Bernard Freyberg: The New Zealand World War I Hero who Failed to Defend Crete in 1941

For the Greek public, the 1941 Battle of Crete is known for the wrong decisions made by the British commanders, so leading to an Axis victory. The tactical mistakes of the British were critical in allowing the occupation of the island by the Nazis and were caused by the decisions of high-ranking officers like General Bernard Freyberg. But who was this General? And why is he a hero in his native New Zealand? Here, Manolis Peponas looks at the life of Bernard Freyberg.

Bernard Freyberg (right) during the Battle of Crete in May 1941

Bernard Freyberg was born in London in 1889 but moved to New Zealand with his parents in 1891. When he was a young man, he became famous as a swimmer. In March 1914 he moved to the USA and, after that, to Mexico where he participated in the Mexican Revolution. In the summer of 1914, he was informed about the beginning of World War I and decided to enlist in the British Army. That was the starting point of a successful military career.[i]

Freyberg fought on the Western Front and in the Gallipoli Campaign. He was wounded nine times and became one of the most decorated young officers in his homeland. For example, he won a Distinguished Service Order (DSO) because he swam ashore in the Gulf of Saros and diverted Turkish attention from the main landing, at Bulair in Gallipoli in April 1915. In 1916, he won the Victoria Cross for his heroic acts at the Battle of the Somme. During the interwar period he worked mainly in staff positions, and in 1937, he was obliged to retire because of a heart problem.[ii]

World War II

Following the outbreak of World War II, Freyberg again offered his services to the New Zealand government. Immediately, he was appointed as the commander of the 2nd New Zealand Division which took part in battles in Greece, North Africa, and Italy.[iii]

Winston Churchill said about Freyberg:

“I had suggested to the C.I.G.S.[iv] that General Freyberg should be placed in command of Crete, and he proposed this to Wavell, who had immediately agreed. Bernard Freyberg and I had been friends for many years. The Victoria Cross and the D.S.O. with two bars marked his unsurpassed service, and like his only equal, Carton de Wiart, he deserved the title of ‘Salamander’. Both thrived in fire, and were literally shot to pieces without being affected physically or in spirit. At the outset of the war no man was more fitted to command the New Zealand Division, for which he was eagerly chosen.”[v]

In Crete in May 1941, the New Zealand major general believed that he was to face an invasion from the sea, so he created a plan that was wrong from the start – the German invasion was in fact mainly airborne. Also, he did not give the right orders for the support of the Commonwealth’s troops who defended the Maleme airfield. However, Freyberg was not the only one responsible for the fall of Crete; he had to command a varied and badly equipped army, without the RAF’s support or the necessary artillery battalions.[vi] This meant that despite the Allied loss in the Battle of Crete, as recognition of his service, he added a third bar to his DSO and was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general.

After the Allied victory in the war, the retired high-ranking officer was appointed Governor-General of New Zealand, a position he served from 1946 to 1952. After that, he returned to Britain where he acted as Deputy Constable and Lieutenant Governor in charge of Windsor Castle. He died in Windsor on July 4, 1963 following the rupture of one of his many wounds. Today, he is a national hero for the people of New Zealand.[vii]

What do you think of Bernard Freyberg? Let us know below.

[i]         Ewer, Peter (2010). Forgotten Anzacs: The Campaign in Greece, 1941. Scribe Publications. p. 30.

[ii]        ‘Bernard Freyberg', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/bernard-freyberg, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 8-Nov-2017. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

[iii]               'Freyberg given command of 2NZEF', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/bernard-freyberg-assumes-command-of-the-nz-expeditionary-force, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 17-Nov-2016. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

[iv]               C.I.G.S.: Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

[v]       Churchill, Sir Winston (1959). Memoirs of the Second World War. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 441.

[vi]      Barber, Laurie. “Freyberg and Crete: the Australasian Perspective”, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Vol. 72, No. 292 (Winter 1994), pp. 247-254.

[vii]     ‘Bernard Freyberg', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/bernard-freyberg, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 8-Nov-2017. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

How did Nazi Germany Treat Mixed Race People?

The German Nazi Party is responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in all history, notably the Holocaust in which around 6 million Jews were killed. But in Nazi Germany what happened to mixed race, or ‘Mischlinge’ people - that is people who were partly Jewish and partly not Jewish by descent? Seth Eislund explores this question by looking at the work of three historians.

Erhard Milch, who was in charge of Nazi Germany’s aircraft production in World War II. His father was Jewish and his mother was not Jewish.

From its inception in 1920, the German Nazi Party saw the Jews as an “anti-race” that threatened to destroy the purity of German blood. Following Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933, the Nazi government legalized its racist anti-Semitism with the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. In addition to discriminating against Jews, these laws created a racial category called “Mischling,”[1] or “mixed-race,” for Germans of partial Jewish descent. There were different classifications of Mischling depending on how much “Jewish blood” a person possessed. A “full Jew” had three or more Jewish grandparents, a “Mischling First Degree” (a “half-Jew”) had two Jewish grandparents, and a “Mischling Second Degree” (a “quarter-Jew”) had one Jewish grandparent.[2] While Nazi legislation defined who a Mischling was, what was the regime’s policy towards Mischlinge, and how was this policy enforced? Historians Peter Monteath, Bryan Mark Rigg, and Thomas Pegelow provide compelling answers to this question. While the three scholars use different methodologies to examine Nazi policy towards Mischlinge, they agree that such policy was inconsistent and vacillated between persecution, semi-toleration, and racial reclassification.

Monteath’s Approach: A Social Analysis

Drawing on extensive oral history research, Peter Monteath argues that Nazi legislation towards Mischlinge displayed a clear disconnect between ideology and practice, and that Mischlinge consequently lived anxious and tumultuous lives. Monteath observes that there were two main schools of thought regarding Nazi Mischling policy. The first school tended towards a pragmatic integration of Mischlinge into German society. This form of thinking led to the opening of the draft to Mischlinge in 1935, and the declaration of “mixed marriages” as privileged and protected against anti-Semitic persecution in 1938.[3] The second school of thought, however, was more radical. Its adherents saw Mischlinge as equivalent to Jews, and therefore they needed to be removed from Germany. These party radicals pushed for violent measures against Jews, such as pogroms like Kristallnacht.[4] These integrationist and radical schools of thought manifested themselves in local Nazi policy. For instance, certain German cities, like Dortmund and Hamburg, gave illegitimate half-Jewish children a “German upbringing,” while Königsberg saw such children as thoroughly “semitised” in blood and mentality.[5] Furthermore, at the infamous Wannsee Conference of 1942, its attendees agreed on conflicting resolutions to “the Mischling Question.” It was agreed that half-Jews should be treated as “full Jews,” while Mischlinge married to Germans with Aryan blood should be exempted from being treated as Jews.[6] Similar to the Nazi government’s inconsistent policy towards them, Mischlinge lived uncertain and anxious lives. They existed in a grey area between the racial categories of “Jewish” and “Aryan,” and faced persecution ranging from daily slights to the deportation and mass murder of relatives and friends.[7] Thus, Monteath convincingly argues that Nazi Mischling policy and the lives of Mischlinge were incoherent and chaotic.

Rigg’s Approach: Mischlinge in the Military

While Monteath does an excellent job of describing the specificities and constant uncertainty of Mischling life and policy in Nazi Germany, his analysis overlooks a key aspect of the Nazi regime: the military. However, Bryan Mark Rigg provides a thorough examination of Nazi policy towards Mischling soldiers in the Third Reich, which he calls “a maze of confusion and contradictions.”[8] According to Rigg, the Nazis either persecuted or tolerated Mischling soldiers based on their perceived loyalty and importance to the regime, which varied widely on an individual basis. Rigg states that despite their Jewish ancestry, half-Jews and quarter-Jews were legally allowed to serve in the German military until 1940.[9] However, they were forbidden from becoming non-commissioned officers or officers without the personal approval of Adolf Hitler. Hence, due to their Jewish blood, Mischling soldiers were not allowed to advance in rank. Their Aryan commanders, who were their superiors in rank and blood, were destined to command them. Thus, the Nazis saw Mischlinge as useful to their military goals but refused to treat them as equal to Aryan soldiers due to their Jewish ancestry. However, Mischling soldiers were treated far better than their Jewish parents, who lost their jobs and civil liberties due to Nazi legislation.[10] This demonstrates a disconnect between the Nazi treatment of “full Jews” and Mischlinge. While a “full Jew’s” blood was completely tainted, a Mischling possessed some Aryan blood and could therefore serve the Third Reich. While Hitler eventually decided to expel all half-Jews from the German military in 1940, he made several exceptions. Hitler personally signed thousands of special permission forms that “allowed [half-Jews] who had proven themselves in battle…  to [remain] with their units.”[11] This demonstrates that Hitler approved of veteran half-Jewish soldiers more than he did ordinary half-Jewish soldiers, as their extensive service demonstrated their loyalty and utility to the regime. Thus, Rigg makes the potent observation that, in military terms, Nazi policy towards Mischlinge was influenced by an individual soldier’s perceived devotion and significance to the regime based on their decoration and experience in combat.

Pegelow’s Approach: The Language of Nazi Racial Categories

Although he reaches similar conclusions to Monteath and Rigg, Thomas Pegelow’s analysis differs from theirs. Instead of examining the social or military aspects of Nazi policy towards Mischlinge, he examines the language behind Nazi racial categories, arguing that “Racial discourses were not static, but were constantly remade.”[12] Pegelow focuses on the Reich Kinship Office (RSA), which was created in 1933 with the mission of “determining people’s ‘racial descent’ in cases of doubt.”[13] The RSA’s decisions about a person’s racial descent had severe consequences: being designated as “Aryan” resulted in one’s safety while being designated as “Jewish” resulted in one’s death in a concentration camp. Mischlinge knew this, and many tried to avoid persecution by publicly disputing their Jewish ancestry with the RSA.[14] Pegelow’s portrayal of Mischlinge corroborates Monteath’s argument that Mischlinge lived frantic lives due to their ambiguous status in Nazi policy. Consequently, Pegelow argues that the RSA committed “linguistic violence” against Mischlinge. This was because the RSA constructed racial categories through language, such as the German Volk and the Jewish race, and it used language to determine who was a member of each group.[15] The RSA excluded some Mischlinge from the Volk, thereby condemning them to persecution and death. However, they also declared 4,100 Mischlinge, or 7.9% of all Mischlinge who petitioned for racial evaluations, to be legally Aryan.[16] Thus, the RSA’s classification of over 4,000 Mischlinge as Aryan demonstrates that Nazi policy towards Mischlinge was inconsistent. The category of “Mischling” was fluid and ambiguous, and it’s meaning changed depending on the individual Nazi official who interpreted it. Some Nazis associated Mischlinge with the Aryan side of the racial spectrum, while others saw Mischlinge and Jews as identical.

Conclusion

Peter Monteath, Bryan Mark Rigg, and Thomas Pegelow’s research demonstrates that Nazi policy was inconsistent towards Mischlinge, as it shifted between persecution, quasi-toleration, and conflicting racial definitions. According to Monteath, Nazi officials contested the status of Mischlinge: some party members advocated for the integration of Mischlinge into German life, while others saw them as “full Jews” and pushed for their removal from Germany. Mischlinge lived similarly incongruous and anxious lives: they suffered varying degrees of persecution and constantly worried that they would face imprisonment and death. Similarly, Rigg observes that even Hitler’s policy towards Mischlinge serving in the German military was contradictory. While Hitler discriminated against Mischling soldiers by preventing them from serving as NCOs or officers, he signed thousands of forms that allowed battle-hardened Mischlinge to continue fighting during the Second World War. Lastly, Pegelow argues that Nazi racial categories, such as “German” and “Jewish,” were linguistically constructed and therefore subject to constant change. Nazi functionaries defined Mischlinge, who occupied an uncertain place within the Nazi racial hierarchy, as either Aryan or Jewish based solely on their individual assumptions. Thus, the inconsistency of Nazi policy towards Mischlinge reflected the latter’s ambiguous status in the Third Reich. For the Nazis, Mischlinge were members of a contradictory and perplexing racial category, a bizarre mix of the most superior race and the most inferior race, and Nazi policy towards them was equally paradoxical.

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

[1] In German, “Mischling” is singular and “Mischlinge” is plural.

[2] Peter Monteath, “The ‘Mischling’ Experience in Oral History,” The Oral History Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 142, www.jstor.org/stable/20628029.

[3] Monteath, 142-143.

[4] Monteath, 143.

[5] Monteath, 144.

[6] Monteath, 144-145.

[7] Monteath, 154.

[8] Bryan Mark Rigg, “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers,” in Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, ed. Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth (New York: Berghahn Books, 2012), 123.

[9] Rigg, 119-121.

[10] Rigg, 119-120.

[11] Rigg, 121.

[12] Thomas Pegelow, “Determining ‘People of German Blood’, ‘Jews’ and ‘Mischlinge’: The Reich Kinship Office and the Competing Discourses and Powers of Nazism, 1941-1943,” Contemporary European History 15, no. 1 (2006): 43, www.jstor.org/stable/20081294.

[13] Pegelow, 44.

[14] Pegelow, 45.

[15] Pegelow, 46.

[16] Pegelow, 64.

Bibliography

Monteath, Peter. “The ‘Mischling’ Experience in Oral History.” The Oral History Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 139-58. Accessed April 23, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20628029.

Pegelow, Thomas. “Determining ‘People of German Blood’, ‘Jews’ and ‘Mischlinge’: The Reich 

Kinship Office and the Competing Discourses and Powers of Nazism, 1941-1943.” Contemporary European History 15, no. 1 (2006): 43-65. Accessed April 23, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20081294.

Rigg, Bryan Mark. “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.” In Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, edited by Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth, 118-126. New York: Berghahn Books, 2012.

Did Settlers Commit Genocide in America?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violence

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

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

Guns, Germs, and Poor Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding evidence

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

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

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

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

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

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

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

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

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

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

The 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Pandemic and the Boy Scout Movement

The 1918 flu pandemic, or ‘Spanish Flu’, lasted from the spring of 1918 to the summer of 1919. With many Americans in Europe to fight in World War One in 1918, sometimes other groups stepped in to help. Here, Joseph Connole tells us how the Boy Scouts of America provided much needed assistance during the pandemic.

Boy Scouts helping to distribute food and medicine to houses during the 1918 influenza epidemic.

The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918 was the worst public health crisis of the 20th century; however, some public officials were reluctant to acknowledge the extent of the pandemic because of the First World War. As a result, the virus spread through communities across the world and the US, killing an estimated 650,000 Americans in just less than two years. Local authorities responded differently to the outbreak, in some cities the authorities shut down businesses, schools, and churches. In others, little was done.[i] The outbreak of the flu in 1918 was different though; it killed those who were in the prime of their lives. To complicate matters, the U.S. was fighting a war. As the U.S. war effort started, the government instituted a draft taking millions of men away from homes to fight in Europe. Yet, across the country, young men in the Boy Scouts of America sprang into action to help those suffering from the influenza.  At the start of the First World War, there were 150,000 men in uniform. At the same time, in 1918, there were over 400,000 Scouts and Volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America.[ii]  The Boy Scouts of America were the largest uniformed body in the country. Scouts helped the nation’s war effort by holding parades, selling war bonds, and establishing victory gardens. During the Spanish Influenza, they helped by handing out health guides, serving as informants for local health officials, serving food, and working with local hospitals to provide help. 

How the Scouts helped

In cities across the country, local Boy Scouts came to the aide of local health officials, hospitals, and the Red Cross. They distributed literature, ran kitchens, and helped in a variety of other ways.  Between October 1918 and July 1919, the Boy Scout official magazine for volunteers, Scouting Magazine, recorded how Scouts from across the country answered the call for assistance as the nation was paralyzed by the flu.[iii]

The image of Scouts during the second decade of the twentieth century is one of young men marching in parades, selling liberty bonds, and planting gardens. But during the Spanish Influenza outbreak, Scouts heard the call of local officials in need of help and selflessly came to their assistance. In the October 24, 1918 edition of Scouting Magazine, the Boy Scouts took out several pages to address the Spanish Influenza outbreak in the United States. They declared, “Scouts and Scout officials are not only, definitely concerned, but have a distinct opportunity for service by reason of the nation-wide Spanish Influenza epidemic.”  This call for action would be heard by Scouts across the nation. Scouts would go on to serve as junior health officers and in at least one instance, a Scout served as an intern in a hospital. The movement warned Scouts to be on their guard due to the highly contagious flu and implored Scouts to receive permission from local health officers before undertaking any risk to themselves or their families.[iv] The same issue of the magazine went on to discuss the best ways to prevent infection. 

In Shoshone, Idaho Scouts distributed some 7,500 pieces of literature to residents and met trains as people came off and distributed masks,[v] while in Topeka, Kansas, Scouts were sworn in as junior health officers. Scouts took the following oath before taking on their official duties:

In assuming the duties in the Topeka health service, I agree to hold myself responsible for the distribution of all notices and literature in my district requested by the commissioner of health. 

I further agree to gather any information that may be desired and to report on the health and sanitary situation in any district when asked to do so. 

I agree to assist the Topeka health department in every way I can, with the understanding that I will not be called upon to perform any duty that will interfere with my school or endanger my health.[vi]

In a time well before the Internet, one of the most effective ways for local health officials to get out notices to people was through the Scouts in their communities. But in some special circumstances, Scouts were also called upon to do more. In St. Paul, Minnesota, Scouts were tasked to report on violations of local health orders which would then be investigated by a health officer.[vii]

Doing their duty

In other instances Scouts took on even more advanced roles than were found in Topeka and St. Paul. In New Brunswick, New Jersey, York, Pennsylvania, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Morgan, New Jersey, Scouts provided help by guiding and manning ambulances, escorting nurses or acting as orderlies, and serving as messengers or telephone operators. The Elizabeth Daily Journal praised the work of Scouts saying, “The work of the Boy Scouts received the warm praise of all the older workers, who found their assistance almost invaluable.”  It went on to report, “They carried cots, ran errands, acted as escorts to the refugees, served the food, stood guard over families, cared for the babies and acted in almost every capacity.”[viii] In every instance where Scouts assisted local health officials or hospitals, their work was praised according to Scouting Magazine. 

The most impressive effort made by Scouts came in Morristown, New Jersey. In one instance, a Boy Scout acted as an intern for the hospital and “he did all of the work which is usually performed by a grown man” for two weeks. Another Scout drove a supply truck three times a week for the Red Cross between Hoboken and a convalescent hospital for soldiers in Mendham. And yet another worked for a week inside a children’s home where nearly sixty of the children were sick. That Scout carried water up four flights of stairs, prepared and served meals, and did various other tasks required of him.[ix]

The Scouts who performed these duties showed unparalleled courage. In each instance of the Scouts helping in their respective communities, they were well received by the local officials and hospitals that they served. Their contributions helped save an unknown number of lives and they did it without desire for public recognition.

What impact do you think the Boy Scouts had on the Influenza Pandemic? Let us know below.

[i] https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities

[ii] Boy Scouts of America. Annual report of the Boy Scouts of America: Letter from the chief scout executive transmitting the annual report of the Boy Scouts of America ... as required by federal charter. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off. 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000054452598&view=1up&seq=8  Accessed 5/1/2020. P. 18

[iii] All citations of Scouting stories during the Spanish Influenza pandemic come from Scouting Magazine in the Porta to Texas History unless otherwise noted, individual issue citations are given. Scouting Magazine in The Portal to Texas History. University of North Texas Libraries. https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/SCOUT/ accessed March 18, 2020.

[iv] Boy Scouts of America. Scouting, Volume 6, Number 24, October 24, 1918, periodical, October 24, 1918; New York, New York. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth282984/: accessed March 18, 2020), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Boy Scouts of America National Scouting Museum. p. 5

[v] Ibid., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 5

[vi] Ibid., Volume 7, Number 11, March 13, 1919. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283026/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 8

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Quoted in, ibid. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283061/: accessed March 18. 2020, p. 70

[ix] Ibid., ., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p.7

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon – Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 2: How Henry’s Efforts to Overturn the Marriage in the Courts Failed

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  In part 2 of the series, Victor Gamma considers how Henry tried to overturn the marriage through the English courts and then via the support of universities across Europe.

You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here.

King Henry VIII of England. Portrait by Hans Holbein.

Back to Henry VIII’s arguments for the divorce…

Henry’s second argument related to the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II. A dispensation is an exemption from the usual rules. The King argued that the dispensation for the marriage was null because no pope could not set aside the law of God as found in Leviticus. According to canon law, closely related couples were forbidden to marry. In other words the degree of affinity, or kinship, would present an impediment to the marriage. In Henry’s situation, he and Catherine were technically related since Catherine had been married to his brother. Also, Henry argued that the pope’s dispensation was invalid because it was based on the belief (which Henry repudiated) that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. In Medieval thinking, it wasn’t a real marriage if it had never been consummated. 

Henry Goes to Court

So how did Henry VIII’s case hold up? In 1527, the King was summoned to Cardinal Wolsey's palace in Westminster. The issue of Henry's relations with his brother's widow was to be the subject of an official pronouncement. Several experts in canon law were consulted. Much to the king’s chagrin, they overwhelmingly held that Henry’s marriage to his brother’s widow did not violate God’s law and therefore, Pope Julius' dispensation had been valid as well. After a thorough study of both scripture and the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical leaders such as Bishop John Fisher declared that no prohibition against such a marriage existed. Henry’s attempts to get Pope Julius’ original dispensation for his marriage to Catherine declared invalid did not fare any better. The current pope, Clement VII, would not agree to this. First, to declare an earlier pope’s dispensation mistaken would undermine respect for the office of the papacy. Moreover, he was at the time threatened by Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s uncle. Not wishing to offend Charles, Clement could do no more than grant Henry’s wish for a commission to investigate the case. Wolsey made one last effort to argue that Julius II’s dispensation contained technical defects. This, too, failed.  

In the spring of 1529 at a Legatine court at Blackfriars, London, the public inquiry into the validity of the marriage took place. It was to be an inquisitorial procedure, attempting to discover the truth of the matter through questioning and investigation. The purpose of the court was to determine whether the marriage of Henry VIII to Catherine was valid according to Divine Law. Cardinal Campeggio, the pope’s legate, and Cardinal Wolsey, heard the case. It did not go well for Henry. Early in the proceedings he asserted that all the bishops shared his doubts about the marriage and had signed a petition to investigate the matter. At this point the indomitable Bishop John Fisher violently protested that he had not signed any such petition and that his name had been forged.  As to Fisher’s credibility, one contemporary wrote of him: "He was in holiness, learning and diligence in his cure (care of souls) and in fulfilling his office of bishop such that of many hundred years England had not any bishop worthy to be compared with him.” The bishop himself commented on the effort he put into the divorce issue: "The matter was so serious both on account of the importance of the persons it concerned, and the express command of the king, that I gave more labour and diligence to seeking out the truth lest I should fail him and others, than I ever gave to any other matter."

Henry brushed Fisher’s protest aside only to face another unexpected resistance. His wife Catherine, upsetting the procedures of the court, knelt before the king and eloquently pleaded her case. After finishing her speech she then left the court, never to return. In her absence testimony was heard regarding the issue of whether consummation between Catherine and Arthur had taken place. Much of it was flimsy. The Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, assumed that prince Arthur had consummated his marriage because he himself had done so at the age of fifteen. Another witness based his opinion on Arthur’s “sanguine complexion” after his wedding night. Others testified of comments Arthur made which implied the couple had marital relations. One had to ask why this ‘evidence’ was not brought up during the time Pope Julius was examining the case in order to grant a dispensation. Great caution must be exercised for this ‘evidence’ which mysteriously appeared only when the King needed it. The hard fact was, whether or not the queen was a virgin when she married Henry was impossible to prove. 

The court dragged on until Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate, adjourned the court for the summer recess in July of that year. The court never re-convened nor did it ever issue any ruling. While the court was still in session, pope Clement rejected Henry’s annulment petition.

Henry Changes Tactics

Still lacking a resolution in his favor, Henry next appealed to the Universities of Europe. Henry prided himself on his scholarly abilities and felt confident in a positive result. Did the universities’ response help prove or disprove his case? Their findings generally reflected the wishes of the rulers they served. In France, for instance, they found in favor of Henry because it served the political purposes of King Francis I. Likewise, Oxford and Cambridge lent their support to their own King Henry. Enormous sums of money were spent to bribe scholars to find in favor of divorce, making many of the verdicts questionable. The Spanish scholars weighed in against divorce and in Italy opinion was divided. In short, the stalemate continued. In the war of pamphlets that accompanied this debate, John Fisher emerged as the chief opponent of the king’s argument. He so thoroughly shredded the arguments of the king’s supporters that Henry’s followers began to focus on another line of attack on another front - the original dispensation of Julius II Ad Librum Secundum issued in 1503.

How did Henry fare on this front? First of all, pains were taken to avoid the mistake of bestowing the sacrament of marriage on a couple that had an impediment. In the late Middle Ages, such dispensations were common, particularly amongst royal families wishing to preserve the bloodline. And in such a case as Henry and Catherine the impediment of affinity was not normally held to be a violation of divine law. Moreover, the king would by implication, be condemning dozens of papal dispensations granted during the previous two centuries. Despite this, Henry argued that "The marriage [to Catharine] is against human and divine law. If the papal dispensation is put forward as an argument, it may be answered that the pope's authority does not extend to degrees prohibited by divine law.” In other words, the pope had exceeded his power. But Bishop Fisher effectively destroyed that argument in a letter to Cardinal Wolsey:

"(I) Cannot see any sound reason to show that it is prohibited by divine law for a brother to marry the wife of a brother who has died without children; and considering the fullness of authority given by our Lord to the pope, who can deny that the latter may give dispensation to that effect, for any serious cause?. . . As the pope, therefore, has more than once by his act declared that it is lawful to dispense in this case...this alone should determine the question....that the dispensation is within the pope's power."

Additionally, Fisher brought up the bull of Innocent III, Deus qui Ecclesiam, in which Innocent had allowed converted Latvians to remain in marriages with their brothers' widows, providing the brothers had died childless. That effectively buried Henry’s case against Pope Julius II’s dispensation. 

Now you can read part 3 on Catherine’a case for the divorce here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below. 

Sources

Campbell, Phillip.”The Canon Law of the Henry VIII Divorce Case,” Senior Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Social Studies Department of Madonna University, Livonia, MI. Presented June 14th, 200.9

Fraser, Antonia, The Wives of Henry VIII. New York:Vintage Books,1994.

Guy, John, Tudor England. Oxford University Press, 1988. 

Haig, Christopher, The English Reformation: Religion, Politics and Society Under the Tudors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 

Lehman, H. Eugene Lives of England's Reigning and Consort Queens. 

"June 21 - Catherine of Aragon steals the show" The Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society, June 20, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9DknPWlJA

McGovern, Thomas, “ Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls,” Catholic Culture.org, 1987.

Afro-Cubans in the USA During the Cold War

The Cold War and the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s led to permanently altered demographics in Miami, Florida and New York due to several influxes of Cuban immigrants in the years and decades after. Studies of this tend to focus on key players such as John F. Kennedy, political tensions between the USA and Cuba, and specific immigration issues, for example, the Elian Gonzalez scandal. 

Still, a question begs for attention: how did race and politics influence the lives of Cuban refugees in America during the Cold War? The answer is most obvious when we look to the experiences of Afro-Cuban refugees. Lietty Roig explains.

A boat with Cuban refugees arrives in Key West, Florida in 1980 as part of the Mariel Boatlift.

Afro-Cubans have not only been underrepresented and understudied in the literature of the Cold War, but they have mostly been included in the tales of how others experienced their arrival. Research shows a clear pattern that initially Afro-Cubans often settled away from Miami, Florida because the racism was so unbearable. During the first wave of migration in the 1960s only between 3 and 9% of individuals were Afro-Cubans. Under the assumption that those figures are accurate, their absence from the early scholarly literature makes sense. Still, a more practical explanation for migration further north than Miami rests on the practical reason that they would be very far away from the feared bombings and military activity of the era. During the later waves of migration, some Afro-Cubans did settle in Miami. However, these individuals struggled to fit in with white Cubans, who they shared a nationality with, and African Americans, who they shared African roots with. As a result, Afro-Cubans created their own space in the greater Miami area: Allapattah, the point between Little Haiti and Little Havana. 

What is interesting about the Afro-Cuban experience during the Cold War is that it was not universal. During the early waves of Cuban migration, Afro-Cubans enjoyed government aid, and a higher socio-economic status in New York City. In 1980, the last wave of Cuban mass migration took place through the famous boatlifts. This group of immigrants did not receive government aid, and society labeled them as criminals. So, that last wave of Afro-Cubans was met with the same discrimination as the early refugees, only this time they were stripped of their identity. By the late 1980s, Afro-Cubans were grouped with African Americans in Miami, and Puerto Ricans in New York. That triggered a crisis of identity for all the demographics involved. For one, African Americans and Afro-Cubans have African roots in common, but their histories are quite different. A similar divide can be established between Puerto Ricans and Afro-Cubans.

Yet, to think that race alone influenced their experience is naïve. Politics was a driving force in everything. For instance, John F. Kennedy was adamant about relocating many Cubans away from Miami to reduce the overflowing population. Still, that is the tip of the political iceberg.  Obviously, the United States lived in fear of communism, and so did the white Cuban refugees from the early waves. So, an “ideal” Cuban refugee was created in the United States: anti-communist, mostly republican, and white. However, Afro-Cubans struggled to fit in this mold not just because of race, but because many of them – at least initially - supported Castro. The fact of the matter is that the early wave of Cuban refugees was fleeing Castro’s ideologies, and one of those promises was racial equality. If you are at the top of the totem pole, you want to stay at the top; it is a natural reaction, whether we like it or not. Yet, those Afro-Cubans were lulled into favoring Castro because of that promise of racial equality - until they saw what reality under his rule was like. Then no one wanted to be there because there was only one person on top of the pyramid: Castro. 

While it would be easy to say that Afro-Cubans were excluded from the narrative because of racist writing, it would also be ignorant. Afro-Cuban refugees made up only a small portion of immigrants during the early years of the Cold War. During the later waves of migration, Afro-Cubans struggled with a self-identity crisis, and were not quite sure how they fit in their new surroundings. It would also be ignorant to say that discriminatory experiences started in the United States, because Afro-Cubans experienced their fair share of racism in Cuba.

What do you think about the experience of Afro-Cubans in the United States? Let us know below.

References

Benson, Devyn S. "From Miami to New York and Beyond: Race and Exile in the 1960s." In Antiracism in Cuba: The Unfinished Revolution, 122-52. University of North Carolina Press, 2016.

Current, Cheris Brewer. "Normalizing Cuban Refugees: Representations of Whiteness and Anti-communism in the USA during the Cold War." Ethnicities 8, no. 1 (2008). 

Grosfoguel, Ramón, and Chloé S. Georas. "Latino Caribbean Diasporas in New York." In Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York City, by Laó-Montes Agustín and Dávila Arlene, 97-118. Columbia University Press, 2001.

McHugh, Kevin E., Ines M. Miyares, and Emily H. Skop. "The Magnetism of Miami: Segmented Paths in Cuban Migration." Geographical Review 87, no. 4 (1997): 504-19.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: Was she Really the 'Virgin Queen'?

Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603; reign as Queen 1558-1603) was a child of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and remains one of the most famous English monarchs.

Nicknamed Gloriana, and reigning for nearly fifty years, Queen Elizabeth is important in British history. However, why was this queen so adamantly against her supposed monarchical duties of providing an heir? And why was she so infamously portrayed as the ‘virgin queen’? Hannah Rooney looks at the rumors and explains why she really may have been a ‘virgin queen’.

Queen Elizabeth I Ddancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

Bisley boy

Elizabeth’s lack of an heir makes her an intriguing subject of discussion. Ranging on varying aspects of absurdity, one conspiracy was begun by the author of the novel Dracula, Bram Stoker. Allegedly, on visiting a small English town named Bisley, Stoker found out that on May Day, the traditional ‘May Queen’ would be dressed as a boy (rather than a white gown and crown), and upon research, Stoker uncovered the story of the ‘Bisley boy’.  This said that during bouts of the plague, a young Elizabeth was sent to the town for security and safety. However, she became deathly ill and supposedly died whilst there. Known for his wild temperament and tendency to sentence, Elizabeth’s governess, terrified, frantically searched for a resembling girl, but only came across a young boy of the same age and some likeness. When Henry came to visit, the deception had worked. As a rather cold father, he was distant and visited infrequently, and in combination with Elizabeth’s usual shyness toward her father, the secret was kept. Over 300 years later, whilst undergoing building work, a stone coffin was found with the body of a young girl in an Elizabethan dress. In the years after this, there were other signs towards this theory. Furthermore, her tutor Robert Ascham described her as being “endued with a masculine power.” Her striking use of wigs and thick, white makeup which would take hours to apply is also used as an indicator, as it was said she would not be seen without it unless to her servants and maids. Even in her dying moments, she was adamant she would not receive an autopsy. 

This theory is widely used as to why she would never marry. However, it has many faults-Elizabeth was inspected by doctors to ensure that her ‘child bearing’ abilities were adequate, to which the results were affirmative. Furthermore, a potential suitor, Philip II of Spain, had asked of her fertility to her laundress, having heard rumors, who reported with a wide indication of menstruation. Arguably, it is a misogynistic perspective used to imply that a woman of the 1500s could not be so powerful, so must have been a man, and her masculine features and perspectives towards leadership are supposed ‘evidence’.

Lord Robert Dudley

The ideas do not end here, though. Supposedly, the ‘virgin queen’ may not have been virtuous at all. Lord Robert Dudley, born in June 1532, befriended Elizabeth during the reign of Queen Mary I, a time of impending danger for the young Elizabeth, and on Elizabeth’s ascension in 1558, she appointed him master of her horse, and the two remained close at court, often dancing, horse riding, and hunting. Dudley was married to Lady Amy Robsart Dudley; she was almost never in court, with Dudley’s bedchambers moved next to Elizabeth’s private rooms for their meetings. In 1587, after rumors swirling around the country viciously, a man named Arthur Dudley arrived at Philip II’s court in Spain and claimed to be the illegitimate child of Dudley and Elizabeth. His supposed conception in 1561 was eerily linked to the time Elizabeth had been bedridden with an illness which had resulted in her body “swelling.” Matters were made worse for the supposed couple when in 1560, Dudley's wife Amy was found dead in her residency, at the bottom of a flight of stairs with a broken neck, the circumstances for which were regarded as suspicious - and Robert Dudley felt the brunt of it. For almost 50 years, their relationship was filled with turmoil, yet Elizabeth always described him as her ‘sweet Robin’, and had accordingly been brought to tears for several years after his death in 1588, upon anyone saying his name. So perhaps she never married due to a sweet childhood romance, a lost case of love, though she solemnly swore on her deathbed that ‘nothing unseemly had ever passed between them.’ No physical evidence accounts for otherwise too. 

A real Virgin Queen?

Most notably, Queen Elizabeth could have actually been a “virgin queen.” Her complex relationship with her father likely had a large impact on her chastity - losing her own mother at two years old to the hands of her father would have had an inevitable impact on the young girl, particularly being indoctrinated with the wild accusations and defamation against her own mother, as a ‘witch’ and ‘conspirator.’ Her stepmother, Catherine Howard, who was allegedly very warm and kind to Elizabeth, suffered the same fate of execution via beheading. Elizabeth was just eight at the time, and supposedly uttered, that she would ‘never marry.’ Her perspective likely linked matrimony to ideas of pain, loss and death.

Personally, I see it in the sense that it was a choice made by Elizabeth. There was a deep requirement for marriage during her reign and she knew it: being an unwed queen held her at an incredible risk of losing credibility as a ruler, especially with rival Mary, Queen of Scots, announcing her pregnancy and eventually conceiving a young boy, who would become King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. And it wasn’t like opportunity was sparse: countless suitors presented themselves, such as Philip II of Spain, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, Prince Eric of Sweden, and a plethora more. To me, it is likely that the incredibly intelligent and sharp queen disliked the idea of sharing her own political power, or risking her country with dependency on others. She cunningly used the incessant possibility of her hand in marriage as an opportunity to prevent uprisings and ensure increasingly civil foreign affairs. Devoted and unwavering, Queen Elizabeth remained, ultimately, ‘married to her country.’

All of these speculations will fly around for the rest of history, but what’s more inspiring to believe? A queen, defiant of societal constructs and unwilling to conform to 16th century stereotypes - that sounds pretty amazing to me. Throughout her father’s inevitable dismissal, determination for a male heir and half sister Mary’s doomed marriage, Elizabeth proved to be a successful and hearty leader, without the need of a man, and arguably, even for her rival and cousin, Queen Mary, she proved the misogynistic John Knox incorrect on his views of female monarchs. The perfect summary would be her Tilbury speech to the troops for the Spanish Armada: ‘I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too [..] we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.’

Why do you think Queen Elizabeth I of England never married? Let us know below.

The Life of Princess Olga ‘Olishka’ Nikolaevna, the Eldest Daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia

Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, ‘Olishka’, (1895-1918) was the eldest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, Russia’s last Tsar. While many of us know how Nicholas II and his family were killed by the Bolsheviks so ending the Romanov Dynasty, many of us know less about Nicholas’ children. Here, Jordann Stover tells us about Grand Duchess Olga, the lives of the Imperial children, and the tumultuous events in Russia during her life.

You can also read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II here.

Princess Olga (right), with her younger sister Tatiana.

There is something fundamentally heartbreaking about being the eldest sister of a family. As the first child of one’s parents, it is through them that said parents learn and grow— that is a daunting task for a baby just learning how to toddle around a nursery. Eldest sisters look out for the little ones; the diaper-clad girl with chubby, unsteady legs must set an example for those that come after her. She’s supposed to be inherently nurturing, almost like a second mother to her brothers and sisters. A great deal of pressure comes down on these children making the fits of anxiety and outbursts that often dominate the child’s personality understandable. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna was the eldest sister to end all other eldest sisters. This blonde haired, blue-eyed little girl came into the world as the first child of the last Tsar of Russia. After her birth, four more imperial children would follow. Olga’s parents put a great deal of pressure on their children, especially their firstborn who was to guide the other children in matters of behavior and their studies. This task was difficult for the little girl, she was sensitive and temperamental, a girl with a strong sense of right and wrong. Her life is often overlooked or forgotten in the chaos that was her father’s reign and subsequent fall which is, undeniably, a shame. Olga, as well as her sisters, were more than just royal children. They were fascinating beings in their own right. Their assassination was brutal, the details so gruesome that it is nearly impossible to stop reading fact after dreadful fact when studying this family. Behind the bloodstained wall and crudely crafted, unintentional bulletproof corsets that served to elongate their suffering during the last few moments of their lives were individuals of great character. Olga had a mind of her own; her heart ached with the pain that accompanied teenage crushes and thumped with anger when arguing with her sisters. Studying the young woman behind the stories is remarkably interesting, her innocence paired with an almost unfounded wisdom utterly captivating. 

Before Olga’s birth

Before Olga was even conceived, the controversy that would eventually aid in the end of her family’s dynasty and the family itself had already been in the works for years. Her parents were Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, and Alexandra Feodorovna (formerly Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, a small German duchy). Nicholas’ father had not believed in his son’s ability to rule, never training him as he should have. So, when Nicholas’ father died suddenly while only in his forties, Nicholas was nowhere near prepared for the job he had no choice but to accept. Alexandra married the Tsar quickly, the two of them being moved around at a dizzying pace because of the unexpected death of the previous Tsar. Once settled into their palaces, it became quite obvious that Nicholas was even more unprepared than they’d feared and that his new bride was not someone they were very fond of. Alexandra, a rather shy woman who had suffered a number of tragedies in her short life, was often withdrawn or sullen. The people of the Russian court did not like her and they made sure that she knew it; this only added to her nervousness, leading the Tsarina to hide away in her rooms whenever possible. As these personal, royal issues caused whispers within palace walls and aristocratic circles, nation-wide tragedies and despair flourished as well. The country was suffering, the working class starving, they were unimpressed with wars they deemed unnecessary and leaders that seemed to ignore their plights. The world in which Olga would be born into on November 15, 1895 was not the picture perfect Russian world Grand Duchesses of the past had the luxury of living in— Olga’s bruised and beaten Russia was heading very quickly toward revolution. 

Birth

The day of Olga’s birth was one of celebration for the royal couple and their country. Olga was a beautiful, healthy baby girl, confirming that the couple could indeed conceive of and deliver an heir. They were sure that a healthy son could follow. While a boy was certainly what had been hoped for by the royal couple, they loved their little “Olishka”, Nicholas himself stated in his diary entry the day of Olga’s birth that it would be “A day [he] will remember forever”. Olga was a large baby, weighing over ten pounds. She had piercing eyes and dark blonde hair, the lightest hair of anyone in her family consisting of brunettes and redheads. Her tutor, Pierre Gilliard met Olga when she was ten years old. He described this meeting in his book Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. The Grand Duchesses’ tutor stated that Olga was “very fair…[with] sparkling, mischievous eyes ... she examined [him] with a look...searching for the weak point in [his] armor, but there was something so pure and frank...that one liked her straight off." Olga was a lovely child and the Imperial Family was happy to have her despite what the rest of Russia might have been thinking.  Nicholas and Alexandra wanted to have a close knit, happy family. They wanted some semblance of normal life for Olga and themselves. Alexandra had been raised in a close, loving family back in the small duchy of her childhood and wanted that for her own children. Their closeness was not something common among royal families of the time; little intimacies such as breastfeeding or bathing the children themselves even further alienated the Romanovs from royal tradition.

Olga was not an only child for long-- Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia followed within just a few years. The four of them were incredibly close, closer than any other group of princesses. Olga and Tatiana, nicknamed “the Big Pair”, shared a bedroom while “the Little Pair”, Maria and Anastasia shared another bedroom. Together, the four sisters often signed their letters or referred to themselves as OTMA (Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia) as opposed to writing their full names. While Nicholas and Alexandra loved their girls, they needed a son for dynastic purposes. Russia had an incredibly strict Salic law which forbade female descendents from inheriting the throne. The law dated back to the times of Catherine the Great, her son having hated his mother so much that he put the law in place after the Empress’ death. In the meantime, Alexandra and Nicholas focused on creating a loving family life for their four “girlies”. They raised them to be humble people, girls used to sleeping on plain beds and having simple toys instead of having a lavish life most grand duchesses would have had. The four had a thorough education, studying different languages, history, art, and more. Pierre Gilliard, the aforementioned tutor of the children, stated that Olga “emanated such a feeling of purity and sincerity that she immediately gained [his] sympathy.” She was intelligent and dedicated to her studies, the young girl often lost in analytical thoughts about both herself and the world around her. This deep introspection was almost certainly inherited from her mother. Alexandra was known to be the same, a trait that had been solidified by the loss of her mother and sister from diptheria and her brother from a fall at a young age. The young girl who had once been joyous became a shell of herself, carrying out courtly duties that her mother had once performed all the while grieving for the world she once knew. Olga, like her mother, was deeply religious and critical of herself. Alexandra’s mother, who died when Alexandra was just six years old, instilled in her the importance of helping others, something Alexandra would then instill in her own daughters. She was taught, as is common for most eldest sisters, that she must set an example for her siblings. Olga was expected to be well behaved and set the standards for her three little sisters. The Tsarina who had been sickly her entire adult life, often emphasized the importance of such behavior to Olga by making it seem as though Alexandra’s health was contingent on a lack of stress from her daughters. She would write letters to the Grand Duchesses to be delivered to their nurseries when Alexandra was ill. She would often ask Olga to be good for her sisters, that she was feeling ill and negative reports about her girlies would only worsen her condition.

A different upbringing

Olga had been aware of her place from a very young age. Being the daughter of the Tsar of Russia meant that she had responsibilities that any other girl of her age could not have fathomed. Her studies took up an incredible amount of her time. Academics aside, there were affairs of state, public relations appearances, and more. This little girl knew how to speak with ministers and military leaders when young girls nowadays may be mastering the art of speaking with a waitress when out for a meal with their family. At the same time, she and her sisters were incredibly sheltered. They could speak French and interact with their father’s colleagues but they were blind to the rest of the world that existed beyond the yard of the Alexander Palace. By the time the girls were young women, they were far more immature than they should have been. The girls might have been able to keep up with their contemporaries around Europe when it came to academics, but their social skills were severely lacking. They did not know how to properly interact with anyone that existed outside of the small inner circle of their family’s trusted friends. 

As a child, it was always noted by tutors that Olga was the most intelligent of her sisters. She was very critical of herself as well as any work that she may have been doing. Tutors noted that she was studious but her knack for self analysis could often impact her studies. With her natural intelligence came a sense of frankness and even anger at times-- she was known for having a temper and an inability to hold her tongue. Margaret Eager noted an example of those characteristics in her book, Six Years at the Russian Court which accounts her years as a governess to the four Grand Duchesses. Eager states that Olga once snapped at an artist after his portrait was proving to take a great deal of time; she said to the man “You are a very ugly man and I don't like you one bit!". Despite pre-adolescent outbursts, Olga was known for her kind nature. She cared deeply for those around her and studied the lives of others to better understand the ever changing world. She worked tirelessly for wounded soldiers during the First World War and took up her sickly mother’s duties quite often. She accompanied her father to official business, the young girl having to learn from a young age the importance of charming officials and courtiers alike. All of this responsibility, the pressure no young woman should have to carry on her shoulders, got to her at times. After the stress of working with wounded soldiers during the First World War, she was noted by Maria in her diary as having broken a number of window panes with an umbrella. Valentina Chebotareva, another woman working with Alexandra and the Big Pair in military hospitals, recounted in her memoir a time in which Olga flew into a rage and destroyed many items in a hospital closet. It was clear that the work was becoming too much for the young woman of only nineteen years. She still cared deeply for her soldiers, one of which she fell madly in love with despite the fact that such a relationship could never be, but had to let her nursing work go. Instead, she did office work for the hospital and visited soldiers to try to lift their spirits while her mother and sister, Tatiana, continued to work in the operating room. 

Revolutionary times

Russia was a country on the cusp of revolution which left the lives of the royal family in perpetual imminent danger. Nicholas and Alexandra feared for their children, the assassination attempts aimed at Nicholas’ father and the successful assassination of his uncle made the royal couple even more paranoid about their safety. Alexandra was especially worried, refusing to allow her children (or husband for that matter) anywhere without a trusted group of guards in their presence. They rarely made public appearances save for a few that they simply could not miss such as the tricentennial ceremony celebrating the Romanov dynasty in 1913.

The whole dynamic of the Russian Imperial family as well as their ideas of protocol changed in the summer of 1904 when Alexandra finally gave birth to the son that everyone wanted from her. Tsarevich Alexei was born and for a brief period of time, it was bliss for the family. Nicholas and Alexandra had their four girlies and a new heir, the baby being showered with love from his parents and older sisters. Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia loved the little boy - they understood the importance of his birth for the dynasty but more than that, he was a new little one to play with and dote on. The happy little bubble that the family lived in did not take long to burst. It was discovered after a considerable period of unprompted bleeding from the infant’s navel that he had inherited the deadly disease of Hemophilia from his mother. Recent scientific studies have proven that the Tsarevich suffered from the more dangerous Hemophilia B, a genetic mutation in which the blood does not clot properly. Alexandra had inherited the mutation from her mother who inherited it from her own mother, Queen Victoria of the UK. Women are usually only carriers of the disease, while men suffer greatly. This is because the genetic mutation impacts the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes and men have one, inheriting the chromosome from their mother. If one’s mother is a carrier of the mutation, a son would only receive her afflicted X chromosome whereas a daughter would have another X chromosome to balance the hemophilia chromosome. This mutation meant that any little bump or fall could cause bleeding in the joints and possibly death for the Tsarevich. The Tsar and Tsarina were in constant fear for their little one’s life which led them to the infamous Grigory Rasputin who was, in the flesh, more menacing than anything 20th Century Fox could have animated. He was a Siberian peasant believed to be a holy man by many. He was, through sheer coincidence, psychology, or faith if you believe in such miracles, able to ease the Tsarevich’s pain. He seemed to be able to heal the boy with prayers alone. Nicholas and Alexandra, both loving parents and rulers well aware of their need for a healthy heir, became fiercely loyal to the man who, in their eyes, could save their son. Many extended members of the royal family and the majority of the country did not approve of Rasputin’s influence over the Imperial family. He was a drunk who was sexually promiscuous and violent. He had free reign in most parts of the palace, even having access to the children’s nurseries when they were in their bed clothes. There is no evidence of him being indecent with the young girls who were quickly blossoming into young women but that did not stop the rumors from persisting. Rasputin was hated by the people but needed by the family who by now viewed him as a friend and savior. Because of Alexei’s condition and the subsequent hatred of their favorite Siberian monk, the tight circle of trusted friends became smaller, and the family became more reclusive than ever. Alexei’s condition was kept from the people, a decision made to hopefully prevent fears of instability within the Romanov line of succession. 

Growing problems for the Imperial family

This decision was an interesting one. It seems as though the Imperial Family had no clue what it was that actually worried their people. Russia had fallen from a time where the populous worshipped the Tsar as infallible, a caring father-figure. By this time, the Russian people were far more worried about the lack of food and horrendous working conditions. As the animosity toward the Imperial family intensified, perhaps knowing of Alexei’s condition therefore humanising the royal bunch could have altered the eventual outcome. When looking at the fall of this family, it is impossible now, through a modern lense, to deny that they were a loving family. We can see the benevolence in them that the Russian people could not. If the family had allowed their people in just a little more, let their vulnerability shine through at times, the populace may have been more patient with their shortcomings. If these two groups were not so separate, those in charge could have seen clearly how the Russian people were suffering. Nicholas was not necessarily a malicious man; his unfavorable decisions usually preceded advisors giving an unqualified man information. Alexandra had a kind heart that was plagued with the belief in autocratic rule that had been drilled into her from the moment she was born. These leaders were not inherently bad people. They were bound to a system of government that was both outdated and deeply flawed that ultimately made any sense of human goodness further lost in the minds of their people who were suffering horribly. Alienating their family in the midst of this only intensified the growing hatred for anything imperial.

The end

All of this chaos and sense of impending doom came to a head when, on March 15, 1917 Olga’s father, Tsar Nicholas II, abdicated the throne for both himself and Alexei. Revolution was in full swing, different factions competing and people desperate for a change of any kind. A provisional government was put in charge of the Romanovs’ vast and aching Russia while the family was placed under house arrest. They would go from the Alexander Palace to Tobolsk and then finally to Ekaterinburg. With each move, their imprisonment became more strict, their lives becoming darker with every passing day. In their last prison cell, the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, it was noted that Olga was keeping to herself. She was quiet, had lost weight. No one can know for certain if she had any idea of what was to come but she certainly knew that life as she knew it would never again be the same. After a grueling 78 days of house arrest surrounded by anti-tsarist soldiers who often became drunk and rowdy, of having guns aimed at their heads and windows boarded up, the Romanov family was told they would be leaving the Ipatiev house. They had been awoken in the night and told that an army of revolutionaries were nearby meaning the family had to be moved to safety. They gathered what little of their belongings they were allowed, including family jewels sewn into the bodices of the girls clothes, and made their way to the basement. Once standing in what must have been a dirty, musty basement, a death order was read aloud and bullets began bouncing off of the walls. What followed was a brutal execution of the Romanov family and their few companions. The children undoubtedly  suffered the most, the jewels protecting them from the gunfire. They watched as their parents were murdered and cried helplessly for escape until bayonets and bullets to the skull ended their lives.

What if?

Something about Olga that will always be fascinating are the things that will forever remain a mystery due to her tragic end, the ‘what ifs’ that accompany her story. What would have happened if Olga had been married off to a foreign prince as tradition called for? If her parents had put more pressure on her to find a marriage prospect, could she have survived the Russian Revolution? Perhaps she could have used her influence as Queen or Princess Consort to get her family back in Russia to safety. She could have brought them to her new home, hiding them away from the assassins determined to end them. Or perhaps her new husband would have refused, forcing the girl to watch in horror as her family’s land fell into chaos and her family was murdered? If that were the case, would she have even wanted to survive? Would the young woman have wanted to die alongside her beloved family and friends? Could things have ended differently if she had married one of the wounded officers she’d fallen for? Could that choice, the Tsar allowing his daughter to marry a commoner, have changed the way the Russian people saw their royals? What if Olga had married and given birth to a Romanov heir? A little boy free of hemophilia with Romanov blood flowing through his veins- what would that have meant for the beaten and battered country coming out of the First World War? Would Olga have hidden the boy away to keep him safe or would he have tried to claim the throne that was rightfully his from the Soviets? We’ll never know the answers to these questions but they are interesting enough to consider.

It is nearly unimaginable to consider the amount of change that happened in just a few years following the Russian Revolution. The world in which Olga had lived had been completely eradicated, leaving a country that the Romanovs never would have recognized in its place.

What do you think of Princess Olga? Let us know below.

And remember, you can read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, here.

References

Azar, Helen. 2014. The diary of Olga Romanov: royal witness to the Russian Revolution. Yardley, Pennsylvania : Westholme.

Eager, Margaret. 2016. Six years at the Russian court. SoHo, NY: Gibbons' Rare Books.

Gilliard, Pierre. 2016. Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. 

Massie, Robert K. 1967. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Atheneum.

Rappaprt, Helen. 2014. The Romanov Sisters. New York, St. Martins.

Vyrubova, Anna. Memories of the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org.

The Draft Lottery in the Vietnam War and its Impact on America

The Vietnam War is remembered for many reasons: the military and civilian casualties; the turmoil and bitter division of American society; the ignominious outcome. From 1965 through 1972, the military draft profoundly affected the lives of millions of young men, inducting nearly two million and pressuring many more into volunteering for service. Often overlooked in the legacy of the war is the long-term impact of the draft system on the young men who escaped military duty, often by changing their lives to deliberately manipulate the Selective Service System.

Here, Wesley Abney tells us how the draft lottery worked and the wider impact on society and millions of young American men.

You can also read Wesley’s book on the Vietnam War Draft Lottery, available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Congressman Alexander Pirnie (R-NY) drawing the first capsule as part of Selective Service System draft, Dec 1, 1969. Available here.

NIGHT OF THE LOTTERY

December 1, 1969.  Nearly two million young American men were asking the same question: what will my number be? That evening the Selective Service System held the first draft lottery of the Vietnam era, to determine who would be next to fight in the distant and unpopular war. Overnight, arbitrary chance forced the "winners" to make a choice that helped shape the future of a generation, from combat to conscientious objection, from teaching to prison, from the pulpit to the Canadian border, from public health to gay liberation.

Despite the potentially life-changing drama of the drawing, the ceremony at Selective Service System (SSS) headquarters employed only a drab stage with a large tote board, some folding chairs and a cylindrical glass bowl to hold the lottery dates. Each of the 366 days of the year (including the extra leap year date of February 29) had been printed on a small rectangle of paper, tucked inside a blue plastic capsule, and placed in a box to await the lottery. The SSS had chosen “youth advisory” delegates from across the country and brought them to Washington, D.C. to draw out the capsules, to show that men of draft age were involved in the process.

The 1969 lottery was the first to be nationally televised, as CBS pre-empted the regular broadcast of Mayberry RFD to join news correspondent Roger Mudd for live coverage. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, long-time director of the SSS, introduced the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee (which had oversight responsibility for the SSS), Rep. Alexander Pirnie, R-New York. After the capsules were dumped from the box into the glass container, Congressman Pirnie drew the first capsule which contained the date of September 14. That date was stuck to a tote board beside the numerals 001. Thus every man in the lottery born on that date would be in the first group called for duty in 1970. Then the youth delegates took over the task of drawing the capsules, until all 366 random sequence numbers (“RSN”) were affixed to the board. According to Roger Mudd, four or five of the youth delegates refused to pick numbers on the grounds they were being used by the Nixon administration to give a false appearance of approval by American youth.

Later probability studies of the 1969 lottery results indicated that the selection process was not as entirely random as intended, in that birth dates occurring late in the year were disproportionately likely to be chosen early. This was due most likely to insufficient mixing of the capsules. A court challenge ensued but the lottery results were upheld. The SSS procured the expertise of statisticians for the subsequent lotteries of 1970, 1971 and 1972, which were fully randomized.

DRAFT LAW CHANGES

President Nixon signed changes to the draft law on November 26, 1969, just days before the drawing. In the year since his election, the war effort remained bogged down, while the public had grown increasingly doubtful of its outcome and skeptical of its worth. His presidency was as troubled by protest and dissension as Lyndon Johnson’s before him. He wanted to eliminate the draft as soon as possible and transition to an all-volunteer force, but had no immediate means to scale back troop strength in an amount sufficient to permit that change. In the meantime, he took several steps to ameliorate widespread criticism of the draft.

In May, 1969, in a message to Congress, he proposed to adopt two long-debated changes to the draft system: reversing the age-order of call such that 19-year-olds would be inducted first; and implementing a process of random selection by lottery. Congress approved both changes in draft law amendments passed in late November 1969.

Nixon viewed the lottery as a means to return at least a perception of fairness to the draft as well as deflate campus-based peace demonstrations. At first glance, an impartial method to set the order of call, such that every man of draft age, rich or poor, black or white, would be assigned a priority number based on a random drawing of birthdates, appeared fair and unbiased. Yet the lottery itself did nothing to change the draft law’s existing system of deferments and exemptions, and so did nothing to equalize the draft vulnerability between a man with a deferment and a man without. By this time, deferments for most graduate students had been eliminated, as well as deferments for married men, but many protected categories remained. A deferred undergraduate student, farmer, father or trained scientist could draw a low number and still avoid the draft, at least as long as the deferment continued, while someone with no deferment who drew the same low number was bound for service. Thus the new random selection process mainly affected those men without a deferment or whose deferment was ending, deciding among only them who would be drafted and who was safe.

A perhaps more significant change in the draft law was reversing age priority and limiting the period of time during which a man would be vulnerable to the draft. Instead of taking the oldest men first from the 19-to-26-year-old eligible range, the revised draft would take the youngest men first. Most men’s uncertainty over draft status would be considerably shortened. Instead of waiting up to six years to learn his draft fate, every man would get a lottery number by age 19, and would be primarily vulnerable only during the year to which the lottery applied. Anyone whose number was not reached in the course of that year would be clear of the draft and free to move ahead with normal plans for work and family without the lingering cloud of possible induction. Likewise, those with a deferment would be vulnerable only for the year after the deferment expired.

For the transition-year lottery of 1969, which set the order of call for 1970, everyone aged 19 to 26 (born from 1944 through 1950) who were already classified as available for induction (I-A and I-A-O), or were emerging from deferred status, or were not yet classified, participated in the lottery, a total of 1,893,651 men. The next lottery in 1970 applied only to men born in 1951; in 1971 only to men born in 1952; in 1972 only to men born in 1953. Because the draft was abolished in 1973 without any draft calls that year, no one subject to the 1972 lottery was drafted.

MAKING A CHOICE

Men whose lottery number fell into the definite-to-probable range for call-up had to immediately choose among the few available options: 1. Get drafted for two years’ active duty, often in the combat zone; 2. Volunteer for service in the military or National Guard (and probably avoid combat duty); 3. Try to qualify for a deferment; or 4. Defy the law and hope to avoid a felony draft evasion charge by going “underground” or leaving the country. 

At the time of the first lottery, deferments were still available for those who flunked the fitness test, or worked in various jobs deemed to be essential (including agriculture, teaching, the ministry, and defense industries), as well as for students (undergraduate and certain graduate schools), fathers with a child at home, and conscientious objectors.

GENERATIONAL IMPACT

The hard choices forced on young men by the draft and the lottery steered the major life decisions of millions, helping shape the future of a generation.

Work. Jobs with a likely deferment, such as engineering and teaching, exerted a magnetic pull on draft-age men, such that those fields became glutted with recent college graduates by the late 1960s. In 1969, 85% of New York City teaching trainees were draft-age men. A survey in the 1970s found that the career choices of 10% of draft-age men were influenced by the availability or lack of a deferment.

Education. The U.S. Census Bureau in 1984 observed that men who came of age during the Vietnam War accumulated more college education than those maturing before. A detailed study in 2001 concluded that the rate of college attendance in the late 1960s rose by 4% to 6% due to draft avoidance alone, affecting about 300,000 young men. A separate study of enrollment in Protestant seminaries showed an increase of 31% from 1966 to 1971, compared to a rise of only 3% from 1960 to 1966.

Paternity. Before the war in Vietnam, the U.S. birth rate declined steadily each year after the peak baby boom year of 1957. However, with the draft system back in effect, including the paternity deferment, the pace of decline slowed between 1966 and 1968, and the birth rate actually rose again in 1969 and 1970 before resuming its decline in 1971.

Conscientious objectors (COs). During World War II, when the military inducted 10.1 million men, only 37,000 (or .36%) were classified as COs, and were required to serve either in a non-combat military role, or perform alternative service. During the Vietnam War, when 1.86 million men were inducted, 171,700 (or 9.23%) were classified as COs, a rate 25 times higher than during WWII. Only about one-third of all COs performed alternative service rather than active military duty during WWII. During the Vietnam War, 80% of COs chose alternative work, usually in a hospital or forestry project at least 50 miles away from their home town, performing menial, low paid tasks for the required two years.

Draft evasion. During the course of the war, 209,517 young men were referred by the SSS to the Department of Justice for prosecution in the federal courts, due to violation of the draft laws. However, the DOJ had to dismiss over half of those cases due to procedural errors by the SSS, and another 76,000 men agreed to accept induction in lieu of criminal prosecution, such that only 25,279 were actually indicted. Even so, draft evasion offenses were the fourth largest category on the federal criminal docket by late 1969, and made up 21% of all pending federal prosecutions nationally by June 1972. A total of 10,055 draft offenders went to trial, where 8,750 were convicted by verdict or guilty plea. Of those, 3,250 served time in prison, for an average of twenty-two months. As convicted felons, those men lost the right to vote and were often disqualified for desirable job opportunities.

Immigration. Some men made the momentous decision to flee the country, leaving behind their homes, friends and family. The best government estimates show that about 40,000 young men left the U.S. during the war, with the majority crossing the border into Canada, at an average of 5,000 to 8,000 per year. After the war, an estimated one-fourth to one-half of the exiles chose to remain in their adopted country, even after they were granted amnesty by President Carter in January, 1977.

What do you think of the Vietnam War draft lottery? Let us know below. 

You can also read about the stories of men who were subject to the draft at Wesley’s site: vietnamwardraftlottery.com.

References

“Amnesty: Repatriation for Draft Evaders, Deserters,” CQ Almanac 1972, 1.

Baskir, Lawrence M. and Strauss, William A., Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War and the Vietnam        Generation(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

Card, David and Lemieux, Thomas, “Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended Legacy of the Vietnam War,” The American Economic Review 91, no. 2 (2001), 101.

“CBS News Special Report: The Draft Lottery 1969,” YouTube video, 9:41

“College Enrollment Linked to Vietnam War,” New York Times, September 2, 1984.

Dennis, Lloyd B., “Draft Law Revision.” Editorial Research Reports 1966, vol.1, 431-69.

Fletcher, John C., “Avoidance and the Draft,” Washington Post, February 25, 1992.

Hagan, John, Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

Kamarck, Kristy N., The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress (CRS Report No. R44452), 2016.

“Living in Peace in a Time of War: The Civilian Public Service Story,” Mennonite Central Committee, March 28, 2017.

Mansavage, Jean A., “Obvious Inequities: Lessons Learned from Vietnam War Conscientious Objection,” (Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M, 2000).

 “President’s Draft Lottery Approved by Congress,” CQ Almanac 1969, 350-55.

Selective Service Act of 1948 (Elston Act), Pub. L. 80-759.

Selective Service Amendment Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-124.

Selective Service System, “Induction Statistics.”

Selective Service System, Semi-Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service for the Period July 1 to December 31, 1969; July 1 to December 31, 1972.

Starr, Norton., “Nonrandom Risk: The 1970 Draft Lottery,” Journal of Statistics Education, vol. 5, no. 2 (1997).

32 C.F.R. 1622 (1967).

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1968, Table 194; 1969, Table 188; 1971, Table 198; 1973,Table 211, 1974, Tables 67, 68.

Van Sant, Rick, “Paying Price Every Election Day,” Cincinnati Post, September 21, 1993.

Zeidler, Maryse, “40 Years Later, Remembering Jimmy Carter’s Pardon for Draft Dodgers,” CBC News, January 21, 2017.

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon - Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 1: Background to the Divorce

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  Victor Gamma considers this in part 1 of the series.

Note: Part 2 on how the method’s Henry used to overturn the divorce failed is here and part 3 on Catherine’s case is here.

Catherine of Aragon pleads her case against divorce from Henry VIII. Painting by Henry Nelson O'Neil.

“ . . . the unlawful divorce was and is the very seedwoman of all the miseries and evils, of all the heavy and hateful heresies which of late have most pitifully overwhelmed the realm. . .” These words, written from a safe distance many years after the death of King Henry VIII, reflect the furious passions aroused by the decision of the second Tudor monarch to set aside his wife and, by so doing, break with the powerful Catholic Church. By the time King Henry decided to end his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, he was a powerful monarch used to getting his own way. Men who did not dare contradict him surrounded the King. Opposing him was his wife, Queen Catherine, in her own right a woman of stoic conviction and considerable learning. The stage was set for a momentous contest between two strong-willed personalities that would determine the course of English history. Both the King and Queen made their case forcefully. Each could count a host of powerful supporters. Both were equally implacable in their convictions and both could marshal convincing arguments. Although intertwined with politics, this article examines the cases of Henry and Catherine in view of the arguments from theology and canon law of the 16th Century and attempts to avoid issues of politics and motives as much as possible. The case became incredibly convoluted as King Henry’s servants exhausted every contrivance possible to force the Pope to see things their way - but for our sakes this article will focus on the basic facts.

Henry’s challenges

The determined King would have preferred that this delicate and all-important matter go smoothly. However, the path to his goal of divorcing Catherine, remarrying and having the son he so desperately wanted was strewn with obstacles. First, since only the pope could grant an annulment, he had to somehow convince his Holiness that an annulment was necessary and proper. But the political situation in Europe constantly thwarted Henry’s plans. For this reason repeated attempts to obtain an annulment of his marriage and a dispensation to remarry failed. Additionally, Catherine would not budge from her position that she was his wife and queen in the eyes of both God and Man. Before making it a public spectacle, Henry made a final attempt to find an easy way out and ordered Catherine to go to a nunnery. It was a good political move. Catherine had very powerful relatives. She also had much support in England, where she was held in high esteem for her piety and character. If it would look like she voluntarily went to a nunnery, there would be less chance of opposition to the annulment. Henry hoped that his normally dutiful and submissive wife would comply. She did not. All this forced Henry to engage in a systematic effort to justify his actions and to articulate a defensible position. Although royal separations were by no means unknown, Henry knew he had to build a solid case to win over support for his divorce. Since Catherine would appeal any decision to invalidate the marriage to Rome, he also had to contrive a divorce that would not be overturned on appeal to the Curia.

Henry's Case

What exactly did Henry want? It must be pointed out that, although frequently discussed as a divorce, what Henry was seeking was not a divorce but an annulment. The Catholic Church absolutely forbade divorce so that wasn’t even an option. The king was careful to seek an annulment because that meant declaring that the marriage had never been valid and thus, in the eyes of the church, had never existed. Since at that time the laws governing marriage were completely under the control of the church, the divorce had to appeal to canon, or ecclesiastical, law and the Bible. This meant he was running up against the entire canonical rules of the Catholic Church regarding both the starting and ending of marriage. In Henry’s case this involved the teachings on what were termed impediments and dispensations. An impediment occurred when a couple would not be allowed to marry, for example, if they were too closely related. Also, although perhaps rare, the possibility existed wherein a couple unknowingly entered into a marriage in which an impediment existed, such as marrying a first cousin. Once the couple realized their mistake, canon law ruled that they either have the marriage annulled or have the impediment removed through a dispensation. 

So what was Henry’s case? It was two-fold: First, that an impediment had existed in his marriage to Catherine. He had married his brother Arthur’s widow and for this God had cursed him. After a decade of marriage he and Catherine had six children, only one of which, a daughter, survived. This was evidence to the King that they were being punished by God. Second, that the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II to allow Henry and Catherine to marry was wrong. 

Henry’s favorite evidence came from the Bible. The scriptures Henry used in support were Leviticus 18:16: ‘Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness’, and Leviticus 20:21: ‘And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless’. The king asserted that since Catherine had been married to Henry's brother, Arthur, his marital relations with the widow were a sin. Henry, therefore, was simply trying to right a great wrong. Also, it must be remembered that Henry's status was unique. He was an anointed king. This meant he had a special relationship with God. He truly believed that God was displeased with the marriage and that something must be done about it. The lack of a male heir proved, in his mind, that God had withheld his blessings.  

You can read part 2 on how Henry VIII tried to get the marriage overturned here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below.