World War One resulted in millions of deaths, but millions also returned home. However, many of these returnees had horrific injuries. In this article Paul Coffey explains how some injured people had their faces reconstructed with the help of artists.

Paul’s fictional book on this topic, We Are Broken, is out in March 2021 (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

Rifleman Moss - photo courtesy of GilliesArchives.

Rifleman Moss - photo courtesy of GilliesArchives.

Francis Derwent Wood working with a disfigured Great War veteran - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Francis Derwent Wood working with a disfigured Great War veteran - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Francis Derwent Wood working with a disfigured Great War veteran - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Francis Derwent Wood working with a disfigured Great War veteran - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Rifleman Moss without his mask - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Rifleman Moss without his mask - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Look at this man’s face; do you notice anything unusual? 

His expression is impassive, he looks stern, serious. Maybe you think the dark glasses are a clue; is he blind?

Now take a closer look. The lines around his nose and cheek. Could they be scars? 

This is Rifleman Moss – we don’t know his first name. In fact, there’s not much we know about him at all, other than the glasses he wears are part an elaborate and skillful disguise.

Because his nose, mouth and cheeks are not real.

They’re made of tin and then delicately and painstakingly, painted to match his skin tone and features.

Moss was a ‘patient’ (or maybe that should be model) of an extraordinary group of artists who used their talent to meticulously recreate astonishing lifelike masks for disfigured veterans of the First World War.

The conflict, which claimed the lives of almost one million British and Empire troops, was the first ‘industrial’ war the world had seen. And it was merciless in demonstrating that gallantry, pluck, duty and honor – the attributes of good soldiers right through the ages – were no match for the grisly machinery of war being developed in the early twentieth century.

Both sides were to learn at an enormous cost just how much carnage could be inflicted by two men with a machine gun or a handful of troops firing shells from an artillery cannon.

In many ways, the bloody stalemate that was the Western Front – the subterranean maze of trenches that carved open the land from the English Channel to the Swiss border - was a result of this mechanized warfare.

Tens of thousands of men were flung headlong into a storm of steel that annihilated whole battalions, for little or no gain.

It meant armies on both sides had no choice but to dig down into the earth and take shelter. And so, trench warfare, with all its bloody, rat-infested, muddy slime, became engrained upon our consciousness.

The dead and missing of the Great War are rightly venerated for the sacrifice they made. Even now, more than a century later, the poignancy of Remembrance Day and the simple yet symbolic act of wearing a poppy, are powerful reminders that the nation should never forget the ultimate price that generation paid.

 

Those who made it home

But what about those who did make it home? Families up and down the country can relate to tales and recollections of grandfathers, great uncles, great great nephews, who simply didn’t talk about the war.

It was almost as if the very act of shutting the subject away was their only way to cope with the appalling sights they’d witnessed.

Thankfully, in recent years, we have become more aware and able to treat the psychological and emotional impact suffered by combat veterans.

But at the end of the Great War, in a country deeply scarred by the conflict and one still wedded to many of the Victorian and Edwardian attitudes towards grief and mourning, these were not things to be talked about, or even confronted.

Keep calm and carry on was to be the slogan used for a conflict still another twenty years in the future. But the ‘carry on’ part encapsulated much about the way people were expected to simply ‘get on with it.’

There was another group of veterans who made it home; but sadly, they didn’t make it through physically unscathed. Tens of thousands of men suffered life-changing injuries – it is thought more than 40,000 soldiers lost a leg in the war.

It became a common sight in the 1920s to see disabled veterans; limbless men on crutches, or without an arm, often struggling to make a living.

 

Facial injuries

And then there were those who suffered catastrophic facial injuries but incredibly, thanks to a little ‘luck’ and advances in medical treatment, survived. 

For these veterans, they couldn’t simply ‘get on with it.’ They were appalled by their own appearance, many of them victims of truly gruesome injuries which illustrated the frailty of the human body when facing the mechanical instruments of war.

Ward Muir was a writer who became a corporal in the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) during the First World War. In 1918 he published a detailed account of facial injuries entitled The Happy Hospital. In it, he described with gruesome eloquence, the effect of such wounds.

Hideous is the only word for these smashed faces: the socket with some twisted, moist slit, with a lash or two adhering feebly, which is all that is traceable of the forfeited eye; the skewed mouth which sometimes—in spite of brilliant dentistry contrivances—results from the loss of a segment of jaw; and worse, far the worst, the incredibly brutalising effects which are the consequence of wounds in the nose, and which reach a climax of mournful grotesquerie when the nose is missing altogether.’

 

Post war Britain wasn’t as tolerant of disability as we are today. The country was also exhausted by the conflict and shattered by collective grief. When peace finally came in late 1918, people didn’t want to see reminders of the war; no disabled veterans were allowed to take part in victory parades for example.

The injured often found themselves isolated and shunned.

For those who had suffered facial injuries, there was hope thanks to the pioneering work of Harold Gillies who led the way in the first reconstructive – or plastic – surgery that we know today.

It was an area of medicine that saw huge advances in a short space of time but it was still in its infancy and there were simply too many patients.

 

Artists

But for a few lucky veterans, there was help from an unlikely source - the world of art.

Artists such as renowned sculptor Sir Francis Derwent Wood – who would go on to design part of the memorial to the Machine Gun Corps in London’s Hyde Park – played a unique and astonishing role in helping these unfortunate men.

Derwent Wood was too old to enlist when war broke out in 1914 and instead volunteered to help in hospitals treating the wounded. It was there he was confronted by the appalling facial injuries soldiers were suffering and decided to do something to help.

Using his skill as surgeon, Derwent Wood – and other artists who followed his lead – spent hours working from photographs recreating the broken faces of disfigured men.

The process was long, uncomfortable and painstakingly slow. Injured veterans would ‘sit’ for Derwent Wood while he covered their faces with a plaster of Paris. Using that as a mold he would then use tin to recreate the ‘missing’ part of the face before meticulously painting on features, careful to match the man’s skin tone.

The result, as seen in the photograph of Rifleman Moss, was extraordinary.

To give you an idea just how skillful these craftsmen (and women) were, look at the pictures of Moss, the same man in the picture, but without his mask.

How the poor man even survived those dreadful injuries is astonishing in itself. But seeing him wear his mask is equally incredible.

 

Remembering

Sadly, little if any testimony remains of the men who wore these masks. What was it like? How long did they and their masks survive?

It was that which inspired me to write my new novel We Are Broken. For Rifleman Moss, read Charlie Hobbs – the main character in my book and someone who has survived the Great War but at huge personal cost.

Hobbs’ face is appallingly disfigured and he turns to Derwent Wood who creates him a mask so he can ‘hold his head high’ and, ironically, ‘face the world’ again. It imagines how he would have coped, the anxiety and struggles he faced and explores the difficulties and prejudices a disfigured veteran, who gave so much for his country, was confronted with.

Derwent Wood wrote of his work: … ‘It begins where the work of the surgeon is completed. When the surgeon has done all he can to restore functions ... I endeavour by means of the skill I happen to possess as a sculptor to make a man's face as near as possible to what it looked like before he was wounded.'

He went on to say that he believed wearing a mask enabled his patients to acquire their ‘old self-respect.’

‘Self-assurance, self-reliance, and, discarding his induced despondency,’ he wrote, ‘takes once more to a pride in his personal appearance. His presence is no longer a source of melancholy to himself or of sadness to his relatives and friends.’

We can only try and imagine what it must have been like for these men to walk the streets wearing a tin mask. Maybe, as we wear our own masks to combat the pandemic, we can imagine and empathize just that little bit more.

 

We Are Broken (ISBN: 9781800493742) by Paul Coffey is out on 23 March and available in both paperback and Kindle versions (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

 

© Paul Coffey

Contact: Paulcoffeyauthor@gmail.com

www.paul-coffey.com

The text in this article published by permission of Paul Coffey.

In the American Civil War, the border states were those between Union and Confederate territory - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia. They were key for both Unionist and Confederate war aims. By controlling them, it would make victory that much more possible. Victor Gamma explains how these states took sides in the US Civil War.

The 1862 Battle of Perryville between Unionists and Confederates in Kentucky. Picture from Harper’s Weekly.

The 1862 Battle of Perryville between Unionists and Confederates in Kentucky. Picture from Harper’s Weekly.

“I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky.” The quote illustrates more than Lincoln’s legendary wit. It also underlines the vital importance of the border states during the American Civil War. By late May 1861 all the states that would form the Confederacy had severed their ties with the union. But the curious fact remained that not every slave state seceded. The states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, although slaveholding, did not see fit to join their rebellious sisters to the South. That did not mean, however, that these states solidly supported Lincoln. Divided loyalties, in fact, plagued each of them. It was anybody's guess whether they would cast their lot for North or South. 

Why were the border states so important? For the South, with the yawning gap between their war-making capacity and that of the North, it was critical to add the strength of the border states to their pitifully weak resources. The white population of the border states equaled almost half as much as the entire Confederacy. For the North, their loss would make the already daunting task of subduing the South insurmountable. The region contained enormous mineral and agricultural resources as well as vital communication and transportation links. These last were especially critical to the Union effort. The Ohio River, for example, ran along the northern boundary of Kentucky and West Virginia. This waterway alone would be essential for supplies and communications in the coming conflict. Its loss would have been a fatal blow to Northern efforts. Additionally, in terms of geography, the border states occupied too central a position to ignore.

Lincoln knew he had to tread carefully; none of the border states supported him in the election of 1860. Abolitionists were pressuring him to end slavery without delay, but Lincoln had a different set of priorities; make sure you can win the war first and then free the slaves. And to win the war he needed the border states.  Slavery was still an important part of the border state economy. Kentucky counted more slave owners than Mississippi, for example. The Lincoln administration decided early, though, to apply both political and military measures to reduce inter-state conflicts and suppress disloyalty, even if these measures came under attack as assaults on civil liberties. 

 

Maryland

The first place his policy was tested was in Maryland. Due to its location surrounding the nation's capital, control of Maryland was a number one priority for Lincoln. Its loss would force the government to abandon Washington - a possibly fatal blow to Union prestige. Hostility toward Lincoln’s efforts to suppress the southern rebellion and outright secessionism was strong in the state. A violent outbreak by southern sympathizers demonstrated this fact early on. On April 19, 1861 troops from northern states began passing through Baltimore on their way to Washington. A riot broke out between pro-southern residents and the 6th Massachusetts Regiment. In the resulting ruckus, several citizens and soldiers were killed or injured. These would be the first casualties of the Civil War except for the accidental deaths at Fort Sumter's surrender. Was this "Coercion" by a “Black Republican" Massachusetts regiment? Secessionists thought so and burned bridges and other places to stop more troop arrivals. Lincoln countered with a military buildup along the railroads. Martial law was declared and the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. Some of the more violent and outspoken secessionists were imprisoned. Supreme court Chief Justice Roger Taney demanded the release of the political prisoners and ruled the suspension of the writ unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored him. Lincoln’s firm response worked; secession fever subsided. At length, Maryland Governor Hicks issued a call in May to support the government’s requisition for troops, with the provision that they be assigned for duty in the state. Growing union sentiment showed itself when all six of Maryland’s seats in Congress went to unionists. Despite quite a number of Marylanders heading South to fight for the Stars and Bars, the state stayed firmly in the union.          

 

West Virginia

The next border state to fall to the North was West Virginia, at that time not a separate state. In 1861 those living west of the Shenandoah Valley and north of the Kanawha River brought long-standing statehood sentiment into full force with a Convention at Wheeling on May 13, 1861. Ultimately, a wait-and-see approach was taken as delegates watched to see how Virginia voted on the proposed Ordinance of Secession coming up on May 23. When Virginia duly voted to exit the union a second convention was called, which made the momentous decision to separate from eastern Virginia. In the meantime, Union forces moved in to secure the region. Strategically, the North could not afford to lose West Virginia anymore than it could Maryland. Two major railroads intersected there. It would also be difficult to control the critically strategic Shenandoah Valley without it. The main objective of the initial Union move was the Baltimore & Ohio junction at Grafton. On June 21 General George McClellan arrived. His victories allowed Wheeling to adopt a statehood ordinance. In August Richmond gave General Robert E. Lee took overall command of forces in West Virginia. Lee had more troops, but failed due to several reasons: General William S. Rosecrans’ leadership, rain, sickness and difficult terrain. Rosecrans ended up driving rebels from West Virginia. Firm Union control allowed a statehood referendum. By late 1861, West Virginia was lost to the Confederacy for good. The region joined the union officially as West Virginia on June 20, 1863 as the 35th state.

Kentucky

Lincoln’s attitude toward Kentucky was expressed in a letter of September 1861 in which he declared, “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game.” Kentucky declared that it would stay out of the conflict entirely by enacting a Declaration of Neutrality, promulgated on May 16, 1861. 'Neutrality' was actually secession because it declared the state sovereign to do what it wanted to. In fact, Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin had already defied Washington by refusing Lincoln’s call for troops to put down the secession movement. Lincoln, though, eager to avoid alienating Kentucky, carried out a policy to the effect that if Kentucky "made no demonstration of force against the U.S. he would do nothing to molest her." He allowed trade to continue. Despite the fact that many supplies headed south to aid the Confederacy, Lincoln’s policy paid off. Legislative elections went pro-Union and finally military activity along borders forced Kentucky to take sides by September. Nonetheless, Kentucky became the last state to be admitted to the Confederacy on December 11, 1861, adding a 13th star to the Confederate battle flag. Pro secessionist Kentuckians established a shadow government, which was ineffective in projecting any real power in the state. The battle for Kentucky, though, was just beginning.

 

Missouri

In the case of Missouri, strong-willed leaders helped to polarize the state more than it needed to be; on behalf of the South, Governor Claiborne Jackson, and for that of the North, Frances Blair and Generals Nathaniel Lyon and John C. Fremont. After a brief period of neutrality, the actions of these men triggered a struggle that would last for the entire war. After failing to bring the state into the Confederacy legally, Jackson worked secretly to take over the state with a coup. The alert Lyon thwarted him, eventually capturing the state capital of Jefferson City. The Union-controlled state government then duly ousted Jackson from office and he fled to Arkansas in exile. Yet, despite the persistence of Union political control, Jackson called a pro-southern legislature into session at Neosho near the Arkansas border. 

Pro-Union men could cause difficulties for Lincoln as well, though. Fremont was a political general but his years in the topographical corps gave him a military reputation. Thus it was that the famed “Pathfinder” was appointed to major general of Union troops in Missouri soon after Fort Sumter. Meanwhile, Confederate General Sterling Price moved into the south west of Missouri that summer. Fremont sent Lyon to meet him. Lyon divided his force and sent a flanking column to the south of the Confederate camp. The resulting Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10 was a rebel victory. Price followed this up with the capture of Lexington on September 20. This led to an increase of guerrilla activity which would plague the state throughout the Civil War. To reverse the tide Fremont took a bold step: he took over the state government, declared martial law, included the death penalty for guerrillas, confiscated property and freed the slaves of any Confederates active in the state. The alarmed Lincoln ordered Fremont to modify this order. Fremont refused. Instead, Fremont, with 38,000 men, went on the offensive. Price retreated towards the southwest. Despite this success Lincoln revoked Fremont's emancipation order and removed him to the Virginia Theater where he could keep his eye on him. Meantime, the Missouri secessionists passed an ordinance of secession on October 28, 1861 and Missouri was accepted as the 12th state of the Confederacy. Military events, however, especially the Battle of Pea Ridge in March 1862, prevented the Confederate government of Missouri from exercising much authority. Pro-Union men controlled the state for the remainder of the war.

 

Back to Kentucky

By the summer of 1862 Union control included all of Kentucky, most of Tennessee, and a portion of northern Alabama. Confederate Generals Braxton Bragg and Kirby Smith invaded Kentucky in the hope of turning the tide in the West, gaining recruits and persuading Kentucky to join the Confederacy. Bragg and Kirby Smith would potentially have a combined force of 50,000 men. Bragg was confident that their numbers would be swelled by Kentucky volunteers. A stirring broadside was printed and distributed which read, “KENTUCKIANS! The time for hesitation has passed! You have now to fight, either for the Yankees, who will press you into their service, or YOUR HOMES! YOUR FIRESIDES! Your property and your liberty.”  As his forces moved north, though, few men joined the Confederates. They were waiting for Bragg to show that he could win. Unfortunately for the South, Bragg did not have enough resources to overcome Union resistance and occupy the state. His move into Kentucky was more a large-scale raid. Smith took the state capital of Frankfort and waited for Bragg. On October 4, a Confederate Governor for Kentucky was inaugurated, a move designed to sway fence sitters. The supreme test for the southern cause, however, was on the field of battle. Outflanking Don Carlos Buell’s forces in Tennessee, Bragg and Smith had moved far into the state, but they failed to win a decisive victory which could have persuaded Kentuckians to side with the South. Although winning a tactical victory at the Battle of Perryville, Bragg, over Smith’s forceful protests, decided to withdraw instead of linking the two forces and pressing the offensive towards Louisville. Bragg’s retreat spelled the end of Confederate hopes for Kentucky, which remained firmly in Union hands for the rest of the war.

 

In retrospect

Despite initial high hopes, each of the border states was irretrievably lost to the South by the middle of the war. The reasons are several. First, decisive action by key unionists, such as Nathaniel Lyon in Missouri, helped to halt secessionist schemes.  Additionally, the Lincoln administration’s wise policy, which combined firmness with sensitivity to the political realities in the states, allowed events to work in their favor. Lack of Confederate military success was another factor. Many did not want to back a “losing horse.” The fact was, by the summer of 1862 the South was clearly losing territory to Federal troops, especially in the West. The erosion of the slave-interest was another factor. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 put slavery in the border states in an awkward predicament, surrounded by free territory, into which their remaining slaves often escaped. West Virginia, Maryland and Missouri had all abolished slavery by war’s end. And so it can be seen that as the war went on, Confederate war aims steadily eroded, and with them, support from the border states. Finally, union support was generally stronger than secessionism in these states. The numbers speak for themselves: a total of 275,000 enlisted for the North as opposed to 71,000 for the South.

 

What do you think of the battle for the border states in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple President William McKinley’s statue here.

References 

McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Amy Murrell Taylor, “The Border States,” National Park Servicehttps://www.nps.gov/articles/the-border -states.htm

“To Lose Kentucky is to Lose the Whole Game,” Americans Teaching History, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/to-lose-kentucky-is-to-lose-the-whole-game/

Garry Adelman and Mary Bays Woodside, “A House Divided: Civil War Kentucky,” Hallowed Ground Magazine, April 16, 2010, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/house-divided-civil-war-kentucky

“A State of Convenience; The Creation of West Virginia, West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History 2021. http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood05.html and http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood07.html

Historiography is composed of the principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation. Here, James Zills looks at the consensus school in mid-20th century American historiography. He also considers the differences between the consensus and progressive schools of thought.

Daniel J. Boorstin, one of the leading figures in Consensus historiography.

Daniel J. Boorstin, one of the leading figures in Consensus historiography.

The 20th century saw four schools of historical thought that impacted historiography, with some giving conflicting viewpoints and a desire to achieve opposing goals. In the United States, similar to some other countries, those opposing viewpoints come in the form of the New Left historians (progressive) and traditional viewpoints. Focusing on what has gone right as a viewpoint in historical writing serves to instill national pride, lifts a country up as one people, and unifies citizens to progress as a whole. The consensus school of history from the 1940s through the mid-1970s stressed that the shared ideas of Americans far outweighed the internal discourse of Americans. Consensus history made an impact on American values in the 20th century and played a crucial role in the developmental success of the nation, celebrating America’s rise as a national power, and advocated for the continuation of success. 

By the end of 1945, the United States had cemented its status as a superpower by defeating the Axis Powers in World War II. With American servicemen on their way home, national pride was high, and the country was well on its way to an economic boom. Nationalism as a school of thought is not a new concept, as it existed in the works of Europeans historians of the 19thcentury. Prior to the consensus school of thought, American historians established the nation’s identity through national pride.[1] American nationhood was alive and well at the beginning of the 20th century when historians were celebrating national pride through the success of American expansionism. The assertion of power through the acquisition of Hawaii, establishing dominance over the Spanish Empire, and control of the Panama Canal renewed enthusiasm for Manifest Destiny.[2]

 

UNITY OF VALUES

Despite the many accomplishments Americans enjoyed as a whole, Progressive historians would dominate the first half of the 20th century. Their focus on class and sectional conflict brought about divisiveness in America through racial and social class ideologies. Instead of riding the achievements of America as one people, the Progressive historians broke the population down into categories of race, gender, class, and what they perceived as privileges from certain members of society. Progressives borrowed from the fields of sociology, economics, and psychology to interpret their version of history and advocate for reform. The resurgence of traditional history is credited to Richard Hofstadter and, with the joining of other prominent historians of the time, the consensus school of history brought with it a renewed sense of populism.[3]

The impact of historical research presented to the public plays a pivotal role in the way the population views itself, much like any other field of study. Consensus historians believed that the social progress of subjects was of far greater value than the internal conflicts of America.[4] This school of history brought about nearly two decades of uncomplicated patriotism and gave Americans a sense of pride, and political figures they could look up to. Racism, corruption, sexism, and America’s other internal problems, while not addressed, were not ignored as if they didn’t exist. People lived those experiences on a daily basis in the two decades of consensus history. The population needed something uplifting, something to give them a sense of pride, and something to work for. The constant reminder delivered by Progressives only served to drive the nation further apart, by destroying the one thing that could unite America - the country itself.

The absence of social problems brought strong criticism to consensus history from progressives. The disdain progressives have for consensus history can best be summed up by Ribuffo, where in his journal article “What is still living in “consensus” history and pluralist social theory, he says, “…the ghostly echoes are nearly drowned out by louder sounds in contemporary intellectual life.”[5] In this particular article the author questions what is dead and what aspects of consensus history still survive. Ribuffo, in his celebration of the death of consensus history, he asserts that this type of history is “extreme” as well as deluded and dangerous.[6] The approach Ribuffo takes to express disdain for consensus history was by making his criticism a personal attack, an all too familiar theme with progressive viewpoints. It was never the intent of consensus history to solve the social issues of the country, but only to bring us together under nationhood.

Consensus historiography aided in educating two generations of patriotic citizens who were proud Americans - and to some extent united. The school of consensus history was inclusive with historians holding both liberal and conservative political ideologies. Consensus historians describe the world as an operative whole with its shaping credited to the ideals and shared life experiences of its peoples.[7] According to the viewpoint of consensus history every individual within the confines of the borders of the United States plays a unique role in the shaping and the history regardless of their social classification. The contrasting differences in consensus and progressive history are astounding. Consensus history, with its sense of national purpose, showed the uniqueness of the country and its differences with Europe.[8] While consensus history faded away in the mid-1970s, it left a lasting effect, and a large portion of the population still subscribe to the notion of nationalism, thanks to consensus history.           

 

STILL RELEVANT

Consensus history still resonates with historians and citizens today. A perfect example of the impact consensus had on America is the story about the aftermath of a series of violent storms that killed seventy-seven people and caused $300 million in damage to the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. At the time of the floods Johnstown was no longer the steel-town it once was, with steel workers who once filled the restaurants on Main Street being replaced by bankers, nurses, and retail workers.[9]  Long gone were the days when big steel companies like Bethlehem Steel invested in the town. There was an overbearing sense of nostalgia, a longing for the past where people knew one another and cared. The citizens knew that the key to survival was image, one that would give us an image of the past with a view of the future.[10] By celebrating their past through museums, refusing to be a town of shuttered factories, and sharing a unity for pride in their city, the people of Jonestown were able to hold onto their past while attracting future economic opportunities.

Consensus history as a school of thought and viewpoint on what was relevant made a major impact on society in America in the 1940s to the mid-1970s. It was a revival of 19th century institutional history through national pride. Consensus (traditional) history and historiography’s impact on American values in the 20th century played a crucial role in the developmental success of America, celebrating America’s rise as a national power, and advocated for the continuation of success. Without nationhood there would be no motivation to better ourselves as a society. Dismissing the great achievements made by the people as a whole in the country and saying that all is wrong serves to divide the nation and poses a threat to the positive progress and survivability as a nation.

 

 

What do you think of 20th century American historiography? Let us know below.

Now you can read James’ article on Ancient Greek historiography here.


[1] Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 3rd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 309.

[2] Ibid, 310.

[3] Robert D. Johnston, "The Age of Reform: A Defense of Richard Hofstadter Fifty Years On." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6, no. 2, (April 2007), 129. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144472.

[4] Michael Bentley, Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998, 100.

[5] Leo P. Ribuffo, "What Is Still Living In "Consensus" History and Pluralist Social Theory." American Studies International 38, no. 1 (February 2000), 42.Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279737.

[6] Ibid, 43.

[7] Breisach, Historiography, 385.

[8] Ibid, 389.

[9] Don Mitchell, "Heritage, Landscape, and the Production of Community: Consensus History and Its Alternatives in Johnstown, Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 59, no. 3 (July 1992), 200. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27773545.

[10]Ibid

Bibliography

Bentley, Michael. Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998.

Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval & Modern. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994

Johnston, Robert D. ""The Age of Reform": A Defense of Richard Hofstadter Fifty Years On." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6, no. 2 (2007): 127-37. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144472.

Mitchell, Don. "Heritage, Landscape, and the Production of Community: Consensus History and Its 

Alternatives in Johnstown, Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 59, no. 3 (1992): 198-226. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27773545.

Ribuffo, Leo P. "What Is Still Living In "Consensus" History and Pluralist Social Theory." American Studies International 38, no. 1 (2000): 42-60. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279737.

The Chinese-American population started to grow significantly in the western United States from the mid-19th century following the California gold rush. However, over time this led to a backlash against Chinese-Americans, especially when the economic situation worsened. James Hernandez explains.

An image depicting Chinese gold miners in California.

An image depicting Chinese gold miners in California.

The 1840s fostered a promising era of growth both in population and economic success as the American west began to rapidly develop and become a destination for those seeking new ventures in agriculture and industry. By 1849, San Francisco had established itself as a prime economic center and as a main port of entry for Chinese immigrants seeking to escape instability in China. Rather than being composed of families, the wave of Chinese immigrants mostly consisted of men seeking jobs and a chance to strike gold in the California hinterlands following the Sierra County gold strike in 1848. Chinese style restaurants, small businesses, apartments, and other services soon became a part of western urban identity as “Chinatowns” were founded in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. By 1852 San Francisco’s Chinese community had rapidly grown; approximately 20,000 immigrants resided in the area in comparison to only about 450 in 1850. The unprecedented growth in population reflected a stark shift in the area’s demography but also the beginning of resistance towards Chinese influence on western America.

 

Board of Health investigations

San Francisco public officials and health inspectors began to fear the obscene living conditions found in the Chinese community as they worried white citizens would become victims of the alleged health hazards within the area. A report conducted by the San Francisco Board of Health described the community with, “Each cellar [was] ankle-deep with loathsome slush, with ceilings dripping with percolations of other nastiness above, [and] with walls slimy with the clamminess of Asiatic diseases.” Crime also became a rampant issue within the community as the area became densely populated and poverty ran deep. The San Francisco Real Estate Circular documented that, “Their women are all suffering slaves and prostitutes, for which possession murderous feuds and high-handed cruelty are constantly occurring. To compare the Chinese with even the lowest white laborers is, therefore, absurd.”

Five government-sponsored health investigations led by the Board of Health took place between 1854 and 1885. These investigations were viewed as solutions to improve the “nuisance” illustrated as Chinatown; but each report depicted a “dense” and “enclosed” living environment and continued to fuel the popular rumor of a potential epidemic. Due to the inadequate living conditions found in the community, San Francisco Public Health Officials later attributed the smallpox breakouts between 1868 and 1887 to Chinese immigrants. The harsh accusations against Chinese communities in San Francisco essentially depicted a larger conflict within the context of nativism that lead to the isolation and racial discrimination of the Chinese population.

Many Chinese workers began to seek other employment opportunities as the California Gold Rush came to an end but were limited to harsh labor as Chinese immigrants were excluded from San Francisco public schools in 1859. Laborers soon found refuge working for railroad companies, most notably the First Transcontinental Railroad, but were faced with unfair working conditions and were forced to pay for food, tools, and other accommodations while white workers were fully supplied without further compensation. In an attempt to further discourage immigration and to lower job competition, the Chinese Police Tax of 1862 was passed in California and placed a $2.50 tax on every documented Chinese immigrant living in the state. AlthoughLin Sing V. Washburn soon overturned the tax as it was found “unconstitutional”, this wasn’t the first time Chinese immigrants were subject to unreasonable taxation as they previously faced a capitation tax of $50 for every Chinese immigrant in California in 1855 (overturned in 1857) and other licensing fees and taxes to work in the mining industry that weren’t abolished until 1870.

 

Violence

The Panic of 1873 circumstantially led to the formation of anti-Chinese groups in California as the nation faced its first “Great Depression”. The crisis was believed to be caused by a crash in major railroad companies-who happened to be major employers of Chinese immigrants. The San Francisco Workingmen’s Party, fronted by Irish immigrant Denis Kearney, began to lead many violent protests and riots aimed towards harming Chinese communities. Kearney began the party’s “Chinese must go!” campaign and threatened the city to implement job systems that would blatantly exclude Chinese workers from employment with the promise of further violence if demands were not met. On July 24, 1877, over 20 Chinese laundries, a plumbing business, and a Chinese Methodist Mission, were destroyed as hundreds flooded the streets of San Francisco to participate in the brutal riot inspired by Kearny’s Workingmen’s Party. Over $100,000 was tolled in property damage to the Chinese community, and four lives were lost. 

As Anti-Chinese sentiment rapidly grew during the late 1870s, President Rutherford B. Hayes called for a revision of the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which formerly recognized diplomatic and trade relations between China and the US and eased immigration regulations. The revision, the Angell Treaty of 1880, acknowledged and protected US power to restrict Chinese immigration of laborers while allowing Chinese professionals to still settle in the country. Despite the new revision’s attempt to also provide security to Chinese-American rights, the changes were subsequently reversed as the treaty shed light on America’s struggle to control immigration; resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and even more scrutiny against the population. 

 

Introduced by California representative Horace Page, who previously introduced the Page Act of 1875 which barred the entry of Chinese women in an effort to end Chinese prostitution, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only law in the United States that completely prohibited immigration of a specific nationality. The new law halted all Chinese labor immigration for 10 years, formed new restrictions and requirements such as certifications to re-enter the US, and denied naturalization. The law was later renewed by the Geary Act of 1892 and was finally made permanent in 1902 until finally being abolished in 1943.

 

Chinese exclusion in context

While 19th century Chinese Exclusion laid the foundation for heavier immigration laws during and after World War I, it is no secret that the United States has since struggled to unite the country under a cohesive immigration policy that provides a secure path to naturalization for immigrants in congruency with citizens who express concern for the nation’s security and economic well-being. The continuity of the issue ultimately gives notion to the idea that the US has never been able to formulate a successful immigration policy. So does this mean the nation is hopeless in its current struggle with immigration? Possibly, but if there is anything to be learned from Chinese Exclusion, it is that the clash between nativism and egalitarianism will unfortunately prevail past any form of federal immigration policy and is a problem that seeps farther than the issue of immigration. One thing for certain is that a majority of Americans will never fully comprehend the nation’s long and unsparing history with failed immigration policies and in this case in particular, the perseverance of Chinese-Americans.

 

Now you can read James’ article on the importance of the 1957 Civil Rights Act here.

Below is an excerpt from the book "The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII” by Neville Thompson. The excerpt focuses on the last meeting between Sir Winston Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King.

The book is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Quebec Conference, 1943. In the back row are Mackenzie King and Sir Winston Churchill. In the front sit US President Roosevelt and the Earl of Athlone, Governor General of Canada.

Quebec Conference, 1943. In the back row are Mackenzie King and Sir Winston Churchill. In the front sit US President Roosevelt and the Earl of Athlone, Governor General of Canada.

In late 1948, three years after the end of the war and close to half a century after their first encounter, Mackenzie King and Winston Churchill met for the last time. King was no longer the leader of the Liberal party, having care­fully engineered Louis St. Laurent into that position at the convention to choose a successor in August 1948. But he remained as prime minister in order to rep­resent Canada at a Commonwealth prime ministers conference in October. King looked forward to his farewell appearance after quarter of a century of being the crucial figure at such events. He was unquestionably the senior figure in the British dominions.

On his way to London, King stopped in Paris for a session of the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt was there as a member of the US delegation and Chair of the Commission on Human Rights which produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in December. She was stay­ing in the same hotel, in a room close to King’s. They did not spend much time together, but they did reminisce about the past and Eleanor repeated her husband’s affection for King and the many confidences he had shared. At a dinner of dominion representatives, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ernest Bevin gave a toast to King on his retirement. Not having been forewarned, King had no reply prepared but he spontaneously pronounced a benediction on the Commonwealth. During his long years as prime minister, he said that he had tried to keep before him:

The best traditions of British public life. That I realized what the nations of the Commonwealth had derived in that way. Real bonds between nations of the Commonwealth were love of freedom, of liberty which had been inherited from the struggles of Britain, and the example of public men.

 

In Paris, King had been far more tired than usual, unable to breathe or sleep easily, and perspiring freely, all of which suggests blocked arteries. Shortly after his arrival in London, he felt too unwell to leave the Dorchester Hotel. Lord Moran, Churchill’s personal doctor, diag­nosed heart strain for which he prescribed digitalis, sleeping pills, and morphine, and arranged for a night nurse. He went with King to a heart specialist, Sir John Parkinson, who took an x-ray and a cardiograph and detected edema (swelling) in one leg owing to poor circulation. Moran banned salt and recommended bed rest for two weeks. In fact, King remained there for three. Moran came practi­cally every day, although there was nothing further he could provide other than encouragement. He did not charge for his services but a few months later King sent him £150.8. King was characteristically proud that his illness, indeed his whole stay in London, cost Canadian taxpayers nothing since the expense of the conference was covered by the British government. Since he could not attend the sessions, St. Laurent came by air to represent Canada after all.

Lord Moran’s concern in attending King was not his fee but his literary ambi­tion. He was a prominent practitioner and medical politician (as president of the Royal College of Physicians he was known to general practitioners as “Corkscrew Charlie” for concentrating on the interests of specialists in negotiations over the National Health Scheme) who knew that his real fame depended on producing an account of his association with Churchill. He was reviewing and reworking his diaries to present an attention-catching account to be published after his great patient’s death, which he had no reason to think would be long delayed. King’s confinement was a heaven-sent opportunity to sharpen and increase his knowledge by adding the experience of someone who had been, as Moran had not, at many private meetings and informal discussions with Churchill and also Roosevelt.

On the very first day, they talked about Churchill for over an hour and found themselves in substantial agreement. Moran observed, and King did not dissent, that Churchill had achieved great things despite his faults. He was very strong willed, thought in big terms, and his knowledge of military history was so exten­sive that he could dominate any situation and not leave others much chance to say anything. Churchill recognized the value of experts but did not allow them to control. King was not so indiscreet as to tell Moran that Field Marshall Montgomery had said that he did not want Churchill around during the fighting, and that Field Marshall Harold Alexander (now governor general of Canada) had said that he had to stand up to prevent Churchill’s interference. But King did confirm that Churchill did most of the talking in cabinet and was inconsiderate of others: even Labour’s Attlee and the Liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, members of the War Cabinet, were treated almost with contempt, and most col­leagues feared to say anything. To get his way, Churchill would work himself into an emotional state.

On the other hand, King attested that Churchill was loyal to his friends, stuck to his word in getting things done, and had great courage, “no fear in the world. In that way gave a powerful example to others.” King also pointed out that many were attracted by the desire to associate with such a towering figure. He claimed not to have liked what Churchill told him about the effectiveness of flattery, although King was both susceptible and not sparing in his own use of it. While no one could say if the war would have been won if anything had hap­pened to Churchill and Roosevelt, King considered that a change of leadership might have shortened the European conflict since the Germans were terrified of Churchill. Both he and Moran considered that unconditional surrender (which was Roosevelt’s and not Churchill’s insistence) had been a mistake since it had closed every door and made the fighting more intense.

Moran also wanted to discuss relations between Churchill and Roosevelt, about which King knew a great deal. He said that Churchill had repeatedly insisted that they must meet the president in every way possible and never forget that he was Britain’s greatest friend. On the difference between them over sharing research on the atomic bomb with the Soviets, King, whose opinion had changed with the Cold War, now thought Churchill had been right that it should be with­held. A couple of days later, Moran told King that he had noticed that Roosevelt was failing at the 1944 Quebec conference and by Yalta was completely used up. This was not surprising for a detached physician and was no revelation to King, but it would have been to the public if it had been publicized on such authority, just three and a half years after Roosevelt’s death.

In addition to Moran, Mackenzie King received a stream of other visitors at his bedside: Louis St. Laurent, of course, Attlee, Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of India, Ernest Bevin and future British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who wanted to inquire about King’s memoirs which it was assumed the Macmillan company, his family firm, would publish. It must have been a great encouragement that Bevin, who managed to carry on in one of the most demanding jobs in the government, said that his symptoms were exactly like King’s; and more people that Moran implied Bevin’s condition was the result of excessive drinking. This held out the expectation that King’s abste­mious lifestyle would speed his recovery. King George VI paid his Canadian prime minister the great compliment of going to see him at the hotel. So did his uncle, Lord Athlone, who came as chancellor of the University of London with an academic delegation and an honorary degree, for which King got out of bed and dressed. There were also personal friends, notably the social reformer Violet Markham, and three sessions with spiritualists, one of whom contacted Franklin Roosevelt as well as Lord Tweedsmuir. But the highlight, on the second to last day, was Winston Churchill, still leader of the British Conservative Party, whom King would have been sorry to miss.

Churchill arrived with a copy of the British edition of The Gathering Storm. He was sorry to find his old friend in such poor condition but not greatly concerned since he had recovered from worse himself (the next summer he would quickly recuperate from a stroke). King was amazed at how well his contemporary looked—“quite young and strong”—and the quantity of work he was able to do. Churchill said that he relaxed a lot, sometimes painting for three hours a day. He was also buoyed by having just denounced the Labour government’s handling of world affairs in parliament in the same hard terms that he had used at the Conservative annual conference a couple of weeks earlier.  (Prime Minister Attlee, who arrived later, told King that he had been hurt by the accusations of timidity towards the Soviet Union, responsibility for the slaughter following Indian independence, the chaos in Palestine, and the charge that his government would force Northern Ireland into joining Eire which was becoming an independent republic with no ties to the United Kingdom.)

King agreed with Attlee that Churchill’s speech was extreme, even alarming in his claim that Conservative governments would come to power in Britain and all the old dominions and take proper command of the Commonwealth. Many British Conservatives were offended by their leader’s belligerence but kept their heads down and deferred to the international hero who they hoped would carry them back to office in the election that was sched­uled for 1950. This mutinous feeling was expressed to King three months later by the still exasperated Anthony Eden, Churchill’s former deputy, who said that while the great man was mellowing, he still refused to surrender the party leadership.

In their bedside conversation at the Dorchester, King and Churchill did not touch on contemporary controversies but stuck to the tranquilizing triumphs of the past. Churchill declared, although it is not clear how he could have known, that King had been much missed at the Commonwealth conference. He also cheered the invalid by assuring him again of his great services during the war: “You have never failed. You were helpful always. There was nothing that you did not do, that could be done.” He mentioned, in particular, the Commonwealth air training plan and King’s refusal to support Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies’ desire for the dominions to play a larger part in the direction of the war in order to undermine Churchill. He reiterated that King had been a bridge between Britain and the United States, specifying his help in the possible move of the Royal Navy to the United States. He recalled King’s encouraging telephone call after Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech two years earlier, and could not resist adding that every point in the address had since been borne out. The two parted with emotion, Churchill’s eyes filling with tears, yet King was annoyed that on his way out he asked the high commissioner (Norman Robertson) to ensure that the press was informed of his visit.

There was no sense that this was their last meeting. Once he recovered his health, King expected to continue visiting Britain, as he had when out of office in the early 1930s. Churchill hoped to go to Toronto in the spring to receive an honorary degree and wanted King to attend. King in turn invited Churchill to Ottawa. But King would not recover, and they would never meet again.

 

You can buy The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

About the Author 

Neville Thompson is a professor emeritus of history at the University of Western Ontario, where he taught modern British and European history. He is the author of The Anti-Appeasers: Opposition to Appeasement in the 1930s, Wellington After Waterloo, and Canada and the End of the Imperial Dream. His latest book The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII is released in hardcover in February 2021 with Sutherland House Books. He lives in Ottawa.

 

Copyright line

From "THE THIRD MAN: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII" by Neville Thompson. Copyright © 2021 by Neville Thompson. Reprinted by permission of Sutherland House Books.

The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of primarily African-American pilots who fought in World War II, with their exploits during the war becoming legendary. The origins and founding of the group came from a response to segregation in both the military and general society. The group’s pilots who fought in Europe and North Africa achieved an impressive combat record, while several myths surroundings the Tuskegee Airmen will be explored here.

Daniel Boustead explains.

Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.

Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.

The beginnings of the Tuskegee Airmen came as a direct response from a 1925 study conducted by the American Military which concluded that “Blacks didn’t have the intelligence, ability, or coordination to fly airplanes”([1]). In 1939, Congress ordered the Army Air Corp to accept Blacks into the Civilian Pilot Training Program to provide a cadre of trained pilots should the country be plunged into war ([2]). In 1939 this Civilian Pilot Training Program was granted to the Black segregated college of Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) ([3]). In the years from 1939 to 1940 almost 100 Black pilots completed the training of the Civilian Pilot Training Program, but the Army Air Corps refused to let them in (2). In September 1940, when President Franklin Roosevelt announced that the Army Air Corps would soon begin training Black pilots ([4]), the War Department choose the Tuskegee Army Airfield as a training site (4).  F.D.R was persuaded by his decision by the N.A.A.C.P and by Black newspapers like the Pittsburgh Courier and the Chicago Defender  (4). In 1940 Black pilot Charles Alfred Anderson came to head up the training program at Tuskegee (2). On January 16, 1941 the War Department announced that a Black flying unit would be formed within the Army Air Corps (9). In March 1941, (as a result of Anderson’s flight with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt), she gave a $175,000.00 loan to build Moton Field, where the men could take their initial training (2). Moton Field was located at Tuskegee Institute (9). 

In March 1941 the U.S. War Department created the 99th Pursuit Squadron, which was the first unit made up of Black pilots and would become in time a famous Tuskegee Airmen unit (2). This unit soon became the 99th Fighter Squadron (1). By 1943 the 99th had become a combat unit ([5]). The other famous Tuskegee Airmen units were formed in the period from 1942 to 1943: the 100th Squadron, 301st Squadron, and the 302nd Squadron with the 332nd Fighter Group (5). 

 

In conflict

The Tuskegee Airmen units fought in the North African Theatre of war as well as Europe during the conflict. The 99th Fighter Squadron left Tuskegee and arrived in Morocco on April 2, 1943 under the command of African American officer Lt. Colonel Benjamin O. Davis Jr. (5). The 99th Squadron’s initial combat debut in North Africa resulted in heavy losses against the German Luftwaffe (5). This Squadron redeemed itself in May 1943 when they attacked the Italian Island of Pantelleria in preparation for the invasion of Sicily, which resulted in the entire Island garrison of 11,000 Italians troops surrendering (5). This was very first time in history that an entire Island had surrendered by air attack alone (5). This earned the 99th Fighter Squadron a Distinguished Unit Citation for this effort (5).

In February 1944 a new Black unit called the 332nd Fighter Group left Tuskegee, which consisted of the 100th Squadron, the 301st Squadron, and the 302nd Squadron (5). The 332nd Fighter Group went to Italy where they joined the 99th Fighter Squadron, which was operating at Ramitelli Airfield on the Adriatic Sea (4). The 332nd Fighter Group began operations on February 14, 1944 and they began patrolling the area from Naples Harbor to the Isle of Capri, as well as doing costal patrols (5). The 332nd Fighter Group moved to a new air base at Capodichino, Italy on March 4, 1944 (5). The 99th Fighter Squadron earned a Second Distinguished Unit Citation for their efforts during the Battle of Monte Cassino in May 1944 (5). On May 23, 1944 the 332nd Fighter Group was assigned bomber escort duty for the 15th Army Air Force, making sure the bombers made it safely from Ramitelli to their targets in southeastern Europe and southern Germany (5). The 99th Fighter Squadron won a Third Distinguished Unit Citation for protecting the bombers of the 15th Army Air Force during a bombing mission on March 24, 1945 ([6]). The 332nd was subsequently awarded this Distinguished Unit Citation for the March 24, 1945 mission (7). The 332nd Fighter Group flew its last mission on April 26, 1945 (4).  In the period from 1941 to 1946, 992 Black pilots were trained at Tuskegee, of which 355 pilots flew in combat over the skies of Southern Europe (7). The Tuskegee Airmen flew 1,578 combat missions, 1,267 for the Twelfth Army Air Force, and 311 for the Fifteenth Army Air Force, destroyed 262 enemy aircraft (112 in the air, 150 on the ground), 950 rail cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles, and 40 boats and barges (7). The 99thFighter Squadron even set an Army Air Corps record for shooting down five German planes in less than four minutes (6). 

 

Myths

There were various myths written about the Tuskegee Airmen that increased the group’s “God-Like” standing in the annals of Military History. The first big myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber. This myth existed for many years after the war and was even mentioned on a Family Matters TV episode in 1992 when Estelle Winslow talked about the Tuskegee Airmen (8). In the period of June 9, 1944 to March 24, 1945, 27 Heavy Bombers from the 15th Army Air Force were shot down while under escort from the 332nd Fighter Group (9). In contrast the 15th Army Air Force lost an average of 46 Heavy Bombers when being escorted by other fighter groups (9). During the period from June 1944 to May 1945 the 15th Army Air Force lost a total of 303 Heavy Bombers that were shot down by enemy aircraft (9) over 7 escort periods. 

Another important myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen were the first to implement a “Stick to the Bomber” policy.  The “Stick to the Bomber” policy had been instituted by Major General Ira Eaker while he was commander of the Eighth Army Air Force, long before the Tuskegee Airmen ever escorted a bomber (9). In January 1944, General Eaker moved to the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations to serve as commander of Mediterranean Allied Air Forces and he took his “Stick to the Bomber” policy with him(9). Eaker’s “Stick to the Bomber” policy found a home in the 15th Army Air Force where they were followed by the 332nd Fighter Group (9). 

A further myth about the Tuskegee Airmen was that they were the first to bring down the legendary ME-262 Jet. The first German ME-262 Jet Fighter was actually shot down by five Royal Canadian Air Force Fighter pilots belonging to Squadron 401 on October 5, 1944 (10).  The Tuskegee Airmen did shoot down at least 3 Me-262 Jets on March 24, 1945 while escorting the 15th Army Air Force bombing mission to Berlin, Germany (9). The three aircraft destroyed on this mission were attributed to Tuskegee Airmen 1st Lieutenant Roscoe Brown, 1st Lieutenant Earl R. Lane, and 2nd Lieutenant Charles V. Brantley (9).

Another myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen units were all Black men. The misconception is that the Tuskegee Airmen were virtually all Black by the time they deployed overseas and remained Black until the Air Force was desegregated in 1949 (9). The reality is that the first three commanders of the 99th Fighter Squadron (originally called the 99th Pursuit Squadron) were White men (9), and that the first two commanders of the 332nd Fighter Group where White men (9). The vast majority of Tuskegee Airmen were Black though (9). The Tuskegee Airmen also had some Haitian Airmen (11).  However, Eugene Smith, a member of the Tuskegee Airmen was of a mixture of European and Native American Ancestry, yet he was listed as “colored” on his birth certificate (9). The Army Air Forces would only accept Eugene Smith if he went to Tuskegee and so he did (9).

The final myth was that the outstanding Tuskegee Airmen’s war record was alone responsible for President Harry S. Truman efforts to desegregate the military. The Tuskegee Airmen’s record played a small pat in this (9). The combination of Truman wanting to appeal to Black voters in the 1948 Presidential Election and the June 28, 1948 threat by A. Philip Randolph’s “League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience against Military Segregation” for Blacks to resist the draft, also had a huge impact on President Truman’s decision to desegregate the military in 1948 (9). The President’s Civil Rights report of October 29, 1947 called “To Secure These Rights” had African American leaders telling Secretary of Defense Forrestal to desegregate the military, also played a part in President’s Truman’s decision (9). It was these factors that caused President Truman to sign Executive Order 9981 to desegregate the military on July 26, 1948 (9).

 

Conclusion

The Tuskegee Airmen’s prowess became the stuff of legend. The group compiled an excellent combat record which helped quell prejudice against Black people. Many myths exist about the Tuskegee Airmen, but several have been exposed and negated here. However, the Tuskegee Airmen hold an important and much revered place in the annals of Military History. 

 

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, and “The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?” here.


[1] Rivers, Charles Editors. “Far-Reaching Changes- A Portrait of a McGee as a Tuskegee airmen”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020, Ch.2. 

[2] River, Charles Editors. “Air Corps Policy Remained as Before”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020, Ch.1. 

[3] “Training, CAF Rise Above”.  Accessed on January 18th, 2021. https://cafrisebove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/training . 

[4] Tuskegee Airmen”. HistoryChannel.com . Last Updated January 16th, 2020. Accessed on December 13th, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/tuskgee-airmen.

[5] River, Charles Editors. “Combat-Ready Status”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II”. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.4. 

[6] River, Charles Editors. “More Time to Prove Itself”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.5. 

7 River, Charles Editors. “Unique Military Record”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.7. 

8 “Family Matters-Brown Bombshell  (TV Episode 1992)”. IMDB. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0577080/

9 Haulman, Daniel L. “Tuskegee Airmen Myths and Realities”. Air Force Historical Research Agency.( 17th, March, 2014). https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141119-026.pdf

10 Montgomery, Marc. “History Canada: Oct. 5, 1944-RCAF down the first German Jet”. Last Updated October 9th, 2018. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/10/05/history-canada-oct-5-1944-rcaf-downs-the-first-german-jet/

11 “Haitian Tuskegee Airmen, CAF RISE Above”. Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/haitian-tuskgee-airmen/

References

“Family Matters-Brown Bombshell”. (TV Episode 1992)”. IMDB.  Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0577080/

“Haitian Tuskegee Airmen, CAF RISE Above”.  Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskegee-airmen-history/haitian-tuskgee-airmen/

Haulman, Daniel L. “Tuskegee Airmen Myths and Realities”. Air Force Historical Research Agency. (17, March, 2014). https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141119-026.pdf

Montgomery, Marc. “History Canada: Oct. 5, 1944-RCAF down the first German Jet”. Last Updated October 9th, 2018. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/10/05/history-canada-oct-5-1944-rcaf-downs-the-first-german-jet/

River, Charles Editors. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II.  Edited by Charles Rivers Editors, 2020.

“Training, CAF Rise Above” Accessed on January 18th, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/training

“Tuskegee Airmen”.HistoryChannel.com.Last Updated January 16th, 2020. Accessed on December 13th, 2020.https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/tuskegee-airmen

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

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

In part 2, Ian Craig looks at what happened during John Adams’ presidency from 1797 to 1801, including the Alien and Sedition Acts and his interaction with France during the French Revolution.

If you missed it, part 1 on John Adams’ and the media when he was Vice President is here.

A British political cartoon of Franco-American relations after the XYZ Affair in 1798. 5 Frenchmen plunder female "America", while six figures representing other European countries look on. The British John Bull sits laughing on "Shakespeare's Cliff…

A British political cartoon of Franco-American relations after the XYZ Affair in 1798. 5 Frenchmen plunder female "America", while six figures representing other European countries look on. The British John Bull sits laughing on "Shakespeare's Cliff."

The President by Three Votes

On March 4, 1797 John Adams became president promising to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” As the nation’s second president, Adams would find himself having to protect the young nation from foreign influences while battling the American media.  President Adams did not come to the presidency by a sweeping margin. By 1796, although the founding fathers had not intended for it to happen, political parties arose in the nation. Adams, a Federalist and supporter of a strong federal government, found himself up against Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican and a supporter of giving more rights to the states (there are more differences between the two parties which will be explained later). Adams won the election by just three votes in the Electoral College. Adams’ received 71 votes to Jefferson’s 68 and just over 53 percent of the national popular vote to Jefferson’s 47 percent. Due to this, Adams was often called the “president by three votes” by the media.[1] This originated from the Philadelphia based newspaper the Aurora which would give Adams much grief during his presidency. Adams did not buy into the scrutiny of the Philadelphia paper - after all, he had won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. 

However, Adams had to work with a vice president who disagreed with him on almost every matter. Because Jefferson had placed second, he became vice president. This meant that both the president and vice president were from two different political parties. This was not intended when the Constitution was written. By 1800, the selection of the president and vice president would ensure that both came from the same political party; however, the rise of political parties meant that Adams had to endure the onslaught of those in the press who supported the Democratic-Republicans.

 

Foreign Influences

A key issue that Adams had in assuming office was the French Revolution. France had been in a revolution since 1789 and had sought support from President Washington. Washington did not want the young United States to enter a war so early after its own independence. This angered the French and those in America who supported them. Their argument was that France had come to the aid of America during its own revolution and that it was time to return the favor. Then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson supported the French and their cause, as did many in America. However, Washington would not commit to supporting the French Revolution and remained neutral. 

John Adams wished to continue the same policy that his predecessor had committed to. Adams felt that the United States could not engage in a full-scale war, as it was not prepared. Nor did he believe it was the right decision for the young nation. This was when Adams would face the onslaught of negative coverage by the Democratic-Republican allied press. The root of the rift between the Adams’ Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republicans was a matter of a difference in opinion. In 1794, Washington had sent Chief Justice John Jay to make a final peace with Britain and to settle some remaining “bad blood” between the two nations. This became known as Jay’s Treaty. This upset the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson who denounced British involvement in the French Revolution. They viewed the treaty as America taking sides in the war. This also angered the French, who began to seize American ships.

Before going forward, it is important to state the difference between the political ideologies of the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists, who supported Adams, wanted an economy based on that of Britain with the wealthier controlling such areas as manufacturing. They also believed in a strong central or federal government (hence the name “federalists”). The Democratic-Republicans supported more power for the states and less power for central government. They also supported an economy based on the working and agricultural classes, similar to France. It is for these reasons that both sides supported either Britain or France.

 

Relations worsen

Early in the Adams presidency, what became known as the XYZ affair occurred. In order to stop the French from seizing American ships, Adams sent an envoy to France in order to settle the matter. What became of the matter upset many Americans, including the President. The French under Foreign Minister Talleyrand sent three officials to discuss terms with the Americans. However, they would not talk to them unless a sum of money was given to each man plus a loan to France. The American diplomats refused to pay and once the news got to Adams he was outraged. He refused to call the three French diplomats by their names and referred to them as “XYZ.” This caused tensions to rise between the United States and France. The Democratic-Republican press called the president “unhinged by the delirium of vanity”[2] over his supposed “insult of the French” by refusing to pay their demands.[3]

Adams wanted nothing more than peace with France and worked to establish that outcome. However, he also looked to build up the American military, with heavy emphasis on the navy.[4] Adams believed that the navy was important to securing American sovereignty along its shores and overseas. He pushed for the building of several frigates; one such ship was the U.S.S. Constitution. It is for this reason that he is often referred to as the “father of the U.S. navy.”

                  This caused tensions with the Democratic-Republicans and Jefferson, who did not like the idea of America having a standing army that was under the control of the federal government. The Federalists on the other hand supported it for many reasons. The key issue that came to dominate Adams’ presidency was how foreigners were influencing Americans to support the French Revolution. This was the Federalists greatest fear, an attempt to force the American government to side with the French.  This would cause instability within the government. Federalists believed that those from Ireland, England, and Scotland, many of whom worked in the printing press, would “spread fears or lies to the public in order to upset the stability of the union and government.”[5]

                  It is for this reason that the Federalist began to push Adams to support the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two Acts would become a controversy in America. The Alien Act was designed to “deport non-citizens who were a threat to the nation’s security.”[6] The Federalists and many other Americans believed that these foreigners would influence insurrection and rebellion in the nation. This would then lead to the instability of the United States. The Act was designed to protect national security by all means. The Sedition Act drew more scrutiny, as it appeared to violate the First Amendment. It stated that “people who spoke out against the government or harmed its position could be imprisoned.”[7] This in-turn, focused on those of the press who disagreed with the president and other government officials. 

 

 

Media debates

The Democratic-Republican press saw both acts as limiting the “rights of foreigners who were more likely to vote for them.”[8]They believed that the Federalists were attempting to silence the opposition by passing both laws. The Federalist press disagreed and saw them as “protecting the union from internal instability and treats.”[9] That it “gave juries the right to decide what printed material was hurtful or not.”[10] Adams himself never pursued the Alien and Sedition Acts.[11] He did not sign them into law without careful consideration, he did so having felt support for them by the American people.  This however, would come back to hurt him. Members of the press like Benjamin Franklin Bach wrote in his newspaper that the President had used an “unconstitutional exercise of power”[12] and was charged for insulting the president.  At the same time Thomas Cooper of the Pennsylvania Gazette and David Frothingham of the New York Argus were both convicted of speaking against the government and imprisoned.[13]

Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans would campaign in 1800 against these acts of what they saw as abuse by the federal government. During the election of 1800, the Federalist Party had fractured over disagreements between Adams and its leader Alexander Hamilton. Adams’ dismissal of the standing army, which he believed was no longer needed, angered Hamilton and others. Adams had also refused to take a strong federal stance during Fries Rebellion against Hamilton’s wishes.[14] The result was that Adams lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. Adams refused to attend Jefferson’s inauguration, being the first of four presidents to do so. Adams’ legacy is often seen as negative because of the Alien and Sedition Acts and his refusal to support France. However, he followed the stance of George Washington by keeping the United States neutral. The media hated him for this and called him every name imaginable. However, during the early days of the republic, Adams worked to preserve the nation and to make sure that it would be given a chance to survive and prosper as the founding fathers had wished. It is hard to say what would have happened if he had done the opposite and supported the French. The United States would have found itself in another war not so long after another. It was still new and fragile, Adams knew this and worked to pursue peace by a show of force in order to give the United States a fighting chance. 

                  

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

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


[1] David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 485. 

 

[2] Ibid, 498.

[3] Ibid, 498.

[4] Ibid, 485.

[5] Jackie Mansky, “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News’: It’s been part of the conversation as far back as the birth of the free press,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/age-old-problem-fake-news-180968945/ [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

 

 

[6] “The Presidency of John Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts,” Khan Academy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/creating-a-nation/a/presidency-of-john-adams [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[7] Ibid, “The Alien and Sedition Acts.”

[8] Mansky, “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News.”

[9] Ibid. 

[10] Ibid. 

[11] C. James Taylor, “John Adams: Impact and Legacy,” The Miller Center, http://millercenter.org/president/adams/impact-and-legacy [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[12] Eric P. Robinson, “Another President Who Took On ‘Fake News,’” South Carolina Press, https://scpress.org/another-president-who-took-on-fake-news/ [assessed January 12, 2021].

 

[13] Ibid. 

[14] C. James Taylor, “John Adams: Impact and Legacy.”

The Italian sculptor, painter, architect, and poet Michelangelo was born in Caprese, a hill town not far from Florence, in 1474. The town was located only six miles away from a marble quarry that provided local sculptors with their life blood for many years. It was to flow through Michelangelo’s veins stronger than any other. One particular chunk of marble, though destined for greatness, began its journey in 1463 when Agostino di Duccio was commissioned to create a sculpture of the Biblical David.

Douglas Reid explains.

A 19th century photo of Michelangelo’s state of David. This was when the statue was still outside the Palazzo Vecchio. Taken by John Brampton Philpot.

A 19th century photo of Michelangelo’s state of David. This was when the statue was still outside the Palazzo Vecchio. Taken by John Brampton Philpot.

Marble was provided from the famous quarry in Carrara, a marble mine close to Caprese. The combination of marble and Agostino soon waned. The sculptor abandoned the commission and the statue three years later in 1466. In three years all he had achieved was beginning to shape the legs. It was time to try again. Enter one Antonio Rossollino. His stewardship was to be even shorter. This time the block of marble was to lie unattended for 26 years. During this dry time the marble was so neglected the outline of an Apollo was pressed, in ignoble fashion, face down to the ground. It looked much the same as a contemporary hockey goaltender face down, scrambling to find the puck. An expensive hunk of marble had lain fallow too long.    

 

Michelangelo is chosen

The Operai were determined to find an artist who could take this large piece of marble and transform it into a finished piece of art. They ordered the block of stone, which they called the giant, raised to its feet. Leonardo, among others, was consulted, and it was Michelangelo who convinced the Operai that he deserved the commission. Michelangelo began carving the statue early in the morning of September 13, 1501. He would work on it between 1501 and 1504.

David was installed close to the Palazzo Vecchio. It took four days to move the statue half a mile from Michelangelo’s workshop to the Piazza della Signoria. Later that summer a sling and tree stump support were gilded, and the figure was given a gilded loin-garland.

In 1873, the statue of David was removed from the piazza, to protect it from damage, and displayed in the Accademia Gallery, Florence. More recent times have brought grief. In 1991, Piero Cannata, an artist who the police described as unwell, attacked the statue with a hammer he had concealed in his jacket. He later claimed that a 16th century Venetian painter’s model had ordered him to do so. Later testing confirmed that Piero had mental health issues. The height of Michelangelo’s masterpiece is 16 feet and it checks in at 16 tons. Still, many tourists believe they have spotted a flaw in assessing David’s hands. They do look too large, and in fact they are too large – at ground level but original plans called for David to be lifted to the Church’s roof line and hands are foreshortened at height. 

 

Where David looks

In fact, where a Renaissance sculpture is placed is revealing. For that matter, so is the Medici family. And you will notice a steady orange glare emanates from David. It is like the steady fire from the eye of a tiger. The spectator feels as much as he feels the tension of the moment. This is because wherever the statue is placed, whether indoors or outdoors, it is always facing south. This is because Rome is south, as is the Medici family. Each of which is south of Florence. David is staring down the Romans.

 To understand this you have to understand the history of the Italian peninsula. Tuscany is an important province in the North and blonde Tuscans are not rare. Southern Italians are generally of darker complexions. Italy was poorer in the South and consequently the great majority of Italian migrants to North America are from the southern parts of Italy. Ergo, the rest of us believe all Italians have dark hair and olive skin. This rivalry can be seen on the soccer pitch. If, for example, a foreign team is playing against a team from say, Naples, you can count on the Tuscan fans to be cheering for the foreign team. And that is why David’s brilliant eyes are focused as they are. It is time we look at David’s creator.

 

Michelangelo tales

Michelangelo is probably not who you think he is either. In street language Michelangelo was a surly slob. As a youngster he avoided normal schooling and spent virtually all his free time helping older established artists with their painting and their sculpture. His fights with others were numerous. But he clearly showed uncommon ability in both painting and sculpture. He was also an accomplished poet. It seems as though the Deity gave so much to Michelangelo in these that he harbored no other gifts for him. For openers Michelangelo Buonarotti was ugly. His face was gathered round a flattened pug nose. His body was misshapen and ungainly. His clothes were always crinkled – probably because he often slept in them. He routinely scuffled around both artists and art works in a pair of unlaced muddy boots. Not surprising then, to learn that he never married. Like we said he was also surly. 

There is a Michelangelo story that has been handed down which, if not true, should be.  It seems that our hero was walking down a Florence street when he spotted his great rival, Leonardo, walking with friends on the other side. Michelangelo threw some taunts at him. The upshot was one of Leonardo’s friends crossed the street for the purpose of further re-arranging that famous nose. Why do I have the feeling I am writing West Side Story?

 

Conclusion

Some final thoughts on the Michelangelo who matters – that sublime artist who created David. Why do I rate his David over the Pope’s ceiling? The latter is not cut from whole cloth. It is really 12 or so Bible stories sharing the same space. David, by contrast, presents a unified whole. What about Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa? Here the key comparison is one of scope. The Mona Lisa is relatively small. Michelangelo is of Olympian scope. What is more, while the painting took hours to create the sculpture required years.  

A final tale to tell. Here I was standing in a two-hour line-up to see David for the first time when a conversation was commenced with a young lady who was next in line. The conversation went something like this:

 - Have you seen David before?

 - Oh yes.

 - And you are back again?

 - The first time I was here I was over whelmed. At the time I was an economics major. After my visit here I returned home, sold my economic texts and registered in an arts program.

 

I rest my case.

 

What do you think of the author’s view on Michelangelo and the statue of David? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more from Douglas here, with an article on the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The links between modern world history and Biblical times have been considered in many ways over the centuries. And here, Daniel L. Smith looks at how history could be taught with reference to the Bible, suggesting the evidence for links to the Tower of Babel and long-standing human practices.

Illustration of the Tower of Babel, published in Turris Babel by Athanasius Kircher.

Illustration of the Tower of Babel, published in Turris Babel by Athanasius Kircher.

The history of original indigenous contact with Europeans should be taught differently, considering the absence of written documentation. It should be done with logic, reasoning, and science of course. The way American society has been taught the history of the world has changed since the start of the 1900s. Creation is what America was originally taught about human beginnings prior to this. So, here is a theory for how the origins of North America could be considered if we were to return to that way of thinking.

“It begins when the Flood subsides. Noah plants a vineyard, makes wine, and falls into a stupor in his tent. Ham . . . sees his father's nakedness and tells his two brothers what has happened.... When Noah wakes up and learns what has happened, he lays a curse not upon Ham but upon Ham's son: 'Accursed be Canaan. He shall be his brothers' meanest slave.' . . . Whizzing forward to the medieval versions we learn more about the nature of Ham's misdeeds. He mocked Noah's nakedness, and invited his brothers to do the same (which they refused). What is more, this is not the first of Ham's transgressions. When they had all been on the Ark together, Noah had insisted that everyone be sexually continent, but Ham, by the aid of a magic demon, slept with his wife…” [1] And the Curse of Ham was in effect.

The Tower of Babel in Mesopotamia was the next “Fall of Man.” The world was a wicked place in the days of Noah. Compared to most European lifestyles they were observed as disgraceful, disgusting, violent, immoral, and unethical societies and in those days, it was something horrific. Dr. David Leston wrote that “archaeologists have unearthed bodies of people who lived in Mesopotamia, they have found evidence that cannibalism was practiced. In short, this was a very brutal era, in which humanity showed little to no regard for one another.” [2]

He goes on to mention that in “January 1996 National Geographic did a comparison between rodeo riders and their injuries, and skeletons uncovered from the time of Noah. They found striking similarities between the injuries of the two groups, suggesting that this was a very violent society. When people reject God and the boundaries and purposes that He has created for them, they become a law unto themselves, and society becomes weaker and more dangerous.” [3] The net results are often the same - anarchy and a violent world. So, God flooded the world and spared the only honest and Godly man alive at the time. It was Noah who God gave the task of rebuilding civilization.

 

After the flood

It was right after the Flood that people would repopulate the Fertile Crescent (the Middle East). This was a very fertile and agriculturally productive area which was developed quickly and fought over heavily. One of humankind’s early technological developments was the ability to design, manipulate materials and make structures such as buildings. It was mankind’s obligation from God to subdue the earth. He ultimately gave mankind all the faculties necessary to create great constructions. However, in man’s rebellion against God, this gift was used in ways to honor men and not Him—such as The Tower of Babel. This attempt at building a ziggurat mega-structure was humankind's next attempt at playing God. 

 

Above all else

In Genesis 11, the tower planners said: “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” The planners of course were referring to making a name for mankind above God’s name. God saw this ability of men to centralize power effectively for the purposes of glorifying themselves. He then—in an instant—created world languages to confuse the masses and dispersed them globally. This is where dispersion across the globe took effect.

The evidence offered by National Geographic parallels ancient cannibalism to what we see in Native North America (and globally). It makes sense that at dispersion why humankind had kept their basic tribal customs alive. Cannibalism was a custom and ritual that was carried on and practiced by indigenous peoples since the beginnings… hence, the “Curse of Ham.” [4] Marshall Sahlins, an anthropologist, viewed cannibalism as a variety of symbolism, cosmology, rituals, and traditions. [5]

In this way, the theory that the Portuguese in North Africa in the early 15th century had cannibalistic tendencies makes sense. Consider the technological example of human civilization and human capital. In all, there was no major advancement of “civilization” until the mid-15th century - the time after the printing press was invented by Gutenberg. Europe was still shut into Medieval thinking. It was still the Dark Ages.

There has been scientific evidence, as suggested earlier, that makes cannibalism very widespread and indeed an ancient tribal global human practice. This would make sense considering the religious and socio-political foundations at that time. [8] It was part of the animistic tribal lifestyle that was inherited by the first generation of those original peoples dispersed at the Tower of Babel. [9] This has been carried well into modern times.

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

References

1. Braude, Benjamin. "The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods." The William and Mary Quarterly 54, no. 1 (1997), 103. doi:10.2307/2953314.

2. Dr. Leston, Stephen, and Christopher D. Hudson. "From Creation to the Tower of Babel | The Age of Noah." In The Bible in World History: How History and Scripture Intersect, 31. Uhrichsville: Barbour Pub, 2011.

3. Ibid. p. 32.

4. "DNA and Native Americans." Book of Mormon Evidence. Last modified October 16, 2019. https://bookofmormonevidence.org/dna-and-native-americans/.

5. Harris, Marvin. "‘Cannibals and Kings’: An Exchange." The New York Review of Books. Last modified November 21, 2015. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1979/06/28/cannibals-and-kings-an-exchange/.

6. Freud, Sigmund. "Totem and Taboo; Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics." Internet Archive. Accessed December 14, 2020. https://archive.org/stream/totemtabooresemb00freu.

7. Allina, Eric. "The Zimba, the Portuguese, and Other Cannibals in Late Sixteenth-century Southeast Africa." Journal of Southern African Studies 37, no. 2 (2011), 211-227. doi:10.1080/03057070.2011.579433.

8. Helmenstine, Ph.D, Anne M. "What You Need to Know About Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy." ThoughtCo. Accessed December 14, 2020. https://www.thoughtco.com/mad-cow-disease-overview-602185.

9. Genesis 6:5 & 6:6, The Holy Bible.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

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.

In part 2, we look at the second Mughal Emperor, Humayun. He reigned from 1530-1540 and again from 1555-1556. He led a constant battle to maintain his father’s empire, in part due to a request from his father. Khadija Tauseef explains.

If you missed it you can read part one in the series on the first Mughal Emperor Babur here.

The second Mughal emperor, Humayun. This a detail of a miniature from the Baburnama, 1590s.

The second Mughal emperor, Humayun. This a detail of a miniature from the Baburnama, 1590s.

Humayun was the most beloved son of the Emperor Babur and his favorite wife Maham Begum, born to them on March 6, 1508. The prince was his father’s favorite. When Humayun fell gravely ill, and many believed that only God could save him, an Amir suggested offering something of value in exchange for the prince’s health. It was at this moment that Babur offered his own life in exchange for his son’s. And so, the story goes that Babur’s condition began to worsen while Humayun started to get better. Ultimately in 1530, Babur passed away and left the throne to Humayun. However, there was one piece of advice that Babur gave to Humayun before his death that would cause many problems in Humayun’s reign.

 

Humayun Rule

Babur wanted to conquer new territory; thus, he paved the way for the creation of the Mughal Empire. During his conquests Babur would conquer territory and, in order to sustain control, he would leave his heir in charge. From the beginning Babur had decided that Humayun would be the one who would succeed to the throne after Babur’s death. Unfortunately, Humayun did not have his father’s spirit and he failed to keep the empire intact for long. A key reason for this was that Babur had asked Humayun to do nothing that would harm his brothers. 

Thus, in order to ensure that his brothers would be happy, he decided to assign territories to them as Zeenut Zaid explains:

“Under the tradition of appanage rule, Humayun conceded control of Badakhshan to Sulaiman, of Kabul to Kamran, and gave large districts in India to two of his other brothers to administer”

 

Shortly after Humayun had bestowed them the territories, Kamran rose and asserted full independent control over Kabul and Punjab. Humayun, bound by his father’s command, could do nothing to stop his brothers. So, weakened by sibling rivalries, the difficult task of defending and consolidating his father’s conquests in the north of India fell to him. The biggest threat came in the shape of powerful Afghan warriors.

 

Mughal Rule hanging by a thread

Humayun attempted to conquer the Sultanate of Gujarat in a five-year campaign, it was here that he first came up against Sher Khan Sur; an Afghan commander who had been rapidly consolidating his power and eventually became the leader of the Afghans. Humayun fought two battles against Sher Khan but lost both. Humayun fled from his adversaries to Sindh, where for seven months he laid siege to Sehwan, without success. It was at this time that Humayun’s allies began abandoning him. 

It was in Sindh that he met Hamida, a fourteen-year old girl of Persian descent. It was from this union that his son Akbar was born. Unable to make progress in India, Humayun fled to Iran with his new wife by his side. It was in Iran that Humayun met Shah Tahmasp, a man who would provide the Mughal king with support to recapture his kingdom. While Humayun had been wandering he had also been reacquainted with Bayram Khan, one of his Babur soldiers. With the help of his new allies, Humayun marched on India determined to take back his father’s empire. This time his brothers would not be spared; their territories would be reclaimed for the Mughal Empire. 

Kamran was the only sibling who continued to create problems for Humayun. Therefore, although he couldn’t bring himself to kill his brother, he did have him blinded. Humayun had regained the Mughal Empire that his father had conquered, but unfortunately before he could consolidate his rule, he died. A year after seizing back control, Humayun had been in his study and it was here that he slipped and fell from the stairs, resulting in his untimely death. Humayun left behind his 12 year old son, Akbar, who inherited the turbulent and uncertain empire of the Mughals.

 

Humayun the Astrologer

Unlike most rulers, Humayun arranged his entire life according to the astrological signs, something which was most unusual for the time. Even though many other Mughals also believed in the power of the stars, Humayun took his obsession to the next level. As Michael H. Fisher explains:

“He identified each weekday with an astral body, himself wearing self-designed robes of the conforming color while conducting the corresponding imperial functions. For instance, on Tuesday, identified with the astrological planet Mars, Humayun wore red garments, sat ‘on the throne of wrath and vengeance,’ and directed the sentencing of each criminal and war-captive to imaginative punishments, guided by Humayun’s own inspired insight into the otherwise hidden essence of the prisoner and his alleged deeds. Humayun ordered his tents to be symbolically made in twelve sections, each representing a zodiac sign.” 

 

Humayun’s reliance upon the zodiac signs can even be seen in the way that he arranged his government. Fisher explains:

“In another scheme, he divided the branches of his administration according to the prime natural elements: fire (the military), air (his household), water (irrigation) and earth (buildings and lands). Each branch’s officials were to wear robes of the corresponding color.”

 

The courtiers would be sorted into these administrative divisions according to their zodiac sign and its corresponding element. However, this system may have been the reason why Humayun suffered greatly in his life. Relying upon the zodiac, many people who may not have been fit for a certain role may have been assigned tasks that didn’t suit them. Humayun’s brothers were aware of this weakness and that’s partly why they choose to take advantage of this and rebel against their brother. At the same time Humayun was faced with the Afghan threat led by Sher Khan, who would later take the title of Sher Shah Suri.

 

What do you think of Humayun’s life? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Khadija’s article on “The Fascinating History of Lahore Fort in Pakistan” here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post