American history has had many violent protests, and these often went on for significant periods of time. Here, Theresa Capra continues a series looking at the 2020 protests in America from an historical perspective.

In this article, she considers race-based protests in American history. She looks at how African-Americans often suffered from racist protests in the 19th and into the 20th centuries – and then considers how anti-racist protests in the 1960s and 1919 compare to those of today.

You can read the first article in the series on how 2020’s protests compare to the Bacon’s, Shays’, and Whiskey Rebellions here.

Dr. Theresa Capra is a Professor of Education who teaches education, history, and sociology at a Community College. She is the founder of Edtaps.com, which focuses on research, trends, technology, and tips for educators. 

Policemen and a soldier during race riots in Chicago, Illinois, during the Red Summer of 1919.

Policemen and a soldier during race riots in Chicago, Illinois, during the Red Summer of 1919.

How are you doing during these unprecedented times? 

It’s a well-intentioned, but inaccurate, rhetorical question that has become standard in 2020. Indeed, 2020 is a blockbuster year for the American history books: a global pandemic, one of the worst wildfire seasons on record, and in our social media feeds, unrelenting social unrest. But it’s all far from unprecedented - especially the protests. 

Race has been an impetus for countless violent uprisings since the inception of the United States - usually with whites perpetrating the violence upon Blacks. And although the antebellum South was undoubtedly the most oppressive place and violent time for African-Americans, it’s also a widely covered, even romanticized period, teeming with blockbuster movies and best-selling literature. The consequence of this extensive treatment is that many people fail to fully understand racism in early America beyond slavery, even though race riots were common in free states. Furthermore, many white Americans tend to view well-known historical events such as the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement as punctuation marks, periods to be exact, which ended odious periods of Southern history such as slavery, racism, and Jim Crow. However, a closer look handily flips that perspective on its head. Likewise, there is no moral high ground that cosmopolitans or Yankees can claim.

 

The Big Apple & City of Brotherly Love 

One example can be traced to 1834 when destructive riots, which targeted Blacks and abolitionists, ripped through New York City. Irish Catholics were settling in Manhattan in droves and they frequently clashed with Protestant abolitionists. Additionally, white residents resented the free Black population for becoming assertive and challenging racial norms. Tensions mounted, and white mobs ultimately burned buildings and homes, destroyed municipal property, and attacked African-Americans. They held parts of the city hostage until it all ended. 

Free Blacks in Philadelphia experienced the same ugly racism as their New York City counterparts. A particularly egregious event occurred in 1838 when Pennsylvania Hall, a building erected for abolitionist and suffragette meetings, was burned to the ground by racist mobs. Not one single culprit faced any legal recourse. Originally, whites and Blacks intermingled, and a prosperous African-American community cropped up along Lombard Street. But their success did not go unnoticed and by 1842, residents of Lombard Street came under a full-scale attack by Irish immigrants, who also attacked police officers when they intervened.

Things only worsened as working-class Whites turned their animosity towards African-Americans, whom they viewed as economic competitors. Wealthy, white Philadelphians were sympathetic to the South because they shared commerce, as well as summers in beach resorts such as Cape May, New Jersey. The city that is home to the Liberty Bell and Constitution Hall can also claim some of the harshest racial violence in America’s history.

 

Go West! 

As Americans moved west, they brought horses, carriages, and racism. Midwestern Cincinnati attracted Irish and German immigrants after the Erie Canal reached completion and ultimately became a hotbed of race riots launched by angry whites who feared economic competition from the growing population of free Blacks. Similarly, in Alton, Illinois, whites were agitated by the number of escaped slaves settling in the town due to its border with the slave-state Missouri. They feared economic reprisals from southern states and attributed the situation to a prominent abolitionist and printer Elijah Lovejoy. On November 7, 1837, a murderous mob set fire to a warehouse and shot and killed Elijah Lovejoy. The rioters evaded justice because some of the mobsters were clerks and judges. 

Farther west brings us to Bleeding Kansas (1854-1861), (or Bloody, as some prefer) - a dress rehearsal for the Civil War replete with looting, arson, property destruction, battlelines, small armies, and murder. The original issue, whether Kansas should join the Union as a free or slave state, should have been settled through popular sovereignty, but that was not to be. Both sides hunkered down and belligerent pro-slavery Missourians, known as border ruffians, tampered with elections and used physical intimidation to let the Kansans know which way the wind was blowing. One particularly violent incident occurred when ruffians crossed into the town of Lawrence, a free-state concentration, and sacked, looted, and blew property to smithereens. 

Interestingly, a similar vigilante scenario is surfacing today. Since May 2020, there have been at least 50 reports of armed individuals appearing at Black Lives Matter demonstrations inciting violence while claiming to be peacekeepers. One example is the Kenosha Guard in Wisconsin, a militia group that launched a ‘call to arms’ on social media encouraging ‘patriots’ to rise up and defend property from protesting ‘thugs.’ Kyle Rittenhouse answered their call. He shot three protesters, killing two. 

 

The Misunderstanding of the Civil War

Obviously, the most violent uprising over race was the American Civil War. Insurgents in seven southern states coordinated an aggressive assault on their own countrymen by first declaring sovereignty, then attacking Fort Sumter while recruiting more rebels along the way - all to preserve chattel slavery in perpetuity. The Confederate States of America, as they called themselves, were willing to cause wanton death and destruction for white supremacy, mostly in their own backyards, which they pulled off six ways to Sunday with a million casualties and unfathomable property damage. Property sequester and destruction were key tactics for both the revolters and quashers. For example, General William T. Sherman affirmed that his March to Sea laid mostly waste to Georgia: “I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources at $100,000,000; at least $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simple waste and destruction.

Today, Americans tend to forget all this history while admonishing protesters for property damage. They focus on the aftermath rather than the reasons. Agreeably, on its face, the aftermath is shocking. As of June 2020, it was estimated that Minneapolis amassed around 55 million dollars in damages, and Portland over 20 million. In July 2020, the Downtown Cleveland Alliance estimated over 6 million dollars in damages resulting from property ruin and lost revenue. However, evidence demonstrates that the majority of rallies have been peaceful, despite the public’s perception that protesters are laser focused on destruction. Ironically, a lot of the property destruction is because of the Civil War - protestors have toppled statues of Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson in Richmond, one of Robert E. Lee in Alabama, a Confederate Defenders monument in South Carolina, and a statue of Charles Linn, just to name a few. 

Isn’t it curious that there are so many monuments glorifying perpetrators who orchestrated the bloodiest riots in American history? As it turns out, revisionists successfully translated a lost cause into the Lost Cause. Around the turn of the 19th century, the Lost Cause movement lobbied to portray Confederates as freedom fighters for state’s rights rather than armed traitors in rebellion over slavery. The Civil War became viewed as a singular political event with causes exacted by both sides. But, it’s better understood as the culmination (and continuation) of a series of extremely violent and destructive uprisings because of race and slavery. 

 

Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it 

The summer of 2020 has been compared to the Long Hot Summer of 1967 when approximately 160 uprisings exploded across the United States in response to police brutality and systemic racism. Some historians have also noted parallels to 1968 - another year full of racial unrest that resulted in the permanent demise of once vibrant urban centers such as Trenton, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. However, farther hindsight is needed for 2020 vision. For instance, the Red Summer of 1919 featured a series of violent racial clashes and like today, it happened upon the backdrop of a deadly global pandemic, the Spanish Flu. Despite the pandemic, one of the most virulent massacres against African-Americans occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when angry white mobs decimated the vibrant metropolis known as Black Wall Street. Tulsa is not very different from its predecessors: Lombard Street, Alton, Cincinnati, or New York. The issues are also not much different than Minneapolis on May 26, 2020, when George Floyd was killed by police officer, Derek Chauvin.

How does this story end? It doesn’t. Today, African-Americans are disenfranchised, underrepresented, too often relegated to low-paying jobs, subjected to chronic unemployment, poverty, and overall subjugation by any standard. White Americans want to know why violent revolts are still happening and perhaps promoting raw history can help. Still, I posit there is not one single comparison to be evenly made. The whole story must find its way back into social institutions, such as schools, in the name human progress.

What do you think of the comparisons between protests in 1919 and the 1960s and those of 2020? Let us know below.

History is full of leaders who have had eventful reigns. But which monarchs have had the longest reigns in all of history? Here, Konstant Teleshov tells us the 12 longest reigning monarchs in all history.

King Louis XIV of France in 1673. Louis XIV was King of France for over 70 years.

King Louis XIV of France in 1673. Louis XIV was King of France for over 70 years.

In today's democratic world, it is difficult to imagine that one person remained in power for many decades. This applies particularly to countries with a republican form of government, where the head of state is elected for a specific term, about 5 years on average, by popular vote. Many readers may argue that there are still states with a monarchical form of government, both constitutional and absolute. Also, over the past 100 years, the world has seen many dictators who came to power through revolutions and military coups. The most famous of them include Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for 50 years, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi (42 years in power), Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein (24 years in power), and Alfredo Stroessner, who was the leader of Paraguay for 35 years. A good example of a constitutional monarch is the current Queen of the UK, Elizabeth II. She has been ruling since 1952 (for 68 years as of 2020), but this is not the longest tenure on the throne - not only in the world but even among European monarchs.

However, history knows 12 rulers, Elizabeth II aside, who ruled their country for more than 65 years. Who are they?

Important note: in this article I will not consider the monarchs whose years in power are not officially confirmed, like the Egyptian Pharaoh Pepi II Neferkare, who, according to some sources, had ruled for more than 90 years. I will also not include in this list monarchs who were co-rulers like Constantine VIII, who was nominal co-emperor of Byzantine Empire for 63 years.

 

12. Ferdinand IV (1759 - 1825) (ruler for 65 years and 90 days)

Ferdinand IV officially became the King of Naples at the age of 8, when his father, Charles XII, went to reign in Spain. It happened in 1759. He is also known as King of the Two Sicilies as Ferdinand I (1816-1825) and King of Sicily as Ferdinand III (1759-1816).

The future ruler was not interested in ruling his state, so he received education only at the minimum level. Ferdinand IV liked to have fun and hunt; indeed, in spirit he was closer to the people than to the aristocracy of that time. In foreign policy, the king became an active opponent of the French Revolution, therefore the Neapolitan Kingdom participated in anti-French coalitions. The reason for this was the king’s wife, Maria Carolina of Austria, who was extremely indignant at the execution of the royal couple by revolutionaries. She had a great influence on the activities of her spouse, who founded the silk spinning mill and the Royal Nunziatella Military Academy in Naples. After the start of the Napoleonic wars, Ferdinand IV actively fought the French Empire, but he was forced to flee the country under the threat of invasion from the French three times. Probably his greatest achievement is the founding of an astronomical observatory in Palermo in 1790.

 

11. Basil II Porphyrogenitus (960 - 1025) (ruler for 65 years and 237 days)

The future emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Basil II, was born in 958 in the city of Constantinople. Two years later, he was crowned as co-emperor of state, which was inherited by his father Roman II. Over the next 13 years, many uprisings and internecine wars took place, before in 976 Basil II began to rule alone.

First of all, he introduced a new tax for large landowners. In addition to the fact that this was a new source of income for the state treasury, the emperor also strengthened imperial power. In foreign policy, Basil II was much more active than his father, annexing many new territories to his big state. The wars with the First Bulgarian Empire were marked by unprecedented cruelty even for that time. For example, after the capture of 15,000 Bulgarians, the emperor ordered them to have their eyes taken out and then to be sent home alive. Because of this decision, he got the nickname "the Bulgar Slayer". Basil II also concluded a profitable military-political alliance with Venice, which supplied its ships for the rapid movement of Byzantine troops.

In general, the reign of Basil II became an era of stability and power of the Byzantine Empire. He proved himself to be a tough and wise ruler, strengthening his state both from an economic and political point of view.

 

10. Franz Joseph I (1848 - 1916) (ruler for 67 years and 355 days)

The man, who became a real symbol of conservatism, was born on August 18, 1830. Franz Joseph I, who used to get up early in the morning from childhood, taught the inhabitants of the huge Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was inhabited by Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Austrians and other nations, about his daily routine. He ascended the throne on December 2, 1848. This year went down in history as the "spring of nations". Young Franz realized that a cruel policy towards his own people could be the cause of the revolution, so he tried not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors. Many historians call him the last ruler of the “old order,” who managed to unite several nations and preserve an empire that collapsed two years after his death.

Firstly, Franz Joseph I compromised the demands of the Hungarian people and made Austria-Hungary a dualistic monarchy. Secondly, he managed to reach a peace agreement with Prussia and Russia. So, Prussia became the center of the unification of the German lands in a single empire, and Russia helped Austria-Hungary to wage wars with the Ottoman Empire, because both states had their own interests in the Balkans. Thirdly, and unusually for a European leader at the time, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary had no disagreement with the Pope.

He was also known for his conservatism, simplicity of life, etiquette, and traditions. He called himself "the last monarch of the old school". After his brother was shot in Mexico, the emperor did not receive Mexican ambassadors for the rest of his life. He never got a phone in the palace and had a hard time agreeing to electricity. Franz Josef survived 4 heirs to the throne, so after his death, 29-year-old Charles I of Austria ascended to the throne.

 

9. Pacal the Great (615 - 683) (ruler for 68 years and 33 days)

Hanaab Pacal is the most famous of all the kings in the history of the classical Maya. His reign is an excellent example of how deeply an outstanding person can leave a mark on history. In the history of the Baakul Kingdom, Pacal I the Great occupies a central place. His descendants constantly used the legacy of the glorious ancestor and the fact of their descent from him to strengthen their own legitimacy. In our time, Pacal I and his tomb in the "Temple of the Inscriptions" have become one of the symbols of the pre-Columbian Maya civilization.

It has been established that Hanaab Pacal was born in March 603, and spent his childhood in Lakam-Ha (Palenque). However, he belonged to the previous dynasty of the rulers of this city only through his mother. Pacal ascended the throne at the age of 12, but really began to rule after the death of his mother in 640 and his father in 642. The stabilization of the economic and political situation of Palenque allowed the new ruler to begin a large-scale construction program in the capital of the Baakul Kingdom. During this time, improvements in construction techniques took place, which made it possible to expand the size of the space covered with a stone roof and create a local architectural style distinguished by elegance and harmony. It is important to note that Hanaab had impeccable artistic taste. In posthumous inscriptions he is called "the owner of the five pyramids".

Pacal the Great is also known for his successful military campaigns, in which he was opposed by the alliance of states located on the east of Palenque: K'ina (Piedras Negras), Pipa (Pomona or El Arenal), Vak'aab (Santa Elena Balancan), Ho -Pet (on the middle Usumasint), and the Kanul Kingdom. Hanaab managed to win several important victories, expanding the territory and increasing the influence of the Baakul Kingdom in the region.

 

8. Frederick III (1424 - 1493) (ruler for 69 years)

The future last emperor of medieval Europe was born on September 21, 1415, in Tyrol. Frederick III received the title of Duke of Styria when he was only 9 years old. He became king of Germany and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation over the next 18 years. Frederick III became the last emperor who was crowned in Rome.

During this reign, there was the beginning of an active invasion of Austrian lands by the Ottoman Empire and its vassals. The first clashes occurred in 1469. In the western direction Frederick III acted ineffectively. The Swiss Confederation forced him to recognize the independence of the Swiss cantons, but the French power became the main enemy of the Habsburg dynasty for many centuries to come.

On the whole, the personality of Frederick III is rather contradictory. On the one hand, he failed to strengthen imperial power. Major feudal lords strengthened their influence in the state. Austria under Frederick III did not become the center of a future empire; it would happen with his son Maximilian I. The financial system was in a protracted crisis.  Territorial concessions were also made in favor of Italy, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.  On the other hand, the emperor was able to lay the foundations for the future prosperity of the house of the Hapsburgs. His son Maximilian married Mary of Burgundy. This marriage determined the fate of Europe for several centuries.

 

7. Johann II the Good (1858 - 1929) (ruler for 70 years and 91 days)

How to keep a tiny state in the heart of Europe? How to make it the scientific and cultural center of the continent? Johann II, who ruled Liechtenstein for 70 years, knew the answers to these questions.

He was born on October 5, 1840. The young man received an excellent education in Belgium, France, and Germany. He ascended to the throne on November 11, 1858, and remained on it until his death. He carried out a number of significant reforms that changed the state for the better.  Firstly, Liechtenstein became independent in 1866. Secondly, Johann II ordered the dissolution of the army, consisting of 80 people, and declared his principality a neutral state following the example of Switzerland. Thirdly, a Parliament and State Bank were formed. The adoption of a new constitution in 1921 marked the beginning of close cooperation between Liechtenstein and Switzerland against the backdrop of global political changes in Europe after the First World War.

Johann II also actively invested in science, art, reconstructed medieval castles, and donated money to charity. In particular, he helped the Historical Museum of Vienna (it is the "Vienna Museum" now) in the creation of an art gallery. The prince was quite a closed man, so he never married. As a result, he did not leave heirs, and after his death, power passed to the brother of Johann II, Franz.

 

6. Bhumibol Adulyadej (1946 - 2016) (ruler for 70 years and 126 days)

Bhumibol Adulyadej is known as the monarch under whom Thailand went from an undeveloped state to a popular and well-known country. His reign spans an era during which the world has changed beyond recognition.

The future king was born on December 5, 1927, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the family of His Royal Majesty Prince Mahidon Adunyadet and Mom Sangwal. The young man received secondary and higher education in Switzerland, where he lived until the end of World War II. His older brother Ananda Mahidol also studied in Switzerland and held the title of King of Thailand. The king was found shot to death in his own bedroom in the palace on June 9, 1946. 18-year-old Bhumibol Adulyadej ascended the throne, but he was officially crowned on May 5, 1950, under the name Rama IX. The people of Thailand treated the new king as a symbol of the nation, and not as a real monarch. This was due to the fact that the royal family had lived abroad for a long time. Despite this, Rama IX repeatedly made important political decisions, and also enjoyed the right of veto. He was instrumental in the democratization of Thailand in the 1990s. For example, the king forced the resignation of Prime Minister General Suchind Krapayun, who brutally cracked down on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok. The king was engaged in the development of agriculture, and this contributed to the emergence of Thailand as a major rice exporter. He used some of his money to fund more than 3,000 development projects, especially in rural parts of the country. The standard of living of some rural residents has improved significantly. Bhumibol also initiated the creation of a special squadron of aircraft. Under Rama IX, dairy farming was established in Thailand, and Thai schoolchildren in the 1960s were provided with milk as a source of calcium. The poverty rate of the population fell from 67% to 11%. The king did much to improve the living standards of the people in the border provinces of the country: during the development of these areas, hundreds of schools and hospitals were built in the mountain villages. At the initiative of the monarch, the Thai government negotiated peace and amnesty with communist insurgents from partisan groups operating in the central and northeastern regions of the country in the late 1970s. Parallel to this, Thailand hosted an American base for Southeast Asia.

Bhumibol Adulyadej held a patent for the creation of artificial clouds. He developed projects for bridges and dams, played the saxophone professionally, was fond of photography, painting and sailing, and designed racing yachts. In youth, he was also fond of music: Rama IX wrote compositions himself. He achieved the greatest success in jazz music. One of his compositions became the first number of the program in one of the musical productions on Broadway in the early 1950s. Bhumibol was also fluent in three European languages ​​- English, German and French

 

5. Louis XIV (1643 - 1715) (ruler for 72 years and 110 days)

King Louis XIV’s reign in France stretched for over 72 years. This was the real heyday of the French state in all areas: economic, military and cultural. The “Sun King” was born on September 5, 1638. He was a welcome child and heir to the French throne. Louis XIV became a king after the death of his father, Louis XIII, at 5 years old. Until 1661, the country was ruled by Cardinal Mazarin, while the young king grew up and received an education. He promised himself that he would not allow any restrictions on the power of the king, because he did not like the events of the Fronde. From that moment, Louis XIV became associated with absolute monarchy. He owns the famous phrase: "The state is me”.

The French king pursued clever and prudent policy. France conducted a large number of military campaigns, most of which ended successfully. Louis XIV actively strengthened his power. He carried out a military reform (the introduction of a special tax to create an army) and persecuted the Huguenots (through the abolition of the Nantes decree). The Sun King knew how to appoint talented people to important government posts, but in the second half of his reign, royal favorites began to take their places. During his reign, science, architecture and painting developed actively. Versailles became a symbol of absolutism and the rich life of the aristocracy of that time. France became a great power in Europe.

However, the state was weakened due to the high costs of the army and the cost of the aristocracy by the end of the Sun King's reign. Louis XIV left his descendants a country that needed changes.

 

4. Afonso I the Great (1112 - 1185) (ruler for 73 years)

Afonso I the Great is considered the founding father of Portugal. He was born on June 25, 1195 in Coimbra, after which he moved to Guimaraes. In this town he spent his childhood.  Portugal at that time was not an independent state. It was a province that was dependent on Castile and Leon. Afonso was driven out of the country by his mother at age 11. Her name was Teresa Leonskaya, and she ruled the county after the death of Heinrich of Burgundy in 1112. When Afonso was 14 years old, he gathered an army and invaded the territory of the county of Portugal. In the battle of Guimaraes, the young man defeated his mother’s army.  She was sent to the monastery. After that, the young earl began to rule the region. On July 26, 1139, Portugal became a kingdom, and Afonso I became its first ruler. The Portuguese felt like a nation thanks to the king. He also had 12 children, some of whom died in childhood.

 

3. Bhagwat Singh (1869 - 1944) (ruler for 74 years and 87 days)

The future Indian ruler prince was born on October 24, 1865. He ascended the throne of the principality of Gondal, when he was only 4 years old. It was one of many states in India. The country was ruled by the British Empire, but Bhagwat Singh ruled the state. He received a good education from Rajkumar College, which was located in Rajkot. After that, the Indian prince went to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Bhagwat Singh studied there from 1892 to 1895. He was attracted by the ideas of enlightened absolutism, and pursued such an approach in his principality.

During his reign, the rapid development of infrastructure began, free education became available, and telegraph lines and high-quality railways appeared. The merits of the long-lived prince were noted at the highest level: the British monarch awarded him the title of Knight of the British Empire.

 

2. Bernard VII (1429 - 1511) (ruler for 81 years and 234 days)

For many centuries, the German people did not have a single state. Indeed, for a long time (962 - 1806) the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation existed. This empire included many dukedoms, counties, and other small states. One of these states was Lippe-Detmold. Its ruler, Bernard VII, lived a long and eventful life. He was born on December 4, 1428. When he was one-year-old, his father died, and he was proclaimed leader on August 11, 1929, the Lord of Lippe. Until 1433, his uncle Otto was the regent. After his death, the education of the future ruler was taken over by his great-uncle Didrich von Moers, who was the apostolic administrator of the Paderborn principality-bishopric. Bernard VII officially began to rule in 1446. He is considered the longest-serving monarch in European history.

During his time in power, the state significantly strengthened its economy and prestige in the eyes of other German powers. Bernard VII got the name "the Bellicose" because of his passion for military affairs. He died on April 2, 1511, after living for 83 years. This is an incredible age for the Middle Ages. Former Queen of the Netherlands Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard is a direct descendant of Bernard VII.

 

1. Sobhuza II (1899 - 1982) (ruler for 83 years)

I am glad to present you the official winner of our ranking- Sobhuza II. I think the expression "Born and died on the throne" is perfect for this person. Throughout most of his life, Sobhuza II bore the title of Supreme Leader of Swaziland. He became King of Swaziland only on September 2, 1968, after which he reigned for 14 years until August 21, 1982.

The future king was born on June 22, 1899. After 4 months, he became the Supreme leader of Swaziland after the death of his father, Ngwane V. As the boy grew, power was in the hands of his relatives. The young man successfully received a secondary and higher education at the National Swazi School and the Lavdale Institute, which is located in the Eastern Cape Province of the Republic of South Africa. The coronation of Sobhuza II took place in 1921. So, his reign in power lasted for 61 years, also a world record. During this historical period, many events occurred, of which the Second World War and post-war decolonization should be singled out. The British Empire granted independence to Swaziland in 1968. This was a real success of the foreign policy of Sobhuza II. He became the 7th king of Swaziland that year too. In domestic policy, the king devoted much time to solving the problems of land surveying. Thanks to this, the country had significant income from natural resource extraction.

King Sobhuza II also led an active personal life. In different sources, historians indicate that he had from 60 to 80 wives.

Which long-reigning leader most fascinates you? Let us know below.

References

Link № 1. [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Basil-II]

Link № 2. [https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ferdinand_I_of_the_Two_Sicilies]

Link № 3. [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Franz-Joseph]

Link № 4. [http://www.friedrichiii.his-gis.net/index_en.html]

Link № 5. [http://about-liechtenstein.co.uk/index.php/history/royals/johann-2]

Link № 6. [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-XIV-king-of-France]

Link №7. [https://www.geni.com/people/Afonso-I-o-Conquistador-rei-de-Portugal/6000000002244370573]

Link № 8. [http://www.royalark.net/India/gondal.htm]

Link № 9. [https://www.ed.ac.uk/alumni/services/notable-alumni/alumni-in-history/bhagvat-singh]

Link № 10. [https://www.revolvy.com/page/Bernard-VII%2C-Lord-of-Lippe]

Link № 11. [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sobhuza-II]

Link № 12. [https://www.thoughtco.com/biography-sobhuza-ii-44585]

Link № 13. [https://www.ancient.eu/Kinich_Janaab_Pacal/]

Link № 14. [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bhumibol-Adulyadej]

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The modern-day US Republican Party has a number of groups who are supporting the Democrat’s Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election - but this would not be the first time in history such opposition has emerged. Here, Daniel L. Smith considers the ‘Radical Republicans’ who opposed President Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War.

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

Henry Winter Davis, one of the authors of the Wade-Davis bill that opposed Lincoln’s reconstruction plans.

Henry Winter Davis, one of the authors of the Wade-Davis bill that opposed Lincoln’s reconstruction plans.

Not all Republicans agree with Republicans, and not all Democrats agree with Democrats.
This is not just a fair estimation, but also a genuine understanding that most of us can agree with.

In August, a national news outlet released an article that mentioned that The Lincoln Project is working to de-rail the Christian political narrative. They represent a non-profit “political action committee that is composed of Republicans and ex-Republicans that seek to prevent Trump from winning re-election.” They are running hard on all cylinders.

POLITICO maintains that the groups “officially formed a partnership on Wednesday as a means to capitalize on religious voters who dislike Trump or are unhappy with his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the black lives matter protests.”[1]

“If there was ever a time when Republicans, especially people of faith can be moved, it’s probably now,” said Sarah Lenti, executive director at the Lincoln Project. “This is about doing the right thing for our country and that goes back to embracing Biblical principles, such as loving and caring for each other.”

Throughout Trump’s first term, many white evangelicals have expressed unwavering support for the president; however, more recently many of Trump’s more liberal Protestant and Catholic advocates are turning away from the president due in part to his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Vote for Common Good (VCG) and The Lincoln Project are seeking to push Joe Biden, a professing Roman Catholic, as a religious alternative for evangelical voters, many of whom are slated to vote for President Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential election.”[2]

 

Radical Republicans

Going back to history, we can see another example of Republicans who opposed their leader – the Radical Republicans, a group who wanted the eradication of slavery straight away and without negotiation.

The Radical Republicans were unmistakably fighting for greater things within the Union. Just like their more moderate peers they wanted emancipation and the removal of the racist KKK; however, it was the underhand attack on Lincoln’s principles that made this political group come to deliberately smear and attack the fair-minded President’s good name.

At the end of 1863, Lincoln executed an order to “Reconstruct,” or rebuild the South at the end of the Civil War. It was under the President’s order that if 10% of the population in a state took an oath of loyalty to the federal government, the state would be allowed to declare a new state government recognized by the United States.

The Radical Republicans (congressmen) in office were angered by Lincoln’s mild-mannered approach to what they viewed as almost treason—given his forgiving and light attitude towards the rebellious states that were (at the time) waging war against the Union. The Congressional bill that aimed to address this was titled “Wade-Davis”, named after two members of Congress.

Ultimately, this bill said that if a majority of white citizens of a state had openly rebelled against the federal government, it would be required to swear loyalty to the Union to be readmitted. Congress went on to approve the Wade-Davis Bill, and President Lincoln (in mid-1864) refused to sign the bill, thus letting the bill die at his desk.

The response to all of this was a group of Congressional Republicans responding by attacking Lincoln and his administration. The Radical Republicans even urged other Republicans to run against Lincoln in that same year’s presidential election. By doing this, these Radical Congressmen became extremists to some degree and purposely alienated many other traditional Republicans.[3]

It is crucial, if not critical, to be aware of the political and cultural interests in your own side, as well as those in the opposition. Opportunity is ripe for those people with evil intentions looking to destroy your good works. However, this will only become a guarantee if you are politically and socially unaware.

 

 

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.

Sources

[1] "'Never Trump' Republicans Team with Progressives to Convert the President's Religious Base." POLITICO. Last modified August 4, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/lincoln-project-gop-religious-base-joe-biden-391427

[2] "Anti-Trump Republican Group Teams Up with Progressives to Draw Faith Votes Away from President Trump." ChristianHeadlines.com. Last modified August 6, 2020. https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/milton-quintanilla/anti-trump-republican-group-teams-up-with-progressives-to-draw-faith-voters-away-from-president-trump.html

[3] Myers, Peter C. 2016. “Statesmanship and Reconstruction: Moderate versus Radical Republicans on Restoring the Union after the Civil War.” American Political Thought 5 (1): 160–62

The Princess Alice was a ship that crashed while returning to a dock in London in September 1878, causing the death of some 650 people. Tom Daly explains how this largely forgotten incident occurred and considers why it is not better remembered.

A depiction of the collision between the Princess Alice and Bywell Castle in 1878..

A depiction of the collision between the Princess Alice and Bywell Castle in 1878..

On Wednesday September 4, 1878, boatmen fished around the filthy River Thames in London, pulling dead bodies from the putrid waters. There was a stench of sewage and death, only made worse by the late summer heat, as the workers hauled the bloated corpses of men, women and children onto their small crafts and returned them to the docks in east London for identification. Less than 24 hours previously, these corpses had been full of life, enjoying a summer’s day by the coast with their friends and families before boarding a small steamship, the Princess Alice, to take them back down the river to London. They were not to know that the steamer was doomed to be sliced in half by a coal ship three times her size, and that over 650 of them would be dragged underwater with her to their deaths. 

What makes this story even more tragic is the fact that it has been largely forgotten. Think of British maritime disasters and your mind may go to the early 20th century; to the Titanic, which famously hit an iceberg on her maiden voyage and was claimed by the North Atlantic, or the Lusitania, a passenger liner sunk by a German torpedo in 1915 within sight of the south-west coast of Ireland. You may even think of war ships, such as HMS Hood which was sunk in 1941 at the cost of over 1,400 British lives. Yet the Princess Alice disaster, which saw the largest ever loss of life on a British waterway, has faded significantly from the national memory. It did not serve a propaganda purpose as the Lusitania did during the First World War, nor did its victims of modest means have the fame and glamour of some of the Titanic victims. Their story is not taught in schools, nor dramatized in film. Despite a media frenzy in the immediate aftermath of the disaster and some modest reforms which came as a result of it, by the turn of the century the all-conquering British empire had moved on as if over 650 people had not drowned one evening within a stone’s throw from its capital.

 

Background

The Princess Alice was originally named The Bute and was launched in 1865 in Greenock, on the west coast of Scotland, to be used as a ferry. It was in 1867 that she travelled south and was re-named, and was again used for ferry service. Tuesday, 3rdSeptember 1878 was no different for Princess Alice than any other day over the previous decade, as she made a routine trip from near London Bridge to Sheerness and Gravesend in Kent. As described by Alice Evans’ article for BBC News, it was an inexpensive trip – about two shillings for a ticket – and most of the passengers on board were working or lower-middle class families from the east end of London, keen to enjoy a day out by the coast before the summer ended. The other people on board included crew, cooks and a band who played jovial music during the journey. The majority of the passengers were headed to the Rosherville Pleasure Gardens in Gravesend, a theme park with attractions including a mini-zoo, while others would have been headed for the promenade on the beach at Sheerness. This was to be a welcome day of relaxation for the many on board who would have rarely had a day off work, and for whom the ability to go for a leisurely day-trip to the seaside was a relatively new and luxurious one.

 

The Incident

By 7:40pm, Princess Alice was well into her return journey and approaching Tripcock point, near the north Woolwich pier where many of the passengers were set to disembark. The steamer had well over 700 passengers on board, meaning she was stiflingly overcrowded and there would have been standing room only on her decks. It was standard practice for smaller crafts to hug the southern shoreline at Tripcock point while larger boats stayed at the north side, but unfortunately for Princess Alice the tide had dragged her away from the southern side and into the middle of the river. Tragically, this happened just as a large coal ship (collier) named Bywell Castle, about three times the size of the ferrywas passing by. Although the crews of both ships could see each other in the fading sunlight, there was no way to avoid the collision. 

As crew members on both vessels were frantically trying to avoid each other, the impending disaster was not noticed by the majority on board Princess Alice. While the music from the merry band was still distracting those on deck, food was being served in the saloons and cabins beneath deck to the families who had taken their tired children indoors after a long day of playing in the sun. Most of these passengers were seconds away from death. 

Again, we turn to Alice Evans for a description of what happened next. Alfred Merryman, a 30-year-old chef from London’s east end, had stepped out on deck to take a break from his cooking duties. It had been a long and tiring day, but he was glad he had earned the extra money to help support his wife and four children, who he was looking forward to seeing soon. As he leaned against the saloon door, he noticed with horror the collier bearing down on the steamer. The Bywell Castle careered straight into the Princess Alice’s starboard side, which made a sickening sound as she was sliced into two pieces instantly, dragging anyone unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity down into the polluted water. Merryman later described what followed: 

‘The panic on board was terrible, the women and children were screaming and rushing to the bridge for safety. I rushed to the Captain and asked what was to be done and he exclaimed: ‘We are sinking fast, do your best.’ Those were the last words he said. At that moment, down she went.’

 

As the middle of the ship started sinking, the two ends shot up into the evening sky, sending terrified men, women and children hurtling down towards almost certain death. Meanwhile, those beneath deck and in the saloons stood next to no chance of escaping the doomed steamer as she rapidly took on water. The whole ship had disappeared below the surface within four minutes of the impact, leaving hundreds of people desperately thrashing about in the dangerously polluted water – as it happened, the point of the collision was right next to a sewage pipe, and people were swallowing toxic waste as they screamed for help. 

As the sinking had happened too suddenly for the ferry’s two lifeboats to be launched (two lifeboats would have been grossly inadequate in any case), the rescue efforts were led by the crew of the Bywell Castle who threw rope, wood and even chicken coups down into the water for people to cling on to. Around 130 lucky survivors, including the chef Merryman, were hauled onto the Bywell Castle by the rope, but most people were unable to swim to the makeshift life rafts that had been thrown over - if the currents did not drag them under the water, their heavy Victorian clothing did. More small boats approached the scene and the Bywell launched its lifeboats, but the rescue effort soon became a recovery mission as the screams for help were replaced by a deathly silence. Over the coming days more bodies were recovered and taken to docks in east London, where thousands of people waited anxiously for news about their missing loved ones. For weeks, bodies continued to wash up on the banks of the river and the final death toll is understood to be over 650. However, the actual number will never be known because there was no record of how many people had been on board the doomed vessel.

 

Aftermath and Legacy

The Princess Alice disaster may have faded from British national memory but this was not because of any explicit effort to sweep it under the rug. The incident was widely reported in the weeks that followed it and an inquest was ordered immediately.  A jury of 19 men was convened and inspected the site of the crash and the wreckage of the Princess Alice, which had been raised from the riverbed and beached nearby. By November, the inquest ended with the a few main conclusions:

·       The Princess Alice had been seaworthy at the time of the crash, but she had been dangerously overcrowded and carrying an insufficient number of lifeboats

·       The Princess Alice should not have drifted so far into the middle of the river

·       The Bywell Castle should have stopped and engaged its reversing engines earlier

·       All vessels navigating the River Thames would be better protected from such collisions if more stringent navigation regulations were enforced

 

There were reports in the Times newspaper at the time that a number of men on the jury wanted to bring manslaughter charges against the Captain and senior crew of the Bywell Castle, but not enough for the majority needed.

For years, concerns were raised in Parliament about the need for there to be a positive outcome from the tragedy, and to an extent this was achieved. As a direct result of the incident there were improvements made to the sewage system, rules enacted which made all British ships install emergency signaling lights, and the creation of the Royal Albert Dock which kept small and large vessels separate in the Thames. However, despite the huge loss of life and the furor it caused at the time, the accident was largely forgotten by the turn of the century.

Given the speed with which Princess Alice sank, a lack of lifeboats was not the main reason for the large loss of life that September evening in 1878. However, the concerns expressed during the inquest about the insufficient number of lifeboats arguably should have led to stricter rules in this sense, which would have undoubtedly saved many of the over 1,500 people who went down with Titanic 34 years later. As it was, it is perhaps because of later disasters such as Titanic that the Princess Alice has been forgotten. She carried working-class Londoners rather than business tycoons or aristocrats. She was never labeled ‘unsinkable’, and sank in the putrid waters of the River Thames rather than the icy North Atlantic. There is no glamour in her story or the story of her passengers, and there are no films made about them. The only memorials to them are a plaque in Woolwich cemetery, where her unidentified victims were laid to rest, and a graffiti-marked information sign across the water from London City Airport. 

 

Why do you think the Princess Alice disaster is little remembered? Let us know below.

Now, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

Anti-Semitism has sadly been a problem for Jewish communities for millennia. Here, Ophir Barak explains this in its historical context and asks whether and how anti-Semitism is often overlooked today when compared with other types of racism.

A Sovier Jewish prisoner of war with a gold star in August 1941, during World War Two. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-267-0111-36A / Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

A Sovier Jewish prisoner of war with a gold star in August 1941, during World War Two. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-267-0111-36A / Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

“There are two sets of people who nobody has really wanted to challenge; Jewish and KKK but being in business for 20 years you start to understand why”.

This was one of the many of anti-Semitic tweets that British rapper Wiley took to social media with in the summer.

Such words, though only expressed in this very recent incident, epitomize the anti-Semitism that Jews have faced throughout history.

Indeed, anti-Semitism is just one of the many forms of discrimination and bigotry that have existed for centuries and unfortunately, continue to persist today. But in a clear discordance with other forms of discrimination, an end to anti-Semitism only seems to be truly sought after and pushed for by the Jewish communities around the globe that bear the brunt of its bigotry. 

Today we seem to be in an era of heightened discrimination, where many people who aren’t part of the targeted minorities proclaim their support on social media for those minorities. This is especially the case with the Black Lives Matter Movement; as soon as news broke about the horrific murder of George Floyd, millions of people took to social media to proclaim their support for the movement. However, I’ve seen only very few non-Jewish people post or share anything on social media recently, that highlight their support for the Jewish communities, following Wiley’s tweets. It seems strange that people who aren’t part of targeted minorities and who have publicly claimed to be against prejudice of any kind have been silent following Wiley’s tweets.

And whilst this infuriates me, unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me, as this has been the case for centuries. Throughout history, there have been very few non-Jewish people who have fought alongside Jews to alleviate anti-Semitism.

 

Anti-Semitism in history

Anti-Jewish sentiment can be seen going back to the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, where priests and historians would write scathing and nasty comments about the Alexandrian Jewish Community, regarding them as barbarians. This eventually sparked an attack on the Jews in Alexandria, where thousands were killed. These verbal and physical attacks mainly led to an outcry of protests and revolts from Jewish people, specifically the Maccabees, whom in 170-160 BCE initiated a revolt in Judea.

And of course, it wouldn’t be an article on anti-Semitism, if I didn’t mention the case of Nazi Germany. This political movement arose following WWI and incorporated anti-Semitic ideologies, expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. These anti-Semitic ideologies spawned out of Hitler’s belief that the Jews were the reason for Germany’s defeat in WWI. Hitler’s first five years in power saw the implementation of mass violence against Jews, as well as the laws that dehumanized them. These brutal treatments culminated in the Holocaust, where between 1941-1945, Hitler and the Nazi regime systematically murdered six million Jews, through mass murders in concentration camps and gas chambers. 

Whilst conducting research for this piece, I noticed a lot of resistance movements against the Nazis’ anti-Semitic ideas, were founded by and largely consisted of Jewish civilians. There were many fewer non-Jewish people who participated in rescuing Holocaust victims. According to Yad Vashem of Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Centre, just over 27,000 non-Jewish people participated in rescuing Jewish Holocaust victims, compared to over 70,000 Jewish rescuers. However, it is also important to bear in mind that rescuing Jewish people was extremely difficult due to the potential ramifications of siding with Jewish communities and the potential outcomes for any supporters of the Jewish cause.

 

A lack of support

These two historical cases of anti-Semitism along with Wiley’s tweets, illustrate a common theme that clearly seems to have existed throughout history - not enough non-Jewish people are talking about anti-Semitism or taking action against it. And for years I’ve been trying to understand why anti-Semitism seems to be among the forms of prejudice and discrimination that are less spoken of. To be honest even today I still don’t understand why. 

So please, if you are someone who is Jewish or not and is part of a targeted minority and claim to be against prejudice and discrimination of any kind, then I encourage you to show your love and support for the Jewish community, especially in the wake of Wiley’s tweets. History and the present day have shown us that to truly inspire change, societies need to come together to push through reform. It can’t only be the targeted groups fighting for their own causes, rights and equalities. Wiley’s anti-Semitic comments serve as one the many discriminatory incidents that have sparked an outcry of messages and petitions from the public all over social media and if we’re to truly inspire change, Jewish people should not and cannot be an exception to the rule that systemic racism needs to be stamped out of our societies.

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

Now, you can read Ophir’s article on the culture wars in Britain here.

Writer’s note: This is in no way my attempt at stating that Jews deserve more support from people than other targeted communities, or that Jewish communities have it worse than other targeted communities. I’m aware that Jews do have some privileges that other targeted communities may not have, but I am writing this out of a belief that people who aren’t part of Jewish communities can do a lot more in terms of supporting them.

Sources

https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/26/what-did-wiley-say-tweets-investigated-alleged-antisemitism-13039775/

https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/statistics.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200949503000104?journalCode=jcha

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/477384-as-non-jews-its-our-job-to-combat-anti-semitism

Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 394

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
2 CommentsPost a comment

The Comet tank was a British tank that was involved towards the end of World War Two. It was made due to the need to have an improved tank to battle Nazi Germany’s forces, but what was its impact on the war? Daniel Smith explains.

Comet tanks of the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division, crossing the Weser at Petershagen, Germany. April 7, 1945.

Comet tanks of the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division, crossing the Weser at Petershagen, Germany. April 7, 1945.

The Comet (or the Comet I A34) was a British tank introduced towards the end of the Second World War, which took part in the invasion of Germany. It is regarded as one of the best British tanks of the war, continuing in service until the 1950s and it played a key role in the development of the later Centurion tank[1]. The Comet is held in such high regard for its cost effectiveness, speed, and low profile compared to other models at the time. However, its most important feature was the ability to take on German Panther and Tiger tanks, which had previously been too heavily armored to be penetrated by the majority of Allied tanks.

To the reader, it probably sounds like the Comet changed the course of the war by finally giving the British tank divisions a means of standing up to the powerful German armor. But did they really make a difference on the battlefield? Or did the Comet come too late to make any impact in the war? 

 

Development up to the Comet

To understand the significance of the Comet, we have to look at its development based on the downfalls of its predecessors. 

During the interwar years, the British army began to separate their tanks into 2 sections; cruisers (fast tanks for swarming the enemy) and infantry support (heavily armored vehicles whose purpose is clear from the name). However, it became clear in the early years of the Second World War that British tanks were vastly outmatched by their German counterparts.[2] 

Learning from the shortcomings of British tanks in the North Africa campaign, a request for a new heavy cruiser was made in 1941, which resulted in the MKVII Cromwell entering the battlefield in 1944.[3]

Despite it being an upgrade compared to previous models, there were still issues with the Cromwell. The foremost issue was that the main armament, the main gun, was not powerful enough to take on the heavily armored Panther and Tiger. 

Attempts were made to supply the British army with a tank capable of providing the firepower needed, resulting in the unsuccessful Challenger and the more successful Sherman Firefly. The Challenger was an attempt to add a larger gun to the body of a Cromwell; this resulted in an oversized tank that was unsuitable on the battlefield. The Firefly was created by attaching a larger turret and gun on top of the hull of the iconic Sherman tank. This fulfilled the army’s need initially, where the Fireflies could provide support to Cromwell armed formations for the upcoming D-Day landings. Complications arose in France largely due to the maintenance requirements of units equipped with two different tank models needing twice the amount of parts, ammunition and supplies.[4] Once again the request was made for a new tank model. 

 


The benefits of the Comet

At this point, in steps the Comet. Learning the lessons from previous tank designs, the Comet used parts from the Cromwell to maximize cost and production efficiency, but also added numerous improvements. The armor was increased and the profile was lowered making it harder to hit and penetrate. It also utilized an electrical traversing turret meaning the main gun could turn more smoothly and even had a telephone headset mounted on the side enabling infantry to talk to the crew.

But the most important improvement by far was the main armament. It had heavier firepower than both the Cromwell and the Firefly as it was fitted with a 17-pounder High Velocity gun, which fired 3-inch shells. The ammunition had also been developed to pack the same punch while being smaller in size, allowing the crew to carry more rounds and load them more easily. When firing anti-tank rounds, the Comet could even outclass the German Panther in terms of penetration. With this firepower, it could even take out Tiger tanks.[5]

Production started in late 1944 after being delayed in favor of increased Cromwell production.[6] The first batch was due to be delivered to the front in December of the same year, as a replacement for the 11th Armoured Division’s Shermans. This was then delayed to January due to the German offensive in the Ardennes forest, that later became known as the Battle of the Bulge. Once the division had been refitted with their new vehicles they went on to take part in the crossing of the River Rhine into Germany. However, few Comets saw the chance to face off against their German counterparts due to the scarcity of operational German tanks on the Western front in 1945. Reportedly, a Comet faced against a Tiger in April, in which the Comet won this encounter but this may be the only such example.[7]

 

Impact on the war

So how big was the impact of the Comet on the battlefield during the Second World War? Was the Comet in fact too little, too late?

Too little? Around 1,200 Comets were produced by the end of the war but only the 11th Armoured Division received enough to completely replace their older models. It could be argued this was a production issue, as for the majority of the war, the British Army relied largely on American made tanks.[8] It is important to note that the 11th Armoured favored their Comets, with the tanks proving popular with the division’s crews.[9] Nevertheless, the argument can still be made that there were enough to make a difference to the war. Too late? Undoubtedly so. If the Comet had been ready to join the D-Day landing forces, it could have provided the edge needed in destroying German armor and may even have resulted in a quicker Allied offensive through France and Germany. That is not to say that the Comet was entirely wasted; soldiers who got the chance to drive them certainly enjoyed their top speeds of 32mph on the Autobahns.

Several Comets can be seen today in various places in the UK and around the world. There are examples in the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK as well as the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts, USA to name a few.

 


What do you think the impact of the Comet tank was on World War Two? Let us know below.


[1] Steven Zaloga, Armoured Champion: The top tanks of World War II (Stackpole Books, 2015), 226. 

[2] David Fletcher, Sherman Firefly (Bloomsbury, 2012), 10.

[3] Benjamin Coombs, British Tank Production and the War Economy 1939-1945 (C Black, 2013), 65.

[4] Zaloga, Armoured Champion, 244.

[5] David Fletcher and Richard C. Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50 (Bloomsbury, 2012), 40.

[6] Coombs, British Tank Production, 105.

[7] Zaloga, Armoured Champion, 226.

[8] John Stone, The Tank debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military Tradition (Routledge, 2018), 67.

[9] Fletcher and Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank, 40.

Bibliography

Benjamin Coombs, British Tank Production and the War Economy 1939-1945, C Black, 2013.

David Fletcher, Sherman Firefly, Bloomsbury, 2012.

David Fletcher and Richard C. Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50, Bloomsbury, 2012.

John Stone, The Tank debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military Tradition, Routledge, 2018.

Steven Zaloga, Armoured Champion: The top tanks of World War II, Stackpole Books, 2015.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The Mughals have left an undeniable imprint upon the Indian landscape; their legacy is seen in the form of culture, architecture and art. Their rule lasted for more than 300 years, from 1526 to 1857. There have been a whole brood of Mughal emperors, but none stood out as much as the first six, the creators of the Mughal legacy. Many of their descendants would take advantage of the riches and power that they had inherited. However, infighting among them paved the way for other princes and ultimately the British to take control.

The one who started it all was a warlord with some Mongol ancestry, Babur. Throughout his life, he faced constant threats from all around him. It was his past experience that helped him achieve victory in future battles and seize the land of Hindustan (India). In the first of a series on the early Mughal emperors, Khadija Tauseef explains.

You can also read Khadija’s first article for the site on Lahore Fort here.

A 17th century depiction of Babur.

A 17th century depiction of Babur.

Royal Beginnings

Babur was born in 1483, and his father, Umar Shaykh, was a direct descendant of Timur, and his mother was the daughter of Yunus Khan, a descendant of Chingiz Khan. So, from the start one could say that he had warrior’s blood flowing through his veins. At the tender age twelve, Babur’s father passed away. Thus, in June 1494, Babur inherited the province of Ferghana, a small but fertile province around modern-day Uzbekistan. Soon a threat emerged for control of Ferghana, not by outsiders but by his own Timurid-Mongol uncles who wished to seize power from their young nephew. For ten years Babur was consumed by constant warfare. His was a turbulent life, never knowing if he would live to see the next day. At the age of 19 he wrote:

“…I endured such hardship and misery. I had no realm—and no hope of any realm…I had had all I could take of homelessness and alienation. ‘With such difficulties,’ I said to myself, ‘it would be better to go off on my own so long as I am alive, and with such deprivation and wretchedness [wander] wherever my, feet will carry me, even to the ends of the earth.’” (Fisher, 2015)

 

In the end, Babur lost his throne and travelled to Kabul, where he seized control, and it became his stronghold. Then in 1505, Babur journeyed into India, for the first time; traversing through Kohat and Bannu. Accompanying Babur was a small force, who aided him in fighting against the Afghans; Babur later wrote that the Afghans surrendered to him ‘with grass between their teeth’. Babur seemed to have inherited certain traits from his Mongolian ancestors. “Babur upheld Timur’s tradition of constructing towers with the skulls of vanquished enemies on these occasions” (Schimmel, 2004).

After returning from India, Babur decided to visit his distant uncle, Husayn Bayqara, in Herat for the first time in 1506. For the next few years, Babur spent time preparing an army to march on India. Initially the campaigns into India were primarily pillaging raids; however, this changed in 1519, after the birth of his son Hindal, a name that means ‘Take India’. Babur saw this as a good omen and his excursions into India intensified. At the time of Babur’s conquest, India was a divided country; various princes were vying for control, so they were weak against an outside invader.

 

India

Babur’s advance into India increased gradually. Until in 1526, Babur faced off against the army of Ibrahim Lodhi, at the battlefield of Panipat. An army of 1,500 well-trained soldiers faced of against the massive forces of the Lodhi prince. Despite the odds against him, Babur remained undaunted, because he had something that his adversary lacked - firearms. Babur’s men were equipped with matchlocks and field artillery firearms, which easily broke though the cavalry charges of the Lodhi Army. After a fierce battle Babur’s forces emerged victorious, and the death of Ibrahim Lodhi and many of his important nobles allowed Babur to take over Delhi unchallenged. Seizing the royal palaces and treasury, the riches were used to fund further expeditions and keep his soldiers happy.

Once the battle was over, Babur travelled to Delhi in order to visit the mausoleums of two holy men; the Chishti master Nizamuddin Auliya (died in 1325) and his predecessor, Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki (died 1235). After paying his respects Babur turned his focus to improving his newly acquired territory. He ordered the construction of gardens that included cascading fountains and a hamam (a public Islamic bath) – even though Babur and his soldiers were not great admirers of the hot Indian weather and craved the cool land of Kabul. 

However, Babur’s control of India was filled with problems. Rana Sangha enthroned another Lodhi prince in order to seize back Delhi. They went up against Babur at Khanwa in 1527, where Babur won another decisive victory. He was able to defeat the most powerful Hindu prince of the region and thus adopted the title of Ghazi—fighter for the faith. He travelled to Agra where he established his base, leaving Delhi behind. It is also said that while Babur had been visiting Gwalior, the sight of the naked Jain Holy men, greatly disturbed him. 

Babur also ordered the construction of a route from Agra to Kabul that included markings along the route; this may have been done as a sign to show his possession of India.

 

Gone too soon

Once Babur had assumed control of India, he devoted most of his time to his family, but this peaceful time was short lived. Soon, his favorite son, Humayun, fell gravely ill and everyone feared that he would not be able to survive. It was then that Babur performed a ritual in which he prayed while circling his bed seven times. He prayed that his son be cured, and the illness possess him instead. His wish was granted as Humayun got better and Babur’s condition worsened - the father gave his life so that his son could live.  

On the December 26, 1530, Babur died aged forty-six. Although most of his life had been consumed with fighting, there was more to him than just being a warrior; he was also a scholar and a man of letters. Much of our knowledge regarding his reign comes from his own memoirs, the Baburnama.

“For Babur was also a man of letters, whose works on the metre of Persian poetry, on Hanafi law and other themes are important works of Chaghatay-Turkish. He even invented his own form of writing, the khatt-i baburi” (Schimmel, 2004).

Many are left wondering how much more he could have achieved had he lived, but more than an emperor or conqueror, he was a father. In the end he selflessly gave his life so that his son, Humayun, would carry forward his legacy and built an empire he never could.

 

What do you think of Babur? Let us know below.

Bibliography

Schimmel, Annemarie. The Empire of the Great Mughals. Reaktion Books: London, 2004.

Ziad, Zeenut. The Magnificent Mughals. Oxford University Press: USA, 2002.

Balabanlilar, Lisa. Imperial Identity in the Mughal Empire. Bloomsbury Publishing: London, 2012.

Fisher, Michael. A Short History of the Mughal Empire. Bloomsbury Academic: London, 2015.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Unites States remains the largest and most successful country economically in the world today. But how did it become so successful? Here, Daniel L. Smith argues that an economy underpinned on Christian values that led to the success of America – and that religion is a key factor in economic success more broadly.

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

The first American macadam road, Boonsborough Turnpike Road, between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland, 1823. Picture by Carl Rakeman.

The first American macadam road, Boonsborough Turnpike Road, between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland, 1823. Picture by Carl Rakeman.

Two words. We can either call it the old-fashioned “Protestant ethic.” Or, what’s better known today as “work ethic.”[1]

Believe it or not, an economy underpinned by Christian values fueled the growth and success America has been known for all over the world. I have heard the argument, “Why are other countries so broke and poor, while we are so spoiled rich?” This comment may be generalized, but it gives a great idea into a typical daily dinner-table conversation. Let’s clarify this.

Nations grow with time - economically, politically, and socially. You can look at a nation from it’s beginnings through to its ending, and its represented by what could resemble a tree that continues to branch outward. Laws are the basis for any civilization and start in a more basic fashion. Over time, laws will continually be added too and expanded upon, so helping to form a culture.

Since law and culture is created out of religion and religious function, there is only one logical conclusion: A nation’s government, which is based in laws rooted in religion, is the key primary source to any nation’s ultimate success.

While America has recently abandoned some of the traditional principles that have produced its prosperity, the country is still the most prosperous and successful nation in the world. Historian David Wolfe writes that “the best way to compare the real wealth of the people of one country with the wealth of the people of another is how many hours of work it takes a factory worker to earn the money needed to buy the same basic commodities in retail stores in that country.”[2]

To buy a kilogram of bread, for example, a factory worker must work 18 minutes in Moscow (Russia), 12 minutes in London (UK), and 8 minutes in Washington (USA). To buy a car (Volga, Ford), that work time is 35 months in Moscow, 8.5 months in London, and 4.1 months in Washington.[3]

 

Work and Necessity

Let’s say that you take a trip to the Philippines. You will find that clothes are around one-third to one-quarter the price of those in the United States. This might be great to the typical American traveler, but it is driven by lower salaries in the Philippines. An average American worker’s salary is ten times the pay that the average worker in the Philippines.

Ultimately, the average Filipino spends more of his paycheck on food and clothes than the average American—even though these necessities cost much less in the Philippines than in the USA. A key reason why Filipinos spend more of their money on other items is because appliances, cars, electronics, and other merchandise that is not made in their own country, often cost more than they do in the United States.[4]

It is this economic reality that applies to every single nation around the entire globe. Those societies that are built on Christian principles have a proper foundational view of natural resources, and will also carry the character to exert human energy, and be given access to the creativity of God leading to better tools, all of which cause man’s material assets to increase.

While any nation adhering to this truth will see their material welfare increase, most people and nations are quite poor. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell of Providence Foundation mentions that, “46% of the world lives in poverty today.” [5] While we can debate the exact percentage of people in poverty, we should still ask why are some countries so much poorer than others? Some claim lack of natural resources, yet some nations, like Japan, with very few natural resources are actually really prosperous. There are also many nations with abundant natural resources that are much less successful than countries with few natural resources.

And while we can consider factors other than natural resources as being important to economic success, I think my argument is important - and often overlooked: While not often considered by economists, ultimately I would argue that the religious basis of countries is a key factor in determining how many countries became wealthy and why they are wealthy today.

 

What do you think of the author’s argument that religion is a key factor in an economy’s success?

 

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.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
3 CommentsPost a comment

Everyone has heard of the atrocities associated with the Holocaust that killed countless people of Jewish ancestry and wreaked havoc upon the populations of Europe during World War II. However few people have heard of the genocide that occurred over 1914 to 1923, the Armenian Genocide. There are multiple reasons that the Armenian Genocide is not widely studied or spoken of as its historical context continues to affect modern geopolitics. Regardless of the sensitive nature of current geopolitical relations, the truth of the countless lives lost must be examined before a larger audience to allow their memory to not be forgotten. Roy Williams explains.

Armenian people are marched to a nearby prison in Mezireh by armed Ottoman soldiers. Kharpert, Ottoman Empire, April 1915. Source: here.

Armenian people are marched to a nearby prison in Mezireh by armed Ottoman soldiers. Kharpert, Ottoman Empire, April 1915. Source: here.

The Armenian Genocide occurred from 1914 to 1923 coinciding with the events of World War I. The ethnic Armenians of the eastern regions of the Turkish Ottoman Empire had long been treated as a scapegoat for issues that plagued the Ottoman Empire. With the rapid decline of Ottoman Turkish authority, power was consolidated in the Triumvirate of power that included a man known as Talat Pasha who had disdain for the Armenian people. To stop the decline of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey began implementing nationalist measures to ensure that Turkey and all its lands were for the Turkish rather than ethnic or religious minorities. The Christian Armenians became the target of intense scorn and soon would be cleansed from the Ottoman territory to ensure Turkish dominance. From 1914 to 1923, over 1.5 million Armenians were systematically slaughtered in the first modern genocide of the 20th century. Methods of genocide included marching people through the desert without food and water to await their deaths, as well as firing squad executions and burying the dead in mass graves. These mass graves can still be seen throughout this region of Anatolia as a grim reminder to the dark past that the Turkish authorities refuse to acknowledge. Many people in Europe and the United States condemned these atrocities and asked for the governments of the free world to assist in stopping them. Sadly, no unified effort presented itself in stopping the atrocities of the Armenian Genocide. Later with the rise of the Nazis in Germany, Hitler infamously mentioned in his Obersalzberg Speech, speaking proudly of his plans to cleanse Poland, ”Who, after all, speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?” (Adolf Hitler, 1939) This leads to the direct conclusion that Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany realized they could theoretically commit genocide without any repercussions. 20

Multiple primary source accounts exist from individuals who witnessed the massacre or saw the Turkish government plans to exterminate the Armenians. These accounts range from Armenian victims to government officials who admitted to the slaughter in one form or another. The Ambassador for England, Henry Morgenthau, recorded his encounters with Talat and his dealings with the Armenian people, describing the obvious and overbearing nature of the Turkish animosity towards the Armenian people. On July 16, 1915, Henry Morgenthau in his ‘Report That Ottoman Turkey Is Seeking to Exterminate the Armenian Nation’ detailed the mass deportations and the use of racial extermination. “Have you received my 841? Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitness it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.”

 

Little remembered

The question remains, why is the Armenian Genocide a forgotten part of the history of the West? Why would something so traumatic and historically significant be brushed to the side as an insignificant part of the tragedy of World War I? The reasons for this forgotten part of history are largely intentional. The current government of Turkey outwardly denies the atrocity that occurred in the Armenian Genocide. Turkey holds that the casualties of the Armenian Genocide were not an act of intentional genocide but casualties of World War I that were largely the fault of Armenians who allied themselves with Russia. The geopolitical balance of the Middle East currently relies heavily upon the countries of Turkey and Israel as two of the nations who largely have favorable relations with Europe and the United States. Turkey refuses to accept responsibility for the events of the Armenian Genocide and in this regard does not like the United States from criticizing them for their historical atrocity. Many nations do not recognize the Armenian Genocide as genocide. The US only recognized the Armenian Genocide in late 2019, while Israel still does not recognize it. Israel’s refusal to acknowledge the mass suffering of the Armenian genocide is perplexing as the Armenian Genocide parallels the Holocaust in many significant ways. The United States’ only very recent of the Armenian Genocide stems from a careful balance of keeping Turkey as a tentative ally. 

The Armenian Genocide was one of the darkest moments of the 20th century. Countless lives were lost in the Turkish purge that was based on keeping Turkey Turkish. In some ways, the genocide may have also influenced the way that Adolf Hitler went about orchestrating the Holocaust. Though the modern day government of Turkey does not wish to accept responsibility for this heinous atrocity, it is the responsibility for the free people of the world to recognize genocide and condemn anyone who attempts to deny the memory of the countless souls that were lost. As the adage goes, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (commonly attributed to Edmund Burke, see here).

 

Editor’s note: The quote from Hitler referenced in the article is disputed – see here. In addition, the exact number of deaths in the genocide remains disputed – see here.

 

Why do you think the Armenian Genocide is not better remembered? Let us know below.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Nearly exhaustive research has been done on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) four national campaigns, his controversial Presidency, and his leadership in WWII. Surprisingly little, however, has focused on his New York State gubernatorial campaign in 1928. This was the campaign and position in which FDR would prove his fitness for the presidency of the Unites States, a position he held from 1933 to 1945.

In part 4, K.R.T. Quirion explains how Roosevelt closed his campaign with a focus on the justice system, the close election results, and the longer-term consequences of Roosevelt’s victory.

You can read part 1 on how Roosevelt overcame a serious illness, polio, to be able to take part in the 1928 campaign here, part 2 on how Roosevelt accepted the nominarion here, and part 3 on Roosevelt’s opponent and how Roosevelt performed on the campaign trail here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1930, while Governor of New York.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1930, while Governor of New York.

Back to New York City

After completing his up-State tour, FDR returned to the Democratic bastion in New York City and its boroughs for the final week of the campaign. There, he continued to develop and expand his platform of populist programs aimed at winning the support of the common man. In Queens, he addressed the problem of urban congestion. According to Roosevelt, a major contributor to overcrowding was the abandonment of farmland by rural populations. To combat this, he promised to actively pursue ways of retaining rural populations.[1] It was in the interest of urban and rural citizens alike that farms be adequately maintained. 

However, as rural populations moved to town, city people moved out. Roosevelt believed that two factors were contributing to suburbanization, the growth of popular sports and the democratization of the automobile.[2] New York’s highway program had aided the latter. As to the former, Roosevelt told the audience of Governor Smith’s long legal struggle to acquire for the “great rank file” of New York’s citizenry, adequate parks facilities.[3] He explained how entrenched interests attempted to subject the former Governor to “political embarrassment,” but that Smith fought for what “was approved by the people of the State” and won.[4] In closing, Roosevelt assured the assembled voters that the Democratic Party “will keep on winning as long as it goes ahead with a program of progress.”[5]

 

The justice system

During the campaign, FDR developed three of the four issues he had outlined in his acceptance speech. On October 30th in the Bronx, he finally addressed the fourth; a Roosevelt administration would be committed to the reforming of New York’s justice system. He considered the administration of justice to be foundational to effective governance.[6] On that account, New Yorkers had much to be proud of in their jurisprudential tradition. However, he believed that reform was necessary to ensure that the State could “keep pace with the fundamental changes in…social conditions.”[7] He warned that a number of factors—such as an increase in population, the growth of cities, and the growth of business—were coalescing resulting in dramatic consequences to the justice system. Specifically, he stated that “these increased complexities of our social relations have added to the difficulties of assuring fundamental justice to the individual man and women.”[8]

First and foremost, Roosevelt advocated for the use of targeted efforts to provide “more modern, more American methods” to address the causes of crime.[9] He hoped to reduce not only the slowness and costliness of litigation but also the volume. Regarding the recent proliferation of civil suits, Roosevelt retorted, “You know, we Americans just love to go to court.”[10]Affirmative steps were needed to reigning in the number of cases being brought to trial. As governor he intended to launch a fact-finding mission to determine “what cases cause the delay and the expense; what kinds of cases take up the time of the courts; what courts are most crowded; and, finally, what cases ought never have come to court at all.”[11]

He discussed other reforms that he would pursue if elected as well. On the civil side, he promised to work for a reduction in the number of jury trials, eliminate perjury, hold members of the bar to a stricter ethical standard, eliminate ambulance chasing and dilatory motions, and finally, to devise new administrative tribunals tasked with freeing the court system of certain kinds of cases. 

According to Roosevelt, the criminal justice system needed reform as well. If elected, he proposed twelve steps for study in the coming years. These included a complete overhaul of New York’s prison labor system, the establishment of state detectives to assist District Attorney’s and a revision of the Penal Code.[12] He also suggested the creation of a court system focused on minor crimes. Finally, he declared his intention to revise the firearms law. 

Roosevelt lamented that there was often “talk of one law for the rich and another law for the poor.”[13] Looking at the States justice system as a whole, he believed that reform was necessary, and that the people of New York did as well. In closing, he told the voters that “what we need is action, and I propose to do all in my power to see that it is brought about.”[14]

Roosevelt’s whirlwind campaign ended on the 5th of November in Poughkeepsie. There he was greeted by tens of thousands of supporters parading in his honor. Over the course of nineteen days, he had traveled 1,300 miles and had given almost 50 separate speeches. The next morning, he cast his vote at the Hyde Park Town Hall and then retired to his campaign headquarters in the Biltmore Hotel to await the returns.      

 

VICTORY

Up-State Republican leaders had early on declared that they were “nevermore confident in victory” and prophesied a “big increase in the vote” from their districts.[15] At first, the election returns seemed to verify their confidence. Nationally, Hoover had defeated Smith in a landslide that seemed to be taking Roosevelt down with it. By midnight Election Day, votes for Ottinger coming in from up-State had more than offset the Democratic powerhouse of NYC. The papers began calling the race for Ottinger on the morning of the 7th. For Roosevelt, however, it was still too close to concede. 

Late night on the 7th, Roosevelt, Flynn, and others in the campaign took notice of the “slowness of the returns from certain upstate counties” where they were confident that Roosevelt had strong support.[16] They suspected that entrenched officials in those districts were up to something. Flynn then issued a statement indicating that key figures of the Democratic State Committee—accompanied by a staff of 100 lawyers—would be heading up-State to investigate suspected voter fraud. Soon thereafter, “many thousands of normally Republican votes” that Roosevelt won began trickling out of the up-State precincts.[17]

As the race began to shift in Roosevelt’s favor, Ottinger released a statement saying that he was ready to “concede nothing.”[18] Republicans were holding out for a few favorable up-State districts as well as about 20,000 absentee ballots. By this time, Roosevelt had returned to his beloved Warm Springs where he was recuperating from the campaign and awaiting its final verdict. On the 18th of November, Ottinger telegrammed Roosevelt his concession stating that “Undoubtedly the final count…will declare your election…You have my heartiest good wishes for a successful administration.”[19]

The election ended with 2,142,975 votes going to Roosevelt and 2,117,411 to Ottinger. Roosevelt was victorious by a razor-thin margin of a mere 25,564 votes. [20] New York State Democrat’s had paid dearly for these votes with campaign funds listed at $5,028,706.02 and expenses of $4,845,774.78. The Republicans, on the other hand, reported astonishingly small receipts of $867,874.25 and expenditures of $832,225.62.[21] Each vote cost the Democratic State Committee $2.26. This was astoundingly expensive when compared to the $0.39 per vote spent by Republicans. [22] In economic terms, the Roosevelt campaign was a disaster. Even in the overall vote, Roosevelt was not very successful, winning only by a plurality of 0.6 percent.[23] Nor had he delivered New York to Smith in the national election as originally hoped. Nonetheless, Roosevelt had fought hard and won.

 

A personal success

Despite his bitter-sweet victory, the gubernatorial campaign was a fantastic personal success for Roosevelt on several fronts. Given that his previous eight years had been spent living on the periphery of New York politics, his ability to carry the state despite only three weeks of campaigning was a testament to his continued political renown. It was a testament to Howe and Eleanor’s feverish work behind the scenes over those eight years as Roosevelt’s eyes and ears. And, it was a testament to the lasting impact of his “Happy Warrior” speech in 1924. 

This combination of factors boosted Roosevelt’s campaign on to an equal footing with Ottinger’s from the start. If he had dropped out of the public eye after contracting polio in 1921, he would have been unlikely to have been considered for the Governorship at all. Assuming he was considered, he would have been at a great disadvantage compared to his highly prominent and active political opponent. 

Even though challenges to his health would re-surface, the 1928 gubernatorial race presented Roosevelt with an opportunity to implement strategies to deal with this critical issue. He presented himself as a physically strong candidate that appeared in excellent condition. By appearing indefatigable, despite the breakneck speed of his campaign, voter concerns about his health were assuaged. In face-to-face meetings, New Yorkers were continually surprised “by his vigor.”[24] In the eyes of the electorate, Roosevelt appeared more than capable of handling matters of State despite his physical ailment. In future campaigns, he would repeat these strategies with great success. 

The gubernatorial campaign also affirmed Roosevelt’s new Democratic coalition strategy. The pattern of Democratic voter distribution in the 1928 result among cities, towns, and villages as well as between industrial and agricultural areas “indicated a trend” that confirmed the validity of forging a new coalition between labor, agriculture, minority, and urban voters.[25]During the next four years he would cultivate and mold this coalition into the base of the new Democratic Party. He accomplished this in part by working to establish a “permanent national organization, which would ‘extend its…help to…campaigns in between elections and…serve to constantly educate the public.”[26]    

Finally, the 1928 campaign elevated Roosevelt as the “heir apparent to the leadership of the Democratic Party.”[27] Following the election, he commissioned a national survey of the Democratic leadership designed to look at several important party matters. Out of the 979 responses from forty-five states “approximately 40% said that they were for Roosevelt or were leaning in his direction…” and “…15 percent specifically declared that he should be the party's next presidential nominee.”[28] From his position as the de facto leader of the Party, Roosevelt was able to further strengthen his new Democratic coalition. 

The leadership Roosevelt displayed during the campaign and his first term in office not only secured him a second term as governor but also secured his place at the helm of the Democratic Party. Over the next four years as governor, he developed the policies and strategies that he would later employ as the nation’s chief executive. His response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the following years of economic depression highlighted his ability to cope with a crisis. By 1932, he was once again poised to rendezvous with destiny.

 

Now, you can read K.R.T Quirion’s recently published series on telegraphy in the US Civil War here, or the secret US Cold War facility in Greenland here.



[1] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Queens, N.Y. October 29, 1928,” 55.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 56.

[4] Ibid. 

[5] Ibid., 59.

[6] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Bronx, N.Y. October 30, 1928,” 62

[7] Ibid., 63.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 63-4.

[10] Ibid,64.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 66.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 18, 1928), “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry,” New York Times (1923-Current file), 1.

[16] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 45.

[17] Ibid.

[18] “Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat,” (Nov 08, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[19] “Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory,” 1.

[20] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1938-1932, 47.

[21] Special to The New York Times, (Nov 27, 1928), “Democrats List Funds at Albany,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[22] See Table 1. 

 

[23] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1938-1932, 47.

[24] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 22, 1928), “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[25] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 47.

[26] Earland I. Carlson, “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964), 300.

[27] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Nov 11, 1928), “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[28] Carlson, “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election,” 307.

 Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State.” (Oct 12, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104441542?accountid=12085.

“F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today.” (Oct 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104448848?accountid=12085.

F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State. (Oct 04, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104470038?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308830?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 3, 1928). “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104425583?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 18, 1928). “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104438214?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 20, 1928). “Roosevelt Begins Work on Message.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104443997?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 24, 1928). “Roosevelt Confers on Labor Program.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104398916?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 11, 1928). “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932.”New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104416279?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 19, 1928). “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104437219?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 22, 1928). “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104310663?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308778?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue.” (Oct 16, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File).  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104430730?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory.” (Nov 19, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104439338?accountid=12085. 

“Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat.” (Nov 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104415539?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104460248?accountid=12085.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.” June 27, 1936. The American Presidency Project. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15314.

“Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover.” (Nov 02, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104414619?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State.” (Oct 10, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104321497?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power.” (Oct 17, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104423627?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law.” (Oct 09, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104367563?accountid=12085. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932. New York, NY: Random House. 1938.

“Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433007?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (1928, Oct 07). “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104469322?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Nov 27, 1928). “Democrats List Funds at Albany.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104304172?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326803?accountid=12085. 

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326338?accountid=12085. 

Woolf., S.J. (1928, Oct 07). “The Two Candidates for the Governorship.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433929?accountid=12085.

 

Secondary Sources

Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928. New York, NY: Random House. 1972.

__________. FDR: The New York Years 1928-1933. New York, NY: Random House. 1985.

Goldberg, Richard Thayer. The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 1971.

Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History. New York, NY: Harper. 1950.

Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012.

 

Journal Articles           

Carlson, Earland I. “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964): pp. 298-308.

Goldman, Armond S., Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr. “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography. (11, 2003): pp. 232–240.

 Kiewe, Amos. “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship.” The Southern Communication Journal. (Winter, 1999): pp. 154-167.