Japanese Attacks on the USA in World War 2: Beyond Pearl Harbor

While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II is well known, most people are less familiar with other Japanese attacks on US soil in World War II. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about attacks on California and Oregon, and the occupation of Alaska.

U.S. soldiers fire mortar shells onto a Japanese position during the Battle of Attu in 1943. Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

The USA decided to join World War II because of two major factors: the well- known attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s war declaration on December 11, 1941. In addition, in 1942, Japan achieved some strategic gains by launching some lesser-known attacks on the continental United States. The Japanese were an effective Axis Power in part as they occupied a U.S. territory. Additionally, their attacks were not only limited to Hawaii. They also attacked California, Oregon, and Alaska.

The Japanese attack on the U.S. military Base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was devastating. The attack killed 2,008 Navy personnel, killed 109 U.S Marines, killed 218 U.S. Army Soldiers, and killed 68 civilians, for a total death toll of 2,403 people ([1]). The Japanese military strike also sunk the American Battleships Arizona and Oklahoma, the target ship Utah, and the Destroyers Cassin and Downes (1). The Japanese attack destroyed 96 Army Aircraft, and 92 Navy Planes, for total planes destroyed at 188 (1). The Japanese also lost 29 planes and five submarines during the raid (1). 

Attacks on California and Oregon

In 1942 the Japanese military launched some attacks though while not as successful as Pearl Harbor, did achieve some gains for the Japanese. On February 22, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-17 Submarine shelled the area of  Ellwood City California near Santa Barbara, California ([2]). The attack by the I-17  lasted 20 minutes and only damaged a pier and oil well derrick near Santa Barbara California([3]). The I-17 attack did result in a shell exploding near an oil well causing about $500 in damage to a catwalk, some pumping equipment, and did create ‘invasion fears’ along the West Coast (2). A U.S. army soldier named Captain Bernard Hagen was wounded while trying to deactivate one of the fuses from one of the recovered shells from the Japanese I-17 Submarine attack (2). He was awarded the Purple Heart for this act (2).

On June 21, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-25 took up position off the Oregon side of the mouth of Columbia River, and shelled the military base of Fort Stevens ([4]). The I-25 Submarine’s shells fell harmlessly in the sand and scrub around Battery Russell, damaging only the baseball diamond backstop and a power line(4). On the dates of September 9, 1942 and September 29, 1942, the Japanese Submarine I-25 launched an aircraft which conducted a single bombing raid in Oregon on those respective dates ([5]). The I-25 Submarine Aircraft’s bombing raids only resulted in little damage with only one incendiary bomb exploding to start a small fire on Wheeler Ridge Oregon, approximately four miles southeast of Mount Emily, Oregon (5). Within four hours of the first raid, General John L. DeWitt, commander of the Fourth Army and the Western Defense Command, sent staff officers to Washington D.C to obtain permission, to add a small squadron of P-38 Lightning Fighters to his defense forces (5). The I-25 Submarine aircraft attack on September 9, 1942 forced the U.S. military to divert valuable P-38 Lightning Fighter Aircrafts, which could have been used on other important military fronts.  

Occupation of Alaska

During World War II, the Japanese would occupy Alaska, which in 1959 along with Hawaii would become a U.S. State. The Japanese decided to attack the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, as a means to divert American military resources away from the Japanese attack at Midway in June 1942 ([6]). The Japanese military also decided to occupy the two western Aleutian Islands in order to gain a psychological victory over the Americans by establishing a foothold on North American soil, and also hide their June 1942 Battle of Midway defeat ([7]). The Japanese launched an air attack on Dutch Harbor, Alaska between June 3 and June 4, 1942 which killed 43 Americans ([8]). The Japanese forces invaded and occupied the Aleutian Island of Kiska on June 6, 1942 and the Aleutian Island of Attu on June 7, 1942([9]). Fortunately, Kiska Island was unpopulated, and no civilians suffered under the Japanese occupation of this island ([10]). In contrast on Attu Island, Charles Foster Jones was taken away by the Japanese and never heard from again, while his wife Etta Jones was taken to a Japanese POW Camp in Yokohama, Japan ([11]). Etta Jones would survive World War II and was released on August 31, 1945 (13). In 1942 there were 43 Attu Aleuts, with one of the 43, traditional chief and village elder, John Artumonoff, dying of natural causes at age 56 during the Japanese occupation (12). On September 17, 1942 the Japanese transported 42 Attu Island natives to Japanese POW camps in Japan, of which only 25 Attuans and a surviving baby were repatriated after the war ([12]). The Attuans lost 17 out of the 42 that were transported to Japan, with also four out of five babies that were born in captivity dying at birth (12). The Americans responded to the Aleutian Islands invasion with outrage since this was the first time American soil had been occupied since the War of 1812 (14). Indeed in a nationwide public opinion poll, only 21% of Americans could find Hawaii on a map, while 71% could find Alaska (14). However, there were still some segments of the population who did not know the Aleutians had been invaded (14). More broadly, American war planners were still reeling from the aftermath of the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor (9). 

Retaking of Alaska

On May 11, 1943 the American military forces began the invasion of Attu to help retake Attu Island (15). The battle officially ended on May 30, 1943, when the Americans declared Attu secured after very fierce fighting (9). The widely accepted U.S. casualties from the Battle of Attu, according to the Army Source The Western Hemisphere, Guarding the United States and its Outposts, listed 549 American soldiers dead, 1,148 wounded and 2,100 suffering non-battle injuries (16). On the Island of Attu there were approximately 2,500 Japanese soldiers on Attu Island when the U.S. forces landed  (17). According to Anchorage attorney, Michael McLaughlin, who visited the Attu battlefield on multiple occasions, used multiple sources from the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland, and the records of Camp Tracy, an interrogation center, he came to the following conclusion about the Japanese causalities (16). McLaughlin claimed that 28 Japanese soldiers were captured after the Battle of Attu, and one an officer was killed while trying to escape, which reduces the number of Japanese who went into captivity from 29 to 28 (16).  This means that the Japanese suffered 2,471 died in battle, and one died while trying to escape, which totals to 2,472 men died out of an approximate garrison of 2,500 men during and after the campaign on Attu. This means the Japanese garrison on Attu suffered a 98.88% fatality rate.

The story was completely different on Kiska. On July 28, 1943 the Japanese military, under the cover of fog, evacuated the entire garrison of 5,183 men off of Kiska Island in “Operation Ke” (18). The reason why the Japanese evacuated troops off Kiska Island was as a means of reinforcing other Japanese occupied territories (21). The Americans came to Kiska Island on August 15, 1943 and found the island deserted (9). On August 24, 1943 the Americans declared Kiska Island secured and thus the Aleutian Islands campaign ended (9).

Later attacks on America

In 1944-45 the Japanese military used a secret weapon to attack America. On November 3, 1944 the Japanese military launched fusen bakudan or balloon bombs which were carried to America by the Pacific jet stream (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were armed with four incendiaries and one thirty-pound high explosive bomb (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were designed to cause damage and spread panic in the continental United States of America (19). The weapon achieved its greatest success on May 5, 1945 when an explosion from a Japanese balloon bomb killed six people in Bly, Oregon. Among those was Elsie Mitchel, who was five months pregnant (19). They were the only Americans killed by enemy action on the continental USA during World War II (19). Even though Bly locals knew about the attack they adopted a code of silence by military order and reported that the victims of the tragedy died of “an explosion of undetermined origin” (20). Even though the military did release information about the attack at the end of May 1945, its impact was not widely known (20). The reason for this is because the impact of the Pearl Harbor Attack dominated the history textbooks for decades to come, which caused news of the attack to not be widely known until recently. These various attacks make Imperial Japan the only Axis Power to launch attacks against American territory and the only one to occupy American soil during World War II! 

In conclusion, the closely guarded, secretive and less publicized attacks by the Japanese and their subsequent invasion of the Alaskan Territory have now been revealed. Truly the Japanese were the most effective Axis Power to face the USA! 

What do you think of the World War II Japanese attacks on US soil? Let us know below.

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.

[1] Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 72. 

[2] Hackett, Bob and Kinsepp Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com/I-17.htm

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 68. 

[4] Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005. Last corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011.  History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

[5] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 110. 

[6] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  123.

[7] Cloe, John Haile.  Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service- 2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 23. 

[8] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  124 to 125. 

[9] “Battle of the Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th, 2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

[10] Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mari. “75 years later, ‘forgotten’ WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com . Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

[11] Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Aunt Phil’s Trunk. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

13 “Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POWs”  www.lastlettersfromattu.com Accessed on February 15th 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

[12] Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017.  https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 32 to 33. 

14 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 25.

15 Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1980. 136. 

16 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-The National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf . 113. 

17 “Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st, 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu . 

18 “Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm . 

21 Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming An Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Last Modified July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com . Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-300-dead-wounded/

19 Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanese-baloon-bombs-fu-go . 

20 Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-balooons-70-years-ago . 

Bibliography

“Battle of Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th,2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

“Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st , 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002.

Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming an Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Modified on July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskandpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-left-300-dead-wounded/

Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com//I-17.htm

“Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm

Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-baloons-70-years-ago

“Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POW’s”. www.lastlettersfromattu.com. Accessed on February 15tth, 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified  August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https:/www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanaese-baloon-bombs-fu-go 

Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.

Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mar. “75 years later, “forgotten” WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/vtereans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005.  Last Corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011. History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978.

William Dampier: A Very Important 17th Century Explorer

William Dampier (1651-1715) was an important British explorer in the 17th and into the 18th century. He was arguably the greatest explorer of his own time and introduced many words to the English language. Jan Rose explains.

A portrait of William Dampier. By Thomas Murray.

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge said he was a genius and a man of exquisite mind. He has 1,000 entries in the Oxford English Dictionary and introduced barbecue, chopsticks, cashew and kumquat to the language. All were seen or used during his three circumnavigations of the globe, 200,000 miles, in an age when ocean travel was a life and death affair.

William Dampier, adventurer, hydrographer, naturalist - and pirate, was the pre-eminent adventurer of his day. Born in 1651 at East Coker in the western part of England, the second son of a tenant farmer, Dampier put to sea at age 21. Over the next 35 years of travel to five continents his curiosity, analytical mind and acute powers of observation would make lasting contributions in numerous fields. 

He was perhaps the only truly important maritime explorer between Francis Drake of the 16th century and Capt. James Cooke in the 18th. Before piracy Dampier labored in Jamaica on a sugar plantation, harvesting logs in a mangrove swamp before deciding his way to fortune was by joining buccaneers who raided Spanish ships and Spanish-controlled coastal settlements. The life was as adventuresome as it was dangerous. To attack the town of Santa Maria, for example, the pirates had to travel overland across the Isthmus of Panama through snake and insect infested jungles and swamps. Through the years, regardless of location, Dampier always carried pen, ink, paper, and a waterproof tube to protect his notes.

He was the first to deduce that wind determines ocean currents and the first to draw wind maps. In response to an appeal from the Royal Society for sailors to provide information to improve sea travel, he not only furnished new and accurate information but also suggested theories about how his data should be interpreted. The Society summarized his work in a publication and Dampier was invited to address members, an accolade for a man with basic education.

Dampier proved a gifted navigator, pioneering new sea routes, pinpointing new lands with unsurpassed accuracy and giving tips on the best approach to avoid obstacles like shoals and reefs. His A Discourse of Trade Winds, Breezes, Storms, Seasons of the Year, Tides and Currents, written over many years by Dampier, was recommended by Admiral Horatio Nelson to lower officers, and was in use by the Royal Navy well into the 20th century.

Dampier’s travels, from the Caribbean to the Pacific, allowed him to make comparisons and contrasts between various areas of the world. Based on his observations of Brazilian waterfowl he introduced both the word and the concept of sub-species, a term borrowed by Charles Darwin in his Origin of the Species; Darwin referred to Dampier’s books as a mine of information. Possibly the first Briton to set foot in Australia, predating Cook by 80 years, Dampier first visited in 1688, and again in 1699 as captain of the Roebuck. He brought back to England species of flora and fauna sandwiched between book pages, botanical notes and drawings, and descriptions of wildlife.

Three books written in accomplished prose, A New Voyage Round the World, published in 1697, Voyages and Descriptions in 1699, and A Voyage to New Holland, published in two parts in 1703 and 1709, met with rave reviews from critics and public alike. Opening new vistas to his countrymen, his books promised things “wholly new” and they did not disappoint. Their influence led Jonathan Swift to write Gulliver’s Travels and Daniel Defoe to write Robinson Crusoe.

Dampier died in 1715.

What do you think of William Dampier? Let us know below.

Pope Leo XIII: The Pope who Drank Cocaine Wine

There has been a long and varied line of Popes throughout history. But have you heard about the Pope who drank cocaine wine? Sam Kelly explains.

Mariani wine as drank by Pope Leo XIII.

To people who are not devout Catholics, the history of the Popes might seem dull and uninteresting. But it is filled with bizarre and fascinating characters, starting with the first pope, St. Peter, who was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy of dying in the same way as Jesus. And who can forget colorful characters like Pope Stephen VI, who dug up his predecessor’s corpse, put it on trial, found it guilty, hacked off its fingers, and threw it in the Tiber River? Or Pope John XII, who murdered several people in cold blood, gambled with church offerings, and was killed by a man who found him in bed with his wife? Or Pope Urban VI, who complained he didn’t hear enough screaming when the cardinals who conspired against him were being tortured? Or Pope Alexander VI of the notorious Borgia crime family, who bribed his way into the job, engaged in a litany of corruption including nepotism, murder and orgies, went on to father nine illegitimate children, and whose corpse was left unattended for so long that it became so bloated and swollen it couldn’t fit into its coffin?

There have been plenty of good Popes, too, and one of these was Pope Leo XIII. One of the longest-serving Popes, he remained the head of the Catholic Church until he died at age 93. He was a forward-thinking intellectual whose goal was to reinvigorate the Church, at a time when many Europeans felt it had become irrelevant to their lives because it was stuck in the past. Leo sought to emphasize that religion was compatible with modern life. He spoke passionately about workers having a right to fair wages, safe working conditions, and the importance of labor unions. He was a skilled international diplomat who succeeded in improving relations with a host of countries including Russia, Germany, France and the United States, and he wholeheartedly embraced science and technology. He was the first Pope whose voice was recorded on audio, and the first to be filmed by a prototype movie camera (which he blessed while it was filming him).  

The Most Productive Pope of All Time

But what he is best known for is how insanely productive he was. He wrote more encyclicals than any other Pope in history. An encyclical is a letter from the Pope to all of the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, but more importantly, it is the way the Pope announces his official view on important topics. Encyclicals are deep, thoughtful and expansive, which means they tend to be lengthy. Since the beginning of time, there have been 300 papal encyclicals, and Leo XIII wrote 88 of them. That’s right, this one man wrote 30% of all encyclicals. He wrote on topics big and small – huge concepts such as liberty, marriage and immigration, but he also wrote 11 encyclicals focused wholly on the subject of rosaries. Scholars have always been amazed by his prodigious output, and bear in mind he was an extremely old man, serving as Pope well into his 80s and 90s. Yet he remained a tireless workhorse. Where did he find the energy?

It was probably the cocaine.

Popes have always loved wine. Forward-thinker that he was, Leo XIII brought something new to the mix. He drank wine laced with cocaine. This was not some home-brewed mix he created himself; it was an actual product you could buy in stores – a magical elixir known as Vin Mariani. For Leo, its primary appeal was the energy it gave him. It had a powerful kick that kept the Pope perpetually in the mood to philosophize and pontificate, which is probably what allowed him to write those 88 encyclicals in 25 years.

Leo absolutely loved the stuff and wasn’t shy about saying so. He proclaimed to everyone that he carried the salubrious libation with him at all times in a personal hip flask – “to fortify himself when prayer was insufficient.” Yes, he actually said those words. This being the 19th century, cocaine was neither illegal nor stigmatized. It was viewed with wonder and awe by the European medical establishment. Vin Mariani was seen not only as a health tonic, but as a prestigious and sophisticated beverage on par with a fine vintage wine.  

Many Famous Drinkers of Cocaine Wine

Many famous people were Vin Mariani drinkers. Thomas Edison said it helped him stay awake longer. Ulysses S. Grant drank it while writing his memoirs. Emile Zola wrote testimonials that were reprinted in Vin Mariani advertisements. Even Queen Victoria was a big fan.

Pope Leo loved Mariani-brand cocaine wine so much that he decided he must meet and properly honor the man who invented it. He summoned Angelo Mariani to Rome and presented him with an official Vatican gold medal to congratulate him for his remarkable achievement in the field of cocaine vintnery.

At this point, you are probably thinking I have gone too far. A pope who loved cocaine is a funny idea, and maybe there are some dubious rumors scattered around the Internet that Pope Leo enjoyed the taste of cocaine wine, but there’s no actual proof he did so, right? And he certainly didn’t hand out a gold medal to his drug dealer, did he? After all, it’s not like he appeared in a full-page advertisement touting the benefits of cocaine wine…

No, I’m lying, he totally did.

Angelo Mariani printed up posters advertising the gold medal he received from the Pope. The poster features a huge smiling image of Pope Leo, and next to his picture there is text which reads: “His Holiness the Pope writes that he has fully appreciated the beneficial effects of this Tonic Wine, and has forwarded to Mr. Mariani as a token of his gratitude a gold medal bearing his august effigy.” That’s right, the Pope himself knowingly appeared in a full-page advertisement for cocaine wine.  

Things were simpler back then. 

Now read Sam’s article on Queen Victoria and the First Opium War here.

References

Drew Kann, “Eight of the Worst Popes in Church History,” CNN.com, April 15, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/europe/catholic-church-most-controversial-popes/index.html

Ishaan Tharoor, “7 Wicked Popes, and the Terrible Things They Did,” The Washington Post, September 24, 2015,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/24/7-wicked-popes-and-the-terrible-things-they-did/

“Leo XIII,” Britannica, updated February 26, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leo-XIII

James Hamblin, “Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda,” The Atlantic, January 31, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/

Wyatt Redd, “Vin Mariani – The Cocaine-Laced Wine Loved by Popes, Thomas Edison, and Ulysses S. Grant,”Allthatsinteresting.com, January 31, 2018, https://allthatsinteresting.com/vin-mariani

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy - The Modern Role of the First Lady

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy took quite different directions when they were the First Ladies of America. However, they both had a lasting impact on the role. David M. Huff explains.

Jackie Kennedy at the Taj Mahal in 1962.

Jacqueline Kennedy once said, "Everything in the White House must have a reason for being there. It would be sacrilege merely to 'redecorate' it — a word I hate. It must be restored, and that has nothing to do with decoration. That is a question of scholarship."

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "You must do the thing you think you cannot do". 

The modern view of the president's wife in American political life was intrinsically shaped by two extraordinary women: Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy. Astute, engaging, and well-educated, both women left an indelible imprint on the American cultural, social, and political consciousness. Eleanor championed social and humanitarian reform and Jacqueline taught a nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense fashion with a commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities.

Although they were different stylistically, both First Ladies shared similar characteristics. Both Eleanor and Jacqueline were born into wealth and privilege. Each woman experienced an unsettled, turbulent, and lonely childhood. Both loved books, history, and leaned toward introspection. Eleanor's mother died when she was eight and Jacqueline endured the tragic ordeal of divorce. In addition, both emerged as enlightened patricians, whose fundamental aims, motivations, and personal convictions differed from their contemporaries. Moreover, Eleanor and Jacqueline married men who suffered not only from life-threatening illnesses (FDR was stricken with polio and JFK suffered from a failed back and Addison's disease), but whose acts of infidelity served to crystallize a renewed sense of self-awareness and direction within each woman. Each was also private; neither wanted to live initially in the White House. Yet, both women summoned an inner resolve that enabled them to carve out a role, to create a voice, separate and distinct from their husband's.

Differences

Notwithstanding common similarities, differences also existed between these two women. Eleanor displayed an eagerness to embrace Democratic politics and actively engaged with the press. A woman of considerable intelligence, perception, and personal conscience, she traveled throughout the country during the Great Depression delivering speeches and writing her own column, "My Day," which was published five days a week. With insight and understanding, Eleanor wrote about the poor, the dispossessed, those who had been left behind in American society. She was Franklin Roosevelt's "eyes and ears" in regard to the impact that FDR's politics had on the American people.

On the other hand, Jacqueline preferred to avoid the contentious field of politics and the press. Underneath her soft-spoken voice, however, was a woman who possessed a depth of intelligence and a subtle wit along with a passionate conviction for the cultivation of the arts and humanities, particularly among youth. To the role of First Lady, Mrs. Kennedy brought grace, beauty, intelligence, and cultivated taste. Her avid interest in the arts, publicized by press and television, inspired an attention to culture never before evident at a national level. Mrs. Kennedy originally felt the restoration should focus on the White House's early style (it was completed in 1802, then rebuilt in 1817 after being burned to the ground by British troops during the War of 1812). Yet her goals soon expanded to have the restoration reflect the whole history of the presidency.

Art and history

To highlight her artistic and historic accomplishments, Mrs. Kennedy invited artists, writers, Shakespearean actors, ballet groups, musicians, opera singers, and poets to the White House, who spoke with politicians and statesmen. An eclectic, multicultural, and strong-minded individual, Mrs. Kennedy spoke Italian, French, and Spanish fluently. She not only advocated youth concerts to encourage the next generation of musicians, but also felt that the White House rooms were furnished with pieces of furniture that lacked distinction and the history they should, in a place as special as the Executive Mansion. As a result, Mrs. Kennedy created The Fine Arts Committee with Henry Francis du Pont as the chairman.

Furthermore, she requested Congress to declare the White House an historic landmark, founded The White House Historical Association to protect, preserve, and provide public access to the rich history of the White House and wrote and edited the first White House guidebook, which was sold to tourists. The proceeds from the book were used to help finance her restoration of the White House with historic antiques. To that end, on February 14, 1962, Mrs. Kennedy took America on a televised tour of the renovated White House. In addition, working with Rachel Lambert Mellon, Jackie also supervised the redesign and replanting of the Rose Garden and the East Garden, pushed for the creation of a National Cultural Arts Center (now known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts), urged President John F. Kennedy to create a national department of culture in America and collaborated with architect John Carl Warnecke for the historic restoration of Lafayette Square and Pennsylvania Avenue.

To that end, shortly after moving into the White House in 1961, Mrs. Kennedy became intensely interested in plans afoot to redevelop Lafayette Square, opposite their new address at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Several architectural firms, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the General Services Administration were the principal players, and talks centered on the style of new office buildings to be built there. Some camps favored a Beaux Arts structure, others, more modernist. Mrs. Kennedy favored the winning plan that would create a seamless facade of nineteenth-century residences on Jackson Place, the western side of the square. The New Executive Office Building, built during the renovation, is set back from the square and rises unobtrusively above the row of town houses.

Perhaps the greatest difference between these two First Ladies, however, came at the end of their husband's administrations: Franklin slipped away from Eleanor as a result of a cerebral hemorrhage, while Jackie endured the horror of her husband's brutal assassination.

Lasting impact

Eleanor and Jackie were movers and shakers who played a critical role in the political, social, and cultural times in which they lived. Their extraordinary, yet turbulent lives, brought forth a determined, intriguing, and passionate curiosity that shaped their public persona and actions. Their lives brought meaning to the phrase that adversity builds character. Through tragedy and sorrow, these women learned to adapt, to endure, to develop a will of iron that enabled each woman to bear the burdens that fate dealt them with an uncommon grace. Rather than retreat, they rose to the occasion to create, to summon creative impulses that they saw within themselves and in turn, utilized them to benefit American society.

Eleanor and Jackie also represented an evolving change in the role that women played in politics. Instead of walking in their husband's shadow, both women emerged with strong personalities who played an instrumental role not only in their husband's presidencies, but also in shaping the hearts and minds, hopes and aspirations, of generations of Americans. As a result, the torch they lit provided a beacon for a more visible, independent, and substantive role for future First Ladies, such as Betty Ford, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Michelle Obama.

Such historic figures in a great civilization, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, can help to illuminate, cultivate, and to summon the reservoir of talent and individual ingenuity that resides within our people. In the American experience, we, as a nation, as a people, have shown that we can meet challenges head-on. Brave and passionate, steadfast and undeterred, we are a nation of pioneers, gifted with the priceless qualities of depth of personality and strength of character.

Conclusion

In sum, I believe so strongly the American people should be reminded about pivotal historical figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, who each played a vital role in shaping our history. I think there is a yearning on the part of the American people not only for political change, but also for enterprising individuals who would exert a positive influence on American society. Sometimes we have to look to our past to find individuals who elevated our civilization to new heights. If we do not understand our past, we cannot understand our country's future. Our country's youth, who are America's future, need to understand that Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy believed they could make a positive difference not only in their own personal lives, but also in the social-economic and cultural fabric of American society.  Since Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy made a difference during their generation, why shouldn't we expect those in a position of influence to make a difference in the difficult and turbulent time in which we live?

Finally, Eleanor and Jackie's dedication to personal development and sense of obligation can best be summed up in a poem by Robert Frost, "Choose Something Like A Star."

...It asks a little of us here. It asks of us a certain height, so when at times the mob is swayed to
carry praise or blame too far, we may choose something like a star to stay our minds on and be staid."                                                                        

Let us know your thoughts on the article below.

About the Author

David M. Huff was born in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1968. A violist, he studied with the Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra from 1983-1984. He attended the Interlochen Arts Festival and Interlochen Arts Academy from 1984-1986 and also participated in the Boston University Tanglewood Institute's Youth Program during the summer of 1986. He earned a B.A. in History from West Virginia University and an M.A. in History/Research from West Virginia University. He works in Washington, D.C.

King Henry VIII of England: Did he have trouble trusting people?

King Henry VIII of England (king from 1509 to 1547) is possibly the most well-known British monarch. But how can we see him from a modern perspective? Here, Kerrie Fuller of the The Lost Tapes of History podcast tell us how a modern-day counselor and therapist might evaluate Henry VIII.

Kind Henry VIII of England. Painting by Hans Holbein, 1540.

Much has been written about King Henry VIII and his relationships:  his romantic connections (six marriages and multiple mistresses); his work colleagues (counselors and political advisors such as More, Cromwell and Wolsey); his children (Mary, Elizabeth and Edward as well as the illegitimate ones) and even his family (two brothers, four sisters and parents). But what do they all have in common with him as the central person in all this? I suspect it’s all about trust. Or rather, lack of it.

In my research on Henry for The Lost Tapes of History podcast, I realized that he struggled with relationships of any kind. His psychology was such that he did not fundamentally understand the nature of how healthy relationships work; that is: open and honest communication, mutual respect and affection and most importantly, two-way trust.

I found a checklist online developed by a counselor and therapist to evaluate whether an individual had trust issues and measured Henry against each.

You feel betrayed by people even when there’s no evidence.

His relationship with his first wife, Katherine of Aragon fits the criteria nicely. There was absolutely no evidence that she had done anything that would justify an annulment and the Pope knew that. Henry actually used the word ‘betrayal’ to describe the fact that Katherine had not given him a son. Hardly fair.

You’ve learnt that people can use your feelings against you so you become guarded. 

Thomas Wolsey was a very close friend of Henry for many years, despite the twenty-year age gap. Henry even talks of writing letters to Wolsey ‘in his own hand’ instead of dictating them, showing a closeness between the two. When Wolsey failed to secure the annulment of Henry’s first marriage, he was accused of treason. We can only imagine that Henry was devastated that his friend would not help him when he felt he needed it the most.

Innocent mistakes are blown up out of all proportion. 

Anne Boleyn, Henry’s second wife, made the innocent mistake of being too intelligent and too eager for reform of the church. If you don’t believe the charges of adultery and incest, then her only ‘mistake’ was not giving Henry a son. Henry had several options open to him to remove Anne as his wife but the trial and beheading has a touch of the ‘over-reaction’ about them.

You finally trust someone and then you lose them. You vow never to trust again. 

Jane Seymour, Henry’s third wife, seemed perfect. Quieter and more placatory than Anne, she was always going to seem more suitable as a wife. But she died shortly after childbirth and so Henry was left alone once more. Had she not died, he may have lived with her happily ever after.

You may be seen as self-righteous, impossible to please or unforgiving. 

Thomas Cromwell would agree with this. Cromwell did what Henry asked and Henry still wasn’t happy with the result. His role in securing an ugly wife for Henry’s fourth marriage was a deal breaker.

Because you can’t share your real self with others, you feel lonely and have few close friends.

The Duke of Norfolk said ‘Henry was so troubled in his brain that he didn’t trust anyone alive’. Everyone knew it. One of his closest friends Charles Brandon ruined the friendship by marrying Henry’s sister. You’d think he would have been happy to have him as a brother-in-law but no.

Your lack of trust can evolve at times into full-blown paranoia.

When looking for a new wife, Henry suggested that the potential women parade up and down in front of him so he could look them over. When the French ambassador objected and suggested that someone else interviewed them in private, Henry said ’By God, I trust no one but myself’. I suspect delegation was harder for Henry the older he got.

Your relationships with others are shallow and non-threatening.

Mistresses would fit the bill here but actually his marriage to Katherine Howard, wife number 5 would too. She was a young, pretty thing – it can’t get shallower than that. I don’t think she would agree that it was non-threatening; she lost her head. That’s pretty threatening.

You suffer from depression because you feel isolated and trapped in a world that you don’t want to be in.

I think the older Henry got, the more angry and depressed he became. His physical energy and health got worse and worse, which tends to lead to depression. And you can’t get more trapped than being King 24-7 and not being able to take a holiday from the responsibility. His last wife, Katherine Parr was nurturing and caring towards him, which is what he needed. He also died knowing that his son Edward would become King after him, which would have eased his mind somewhat.

Henry VIII is a fascinating human being to study. His close relationship with his Mother and poor relationship with his Father also shaped him from a young age and as he was never supposed to be King, only becoming heir when his older brother Arthur died, he must have struggled to cope with the eyes of the world suddenly on him and a weight of responsibility on his shoulders. Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for his mental health, I’m not sure I would have wanted to meet him in person. From afar at a jousting match would have done me fine.

Kerrie Fuller is the creator of the Lost Tapes of History podcast where every week a British monarch is put into a modern context in an attempt to understand them in less than 20 minutes. Henry VIII and the Trust Therapist will be released on the May 4, 2021 and is available from all usual podcast directories.

Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?

In 1920 Britain was granted an official Mandate by the League of Nations to administer the country of Iraq - and ultimately allow it to achieve independence.

The whole affair, which lasted from the end of the First World War to independence in 1932, was largely a failure, with few flattering accounts and obligations often unfulfilled. It is from this point in time that the first underlying signs of declining British power are evidenced, while for Iraq it set a path to a fraught and unstable future.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq.

The War and Occupation

The British presence had been building up in Iraq since 1914 when her forces had removed the Ottomans from the region with domestic support. As soon as the British had expelled the Turks they were making encouraging noises that raised Iraq’s hopes of independence.  

The British, in the words of General Maude and High Commissioner Percy Cox, implied loudly that they came as liberators.  This was welcomed by Iraq, which already had nationalistic aspirations and expectations were raised.

The Ottomans previously allowed levels of autonomy to many areas of Iraq and the noises from the British were encouraging, but what followed was very different and did little to assuage growing Iraqi concerns as the British occupation continued.

The Post War Mandate

The League of Nations appointed the mandate to Britain in 1920 to run Iraq and lead her on the path to self- determination.  In retrospect it resembled a poorly disguised colonialism. 

Iraq offered a geographically strategic position as a potential overland route from Egypt through the Middle East to South East Asia.  Iraq filled a gap of land in the middle of a long run of British possessions. It would provide a useful alternative to the long and arduous sea lanes that had been threatened by submarine warfare.

There was also an urgent need to offset the cost of the war that Britain bore in the region.  The overland route would be safer, quicker, and - more importantly - cheaper as there would be less demand on oil from the navy. Whether this theory was correct or not, the later revolt and the cost of suppressing it made the economic debate moot. By the end of 1920 Britain could see further lost opportunities as her plans to monopolize the oil reserves also met US resistance and generated a reversal of policy.

Nevertheless, another possession in the oil rich region at the time could enhance Britain’s international leverage, and counter French and Russian influence in the region (in May 1920 the Red Army invaded Northern Persia further fuelling Bolshevik expansionist fears).  

Now Britain had the mandate it was the India Office that provided the administration to mobilize it.  It imposed a very prevalent British presence in all aspects of Iraqi life – that would prove very unpopular. 

The Uprising

The uprising that occurred in Iraq in 1920 was fuelled by an unrelenting nationalism that was growing years before the British presence whilst under Ottoman rule.  The very loud and public promises made by the British during the war now looked like they were going to be unfulfilled. Arnold Wilson and other British high commissioners treated peaceful petitions and representatives in a high-handed and often dismissive manner, which no doubt irked these nationalists.  

The various tribes were treated inconsistently, controversial taxes were established, and a questionable plebiscite was orchestrated that favored a British outcome. Much of the country was resentful, as they felt excluded from political decisions.  The India Office imposed colonial rules on all aspects of life that felt more restrictive than that of the Ottomans.

The British responded to the uprising by deploying the full force of the military, with Royal Air Force (RAF) support.  Despite the belief that Churchill was an advocate of the use of poison gas, this was not deployed but the use of the air-force’s bombing tactics was no less brutal than that used by Italy in Abyssinia against poorly equipped tribes.  It was all over very quickly by the end of the year, but it was not an easily fought campaign for the British.

The British had far superior forces at their disposal with the presence of the RAF. This should have put them at a far greater advantage than the less well-equipped tribes.  The revolt was suppressed in a few short months after a brutal response that cost 10,000 Iraqi lives, the bombing of mosques and the burning of villages. There were also defeats and retreats that bloodied the nose of this huge Imperial force. Humiliating examples were the seizing of HMS Firefly and her artillery by the tribes who turned the arsenal on the British and the retreats from Karbala and Najal (to name but two).  It was a humiliating situation for a Great Power.

After counting the cost of the revolt and the continued strain on the finances, Britain began to urgently push for Iraqi independence. When the final tally was counted the uprising cost the exchequer circa £40m and the continued occupation of Iraq would cost circa £20m per annum.  Policy now had to change.  There was then an interim approach in Iraq in the meantime - and that was in the form of a democratic offering of sorts.

The Veneer of Democracy 

It was clear that military intervention would not be enough to keep a sustained peace.  The British needed a friendly Iraqi government that they could still influence and control in the background, whilst at the same time creating a veneer of a democratic government.  In 1921 that friendly pro-British ruler took the form of King Faisal, a man who was in favor with the British for his support during the war.  After his expulsion by the French for his attempt to establish power in Syria he took an offer by the British to head up a ruling government in Iraq. Faisal was not representative of the varied and diverse population - and it would not satisfy the underlying tensions completely.

Meanwhile, the British, with successive high commissioners over this period, still pulled the political strings. Faisal’s new government was shored up by 300 Ottoman officers who fought for his side in the Great War, but a large proportion of the population was still left ignored and dissatisfied.  This discontentment would still bubble under the surface long after the 1932 independence. Iraq was never going to be the stable state that Britain promised under the auspices of the League of Nations. 

Economic Concessions

There are several views on Britain’s intentions with the oil and petroleum reserves that Iraq had.  David Lloyd George wanted to monopolize the oil and petrol reserves for British interests as there was a dependency on US and Mexican oil that was embarrassing to Britain - despite having an abundant and sufficient source with The Turkish Petroleum Company. 

This stance would soon change from a monopolistic policy to one of an open free market by allowing US investment. There were other ways that the oil could serve British interests and that did not necessitate having a monopoly.

The oil revenues would financially support the objectives of the mandate and offset the economic liability she had undertook. Iraq’s own resources would be used but when it came down to the bare facts the Iraqi nation would have no voice in how their own natural resources would be used.

The Conclusion – An empire in decline and a new nation broken

Before the war Iraq was modernizing and progressing into the Industrial world.  The building of the Suez Canal had opened her grain and wool markets to the world.  There was German and British interest in her vast petrol reserves as early as 1907.  The war and the Mandate era had set her far back.

Although Britain was not the originator of the nationalistic fervor it was her heavy handed and brutal response that did little to help Iraq’s future unity and stability, as King Faisal would later comment in his memoirs.

There were ominous signs for Britain also. The Empire was dangerously over-stretched, and cracks were now appearing in Ireland and India as well as Iraq.  Although the idea of Empire was still something the British were proud, other priorities were becoming more apparent on home shores. 

On paper the revolt should have not been as troublesome to suppress for a Great Power such as Britain, with the power of the RAF and mechanized divisions at her disposal to fight the local tribes. Considering the resources, the British had this was not an easily fought campaign, possibly a sign of waning military strength.

The drain on the British Exchequer was not insignificant and the economic situation was bleak at the time. This was something the public purse could not tolerate as Britain had over one million unemployed, the large majority being de-mobilized servicemen. By 1921 unemployment had risen to over two million with several major strikes taking place.  There was no room for troublesome additions to an already troubled Britain.

All these factors contributed to a less that half-hearted commitment to Iraq. By 1932 a poorly produced independence was handed over. There were no winners or favorable outcomes for Iraq but for Britain that small snippet of history held so many signs of the beginnings of imperial decline. 

What do you think of the British Empire and Iraq? Let us know below.

References

David E Omissi – Air Power and Colonial Controls, Manchester University Press 1990

Dr Toby Lodge – The British Mandate in Iraq 1914-32, Institute for Strategic Studies

Amal Vinograv – The 1920 Revolt in Iraq Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 1972

William Shrivers - International Politic and Iraqi Oil 1918-1928, Business History Review 1981 (Pages 517-540)

Judith Yaphe – War and Occupation in Iraq: What Went Right, What Went Wrong?  Middle Eastern Journal 2003, Middle East Institute

Has American Education been Watered Down?

American education has had significant changes since the 19th century. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses the role of the Unitarian Church in the move to a more secular education system and modern-day school textbooks in America.

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

The New England Primer, a key school textbook in 18th century America.

When I investigate societal breaks, I investigate morals, ethics, and presumptions. I also investigate cultural varieties and similarities through behavioral and customary tendencies. With that all being said, I am aware of a break in traditional (what was once known as normal) academic thinking at the break of the 20th century. This thinking spilled over into political discourse. Of course, this started well before that. I wrote about it in an article recently where I mentioned that there was a hairline fracture that split the thinking of American traditionalists and progressive intellectuals.

In the 19th going into the 20th century, the Unitarian Church (a secular "church") was the catalyst. Traditionalists (such as the clergy and church) began to slowly halt providing leadership in our public schools and universities (prior to this was a largely homeschooling education). Harvard was taken over by the Unitarian Church, and as the quality of public education began to decline, Horace Mann (the "father of progressive education") would convince the state of Massachusetts that the best way for education to grow would be to have the government take control, instead of the private sector (such as families and churches). [1]

As traditional American doctrine was neglected, the competing ideology of socialism took off. Karl Marx’s book, which was written in 1844, never had much influence in American society - that was until we had backslid from Christian principles of economics and dabbled even more in greed. Thus, monopolies would form and grow. Wealth was accumulated, instead of employing the extra wealth to meet the needs of the poor and society itself. Self-culture (or individual interest) began to replace the common good of the community. What followed was indoctrination into “self-culture,” a human thought process of “me, myself, and I” which closely follows materialism. To break open a political divide for control and power, there must be a catalyst to enable this cultural shift. Thus, secular humanism was born.

Intercollegiate Socialist Society

Marshall Foster writes that: “in the loft restaurant above Peck’s restaurant at 140 Fulton Street in lower Manhattan, a group of young men met to plan the overthrow of the predominately Christian world-view that still pervaded America. At this first meeting five men were present: Upton Sinclair, a writer and a socialist; Jack London, writer; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister; J.G. Phelps Stokes, husband of a socialist leader; and Clarence Darrow, a lawyer.

Their organization was called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Their purpose was to ‘promote an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and women.’ These men were ready to become the exponents of an idea passed on to them by an obscure writer named Karl Marx—a man who never tried to be self-supporting but was supported by a wealthy industrialist who believed in his theory of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Although a small group in the beginning, these adherents of socialism more than succeeded in their task.

“By using the proven method of gradualism, taken from the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, these men and others who joined with them slowly infiltrated” the public schools of our nation. By 1912 there were chapters in 44 colleges. By 1917 there were 61 chapters of student study groups of the League of Industrial Democracy. “At that time John Dewey, the godfather of progressive education, was the vice-president of the league. By 1941 Dewey had become president and Reinhold Niebuhr, the liberal socialist theologian, was the treasurer.” [3]

The beginning of the end of traditional America had become entrenched. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell mentions that “the loss of Christian tradition, character, and responsibility led to the failure of many banks in the early 1900’s. To remedy this situation, power was granted to a centralized Federal Reserve Board in 1913. But this unbiblical economic structure and lack of character produced many more problems. Within 20 years, the Stock Market had crashed, and America was in the midst of the Great Depression.” [4] With the propagation of socialism, people were ready for Roosevelt's “New Deal,” such as Social Security and other welfare agencies, which ultimately set up the state as provider, rather than God.

Textbooks

Our history, as of the 1900s, has been manipulated to make certain academic agendas fit the needs of a political end. A great example is the evidence in our academic texts over the course of this time.

Professor Paul C. Vitz conducted a government-funded study the 1980s on whether bias exists in public school textbooks. His study clearly showed bias and censorship exists, and the nature of the bias is clear: “Religion, traditional family values, and conservative political and economic positions have been reliably excluded from children’s textbooks.” [5]

Vitz wrote that while the bias may not be deliberate, a “secular and liberal mindset appears to be responsible.” And he points out that the bias is primarily manifested by exclusion. As an example, “sixty representative social studies textbooks were carefully evaluated” and “none of the books covering grades 1 through 4 contain one word referring to any religious activity in contemporary American life.” While these social studies texts mention the family, “the idea that marriage is the origin and foundation of the family is never presented. The words marriage, wedding, husband, wife, do not occur once in these books.” [6] It is not surprising why so many Americans today reject the biblical view of the world (let alone history and family).

An excerpt from Dr. Stephen K. McDowell, co-founder, and President of the Providence Foundation, mentions: "The social studies texts frequently presented 'role models' but 'not one contemporary role model is conservative and male.” High school U.S. history texts almost completely ignored major religious events of the past 200 years and there was “constant omission of reference to the large role that religion has always played in American life.” This was true for elementary texts as well. In one second grade history book, 30 pages were given to the Pilgrims, but they were “described entirely without any reference to religion.” At the end of the first year they observed a day of Thanksgiving, but no mention is made of the fact that they gave thanks to God.

Christian bias via exclusion continues in current textbooks. For example, one recent history text quotes the Mayflower Compact: 'We whose names are under-written … do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick.' What was omitted from this important historical document? Their clear Christian motive: “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia.”

Bias is not only expressed by exclusion but also by changing the meaning of a text or writing. One U.S. History Advanced Placement textbook summarizes the Second Amendment as, 'The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,' which is an inaccurate meaning of the amendment which clearly states, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This same text says the First Amendment gives us a 'separation of church and state,' failing to explain this amendment does not separate God from government or religious ideas from public life. Rather, it acknowledges a jurisdictional separation between the institution of civil government and the institution of the church.

Misrepresenting motives is another means of bias. Under the heading 'Roots of American Government,' a popular seventh-grade Houghton Mifflin Social Studies textbook expounds: 'Enlightenment thinkers in the American Colonies were excited. Here they were, the first people in history to have the chance to create an entirely new government based on Enlightenment Principles.' However, America was not created by Enlightenment thinkers on Enlightenment ideas, but according to John Adams, the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity.'

In conclusion

This is confirmed in a study done on the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on the political ideas of the Founding Fathers. Professor Donald Lutz conducted an exhaustive ten-year research of about 15,000 political documents of the Founders’ Era, recording every reference our Founders made to other sources. By far, the most quoted source of their political ideas was the Bible, 34% of citations, and about 50% of the other citations came from men with a biblical worldview.

“Some texts teach direct lies, like a high school history textbook published by Pearson that teaches Donald Trump is mentally ill and his supporters are racists. In other texts the Founders of America are often presented as atheists, agnostics, or secularists who wanted no religious influence in public life, when in fact, all but a couple of the signers of the Declaration and two or three members of the Constitutional Convention were orthodox Christians who believed the foundation of free nations rests on the Christian faith." [7] 

It is the above-mentioned analysis on education that feeds into the most common misconceptions and errors - of replacing traditional thought and history, which was considered normal prior to 1900. I feel this is by far the most harmful to learning when developing an accurate history and historical interpretation of early American encounters.

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

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life, 253. 1989.

[2] Field, Peter S. 2001. ""the Transformation of Genius into Practical Power": Relph Waldo Emerson and the Public Lecture." Journal of the Early Republic 21 (3) (Fall): 467-493.

[3] Foster, Marshall, and Mary-Elaine Swanson. The American Covenant: The Untold Story, xvii. Mayflower Inst, 1983.

[4] Beliles and McDowell, 250-251.

[5] Paul C. Vitz, Censorship, Evidence of Bias in Our Children’s Textbooks, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1986, p. 1.

[6] Vitz, 1.

[7] McDowell, Stephen K. "A Nation at Risk: Changing Textbooks Reveal the Secularization of American Education." Providence Foundation. Accessed February 13, 2021. https://providencefoundation.com/a-nation-at-risk-changing-textbooks-reveal-the-secularization-of-american-education/

Kashmir: A Divided Territory Since 1947

The region of Kashmir largely lies across the territory of modern-day India and Pakistan. The area has had a tumultuous history since India became independent in 1947. Here, Manan Shah explains what happened to Kashmir in 1947 and the years after.

India soldiers during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–48.

In Asia lies the picturesque region of Kashmir, which records history from as early as the Neolithic period. Over a period of time numerous sovereigns have ruled over the land, which has established and benefited their empires. The area has always benefited from its geography and has proved to be a major trade route which connected Central Asia to the north of India. It was not at all surprising to see rulers take refuge in the beautiful valley of Kashmir, since it is protected by the natural frontiers and difficult terrain.

While we shall not go into the detailed past of Kashmir, the article takes into consideration the events that have shaped the current socio-political character of the valley, thus making it one of the world's most militarized zones. As of today it stands as a politically disintegrated country which is a constant battle ground for three nuclear powered states - India, Pakistan and China. It is a place where human rights abuse is no exception and people do not have basic rights.

1947

In 1947, world's biggest colonial power Britain left the territory of India after colonizing it for about 200 years, thus marking its independence; however, dividing the Indian sub-continent into two separate countries, India and Pakistan, the former largely for Hindus and latter largely for Muslims. It should be noted that prior to independence, India had about 584 princely states, states that were ruled by rulers while acknowledging British sovereignty. Kashmir was one of them. At the same time these princely states were given an option either to join the union of India or union of Pakistan and few had the option to remain independent. Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler to his Muslim subjects, tried to delay his decision thinking this could maintain the independence of Kashmir. Meanwhile, rebellion from the west and infiltration from Pakistan's tribal groups into the territory forced him to sign the famous “Instrument of Accession” of Indian Union on October 26, 1947 - against the will of the people. The document was signed with three conditions that the Union of India has control over: defense, external affairs and communications. This gave rise to local warfare. While popular opinion in the valley says Kashmiris' accession to the Union of India was temporary and was asked as a favor to protect their territory and to provide essential help, it was agreed that the Indian Army would evacuate as soon as there was no external threat to the land. However the irony is the situation in Kashmir has never been stable since then.  Both India and Pakistan never fail to put the blame on each other, time and again.

The matter was put forward to the United Nations in 1948. The resolution was passed by the UN to restore order. The three-step recommendation suggested that Pakistan withdraw all the forces that they had infiltrated into the territory of Kashmir. Secondly, India was asked to reduce the number of forces to the minimum level required. Thirdly, a plebiscite was to be conducted. As we speak right now, none has taken place as both India and Pakistan raised objections to the resolution. In January 1949, India and Pakistan agreed a ceasefire line that divided the country into two temporarily. Although, that so-called “temporary” partition still exists, even after 72 years. All this is happening in the democratic country of India, as it occupies most of the territory of Kashmir, followed by Pakistan, and then China’s incursion in 1962 to Aksai Chin.

Since the 1940s

Over the years Kashmiris have raised their voice against the abuse even though the two nuclear powers remain silent or blame each other. While a small percentage of the population wants to accede to India and a substantial part favors Pakistan, most of the population chooses to remain independent.

People have continuously feared and resisted the presence of Indian Army in the state due to the threat to their lives. They fear India is not holding up its promise of evacuating the land of Kashmir as the India has made it public that Kashmir belongs to them. Bills were passed in parliament to change the character of the state and to legitimize India's claim over the land. Recently there has been the abrogation of article 370 and 35A, which protects the demographic status of Jammu & Kashmir in a constitutional form. The state was put under lockdown and all means of communications was suspended for an indefinite period of time, high speed internet being one, which was restored after 17 months.

Kashmir’s independence right and claim was even acknowledged by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, who said on January 2, 1952:

“Kashmir is not the property of India or Pakistan. It belongs to Kashmiri people. When Kashmiris acceded to India, we made it clear to the leader of Kashmiri people that we could ultimately by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell me to walk out, I will have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir.

We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honor for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question of a final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

Since independence both India and Pakistan share a bitter relationship and therefore Kashmir has served as the vote bank for both. It has time and again helped political parties to shift the momentum in their favor. It has become a weak point for both states to shift public opinion and deviate them from other issues.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, in 1947, 1965 and 1999. They caused numerous casualties and human rights abuses. People were raped, tortured and murdered in cold blood. Today the state is under threat, there are continuous attacks on the state’s identity and people’s voices being suppressed. As Basharat Peer writes, “Srinagar* (Summer capital of Jammu & Kashmir) is never winning and never being defeated.” 

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

Manan Shah is a student of Archeology and Ancient History who writes for independent publications. Born and brought up in Kashmir he shares an intriguing insight of the culture and political history of the region.

His email is shahmanan74@gmail.com

Christine Jorgenson: The First American to become well-known for having Gender Reassignment Surgery

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr. in 1926) was a pioneer in America. She had gender reassignment surgery in the 1950s and became famous after. Here, James Zills tells her story.

Christine Jorgensen in 1954.

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr. in 1926) was a pioneer in America. She had gender reassignment surgery in the 1950s and became famous after. Here, James Zills tells her story.

It is not every day a person gets to witness a historical or groundbreaking event, unless that person happens to live in the United States. The country tends to celebrate “almost” everything. As a still relatively young country, there are still historical milestones to achieve, but where does the country draw the line at historical first? Where does it become ridiculous? America’s new vice president has been bestowed the honor of three historical first, the first African American, the first South Asian American, and the first female to be vice president. The first transgender person picked for a senate-confirmed post, the first openly transgender contestant on Jeopardy, Callie Brown, was the first non-biological female hired as a full time NCAA coach. Twenty years from now the history books our children bring home from school will be as thick as technical manuals. We anxiously await daily for the next historical first while tearing down and erasing the past. We have entire months dedicated to peoples of various races, cultures, gender, sexuality, and heritage. In honor of Women’s History Month we shall explore the trials and tribulations of a true trailblazer; a women who has been largely forgotten in a time of historical first for women.

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr.) was born on May 30, 1926 in New York, the second child of George and Florence Jorgenson. During her high school years she had a sense of attraction to her male friends, but felt that she was not homosexual. Instead Christine concluded that she was a woman trapped in a man’s body. This was not a time in which a person could discuss their sexuality so, she repressed her identity and tried to fit in. Never quite being able to control her feminine tendencies she was subject to teasing from boys in the neighborhood and at school. Her sisters even took notice in her odd behaviors and would often tease her for not being more masculine. Despite the teasing and gender dysphoria, she graduated high school and attempted to volunteer for service in the United States Army.

I’m Not the World’s Most Physical Guy

Due to her size and weight, the Army disqualified her from service. This was devastating to Christine who was searching for a sense of belonging and a chance to make her parents proud.[1] The opportunity for military service would come to Christine a couple of months later when she was drafted by the Army. Entering into service in September 1945 at the conclusion of WW2 she was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey as a clerk facilitating paperwork for soldiers returning home for war. In December 1945 Christine was honorably discharged from the Army and attended a photography school in New Haven, Connecticut and later training as a dental assistant in New York using the G.I. Bill. Unable to find meaningful happiness Christine turned to research in order to find a solution to her gender dysphoria. 

Upon reading the book The Male Hormone, a study by Paul de Kruif on testosterone published in 1945[2], Christine believed she had found an explanation to her problem – a lack of testosterone. This led her to start taking estrogen to further decrease her testosterone levels. In 1950 she traveled to Europe which at the time was the only place where reassignment surgeries were practiced. When she arrived in Denmark she met with Dr. Christian Hamburger ,who diagnosed Christine with being transgender. Dr. Hamburger offered his experimental services for free and once special permissions were granted from the government of Denmark, Christine began a two year journey of hormone treatment, psychiatric evaluations, and surgery. [3]However, the surgeries received in Denmark only removed the male genitalia and she was unable to receive a vaginoplasty until sometime after her return to the United States in 1952. 

Taking a Walk on the Wild Side

Any hope of keeping a private life quickly diminished when the press swarmed her at the airport upon her arrival home in 1952. Understandably, this was quite the story and since the media has no appreciation for personal space, she was plastered on the front page of the New York Daily News titled “Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty” and was the subject of articles in hundreds of newspapers around the country. Initially she was unable to cope with all her new found attention and went briefly into seclusion.  However, she decided that if this is the life she was going to live she would have to embrace it. For a fee, Jorgenson was willing to give interviews and tell her story stating, “I decided that if they wanted to see me, they would have to pay for it.”[4] Not surprisingly, Hollywood was ready to cash in on what they viewed as a human anomaly, though the attention was from a relatively unknown director at the time.

Edward Davis Wood Jr., better known as Ed Wood, sold the idea of a biopic of Jorgenson to investors. However, the finished product was a docudrama about cross-dressing and trans-sexuality, which would become known as one of the worst pictures ever made. Several offers to Jorgenson to appear in the film were declined and Ed Wood stepped in to fill the part of the transvestite spinning the movie into his personal story.[5] In 1970, the film The Christine Jorgensen Story premiered in Los Angeles based on her autobiography published in 1967. Through the ridicule and praise, Jorgenson endured the world of gender dysphoria on her own terms. In a world not quite ready for out and about transgenderism, she became a pioneer for others to emulate and embrace. 

She supported herself as a lounge singer and speaker for those who were curious or fascinated enough to hear her. During her time in the spotlight, she was engaged to be married twice, but due to the marriage laws at the time she was unable to secure a marriage license. Once Hollywood and the media had finished profiting off her she retired to southern California were she succumbed to bladder and lung cancer on May 3, 1989. Though viewed as an oddity by most during her time, she stayed true to herself, lived as the live she wanted to live, and became a trailblazer for other with gender dysphoria.

In a country that rushes to place people on a pedestal as “firsts” for the sake of creating history, America often neglects real historical events until they are ultimately forgotten.

What do you think of Christine Jorgenson? Let us know below.

Now, you read James’ past article on the Fascism on 1930s America here.

[1] “From GI Joe to GI Jane: Christine Jorgenson’s Story,” The National WWII Museum New Orleans, last modified June 29, 2020, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen

[2] Paul Kruif, The Male Hormone (Harcourt, Brace and company, 1945)

[3] Biography, "Christine Jorgensen," Biography, last modified June 22, 2020, https://www.biography.com/activist/christine-jorgensen.

[4] Ibid

[5] Judith R. Fagen, "Glen or Glenda Bent the Gender Rules in 1953," The Gay & Lesbian Review, last modified February 24, 2021, https://glreview.org/article/glen-or-glenda-bent-the-gender-rules-in-1953/.

Bibliography

Biography. "Christine Jorgensen." Biography. Last modified June 22, 2020. https://www.biography.com/activist/christine-jorgensen.

Fagen, Judith R. "Glen or Glenda Bent the Gender Rules in 1953." The Gay & Lesbian Review. Last modified February 24, 2021. https://glreview.org/article/glen-or-glenda-bent-the-gender-rules-in-1953/.

"From GI Joe to GI Jane: Christine Jorgensen’s Story." The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. Last modified June 29, 2020. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen.

Kruif, Paul. The Male Hormone, 1st ed. Harcourt, Brace and company, 1945.

James VI/James I’s Love Life: The British King whose Lovers were Men

James VI of Scotland (later also crowned James I of England) is a king of some ambiguity: he was both intellectually wise (possibly one of the cleverest kings that either England or Scotland has had), yet also remarkably foolish in how he allowed his heart to rule his head. But James was not a man of great extremes, unlike his predecessor Queen Elizabeth I, who kept herself virtuously pure, or his grandson, King Charles II, who was an obsessive womanizer. James fell somewhere in the middle, with only three real passionate affairs throughout his life. So why did his love life matter so much?

Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A painting of James VI/James I, c. 1605.

To answer the question of why his love life mattered so much is simple on the face of it: these lovers were men. As historian Lady Antonia Fraser has noted, ‘the degree of their intimacy is less important than its political consequences’[i], because these men rose into positions of unequalled power. For modern historians, the emphasis should not be on their gender, but rather a discussion of their competency and the danger that they posed to the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

Our said dearest son

James VI (1566-1625) was born into the turbulent world of sixteenth-century Scottish politics, when murder, assassination and usurpation were the norm. His own father, Lord Darnley, had been murdered when James was less than a year old, probably with the connivance of his mother, the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. Within a few months she was forced to abdicate and flee Scotland, and James would never see her again. Crowned at thirteen months old and raised a Protestant, he became the pawn of successive Regents who, to protect him from kidnap by the next power hungry noble, cocooned him in Stirling Castle with his tutor, George Buchanan, a sadistic disciplinarian. Jock o’ the Slates, as he was known because of his prolific learning, survived his childhood to reach his majority, but he did so in a cold and dangerous world, protected from everyone:

‘Suffer nor admit no noblemen of our realm or any others, of what condition soever they be of, to enter or come within our said Castle or to the presence or our said dearest son, with any more persons but two or three at most.’[ii]

Esmé Stuart, Duke of Lennox circa 1542-1583

When James first met his cousin in 1579, he was a thirteen-year-old orphan, controlled by dour older men in search of power and governed by the strict guidelines of the Presbyterian Church. Esmé Stuart, on the other hand, was thirty-seven, married with children and fresh from the French court. He was well-travelled, educated, fun and described as ‘of comely proportion, civil behavior, red-bearded, and honest in conversation’[iii]. Whatever James’ sexuality might have been, Esmé dazzled him, bringing light into his studiously lonely world. One contemporary witness noted how James was not ashamed to show his affection for Esmé whenever the moment took him:

‘The King altogether is persuaded and led by him … and is in such love with him as in the open sight of the people often he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him.’

The nobles were concerned, not so much at James’ unabashedly open affection, but rather at what the observer notes first: that the king was persuaded and led by him. Within months, Esmé begun to reap the rewards of his relationship, not only in expensive gifts such as Mary Queen of Scots’ diamond The Great H of Scotland, but more significantly in titles and positions in government. By March 1580, Esmé had been made the Earl of Lennox and was already so powerful that the English Ambassador reported firstly that he ‘carryeth the sway in court’, and then, a few months later, that ‘few or none will openly withstand anything that he would have forward’[iv].

This political influence was dangerous. Lennox was a Catholic in a highly charged Protestant court, where religious civil war constantly threatened the fragile peace. He was rising at the expense of the ancestral nobility, and even his conversion to the Protestant faith in the summer of 1580 could not allay fears that he was a papal agent intent on restoring Mary Queen of Scots’ to the Scottish throne. For James, his renunciation of the Catholic faith only served to deepen his affection for him.[v]Yet, the nobles’ fear seemed justified when, in April 1581 Lennox had the King’s last regent, the Earl of Morton, executed for treason and for having been involved in the murder of the King’s late father. Rather than punishing him, the King made him the Duke of Lennox four months later.

In the volatile world of sixteenth-century Scottish politics, James, with his polarized dependence on Lennox, was taking an enormous risk. It could not last, and there was a certain amount of inevitability when the nobles finally took their revenge, kidnapping James whilst he was out hunting in August 1582. The usurpation of the monarch was not without precedent and for the ten months that he was held captive he must have wondered if he was about to suffer his mother’s fate. He would be lucky and survive to escape and reclaim his authority, but one outcome was that, despite resistance and many tears, he was forced to send his favorite into exile. They would never see each other again and Lennox died in France on May 26, 1583 still professing that he had ‘such extreme regret that I desire to die rather than to live, fearing that that has been the occasion of your no longer loving me.’[vi]

In tribute, James would pen the poem Ane Tragedie of the Phoenix, full of deep desire, with Lennox’s name woven into the text[vii], but he would not learn from his close shave with disaster. When in love, James loved passionately, unreservedly, and openly, regardless of the danger to his own person or the stability of his country.

Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset circa 1587-1645

There is something lavishly romantic about the way that James (now also King of England) met his next great love, the seventeen-year-old Robert Carr in 1607. Yet of all his relationships, this one proved the most troublesome. 

Carr sparked James’ passionate nature from the outset. He was a remarkably handsome man, described by the Earl of Suffolk as ‘straight-limbed, well-favored, strong-shouldered and smooth-faced…’, and when he fell from his horse at a tilt, James’ elaborate sense of romance caused him to follow the boy to Charing Cross Hospital to ensure his welfare. It was obvious to all from the outset that James was in lust, if not yet in love, and the way that he fussed over the injured boy gave rise to satirical comments by some and false statements of concern by others[viii].

There had been other male favorites since the fall of Lennox, but none had been given the same political power until Carr. James’ passion was once again measured in his generosity and, like Lennox, Carr’s rise was spectacular. He was immediately knighted and then made a Gentleman of the Bedchamber (a role that required him to sleep in the King’s room). Contemporaries reported how James would lustfully kiss, pinch and fondle his favorite in public[ix] and by 1610 he was so powerful that he was able to influence the King into dissolving Parliament. In 1611 he was made Viscount Rochester and in April 1612 James made him a Privy Councillor. It is unlikely that such a rise would have come for free and when Carr was created Lord Chamberlain, James wrote that ‘no man should marvel that he bestowed a place so near himself as his friend, whom he loved above all men living’.

James was again playing with political fire, allowing one man to dominate and influence him as he had with Lennox. In 1613 the Spanish Ambassador reported that, when in Council, Carr:

‘showeth much temper and modesty, without seeming to press and sway anything. But afterwards the King resolveth all business with him alone, both those that pass in Council and many others wherewith he never maketh them acquainted.’

James seems to have learnt nothing from his near escape in 1582, treating Carr as his closest advisor at the detriment of others, despite evidence of his incompetence. He was so detested that even the Queen was keen to see a new man in her husband’s bed. It took fate and Carr’s own conceited insolence to save the two kingdoms, though it would bring James to the edge of personal scandal.

Despite being James’ lover, Carr fell in love with his mistress, Frances Howard, the wife of the Earl of Essex. James was not against his favorites marrying and he openly assisted Carr in having Frances’ first marriage annulled so that she would be free to marry him. The king paid for the wedding and, as a gift, he created the new couple the Earl and Countess of Somerset.

The new earl was still on the rise, and as far as James was concerned, their love was as viable as ever, wife or no wife. But, as well as complimenting him on his looks, the Earl of Suffolk had also noted that Somerset was:

‘…endowed ‘…with some sort of cunning and show of modsty, tho, God wot, he well knoweth when to show his impudence’. 

It was a characteristic that would be Somerset’s downfall, and within a year of the wedding, he had been insolent to the king once too often. James complained to Somerset that he had shown him a ‘strange frenzy’ and ‘strange streams of unquietness, passion, fury and insolent pride and (which is worst of all) with a settled kind of induced obstinacy’[x]. The king was tiring of Somerset’s sullen behavior and, worse still, that he would no longer sleep with him:

‘I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary, accounting that but as a point of unkindness.’

The King warned him that ‘there must be some exterior signs of the amendment of your behavior towards me’, but it was already too late. A key opponent to the Somersets’ wedding had mysteriously died in the Tower of London, and by the summer of 1615 the Countess had been found guilty of his murder. James was damaged by the association; Somerset was his favorite, he had secured the annulment that had allowed them to marry and the country was abuzz with tales of the salacious court. The Somersets were sentenced to death, but James still felt enough for his old favorite to have the sentence commuted to imprisonment. Nevertheless, his passion was gone and the sweet prose to Somerset at the height of his power was replaced with regret:

‘I shall never pardon myself but shall carry that cross to the grave with me, for raising a man so high as might make him presume to pierce my ears with such speeches.’

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham 1592-1628

Where Somerset failed, Villiers succeeded, captivating the King and earning the mantle of his last and perhaps greatest love. His meteoric rise took him through the ranks from knight to earl to marquis in three short years, and in 1623 he was made the Duke of Buckingham.

Though they were together for nine years, James was a man coming to the end of his life. He suffered from gout and, probably, porphyria, the same mental illness that was to later afflict George III. It caused him moments of severe abdominal pain and bouts of senility that left him open to persuasion as never before:

‘The King seems practically lost. He now protests, now weeps, but finally gives in.’

Buckingham was more than willing to take advantage. He was described as having an effeminate countenance and as:

‘the handsomest-bodied in England; his limbs so well compacted and his conversation so pleasing and of so sweet a disposition.’ 

In reality he was also arrogant, incompetent and startling corrupt, but Buckingham was able to satisfy James’ desires as he seems to confirm when he told James that he had been pondering ‘whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham [in 1615], where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog’.

James was repeating his earlier folly, promoting a man of little talent above both his natural station and his intellectual one. It was a position that would put James and his kingdoms yet again in danger. On the domestic front, Buckingham helped to destroy the financial reforms the Earl of Middlesex had been attempting to impose, ensuring that the Earl was finally impeached by Parliament in 1624. When his shady dealings in Ireland were in danger of coming to light in 1621, he nurtured the row between the King and Parliament over the royal prerogative; James prematurely dissolved Parliament and the investigation that would have exposed him was ended.

Buckingham had also managed to gain control of foreign policy, at which he was also incompetent. Against his better judgment, in 1623 James allowed his heir, Charles, to travel with Buckingham to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. The negotiations that the duke led were so calamitous that they came close to making the Prince a hostage to the Spanish. When the party returned, Buckingham hid his humiliation by calling for a patriotic Protestant war on Spain. Two years later, to again restore his own popularity, he led a doomed raid to help the Huguenots in France. And finally, as the king neared death, he instigated a military campaign to recover the Electorate of the Palatinate, which quickly dissolved into yet another disaster. 

But ‘sweete Steenie’, as the King called Buckingham, could do no wrong, even during the disastrous trip to Spain when the pain of being parted from him was forefront in James’ mind:

‘…god blesse thee my sweete Steenie and sende thee a quikke and happie return with my sweete babie [Prince Charles who was 22], in the armes of thy deare dade and stewarde.’ 

As he sunk into senility, James needed love, whatever form that took. In one of his most famous letters, where he calls Buckingham both his wife and his child, he shows us that the thought of being without him was unbearable:

‘…I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.’

He would cling to Buckingham until the end, whatever the cost.

Neither a God nor an angel

James made many of the classic mistakes in his relationships with his favorites and that his lovers were men meant that they were able to hold political positions, such as Privy Councillor, Lord Chamberlain and Treasurer of Scotland, which a female mistress could not. He promoted them far above their natural station, allowed them to influence him in matters of Church and State, and listened to them at the detriment of his ‘natural’ advisors, the nobility.

Yet, ultimately, the main problem was that James’ men were not right for the positions they held. He chose them for their looks and their flattery, not for their competence. They were greedy and unfit for the roles he gave them. They influenced him into decisions the canny King, who had survived so much as a child, should not have made, often putting himself and his kingdoms at risk of not only being financially milked but also of war. But when in love, James loved passionately and loyally:

‘I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore, I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here, assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.’

What do you think of James VI/I’s lovers? Let us know below.

Now, you can read about whether King James VI/I’s predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I, was really the ‘Virgin Queen’ here.

[i] Fraser, Lady Antonia, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Book Club Associates, London, p126

[ii] Mary Queen of Scots to the Earl of Mar, March 29, 1567

[iii] Rictor Norton, "Queen James and His Courtiers", Gay History and Literature, January 8, 2000, updated January 9, 2012 http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

[iv] Stedall, Robert,  Esme Stuart 1st Duke of Lennox

[v] Bergeron, David M, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1999, p38

[vi] December 18, 1582 in Bergeron, pp49-50

[vii] Bergeron, p53; Murphy, Samantha A Writing Britain: James VI & I and the National Body

[viii] Fraser, p126

[ix] Fraser, p126

[x] Stewart, Alan, The Cradle King: a life of James VI and I, Pimlico, London, 2009, p266

Bibliography

Bergeron, David M. King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1999

Fraser, Lady Antonia, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Book Club Associates, London, 1984

Norton, Rictor, "Queen James and His Courtiers", Gay History and Literature, 8 January 2000, updated 9 January 2012 http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

Stewart, Alan The Cradle King: a life of James VI & I, Pimlico, London, 2009

Wikipedia: Personal relationships of James VI and I