sad to say it’s probably the most flawed war plan of all time. Their plan was based on a six-week timeline. In that time they planned to invade Serbia, destroy it, and subsequently conquer it. Anyone else see a problem with this plan? Its ambitious sure, it may even be a feeling of confidence. But any confidence Austria had is sheer cockiness. Let us face it, Austria has always wanted the area that makes up Serbia and needed a reason to go in and take it. The Archduke’s death allowed this to happen.

There is a truth to what is really going on in Austria. The last time the country was at war, was 48 years prior in 1866. Between then and now, there is no definitive armed force. The would be soldiers were actually farmers and industry workers – these soldiers weren’t even alive the last time war came to their homes. Right off the back Austria needed to train soldiers and quickly. But that’s not the only reality they hadn’t faced. The railroad system had not been tended to in years, and there were areas across the country that still didn’t have rail tracks at all. The ones that remained had not been tended to in years. Lastly, there were the ranking members of armed forces - these men were veteran soldiers. They were also overly confident. But these were also men who fought 48 years before. Their tactics and plans and approaches were all outdated. Their choices in formations and the use of cavalries weren’t feasible any longer.  

With all these issues and preparation for war, they faced one more issue. The timing of the escalating conflict had occurred in the middle of the farming harvest for the year. So now not only did they need to train soldiers, update railway systems, and plan with outdated military resources, but they also had to wait for those farmers to finish their harvest. This is why the plan of six weeks was fundamentally flawed. They’d need six weeks to take care of the issues they have and then prepare for war. In short, it was an unrealistic plan. 

Russian Action

Meanwhile, over in Russia, the Tsar had some choices to make. He knew that if Austria mobilized her army that Germany would too. Germany had a border with Russia; which increases the chances of conflict at that border. There was also the relationship with Serbia. There was no formal agreement in place like Belgium had with Britain. Either way, the tsar felt that there was some level of protection he should give to help the Serbs. He decided to mobilize. 

In terms of preparedness, Russia was like Austria; the only caveat is that they did not have a timeline of how events were to play out. They too had outdated rail systems, farmers that needed to be trained as soldiers and commanders overly confident in the power of what the country can muster in a crisis. Russia is the largest country on earth, and with that distinction comes another: the largest army in the world. But the number of men cannot be successful if they were beaten by technological advancements. 

Back in the late 19th century Russia had a spat with Japan. This conflict would become known as the Russo-Japanese War. Other powers in Europe assumed that any ‘civilized’ country could easily beat a country that is little more than an island chain. Well good thing no one bet on the matchup because Japan won the war. Their win sent shockwaves through Europe. The war revealed to the world two dark truths of Russia: that their army could not be controlled, and there was an uneasy resentfulness of the monarchy. 1905 was a year that had handed a warning in another way - it gave the royal family a warning that the Russian people were not happy. 

No one could understand how a country as large and as populated as Russia could lose a war in such a way. The reasons lay in the lack of training we mentioned above as well as technology advancements elsewhere. But there was also the issue of transportation. The country probably had a worse rail system than Austria did. In fact, at the time, the United States had more railway systems than Russia had ever put down. 

Military Commanders in Russia were not appointed based on experience. It was a society of ‘who knows who’ aristocracy that paid little attention to threats facing the country. That’s not to say that all positions were based on who you knew; there were a few ranks that required military experience but they were far and few. The commanders of the war would make decisions that had major repercussions across the country during the war years. These actions only added to the fuel that was the Russian Revolution in 1917. 

German Ultimatum

Now that Russia had mobilized, Germany sent an ultimatum: Either stop the preparations or they would be forced to mobilize their forces. While the official message was clear, what was not is the relationship between their respective heads of state. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were third cousins; both sharing the same great great grandfather Peter I of Russia. The two began writing to each other in hopes of coming to some kind of agreement. The letters, later known as the “Willy-Nicky correspondence” did not have the result either of them wanted. The reason being that by now the decision making was well out of their hands - generals, prime ministers, and other officials were now calling the shots. 

Seeing how the letters did nothing to soothe the situation, and with Russia concerned over her ability to succeed in another war, Russia made a few calls to their ally France. The Franco-Russian Alliance was essentially a military agreement between the two nations. With Germany gaining strength in the late 19th century both countries found it needed to align with each other in the event of conflict. Now with Germany giving ultimatums, Russia activated the alliance with France. 

France up until this point had been waiting in the wings. The government had been paying attention to the events knowing that this may be the chance to get a little revenge on Germany. When Russia called on France they are all for it. The territories they lost in the Franco-Prussian War were still a sore spot and they wanted that land back. 

Escalating Tensions

Lets stop and recap for a second. Two sides have now formed: Germany and Austria-Hungary versus Serbia, Russia, and now France. If you looked at a map, or even from space that is a solid chunk of Europe and part of Asia. This is escalating, but at the level of the commanders and leaders, it's still not apparent that it will end in war. 

Germany realized that with France to its west and Russia to its east they were looking at a two front conflict. On one point they were determined to finish off France. Russia they thought could be dealt with later. This is where their plan forms to deal with both countries. As long as they could take out one of them first before either is ready, they had a shot of winning. This plan looked great on paper, but was not fully investigated. The German plan was to invade one of them, and take them out. This way a two front conflict becomes one. In looking at their options, Germany chose France to invade first because they assumed that it would take Russia longer to mobilize its forces. In that time it was theorized they could eliminate France before Russia could come with aid. 

So France was the first step. It would not be an easy approach either. Commanders went over all possible points of entry to invade France. Only one made the most sense and that was to march through the relatively new country of Belgium. Germany asked Belgium if they could march through to get to France and Belgium said no. Well Germany didn’t take well to the denial and begin to threaten Belgium that they would march through with or without permission. This was a huge mistake on the part of German arrogance. They neglect the fact that Belgium is under the protection of Great Britain.

Britain’s Role

If there was any European Power truly not directly affected by the events in Sarajevo, it was Great Britain. She’s is like the sleeping bear in the back of the cave; she may stir every once in a while, but as long as you don’t bother her or her cubs she’ll stay sleeping. Belgium is one of her cubs. When the country was formed a treaty was put in place. The Treaty of London (1839) stated that if any state threatened the neutrality of Belgium, Great Britain was required to enforce the treaty and protect Belgium. This is where Germany went wrong. When it came down to it, Great Britain was the one country that Germany did not want to go up against.

Britain had not only the firepower and global standing, they had more troops than any other country across its territories. Those troops would be not only from Britain, but also Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, etc. With the largest empire on earth Germany knew fighting them would likely mean defeat. But by now the situation was too far along. And the confidence Germany had blinded them to any real logical action. After threatening Belgium, they invoked the terms of The Treaty of London.

War Begins

Britain wasn’t really trying to go to war. They had their own problems in Ireland. Political unrest and violence between Catholics and Protestants kept them from really watching what’s happening across Europe. The Prime Minister David Lloyd George received the call of help from Belgium and discussed it with his government. They decided to give Germany a timetable. They had until midnight local time to send word they would not enter Belgium. Midnight came and went, and Britain had her answer. They started mobilizing their troops. 

By now Germany was at the border of Belgium. They did ask one more time about marching through. Again Belgium declines. Germany began entering Belgium. The date was August 4, 1914 and the war was officially live. So now we know how it all began. What’s next? Part 4 will have that and the wrap up to this tale.

What do you think about Germany invading France through Belgium? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

What are Naval Figureheads? A Brief History of this Curious Tradition

Figureheads are the carved wooden figures that decorated the bows of almost all large ships until the end of the 19thcentury and into the early 20thcentury.  The origin of a ship’s figurehead, however, dates from ancient times and the religious beliefs held by early mariners. Steve Conway, conservator at The Box in south-west England, explains.

14 historical ships figureheads will be on display at The Box from spring 2020.

Embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover in 1520. There is commentary on the picture in this article.

The custom of decorating ships bows can be found in Egyptian rock drawings over 5,000 years old, which show oar-powered boats with high prows on which the head of a horned animal has been placed.  Heads of sacrificial animals such as deer, antelope and bulls also decorate a series of bronze ship models from Sardinia dated 700 BC, while sheep fleeces are depicted on fishing boats painted by Luis Borassa in 1411 at St Mary’s church in Tarrassa near Barcelona.

The animal’s head or fleece decoration may have served to appease the gods and ensure a safe journey for the ship and crew, or it may indicate that the ship itself was considered a living being with a head and tail.

The serpent or dragon became a recurring theme for the Viking ships of Norway, and the Oseberg Ship from 800 AD, which was excavated in 1900, depicts imaginary beasts entwined and spiraling up both stern and prow.  Archaeological and literary sources in the form of Nordic sagas, show that the serpent’s role was both as a protective guardian and a threat to enemies.  

16thcentury figureheads

The galleons of the 16thcentury were the culmination of a period of profound development in the art of shipbuilding and in England, Henry VIII took a great interest in founding the Royal Navy by opening dockyards at Woolwich and Deptford and by formally constituting the Navy Board in 1546.  

Exploration and trade were accompanied by the increased protection of the merchant fleet and master shipwrights met this need by designing ships which sat lower in the water and were therefore able to carry heavier ordnance, and the scope for greater decoration was increased with a longer prow and a stern gallery.

Heraldic shields were an important decorative feature of ships during this period and are shown in a painting of the embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover in 1520 (above – also at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London). This painting also shows the King’s ship with a dragon’s head carving at the prow.

Dragon heads are known to have been popular at this time and, although no examples exist, evidence in the form of manuscripts, paintings and decorated fine metalwork, all suggest the dragon was as much a symbol of power and protection for Renaissance sailors as it was for the Vikings.

Figureheads in the 17thcentury

By the end of the 16thcentury dragon carvings began to disappear and were replaced by lions.  James I was responsible for placing the royal crown on the head of a lion at the same time ship design developed so that the lion itself was carved into the framework timbers of the ship’s head, instead of projecting clear of the prow.  It was also James I, however, who introduced the idea of submitting a special figurehead for the lion on certain ships, by allowing a regal figure on horseback to be carved on the bows of the Prince Royal, launched in 1610.  This marked the departure from traditional decoration to a much more elaborate system which echoed the architectural design of the period.

The extravagance of decoration seen on the Prince Royal was taken to extremes by Charles I when he ordered the building of Sovereign of The Seas in 1637. This was to be the largest ship built at the time and is said to have finally cost the king his head due to the dissatisfaction that arose with the extra taxes he imposed to finance his naval program.  At the time a ship of 40 guns cost about £6,000.  The final cost of the 100 gun Sovereign of the Seas was £65,586.  Due to her size and firepower it is generally thought that she was 150 years ahead of her time and could quite easily have been included as a First Rate ship of the line in Nelson’s fleet.  A contemporary description by Thomas Heywood of the carved and gilded decoration that led to the Sovereign of the Seas being called ‘The Golden Devil’ by the Dutch fleet, is given below:

“I begin at the Beak-head where I desire you to take notice, that upon the stemme-head there is a Cupid, or a Child resembling him, bestriding and bridling a Lyon which importeth, that sufferance may curbe Insolence, and Innocence restrain violence, which alludeth to the great mercy of the King whose Type is a proper Embleme of the great Majesty, whose mercy is above all his Workes”

This description refers to part of the main figurehead which was an equestrian group, like Prince Royal, but which portrayed King Edgar of Wessex on his horse, trampling the seven vassal kings beneath its hooves.

By the time Sovereign of the Seas was launched a strict Rating system for warships was in force.  This originally referred to the rates of pay of captains but by the late 17thcentury the Rate was calculated by the number of guns a ship carried.  The system in summary was as follows:

1stRate:                 100 guns

2ndRate:                90 guns

3rdRate:                 80 guns

4thRate:                 60 guns

5thRate:                 44 guns

6thRate:                 28 guns

In accordance with this system, only First Rate ships were allowed to have the highly elaborate and allegorical group figureheads.  The other rates almost all had lions.

An interesting account of The Naseby, a 96 gun warship built by Oliver Cromwell, is given in Evelyn’s diary of 1656 where he describes his visit to the dockyard to see the new ship:

“I went to see the greate ship newly built by the Usurper Oliver.  In the prow was Oliver on horseback, trampling six Nations underfoot, a Scott, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchman, Spaniard and English…”

This must have been a direct response to the figurehead of King Edgar on Charles I’s Sovereign.  However at the time of the Restoration, the Naseby’s name was changed to the Royal Charles and the original figurehead removed “to be burned on Coronation Night”.  The figurehead that replaced it can now be seen in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam as the ship was taken as a trophy in the Dutch raid on the Medway in 1667.

The 18thcentury

At the beginning of the 18thcentury, the great cost and weight of group figureheads became a complaint among captains and a cause for concern for the Navy Board.   A letter from the Navy Board to the captains at Plymouth Dockyard dated September 2, 1710 gives an indication of their dissatisfaction and heralds the scaling down of decoration which was to become legislation by the end of the century:

“Captain Leake of the Essex, having represented to their Lordships that the Lyon of the said ship’s head, being made of solid Elm, is so very heavy that when she is at sea that he apprehends she will carry all away… and (he proposes) that a Trail Board be placed in the Room of the Lyon or as light a figure as may be…”

The legislation of 1796 ordered the Royal Navy to stop fitting figureheads to new ships and replace them with an abstract scroll or billethead.  This order was not strictly adhered to, mainly because a ship without a figurehead was considered unlucky; however the scale was drastically reduced and throughout the 19thcentury, naval figureheads became increasingly isolated pieces of ornament with very limited trailboard decoration.  The 19thcentury figurehead is generally more naïve in style than its 18thcentury predecessor.  The lions, which dominated the lower rank ships, became unpopular and were replaced by busts of naval or classical heroes and it is these which form the largest part of collections today.

The end

The final decision to rid the Navy of figureheads came in 1894 when they were abolished entirely from new ships.  This time the order was easier to enforce due to the lack of suitable space on the new ‘ironclads’.

When no longer seaworthy, the wooden ships were dismantled or ‘broken up’. Useful pieces of timber were recycled for building purposes and the rest was used for garden furniture or firewood.  Decay, fire and rot was the fate of many naval figureheads, but well preserved examples from important ships were distributed and displayed in museums and dockyards throughout the world.

Opening Spring 2020, 14 historical ships figureheads (weighing over 20 tonnes collectively) will be on public display for the first time at The Box- the biggest arts & heritage centre in the South West of England.

Conservation at The Box

The Devonport Figureheads, as with other naval figureheads, suffered from years of exposure to the elements. It is clear from an article in the Mariner’s Mirrorof 1914 by Douglas Owen that they were in poor condition even at that time.  Archive records note that various material were used in their restoration and maintenance including cement and expanded polyurethane foam, and in the 1960s and 1970s, many were repaired with fibreglass resin.  These materials created micro climates promoting further rot and degradation of the historic timber under the repairs, leading to weaknesses in the structure of the figurehead that is not always obvious when viewing the brightly coloured resin surface.

The Box is a major new cultural attraction in Plymouth, UK that is opening in spring 2020 to showcase Plymouth’s visual arts, media, heritage and archives as part of the city’s Mayflower 400 commemorations.

A key element in the new permanent exhibitions is the redisplay of 14 of the Devonport Figureheads.  The display design concept suspends the figureheads, weighing 20 tons, within the main entrance hall of The Box in a huge sweep that appears to sail across the glazed façade from left to right.  Preparation for the ambitious high-level figurehead display required full conservation, consolidation and restoration of the figureheads alongside innovative design of the mounting systems to facilitate their suspension by steel cables.  

The figurehead conservation project has reversed years of decay and is the most significant of its kind in a generation, not only securing the future of the Devonport Figureheads, but identifying The Box as a centre of excellence and innovation for the preservation and display of maritime heritage, with one of the largest collections of naval figureheads in the UK.

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 2 – Crisis in Austria-Hungary

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Austria-Hungary and its pivotal role in the events that led to the outbreak of World War One.

Part 1 in the series focuses on the decades leading up to World War One: Available here.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. His assassination precipitated a crisis that led to World War One

In Part 1 we talked about the basics - some of who the main players were, and Germany’s habit of having a ruler who is an overachiever. We know that the country as a whole felt boxed in due to the alliances surrounding them. But what about their allies? We left off on the background of one of them: Austria-Hungary. Get comfy because this is where things get interesting.  

Succession in Austria-Hungary 

Wondering why the country was called Austria-Hungary and today they are just Austria and Hungary? Well, it is a bit complicated, but essentially both are separate countries and both are monarchies. Only, they have the same ruler just under different names. Using this example makes it clearer: after Queen Elizabeth I of England died, King James was called James I of England. But in Scotland, where he had been king since he was an infant, he was known as James VI of Scotland.

So, the ruler at the turn of the century was Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary and he was in a bit of a pickle. Good Emperor Franz had no male heir to take his place when he died. At the start at the war in 1914, he was 84 years old. He and his wife, the Empress Elisabeth (known as Sisi) had four children. But of those four, only one was a son. One thing to mention about Empress Sisi is that she was the most beautiful woman of her time, and was beloved by her people. Franz Joseph was deeply in love with her. Only she never quite felt the same. Her death in 1898 by an assassin deeply affected the Emperor and the country at large. The Crown Prince Rudolf was groomed from day one to replace his father. Only he would never get the chance.

Like many marriages of the day the relationship between Rudolf and his wife Stephanie of Belgium was an arranged one. Still they were able to have one child together. Perhaps it is fate, but that child would be a girl. Every prince had their occasional or favorite mistress, but Rudolf seemed to be a bit more involved with his than most. Mary Vestra was from society but had a reputation herself. At 17 years old the two of them had a torrid affair. In January 1888, Rudolf and Marie were found dead at the Mayerling Hunting Lodge. No one knows the circumstances of what the motive was or if they had planned it. The story that seems to fit best based on the discovery of Marie’s diary in 2015 is that they had a suicide pact. 

Either way, Rudolf’s death shook the country to the core. Franz only had one son and he was no longer alive to take his place. A true succession crisis was now clear to all those around the Emperor. After some consideration, the Emperor decided to make his nephew the Archduke Franz Ferdinand his successor. Ferdinand didn’t have the greatest relationship with his uncle and most of his family. His choice in marrying Sophie Chotek, a woman with no title and a morganatic marriage (a marriage with somebody of different social rank) alienated everyone. Upon the marriage, Sophie and Ferdinand waived the rights of succession for any children they had together. This was based on the fact that Sophie wasn’t of noble blood. It was a pain point for the couple, as in every official duty Ferdinand attended, his wife was forced to ‘take her place’ in the back of the room. 

Austria-Hungary’s maneuvers

Around this time, Austria-Hungary decided to officially annex the lands in Bosnia and Herzegovina into the country. This land had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, but had been occupied and essentially run by Austria-Hungary since 1878. What they didn’t consider was the reaction from nearby areas. Serbia, for one, was not happy about the annexation. They felt that lands in the Balkans should be ruled by those living in the Balkans. As a result of this, pro-independence and terrorist groups begin to form within Serbia. By making this move, Austria-Hungary’s actions led to conflicts in the years leading up to World War One - the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913.

With tensions high, Franz Joseph asked the newly made heir-apparent Ferdinand to travel to the region under instructions to review the military. The day of June 28, 1914 started just like any other day. Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were in Sarajevo; and they were put into an open car. Side note: it amazes me how long it took people to realize that any “open” mode of transportation linked with a target with this kind of high profile. Anyway, they traveled along behind local officials. As they moved through the streets, a man threw an object at the couple. There was an explosion, but the only people hurt were civilians. This would be assassin took a cyanide pill and planned to take his knowledge with him. He also threw himself in a river – but lived.

The danger apparently over, the motorcade arrived at the scheduled destination. The Archduke and his wife are a tad shocked but not too worse for wear. As they leave both Ferdinand and Sophie decide to change plans and make a visit to the local hospital to see those that were hurt in the bombing. The motorcade leaves, but no one told the driver that the plans changed and he made a wrong turn. In order to get them back the way they came and to the hospital he needed to turn around. It was in this moment that Gavrilo Princip just happened to be standing within steps of the couple. He pulled a gun and shot both Ferdinand and Sophie at point blank range. Initially those in the car did not realize that either of them had been shot. It wasn’t until Sophie loss consciousness and collapsed in Ferdinand’s lap that the realization set in. Ferdinand yelled “Sophie, don’t die. Stay alive for the children.”

Then Austrian-Hungarian Colonel Count Franz von Harrach asked if Ferdinand had been wounded. He only replied: “It is nothing. It is nothing”, before he too lost consciousness. Those in the car with them moved with all haste to the Governor’s house for immediate care. Unfortunately both Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek, Countess of Hohenberg, were dead on arrival. And with their deaths springs open a can of worms that changed everything for the next hundred years.

Aftermath

You would think that an assassination of an Archduke and heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary would send shockwaves across the globe. When we modern day folks tell the story, that’s the perception it gives. In reality, internationally it was not major news. It ended up in a few papers in some countries; but it certainly was no front-page affair. In the immediate days after their deaths, the government of Austria-Hungary wanted answers. In all honesty they were pretty annoyed. The Emperor had now lost his only son and heir, and that heir’s replacement.

Austria-Hungary knew the assassins were Serbian and wanted answers. And if they couldn’t get them, they were threatening a fight. The Serbian government was in a tough spot. The assassination wasn’t sanctioned by them, but the planning and execution of the plan were made by Serbs. For you conspiracy buff’s out there; there is a theory that the real killers were in fact part of a Serbian military force and Gavrilo Princip, along with the others, were just patsies. Maybe or maybe not, there were still no good options here for the government. So they did what any little brother would do when caught in a tough spot - they called their big brother Russia.

Now in part one I mention that the alliance between these two was nothing in a formal sense. What tied them together were ethnic lines. Many Russians were Serbian, and many Serbians were Russians. Serbia gave Russia the heads up that this situation may turn south and if it did they will need help against Austria-Hungary in a war. Russia, at the time, was still ruled by the 300-year-old Romanov Dynasty under Tsar Nicholas II. After consulting with his advisors, he opted to not make any move yet. Instead, he waited to see how things played out.

The July Crisis

While all this was going on in Serbia, Austria-Hungary made a call of their own to Germany. As part of the Triple Alliance, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to support them if war breaks out against Serbia. It’s important to keep in mind here that these events are happening lightening fast. The assassination was June 28, 1914. By the time Austria-Hungary reached out to Germany the date was July 6, 1914. From this point until the outbreak of war, it will go down in history as the “July Crisis.” 

Germany decided to pledge to Austria-Hungary in the event of war. This is called the “Blank Check;” where it is implied that Germany more or less just agreed to whatever Austria-Hungary wanted to do. By agreeing, this was a huge risk for Germany. They were already surrounded by Russia and France. And while France was not in the picture yet, if fighting broke out at the Russian border, it could trigger a two front war. The other issue was the thought of honor. Their ally had suffered a terrible blow. The honor they lost from the initial act should be defended. There was one positive going for the Germans - that Russia was still rearming itself following the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. In order for them to come to Serbia’s aid, they had to mobilize faster than Germany thought they could. With that in mind, the war generals considered the idea of a quick and easy conflict. 

Meanwhile in Austria-Hungary the plan for war was in full motion. Generals devised a timeline of how they would deal with Serbia. Side note: this was a horrible. Anyway, their timeline was to invade, destroy and occupy Serbia in six weeks. We all should be for lofty goals but this is not one of them. Why won’t this timeline work? Because Austria-Hungary was seriously underestimating its own people and their readiness to prepare for war. Also, from a technology perspective, they had little to no paved roads, and a lack of a railway system. It had been 48 years since they’d seen a war; and their generals had an outdated way of thinking. Either way, the plan was to mobilize and when they did Russia would have to make a choice. That’s for next time.

What do you think about Austria-Hungary’s importance in the outbreak of World War One?

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Was the First Thanksgiving Truly a Miracle? Or Merely an Accident?

The story of the first Thanksgiving is well known, but were the events surrounding it accident or design? Here, Victor Gamma considers some of the miraculous – or coincidental - events related to the first Thanksgiving in America.

You can also read Victor’s first article for the site on how the source of the River Nile was found here.

The First Thanksgiving, 1621. A 1910s painting by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

William Bradford reflected the unwavering heart of a Separatist when he said; "... I am not only willing to part with everything that is dear to me in this world for this Cause but I am thankful that God hath given me heart so to do; and will accept me so to suffer for Him."

For those Separatists we have come to know as "Pilgrims" such determination was combined with an unusual commitment to be fair and honest with the Native inhabitants of the new country they had settled in. In the first treaty agreement between the Plymouth Pilgrims and the Wampanoags (which lasted over 50 years), the Pilgrims agreed that if anything had been taken, it must be returned. Additionally, the Pilgrims would help the Wampanoags defend themselves if they were attacked, and the Wampanoags would likewise help the Pilgrims. Later, William Bradford, who by this time had become governor of the colony, sent word to his friend, Chief Massasoit (the leader of the Wampanoags), to; "search out those, from whom we took their corn, that we may restore the same to them in full measure."

Is it any wonder that the Pilgrims, although a relatively small group with little impact on the subsequent history of this country, have continually held a special place in the heart of Americans? Is it also any wonder that a people who dedicated themselves so seriously to their vision of God might be worthy, if anyone ever was, to receive special aid and comfort from their God? Here we come to the "Miracle of the First Thanksgiving:" that series of improbable events that can leave the reader scratching his head in wonder, for indeed, the Pilgrim sometimes sounds more like something out of fiction than reality.

It would be well to begin by asking what a verifiable miracle is. In technical verbiage a miracle is an event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes it involves a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. An event or series of events for which the best explanation is attribute them to a supernatural being, and cite this as evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Does the Pilgrim saga fit the bill? Or was it merely a succession of fortunate accidents? It is up to the individual, of course, as to which offers the best explanation. 

A Series of "Miraculous" Events

Many of the Separatists’ problems were simply due to poor planning. They had very little of the kinds of skills they would need to survive in the wilderness. Yet, time and again, when the odds were against them, they somehow managed to pull through. The pre-Atlantic crossing period of Pilgrim history is itself not lacking in amazing coincidences. During their voyage across the North Sea to Holland a violent storm rocked their ship, they cried out to God “Yet Lord, Thou canst save!” and the storm calmed down. But it is with journey to the New World that the record becomes crowded with marvels. Halfway through their trans-Atlantic crossing, the mainmast cracked. Someone remembered that there was a giant screw which the Pilgrims had brought with them. This was probably a part of a printing press. In any case, they were able to use it to repair the mainmast. If they had not been able to repair it, a return to England or an even worse peril in the storm-ridden Atlantic awaited them. Coincidence?The only other person who died on the voyage, was a crewmember who kept threatening to molest and murder many of the Separatists. When the man died, the Pilgrims interpreted his death as God's providential hand of deliverance. Even the sea-salted crew of the ship was amazed by the antagonist's death. Whether because of superstition, or true piety, the crew believed that God had repaid the man for his wickedness. In addition to making the trip miserable, the storm also accomplished another unforeseen but momentous incident. They were blown off course to Massachusetts. Because of this, and the threat of mutiny among some of the ‘strangers’, they would have to govern themselves. They decided to draw up an instrument of government called the Mayflower Compact, a critical document in the development of American democracy. If they had not been blown off course, they would have been under the authority of others, and there would have been no Mayflower Compact.  

Another happy result of the storms was the location of their arrival. They arrived at Cape Cod, whose protected inlet provided some relief from the Atlantic storms. Once on the wooded shore, they began exploring the wilderness. On two separate expeditions, corn was found buried in mounds. Some of it was gathered and stored away to be used in the spring. The pilgrims considered finding the seed to be God's providence because winter was coming quickly and the Pilgrims had no seeds to plant the following spring. It is important to remember that they left the other ship behind with much needed provisions. As one of their chroniclers put it, "And thus we came ... weary ... and delivered in our corn into the store, to be kept for seed, for we knew not how to come by any, and therefore were very glad, purposing, so soon as we could meet with any inhabitants of that place, to make them large satisfaction [due repayment and more]. This was our first discovery ... And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn, for else we know not how we should have done, ..." 

"A Spetial instrument sent of God"

With an unforgiving winter approaching, the Pilgrims still had not tackled the challenge of locating an agreeable spot to settle. With the vast majority of voyagers still aboard the Mayflower, the shallop was repaired and a small crew set out aboard her to find a good landing site. A storm whipped up in Cape Cod. They were just about to crash into a reef when a sailor shouted a warning. The wind and waves drove the shallop past the rocks to a broad, round harbor. The land was already cleared and cultivated for farming! It, in fact, was a deserted Native village which had belonged to the Patuxet tribe. The Patuxet's were a very hostile tribe that had lived in the area for generations but had been wiped out by disease recently. This was part of a devastating plague that visited the tribes of southeast New England in the decade before the arrival of the Pilgrims. The area the emigrants ultimately landed at was particularly hard hit. This is an amazing fact considering that the Patuxets were known for being violent, and were legendary for their bloody fierceness in battle. If the Patuxets had been there when the Pilgrims arrived, it is likely that there would have been an all out war, and the Pilgrims probably would not have survived. But now the fierce Patuxets were largely gone, with the notable exception of Squanto, who came into the Pilgrims’ lives soon after. 

The Pilgrims began building homes in the new settlement they named Plymouth. Winter set in upon them and there was little chance to build appropriate shelter. The storms were severe and with only rudimentary shelter, there was little protection from the elements. Many were already sick and not a few had already passed to their heavenly reward. The weather would be dangerous, for the Pilgrims were in a weakened state of malnutrition. The food supplies that were sparse to begin with ran out. Not only did the Pilgrims have to endure a harsh climate but also the prospect of starvation. At this point another "coincidence" took place. As they were just about to starve, a native walked into their village wanting to help them! As everyone watched in amazement, the man astonished the stupefied pilgrims by calling out "Welcome" in perfect English. His name was Samoset, a member of the Abenaki tribe. He later brought another native named ‘Squanto’ who also spoke fluent English. Samoset proceeded to teach the Pilgrims essential survival skills. Plymouth Governor William Bradford was moved to declare him a "spetiall instrument sent of God for [their] good." We could even say that the Pilgrims probably would not have survived without Squanto's help. 

                  From the time he was introduced to them, Squanto devoted his life to helping the newcomers survive. He taught them with great skill and patience. I think most of us are familiar with the story of how Squanto taught the pilgrims how to get maple syrup; which plants were poisonous, and which ones could be used for medicine. He instructed them how to plant corn using several seeds buried with a fish, and so forth. If Squanto had not helped, the harvest that came in that fall would have been unsuccessful and the Pilgrims would not have had enough food to store for the winter.With Squanto we come to another element of the Pilgrim saga that reads like a story out of fiction. He was kidnapped at the age of 12 from his Patuxet village by the Spanish in 1608 and one year later he was taken to Spain, where his friends were sold into slavery. Nearby Monks purchased his freedom and taught him Christianity. He convinced the friars to allow him to attempt to return home. He was then given to an Englishman and taken to London. Here he worked as a stable boy for a family called Slaney, and he was with them for five years until a trading ship going back to the coast of North America could be found. He returned home in 1619, about 6 months ahead of the Pilgrims, only to find his village wiped out by disease. Not long after, Squanto comes to the aid of starving English newcomers, who were living at the site of his former village. And it just so happened that he grew up on the spot where they had settled. This was his home that had been abandoned, and now he had, in a sense, come home. The newcomers from England basically adopted him. This made perfect sense since the forlorn Squanto had lost not his family but his entire tribe. The long list of 'ifs' grows longer. IfSquanto had not been kidnapped, he would have died along with his tribe and would not have been there to help the Pilgrims.Squanto also acted as an intermediary between the Pilgrims and the Massasoit, the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoag. In this way he helped to maintain the treaty of friendship the two signed.  Massasoit honored the treaty until his death in 1661.

In Conclusion

One further event occurred in the summer of 1623. Then, a seven-week drought threatened to kill the Pilgrims’ crops. The Pilgrims paused from work to pray for deliverance. The rain began to fall by suppertime. The current spirit of skepticism scoffs at the idea that a Divine Being had a hand in the survival of the Pilgrims, but contemporaries were matter-of-fact about attributing the Pilgrim success to divine intervention. The title page of Winslow’s book Good News from New Englanddescribes the experience of the early settlement as “shewing the wondrous providence and goodness of god, in their preservation and continuance, being delivered from many apparent deaths and dangers.” 

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

REFERENCES

Bradford, William, and Samuel E. Morison. Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647. New York: Knopf, 1952. Print

Bradford, William, and Edward Winslow. Mourt's Relation; Or, Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth, 1622. New York: Garrett Press, 1969. Print.

Winslow, Edward, Good Newes from New England. 1624. Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 1969/

The Amazing Story of the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two

The Women Airforce Service Pilots (or WASP) of World War Two played a great role in the American war effort. Here, Mac Guffey tells us about their story – and fight for recognition both during and after the war.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here) and on Franksgiving (here).

WASP pilots (from left) Frances Green, Margaret Kirchner, Ann Waldner and Blanche Osborn leave their B-17 trainer, (christened ‘Pistol Packin’ Mama’), during ferry training at Lockbourne Army Air Force base in Ohio. They’re carrying their parachutes.

Two years before America entered the Second World War, a pioneering group of more than a thousand, relatively unknown, veteran pilots stepped forward and volunteered to be a part of the solution for what they could see as a looming manpower problem in the air-arm of the U.S. military.

 “…at the height of World War II, [they] left homes and jobs for the opportunity of a lifetime – to become the first in history to fly for the U.S. military…these women became the Women Airforce Service Pilots – better known as the WASP.” [1]

This is the story of that long unrecognized and underappreciated group of determined pilots and their uphill struggles to be accepted as the soldiers they were. And it all began with a letter – woman-to-woman – because Jacqueline “Jackie” Cochran recognized a kindred soul in Eleanor Roosevelt – the First Lady.

BACKSTORY

It was 1939, and WWII had just exploded across Poland.

Realizing America’s eventual involvement, the country’s most famous female pilot wrote a letter to the most progressive First Lady in American history with a startling suggestion – use women pilots in non-combat roles to compensate for the coming manpower demands of the military. [2]

Recognizing the wisdom and prescience in Cochran’s proposal, Eleanor Roosevelt introduced her to General Henry “Hap” Arnold, head of the U.S. Army Air Force. Cochran’s plan, however, was initially rejected. Arnold expressed the misbegotten sentiments of most Americans – especially men – when he said in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose in a country which has adequate manpower at this time.” [3]

But the manpower necessary to fight this coming world-wide war was far greater than Arnold (or anyone else for that matter) ever expected, and by September 1942, Nancy Harkness Love and Cochran, with Arnold’s support, independently founded two separate flying programs (Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadronand Women’s Flying Training Detachment). On August 5, 1943, these were merged to become the WASP – Women’s Airforce Service Pilots - a civilian squadron under the aegis of the U.S. Army Air Force. And it was composed of only women pilots. Cochran was chosen to serve as the director of WASP and its training division, while Love was appointed director of the ferrying division. [2]

Nancy Harkness Love.

Jackie Cochran surrounded by WASP trainees.

QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING[4]

The military trained male civilians with no flying experience to be pilots for jobs ferrying aircraft from the factory to various military airfields all over the U.S. and even abroad. But Cochran and Love knew the bar for women pilots – even “civilian” women pilots – had to be a higher one. 

The qualifications Cochran and Love set for a woman just to be an applicant for the WASP were stringent: Potential recruits had to be between 21 and 35 years old, in good health, already possess a pilot’s license, and 200 hours of prior flight experience! 

In the sixteen months that the WASP squadron existed, more than 25,000 women applied for training. Only 1,830 of them (spread over eighteen training classes), were accepted as candidates. In the end, 1,074 of those candidates successfully completed the grueling four-month (Army way) training program at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, Texas.

Despite their advanced experience as pilots, WASP recruits were required to complete the same primary, basic, and advanced training courses as the inexperienced male Army Air Corps pilots. In addition to learning the superfluous - like marching and close order drill - they also spent roughly twelve hours a day at the airfield. Half the day was spent doing stalls, spins, turns, take offs, and landings – and all of it in very crowded airspace. The other half of the day was spent in what they called “ground school.”

By graduation, all WASP had 560 hours of ground school and 210 hours of flight training (in addition to the 200 hours required for them just to apply). They also knew Morse code, meteorology, military law, physics, aircraft mechanics, and navigation (and, of course, how to march).

Their previous level of flying experience allowed a large number of these pilots finished their WASP training with such stellar marks that they qualified to go on for specialized flight training. Many of them, by the end of their time as WASP, had flown every single plane in the American arsenal – including jets!

Despite the stiff entrance requirements and all of the additional training these female pilots endured, the WASP were still considered just “civil service employees”. Cochran, director of the WASP, and General Henry “Hap” Arnold, who was now the head of the U.S. Army Transport Command, pressed for full militarization of these female pilots, and for the WASP to be commissioned directly as service pilots, a procedure the Air Transport Command used routinely with male civilian pilots. But because of the considerable opposition to the program, both in Congress and in the press, Cochran’s and Arnold’s requests were denied. [5]

‘THOSE DAMN W.A.S.P.‘

As a WASP, Betty Archibald Fernandes’s primary job was to pick up a plane at the factory where it was built and fly it to the east coast so it could be shipped abroad. During her wartime service, Fernandes flew 30 different kinds of military planes, including fighters, bombers, transport, and training aircraft. But her number one love was fighters. “I flew every kind of fighter plane, including P-30s, 51’s, 39’s, 63’s, 47’s and 40’s,” Fernandes proudly boasted. [6]

In addition to ferrying aircraft and cargo from factories to stateside military bases and transporting military cargo all over the country, WASP also trained male bombardiers and provided instrument training to male cadets; they participated in simulations to help train radar and searchlight trackers, and they even towed targets for live anti-aircraft gunnery practice. [4]

The WASP were even used as motivators.

“When men were less willing to fly certain difficult planes, such as the YP-59 and B-29 Super Fortress, General Arnold recruited two WASP, Dorthea Johnson and Dora Dougherty Strother, to fly these aircraft. Arnold believed that if men saw women fly these planes successfully, they would be “embarrassed” into taking these missions willingly. Johnson and Strother flew to Alamogordo, New Mexico in the B-29s. There was a crowd waiting to see them land. General Arnold’s plan worked, “From that day on, there was no more grumbling from male pilots assigned to train on and fly the B-29 Super Fortress.” [7]

‘Those damned WASP‘ became a familiar refrain.

SOME WASP FACTS AND PILOTS

Collectively, the WASPflew every conceivable type of American military aircraft and logged over 60 million miles during their sixteen months of existence – often flying seven days a week. [8] Thirty-eight WASP lost their lives, and one – Gertrude ‘Tommy’ Tompkins-Silver – disappeared while ferrying a P-51 from LA to the East Coast. She is the only WASP whose fate today remains unknown. [9]     

Although the majority of the pilots were Caucasian, five pioneering women of color did break the racial barrier. Two of them were Chinese-Americans (Hazel Ying Lee and Maggie Gee ); one was Native American (Ola Mildred Rexroat, a Oglala Sioux woman from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota), and two were Hispanic-Americans (Verneda Rodríguez[**] and Frances Dias). [10]

The number of black women pilots who applied for WASP training is unknown. However, several African-American pilots did make it to the final interview stage.

Mildred Hemmans Carter was one of those finalists. In 1940, at age 19, she earned a Bachelor Degree from the Tuskegee Institute, and a year later, she earned her aviation certification. In 1943, Carter was among the first to apply to be a WASP. Like the other black pilots, she was rejected, largely because of her race. Finally, Carter’s extraordinary qualifications and her unfair rejection were acknowledged. She was retroactively recognized as a WASP– seventy years after the fact. [11]

Hazel Ying Lee.

‘THE AAF WILL MISS YOU…’

By 1944, America and its allies dominated the skies over Germany, and the air war in Europe was winding down. The Allied leaders now planned a massive ground assault to put the finishing touches on Nazi Germany. Accordingly the Army Air Force cut back its training forces and revoked civilian male training pilots exemptions from serving in ground combat units. [12]

A brouhaha ensued.

Fearing the draft, the men complained – as a group – to Congress, the media, and accused the War Department of favoring female pilots over male pilots. Congress listened and on December, 20 1944 – five months before the end of WWII and sixteen months after their formation – the WASP, as a squadron, were disbanded. [12]

And rudely.

In fact, here is part of General Arnold’s letter of notification and thanks to the WASP for their service:

When we needed you, you came through and have served most commendably under very difficult circumstances, but now the war situation has changed and the time has come when your volunteer services are no longer needed. The situation is that if you continue in service, you will be replacing instead of releasing our young men. I know the WASP wouldn’t want that. I want you to know that I appreciate your war service and the AAF will miss you… [5]

There were 915 women pilots on duty with the Army Air Force at that time, and they were scattered on bases around the country. Since they weren’t military, there was no “mustering out” time after Arnold’s notification arrived, and the women pilots were released outright. Some WASP members were allowed to fly on board government aircraft from their former bases to the vicinity of their homes – but only as long as room was available and no additional expenses were incurred. Others, however, had to arrange and pay for their own transportation home. [11]

EPILOGUE

Records of WASP were classified and sealed by the government after the war, so historians minimized or ignored the women pilots.

The WASP, however, deserved more respect and recognition than a condescending thank you note tied to an immediate eviction notice back in 1944 or being ignored by history. Thirty three years later, they took matters into their own capable hands.

However, the entire affair came with a very heavy dose of irony.

In the 1970s, the Air Force announced that it would begin accepting women for pilot training, and the media reported the story as if this would be the first time women could fly for the US military. The WASPsthen began to push for the recognition that they deserved.  U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (one of those male transport pilots in WW2) along with General Arnold’s son – Colonel Bruce Arnold – helped these women pilots lobby Congress for their long overdue recognition. [8]

In 1977 — the same year the Air Force graduated its first post-WASP women pilots — Congress granted veteran status to those who had served as WASP, and in 1979 issued official honorable discharges. [12]

Thirty-three years after that, in 2010, President Barak Obama signed the law that gave these brave, pioneering Women Airforce Service Pilots the highest civilian honor given by the U.S. Congress – the Congressional Gold Medal.

But less than 250 surviving WASPwere on hand to receive their long-overdue thanks. [8]

Veterans deserve better treatment – especially while they’re still alive to enjoy it.

QUOTES

“Already my big worry is that I might wash out. It’s going to be plenty tough to come up to Army standards. Several from W-7 ‘washed’ today. Everyone gets depressed when they go; tonight the Recreation Room was like a morgue–you just can’t help wondering “Will I be next? “ ~Adaline Alma Blank, WASP Class 43-8, Avenger Field Sweetwater, TX [*]

“Glamour, hell; it was hard work!” ~ Florence Shutsy-Reynolds, W.A.S.P.Training Class 44-w-5 [*]

 “The P-63 was quite an airplane. I just loved it. I flew as many as I could, as far as I could, as fast as I could.”  ~ Betty Archibald Fernandes, Class 43-3 [*]

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE WASP? LET US KNOW BELOW.

WORKS CITED

[*] All quotes are from https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/discover/campfire-stories/wasp

[**]Rodríguez, who died on March, 19, 1982, was the first of the WASP to be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Ceremony. From http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-s/2007/3tri07/ashcrofteng.html

[1] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Official Archive.” Texas Woman’s University. (Denton, TX) @ https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/collections/women-airforce-service-pilots/

[2] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Gateway to Women’s History: Women’s Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive.” @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[3] Cornelsen, K. (2005). “Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America.” Journal of Women’s History 17(4), 111-119. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from Project MUSE database.

[4] All the information used under this heading came from one source: Texas Woman’s University. “Training.” Woman’s Collection – Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). @ https://web.archive.org/web/20180728221611/https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/featured-collections/women-airforce-service-pilots-wasp/training/

[5] “Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Women in the Army @ https://www.army.mil/women/history/pilots.html

[6] Binz, Larry E. “Airport Day provides nostalgia for crowd, local veteran aviatrix.” Clarksdale[Mississippi] Press Register – October 20, 2010.

[7] Monahan, Evelyn M.; Neidel-Greenlee, Rosemary (2010). A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women From World War I to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York: Alfred A Knopf. pp.136-137.

[8] Texas Woman’s University. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive – WASPFacts and Stats.” Gateway to Women’s History. @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[9] Baylor University. “Above and Beyond.” Wings Across America. @ http://www.wingsacrossamerica.org/above—beyond.html

[10] Steck, Em. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Aided American War Efforts With Help From These Women of Color. TeenVogue –December 24, 2017. @ https://www.teenvogue.com/story/women-airforce-service-pilots-aided-american-war-efforts-with-help-from-these-women-of-color

[11] Cornelsen, Kathleen (2005).”Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America”. Journal of Women’s History. 17 (4): 111–119. – via Project MUSE.

[12] Wackerfuss, Dr. Andrew T. “Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Air Force Historical Support Division. @ https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458964/womens-airforce--service-pilots-wasp/