Disastrous Preparation for World War 2’s D-Day: Exercise Tiger

Exercise Tiger was an Allied training exercise in preparation for World War Two’s D-Day that took place in southern England in April 1944; however, it went very wrong. Here, Peter Baugher tells the story of the largely unknown exercise – and how even Nazi Germany became involved.

American troops landing in Slapton Sands, southern England as part of Exercise Tiger. April 1944.

"It was a different world then. It was a world that required young men like myself to be prepared to die for a civilization that was worth living in” (Murphy 2019), says Harry Read, a British D-Day veteran, in a powerful statement. Operation Overlord freed northwestern France, generating shockwaves that eventually toppled Adolf Hitler. The invasion constitutes one of the most tactical military campaigns in history, the largest amphibious operation to date. But how did the Allies prepare? What blood was spilled in secret, and how long will it remain in the shadows? The forgotten dead of one fateful April night must now be remembered and honored. Although the story of Exercise Tiger is widely unknown, the operation was the deadliest training operation of the War.

The Curtain Opened

In September of 1943, around three thousand British villagers evacuated from Devon near Slapton Sands by order of the Allied Forces. (Small 1988) The exiles deserted homes, farms, and, as a result, their livelihoods. Although the officers delivering the order disclosed scarce information, the Allies decided the Beaches of Slapton Sands granted an ideal practice ground for the American troops to prepare for the invasion into Normandy. According to Naval History and Heritage Command, “Slapton was an unspoiled beach of coarse gravel, fronting a shallow lagoon that was backed by bluffs that resembled Omaha Beach. After the people in the nearby village were evacuated, it was an almost perfect place to simulate the Normandy landings. (Command 2015).” The Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower realized that the American troops were not prepared to stage the enormous invasion. Ironically, the future President failed to avoid spoiling that beach of gravel during a training exercise to prepare for success.

Evil Entered the Stage

The horrors of the morning of April twenty-seventh foreshadowed the disaster. In the early morning hours, British personnel bunkered on the beaches at Slapton Sands.  In the interest of preparing the men for the chaos of battle, Commander Eisenhower commanded the British Army to fire live rounds aloft the American troops. Originally, Convoys planned to stage the mock invasion at seven-thirty. After logistical delays, the appointed time was moved to eight thirty. One convoy did not receive the order and arrived at the beach at the original scheduled time. The first wave stormed the beach while the British initiated live fire over the heads of the Americans. As the next wave arrived abaft, rogue lead found the bodies of American troops. Although the army avoided creating an official count, an estimated four hundred were killed during the incident. 

The following midnight, a convoy known as T-4, consisting of American Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs), lumbered through the murky waters of the English Channel. After leaving port, British scanners detected the presence of German submarines, and attempted to alert the Americans. The American Convoy was not set to the proper frequency. Consequently, the American soldiers and sailors floated oblivious to potent danger (although some officers later reported ignorance that the mission was a training exercise at all). Years later, American and British historians learned that the German aerial reconnaissance missions found evidence of American and British Naval presence in the English Channel. German submarines were consequently ordered to patrol the surrounding waters. At 2:30 AM, the German S-Boat Flotilla found the convoy and fired missiles at the LST-515, resulting in critical damage to the hull. The survivors went overboard, thus initiating the Battle of Lyme Bay. 

Naval policy forbade a functional ship to attempt a rescue in the middle of an operation without explicit order. However, the men of the LST-515, with unanimous consent, risked death or court martial, turned back to the burning wreckage of the 507, and saved half the crew. The rest of the men died in the fire, succumbed to frostbite, and drowned, or burned to death from the gasoline and oil spilled onto the water. Meanwhile, other submarines joined the attack, sinking the LST-531 and killing four hundred twenty-four men on board. A report from military archives states, “Most of the casualties were from LST 531. There were only 290 survivors of 744 soldiers and 282 sailors.” (Military History) In an attempt to retaliate against the aggressors, the LST-496 fired at the submarines, but caught the LST-515 in the crossfire. Although the endeavor sent the Germans back to port, the accident killed eighteen naval service members. At the end of the catastrophe, over seven hundred Americans were dead. The bodies that were recovered were reportedly never buried. According to an eyewitness, “They were driven round the top of the island and stored in Castletown dockyard.... they were packed in the tunnels, which were collapsed by explosions in 1994 before the dockyard closed.” (Dorset 2009) The failure had wider implications for Eisenhower and the other Allied leaders. 

The Heroes Foregathered and the Warriors Sequestered  

Eisenhower prepared to reconsider all Operations in the European Theater. Ten officers with detailed knowledge of Operation Overlord remained missing in action for several days. Additionally, the cataclysm provided evidence that German intelligence was successfully monitoring American and British movement.  The men were given strict orders to remain in friendly territory. According to a researcher Rodney Ley, “General Dwight D Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, had given strict instructions that no BIGOT-classified (A classification referencing personnel with knowledge of specific details of the invasion, standing for “British Invasion of German Occupied Territory”) personnel should go on any journey or operation before D-Day which carried a risk of being captured by the Germans.” (Dorset 2009) Eisenhower carefully considered canceling or postponing the invasion into Normandy. However, after in-depth deliberation and discussion, as history shows, the invasion date remained June Sixth. 

Despite the operation producing the deadliest training exercise of the war, the operation is unknown to most Americans and Brits. To date, no significant memorial appears to exist that honors the American lives lost. Although a private endeavor led by Devon native Kenn Small pulled a Sherman tank out of the water, and dedicated a plaque in honor of the fallen, neither the United States nor the British governments participated or recognized the ceremonies. At the time of writing, nothing of the sort exists on American soil. Both Navy and Army personnel were lost that day, but seventy years later, neither branch has erected a cenotaph to those bodies dwelling the wreckage of their old vessels. An acquaintance of mine, with a master’s in military history, was fascinated by my knowledge of the occurrence. Though you, reader, missed an opportunity this April, let the deaths of the men of Exercise Tiger infuse you with thanksgiving and respect for those who died to provide you with the freedom you live every day. 

What do you think of Exercise Tiger? Let us know below.

References

Business Insider. “D-Day by the Numbers: Pulling Off the Biggest Amphibious Invasion in History.” Military.Com, 5 June 2019, www.military.com/off-duty/2019/06/05/d-day-numbers-pulling-biggest-amphibious-invasion-history.html

“Massacre at Slapton Sands — the Great Portland Cover-up | Dorset Life - The Dorset Magazine.” Dorset Life, May 2008, www.dorsetlife.co.uk/2009/05/massacre-at-slapton-sands-the-great-portland-cover-up.

Murphy, Bill, Jr. “17 Inspiring Quotes to Remember the 75th Anniversary of D-Day.” Inc.Com, 6 June 2020, www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/17-inspiring-d-day-quotes-to-remember-75th-anniversary-of-d-day.html.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Exercise Tiger.” Naval History and Heritage Command, 26 Aug. 2015, www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/e/operation-tiger.html.

Small, Ken. The Forgotten Dead: The True Story of Exercise Tiger, the Disastrous Rehearsal for D-Day. Reprint, Osprey Publishing, 1988.

Robert E. Lee’s Indispensable Man: The Life of Walter H. Taylor

Walter H. Taylor was indispensable to the Confederacy’s efforts in the US Civil War. His contribution to the southern war effort as Lee’s adjutant was key. His contributions to the City of Norfolk and the state of Virginia after the war are also well known. Taylor would also contribute to the history of the war by writing two books about Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. At one point, Taylor would comment about not loving Lee, but never losing respect for him. The other part of Taylor’s story is his relationship with Bettie Saunders, his future wife. Their wartime letters are an endless source of information about their relationship and what was taking place on the war front.

William Floyd Junior explains.

Walter H. Taylor, circa 1864.

Taylor was born in Norfolk, Virginia on June 13, 1838. His early education took place at what today is Norfolk Academy. In August of 1854, he began attending the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. Walter was an excellent student, but failed to complete his studies, having to withdraw upon the death of his father. He would go to work at the Bank of Virginia and then at the Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad. Taylor was also part of a Norfolk Volunteer Militia group known as “Company F.”

On May 2, 1861, he received a telegram from Virginia Governor John Letcher to report for duty. Taylor was twenty-two years of age without any combat experience. On May 3, Taylor took the train to Richmond and went to the Spotswood Hotel. It was here that Taylor first saw Robert E, Lee, commenting that, “he appeared every inch a soldier and a man born to command.”

When the Provisional Army of Virginia, which Lee had been assembling, became part of the Confederacy, Lee was appointed one of five new generals. He would be retained in Richmond as military advisor to President Jefferson Davis. Taylor and other members of the headquarters staff would remain on duty with the general.

In late July Taylor would travel with Lee to western Virginia in an effort to reconcile differences between generals Floyd, Wise, and Loring. After three months in the mountains, Lee’s mission could not be called a success.

On November 6, 1861, Taylor left with Lee for Charleston, South Carolina. Lee had been given the job of building a defensive line along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and east Florida. In the following months defenses were improved around Charleston, Fort Pulaski, and Savannah. Lee’s work would soon come to an end with Davis ordering him to return to Richmond to begin his job as military advisor. Taylor would now be designated as an aide. Lee’s trust in Taylor would grow to a point that Taylor would be allowed to sign important documents in Lee’s absence.

1862

At this time, General Joseph E. Johnston was in command of Confederate forces defending Richmond. On May 31, 1862, at the battle of Seven Pines, Johnston would be severely wounded. President Davis would give command of Johnston’s forces to Lee. Taylor would remain on Lee’s staff when he assumed his new position. At this time, Taylor listed two assistant adjutants general, four aides and a military secretary as part of Lee’s staff.

The army that Lee took command of had an effective strength of 80,762 with which to defend Richmond during the Seven Days Battles. Taylor, at twenty-four years of age, would now have the heavy burden of acting as Lee’s alter ego, in matters of administration. Taylor would also be entrusted to deliver important orders to commanders on the battlefield.

On September 7, 1862, at the start of the Antietam campaign, Walter would write to Bettie about working for Lee, “But I never worked so hard to please anyone and with so little effect as with General Lee. He is so unappreciative-Everybody else makes me flattering speeches, but I want to satisfy him. They all say he appreciates my efforts, but I don’t believe it, you know how silly and sensitive I am.”

Taylor’s workload would increase even more, when he was directed to see after the sick and wounded from recent battles and arrange for their transportation to Winchester which had been designated a rendezvous point.

On September 17, the single bloodiest day of the war, would take place at Sharpsburg (Antietam), Maryland. Union General George B. McClellan enjoyed an almost two-to-one advantage in troops, but the Confederates would hold their own. The outcome of the battle was indecisive. In a letter to his sister, Taylor wrote, “Don’t let any of your friends sing ‘My Maryland’-not my Western Maryland anyhow.”

In early November, the Union Army crossed the Potomac back into Virginia. On November 7, McClellan would be replaced by General Ambrose Burnside. On December 13, Burnside would attack Lee’s strong position at Fredericksburg, which became a total disaster for the Federals. Taylor would later write that he had never seen anything like the fighting at Fredericksburg.

1863

Both armies would go into winter quarters after Fredericksburg. The fighting would be resumed on May 1 at Chancellorsville. In a daring move Lee would divide his army and win what was said to be his greatest victory. However, Lee would suffer the devastating loss of Stonewall Jackson. Taylor would praise God for their victory, writing, “Surely the hand of God was on our side, never was it more plainly demonstrated. . .”

In the latter part of June 1863, Lee in, an effort to move the war out of Virginia, began moving his army into Pennsylvania. This would eventually result in the Battle of Gettysburg beginning on July 1, 1863, when the opposing forces would clash west of the city. This would be the beginning of the battle that would be the turning point of the war. The first day’s fighting would be a decisive victory for Lee. The fighting on July 2, which Taylor described as “disjointed” took place on the Union left at the “Round Tops” and at the center of the Union line. Both Confederate assaults were turned back.

On July 3, just before 3 o’ clock, the attack on Cemetery Hill began, with 13,000 Confederates led by George Pickett’s division. A small group of Confederate soldiers, led by General Lewis Armistead, reached the Union line but were soon pushed back. The day was a total loss for Lee. After the war, Taylor would write, “After the assault on the enemies works on the third of July, there was not any serious fighting at Gettysburg. The day passed in comparative quiet.” After Gettysburg, there was no fighting of any consequence for three months. During this lull, Taylor travelled to Richmond to see Bettie and would return with a promise to marry.

1864

Both armies would remain inactive for the most part through January and February. On January 7, 1864, Taylor had been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, assuming more responsibility and was in reality Chief of Staff.

In March of 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was made General in Chief of all Union forces. The Federal army of more than 141,000 was on the north bank of the Rapidan River in Virginia. Lee’s army of 50,000 was on the south bank. On May 5, Grant moved his army to the south side, exactly as Lee had predicted beginning what would be known as the “Overland Campaign.”

The first battle of the campaign was on May 5 in the Wilderness, in which the Federals would incur twice as many casualties as the Confederates in the confused fighting of the thick forest.

Lee now anticipated that Grant would move to Spotsylvania. Taylor would write, “The general thinks there is nothing to indicate an intention on [Grant’s] part to retire, but rather appearances would indicate an intention to move toward Spotsylvania.”

In the ensuing fighting, Taylor would rally troops to drive back Union forces and recover a vital portion of the Confederate line. He would later write to Bettie, “God has indeed been merciful to me thus far.” The fight would continue until the 20th when Grant began moving to the south and east.

At the end of May, forces reached a crossroads northeast of Richmond known as Cold Harbor. On June 3, Grant attacked a well-entrenched Confederate line which turned into a total disaster for the Federals, suffering 7,000 casualties. After the battle, Grant would begin his move toward Petersburg. Lee would do the same on June 18.

1865

The siege of Petersburg would go on for ten months. The siege would devastate the city. On April 1, 1865, General George Pickett’s Confederate force suffered an overwhelming defeat at Five Forks, which essentially caused the Confederates to abandon Petersburg.

As the evacuation of Petersburg was getting under way, Taylor asked Lee if he could travel to Richmond to marry Bettie. Although Lee was surprised to hear this request at this time, he gave his permission. The wedding took place on April 3, after which Taylor returned to the army.

On April 6, the battle of Sayler’s Creek would take place. It was an overwhelming Union victory and the beginning of the end of Lee’s army.

On April 9, Lee would surrender to Grant at the Mclean House in Appomattox. Taylor could not bring himself to attend, not wanting to see the general humiliated. Taylor would accompany Lee to Richmond and after two weeks leave with Bettie on their wedding tour.

After the war

Back home Taylor would go into the hardware business. On April 30, 1870, he would accompany Lee on his visit to Norfolk. In 1877, he would become president of Marine Bank where he would remain for life. Taylor would belong to a number of Southern organizations dedicated to the memory of the Confederacy. Taylor would also become, “an official court of last resort,” concerning information on the Army of Northern Virginia. Taylor would publish two books, “Four Years With General Lee,” and “General Lee, 1861- 865”, both considered as authorities on Lee.

Some of Taylor’s other interests included serving on the Board of Visitors at Virginia Military Institute and the Board of Directors of the Norfolk & Western Railroad. In community affairs, he would promote waterworks, railroad consolidation, and the development of Ocean View, a resort area on the Chesapeake Bay in Norfolk. He was also influential in the beginning of the Building Loan Associations. He was president of the Ocean View and Hotel Company.

For the Jamestown Exposition, taking place in Norfolk in 1907, Taylor would play a major role in raising funds for the project. In the end the exposition was a financial failure.

Taylor would play a role in the development of Hampton Roads to a major trading center and seaport. He would be a member of the Atlantic Deeper Waterways Association and was chairman of the Virginia area.

Of course, it cannot be forgotten during this time that Walter and Bettie were expanding and raising what become a large family. They would have eight children, the last of which was named Robert Edward Lee Taylor. Lee would write to Taylor on April 13, 1868, saying, “Give my congratulations to Mrs. T. Tell her I hope that when her fancy for girls is satisfied (mine is exorbitant) she will begin upon the boys. We must have someone to work for them.”

In the last year of his life, Taylor became seriously ill, being diagnosed with cancer of the lower bowel. Radium treatments would extend his life, but in the end, it would be the cause of his death. On March 1, 1916, with Bettie and the children by his side, Walter would pass away just before midnight. On Thursday, March 2, the afternoon Norfolk newspaper read, General Lee’s Adjutant Dead, the article read, “Colonel Walter H. Taylor, one of Norfolk’s leading citizens and among her most distinguished citizens passed away last night at 11:35 o’clock at his home, 300 West York Street, following several months of failing health and two weeks of extreme illness.”

What do you think of Walter H. Taylor? Let us know below.

Now read William’s first article for the site on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here.

Moving On Up: 5 Amazing Female Businesses in 19th Century America

19th century America was a very male-dominated society, and it was very difficult for women to have independent lives; however, this did not stop some women breaking the mold. Here, Angie Grandstaff looks at the lives of 5 amazing women who had businesses in 19th century America.

Mary Laveau.

Women and work. It has been a long and winding road, but women are making progress. They are getting closer to equal pay and opportunities. If we look back to the 19th century, it was a quite different situation for women. It was a time when women were essentially property and African American women were legally property until 1863. Any money or property that women inherited or possessed was technically her husband’s or father’s. She could not vote and had very few rights.

Education was extremely limited and very few colleges or universities existed that would accept women. There were a small number of women who broke through despite challenges like Elizabeth Blackwell who was the first woman to receive a medical degree in 1849. Lucy Sessions was the first African American woman to graduate college in 1850. These educational opportunities were afforded to wealthy women, usually white, so Lucy Sessions was a rare exception during that time.

Lower class white women, single women and women of color always had to work. It made no difference if it was the 19th century, 18th, or 17th. They made their way as servants, paid companions or prostitutes. Women earned money by sewing, knitting and laundry services. Now there were some instances when a husband or father died, the wife or daughter stepped up to run a business, saloon or farm. This was also rare.

The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of factories, which could mass-produce products. Some of these factories would employ women when they could not find enough men to work. There was a great benefit to employers who employed women.  Female employees earned significantly less than men, which meant more money for the owners. Women were paid half or one third of the salaries paid to men. The conditions in factories were dangerous and the hours were long. Women would work twelve to fourteen hours a day in factories with little light and ventilation.

The goal for most women during the 19th century was surviving. Thriving was not an option and for most women not even something they would even dream of. The focus was how to survive each day, to provide food and shelter for themselves and their children. But there were some women who dared to dream for more. There were women who were able to look beyond surviving the day. They wanted to thrive, to move up. This was not an easy task in a male dominated society. But some women had the strength, courage and vision to look beyond what was and reach for more. Here are 5 women who moved up and became successful businesswomen and entrepreneurs in the 19th century.   

Belle Brezing

Belle was born in 1860 and raised in Lexington, Kentucky. She was an illegitimate child to a woman who had abusive partners and husbands. Her mother worked as a prostitute occasionally to help feed her children. At the age of 12, Belle began a relationship with a man who was 36 years old.  The age of consent was 12 at that time. She married another man at age 15 and had a child but the husband disappeared shortly after. Belle was 15, a mother and facing eviction. She did what many women did at the time to feed herself and child - she became a prostitute. She was determined to do more than survive. She worked for two years, saving money to open her own house.  Her first brothel was a success. Belle was well known in Lexington and had earned quite a reputation. She used this to her advantage. A charge of keeping a bawdy house was brought against her while she owned her first brothel but the governor at the time pardoned her, and the charge was dismissed. She opened a second brothel in the early 1880s.  As Belle’s reputation grew so did her connections and bank account. William M. Singerly, a Philadelphia businessman and newspaper publisher, gave her a loan to open a third brothel. This would be Belle’s finest. She went all out to make it a grand establishment. This brothel was the most popular and most expensive in the area. Her clientele were successful men from the upper circles of society. Belle made her way using her brain, skills and connections to create a successful business that allowed her to thrive. 

Marie Laveau

Marie Laveau was born in New Orleans in either the late 1700s or early 1800s. Her actual birth year is disputed. Marie was a wise woman who knew how to take advantage of her talents and use them to help her thrive wherever she was. Laveau married and had several children; many died during different yellow fever outbreaks in New Orleans. Her husband disappeared and was later declared dead. Marie had to support herself and her children, so she pursued work as a hairdresser. She was successful with African American and white clients. Her African American clients gave her a lot of gossip about the white upper-class families they worked for. New Orleans during the 19th century was a place where Voodoo was a popular and practiced religion. All levels of New Orleans society believed in Voodoo and would consult Voodoo conjurers or priestesses about all areas of their lives. Marie worked with a well-known Voodoo conjurer and began to build her own reputation. The information she gained while working as a hairdresser came in handy when clients sought her out for spiritual consultations. People would come to her for advice on their personal and professional affairs. She was able to prosper financially as a hairdresser and through her work as a Voodoo priestess. She became known as the Voodoo Queen and would regularly hold Voodoo rituals and ceremonies. Marie’s abilities led to her widespread fame and her magical powers were feared by the locals. Her reputation continues to this day with thousands visiting her gravesite in New Orleans.     

Mary Ellen Pleasant

The early life of Mary Ellen Pleasant is unknown. There are accounts that she was a slave but by the 1820s she was in New England working in a shop. It is rumored that Mary Ellen helped slaves escape bondage on the Underground Railroad while in New England. She was a woman who stepped up and stood out even during her early years. Her first husband was a successful carpenter and contractor. He left Mary Ellen a considerable inheritance when he died that allowed her to move out west. She headed to San Francisco when the Gold Rush was starting with her second husband. She used her inheritance to buy properties and invest. She owned boarding houses and laundry services. She would even work as a housekeeper in wealthy homes. All of this was done with one goal - to help her move up. Mary Ellen was savvy. She used her businesses, her work in people’s homes, to gain information about investment opportunities and ultimately influence.  Mary Ellen continued her work as an abolitionist, and she used her wealth and influence to help the lives of African Americans in San Francisco and around the country. Her fame spread and she was known as Mammy Pleasant. She didn’t like this nickname, but she knew how to use her fame and role to increase her wealth and influence.  

Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley

Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley was born a slave around 1821 in Virginia. We know so much about Elizabeth for a couple of reasons - she was a dressmaker to the White House, serving the Lincoln family and she wrote a biography. The fact that she did this during her life shows what a brave woman she was. This biography gives us insight into the lives of enslaved women and the White House during the Lincoln administration. Elizabeth’s mother was a slave to the Burwell family and her father was Colonel Burwell, who owned and raped her mother. Elizabeth helped her mother with her domestic duties as she grew up in the Burwell household. She was sent to live with other members of the Burwell family. Her life during those years was filled with difficulties and abuse. She gave birth to her only child, a son, George, during this time. His father was a white storeowner who raped Elizabeth repeatedly. In 1842, Elizabeth and her son were sent back to Colonel Burwell’s wife Mary. Mary was living with her daughter and son-in-law Hugh Garland. Financial difficulties led the Garland family along with Elizabeth and her mother to move to St. Louis. Elizabeth offered to use her sewing skills to make money for the financially strapped Garlands to keep her mother from being hired out. Elizabeth’s work as a seamstress helped her gain money and connections. She was able to buy her and her son’s freedom in 1855 through loans of friends and money she obtained as a seamstress. By this time, Elizabeth was a successful dressmaker. She moved to Washington, D.C. in 1860 and built up her dressmaking business by serving the wealthy women of the area. This led to an opportunity to make a dress for the First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. She became the First Lady’s dressmaker and confidante.  Elizabeth’s biography was published after the death of President Lincoln. It led to considerable backlash and the end of her relationship with the First Lady. But it did not stop Elizabeth from thriving.       

Mary Ann Magnin

Mary Ann Magnin was born Mary Ann Cohen in Holland in 1850. Her family moved to London, and she married Isaac Magnin there in 1865. Mary Ann and her husband moved to San Francisco in 1875 looking for a better life. She needed to help support her growing family, so she used her talent for sewing as many women did during the 19th century. But Mary Ann had a vision for something grand. She opened a store where she sold her creations. She specialized in baby clothes, women’s lingerie and clothing. She named her store I. Magnin after husband Isaac. It would have gone against the societal conventions of the time to name her business after herself. But her husband took little interest in his wife’s business. Her eight children helped with the business though. The girls were put to work sewing and the boys worked in the store.  Mary Ann had a good head for business and knew that she would make the most profit by catering to the wealthy women of the area. She sold bridal gowns and high fashion clothing from Paris.  Her store was set up to impress her wealthy clientele. Mary Ann was dedicated to her growing business. Eventually, I. Magnin had locations up and down the West Coast. Mary Ann would turn the business over to her sons at the turn of the century but was still involved.   

Conclusion

All these women had many things in common. They knew how to take their skills and talents to move up in a male dominated society. This took brains, bravery and belief. At a time when most women were just looking to survive the day, these women had the fortitude to aim higher. Belle, Marie, Mary Ellen, Elizabeth, and Mary Ann all gained financially and became famous in their time. They stood as examples to the women around them of what could be.     

What do you think of these amazing women? Let us know below.

Angie Grandstaff is a writer who loves to write about history, books, and self-development.

Sources

Lewis, Jone Johnson. "A Brief History of Women in Higher Education." ThoughtCo, Aug. 27, 2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/history-women-higher-ed-4129738.

“Women in the Industrial Workforce.”  Ohio History Central, https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Women_in_the_Industrial_Workforce

“Belle Brezing. A Short Biography of Lexington’s Most Famous Woman”.  University of Kentucky, Special Libraries Research Center, https://libraries.uky.edu/libpage.php?lweb_id=341&llib_id=13

Lewis, Shantrelle P.  “Marie Laveau”.  Britannica, June 11, 2021.  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marie-Laveau

“Marie Laveau”.  History of American Women.  https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2012/07/marie-laveau.html

“Mary Ellen Pleasant”.  National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-ellen-pleasant.htm

Hudson, Lynn M. (2003).  The Making of “Mammy Pleasant”: a Black Entrepreneur in 19th Century San Francisco.  University of Illinois Press.  

Mann, Lina.  “From Slavery to the White House: The Extraordinary Life of Elizabeth Keckly”.  The White House Historical Association, Sept. 14, 2020.  https://www.whitehousehistory.org/from-slavery-to-the-white-house-the-extraordinary-life-of-elizabeth-keckly

Kahn, Ava F.  “Mary Ann Cohen Magnin”.  Jewish Women’s Archive.  https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/magnin-mary-ann-cohen

The Colonization of America: 16th and 17th Centuries

This article is the first in a series of articles that will look at the North American frontier and colonists. It will be divided between its initial stage of 16th and 17th centuries, then the century of empire wars, the 18th century, and its final stage, the conquest of the west in the 19th century and the initial years of the 20th century.

In this article we look at the early years of colonization, the main colonizers, and some of their interactions and battles with Native American tribes.

Champlain's Battle with the Iroquois, Ticonderoga, July, 1609. Part of the Beaver Wars.

Early activity

The conquest of this inhospitable place began from the moment the first Spanish settlement was founded in Florida in the 1550s. These first settlements were not permanent and were often used as military outposts and camps or used as bases for the intrepid Spanish explorers, then in the 17th century, more precisely in 1607, the British founded the settlement of Jamestown in the now state of Virginia. After that moment the conquest of the frontier really began. The British started to go inland, the French, who already had a few failed costal settlements founded by maritime explorers, as well as the Dutch, soon followed, with conquest or occupation of inland territories near their settlements.

At this initial stage the French colonized the valley of the Saint Lawrence River founding Quebec, in present-day Canada, in 1608, and the territory of the Great Lakes, and around the city of New Orleans. The Dutch, settled and colonized the Hudson River valley, where they would build the city of New Amsterdam, the future New York, in 1624; and last but not least, the Spanish settled and colonized the territories of Florida, Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico, and even though we talk about the conquest of west, and the Spanish were already there, they were in such small numbers and so disperse that these southwest colonies were used as buffer territories, to separate the Spanish colonists that occupied the former Aztec Empire from the Native Americans that occupied the Midwest, Rocky Mountains, and the southwest.

Organization

At the head of colonial organization were the trade companies, like the Compagnie de la Nouvelle-France (Company of New France), the Dutch West India Company, the London Virginia Company, and the Plymouth Company. In the specific case of the Spanish, the head of the colonial organization in North America was the Viceroy of the Vice-royalty of New Spain, founded in 1521, who then appointed various governors and military leaders, scattered in the different regions and colonies. 

During this initial period, the border territories were marked by trade with Native Americans, and the main items were the pelts of bears, wolves, deer, raccoons, and other animals. This business was located especially in the region of valley of the Saint Laurence River, location of military and colonial clashes between the French and the British. As colonization advanced in the south, the now states of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, commerce and trade was marked by the selling of slaves, cotton, and tobacco.  

This struggle for the frontier, led to countless wars, revolts, popular uprisings and attacks by Native Americans, that is, all those who were not “civilized” by the conquerors. In the initial period of the colonization two major confederacies occupied the territories of northeast America, the Powhatan Confederacy composed of tribes in the region of Virginia, New York, and Maryland. The tribes included the Powhatan, the Chesapeake, and the Appomattoc. The second was the Iroquois Confederacy or Haudenosaunee, composed of tribes in the region of the valleys of the Hudson and St. Lawrence River. The tribes included the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Cayuga, the Seneca, the Tuscarora, and the Onondaga. Alongside these two confederacies, a few other tribes occupied this vast region, such as the Métis, the Abenaki, the Lenape, the Cree, and the Algonquin.

Conflict

After a few years of peace, conflicts between colonists, for territory, trade and political causes started to occur and were supported by the different tribes who signed alliances with the French, British or Dutch. Of the conflicts that occurred in the first years of colonial occupation, the Beaver Wars between the Iroquois, who were supported by the British and the Dutch, and the French supported by an alliance of tribes from the Great Lakes Region, is one of the first major conflicts of the colonial era in North America. At the same time the British fought skirmishes with the Powhattan Confederacy among others. Alongside these tribal skirmishes, they had conflicts with the French and Dutch colonists. All of these conflicts were mostly for territory in the regions that were occupied by colonial powers or by the tribal confederacies or solo tribes. These colonial conflicts were shadowed by larger imperial conflicts in Europe, like the Thirty Years’ War, or other regional conflicts that occurred between the different states and empires. 

By the end of the 17th century the colonial powers were politically consolidated in North American territories, but they were not established territorially. That only happened in the next two centuries, and for that to happen a lot of battles and wars would happen and a lot of men and women, colonists and natives, would die.

What do you think of the early colonization of America? Let us know below.

King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York: True Love?

Of all the love stories throughout time, one that is rarely mentioned is that of England’s King Henry VII and his Queen, Elizabeth of York. Here, C. M. Schmidlkofer looks at their marriage, considers whether it was true love, and what happened when one of the couple died.

Elizabeth of York.

The union of King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York in 1486 coincided with the end of the War of the Roses, a series of civil wars between the House of Lancaster and the House of York, rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet fighting for the English throne.

Henry Tudor won the crown and Elizabeth’s hand in marriage, bringing the two factions together and establishing a peaceful realm in the land.

Arranged

While it sounds romantic, marriages at the time were rarely the result of romantic love. They were vehicles for political and familial alliances, cemented further with the resulting children. 

Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage was arranged by their mothers, Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for the sole purpose of uniting the Lancasters and Yorks.

And while Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage may have started in the usual way, it is thought the two fell in love over time. 

Elizabeth had been raised to be a dutiful wife and evidence suggests in that she was successful. Admirers cited her beauty, fertility and devotion as the making of a good queen.

Historians cite evidence of a loving, joyful marriage between them. It is reported they showered one another with gifts throughout their union. Elizabeth earned Henry’s love with her loyalty and support and he responded with acts of kindness and concern.

Kings of the day did not typically confer with their queens about matters of state, yet there appears to be evidence Henry gave Elizabeth the power to petition him on behalf of her servants, merchants and others to even resolve issues independently on occasion on matters of law.

When Elizabeth’s brother-in-law, William Courtenay, was charged with treason in 1502 and imprisoned in the Tower, she took to her charge his young children to raise shortly before the arrest. Historians suggest that Henry had come to trust his wife enough to alert her of his intentions regarding Courtenay, showing how confident he was in her loyalty to share a secret of the highest level.

Historians cite an example of their love and trust for each other when their eldest son, Arthur, died at the age of 15 the same year.

Overwrought with emotion over the death, the two fell to each other for comfort, with Elizabeth reminding Henry they were still blessed with a son and two daughters and were still young enough to have more children. And he supported her when, afterwards, she succumbed to grief.

Death

Henry was devastated following Elizabeth’s death, only a year after the birth of a daughter, who also died a short time later. He was reportedly inconsolable, securing himself away for a time, unwilling to accept the solace of comforters.

In what is considered a display of his love for Elizabeth, Henry spent a considerable sum on her funeral. Records show that he spent approximately $4,225, the equivalent of $184,494 today, for opulent processions and services. He spent $845 for Arthur’s final expenses.

Henry VII attempted remarriage several times, searching for a wife that would strengthen England’s political and financial standing.

One potential wife was his own deceased son’s widow, Spanish royal Catherine of Aragon, which caused much concern as she was slated to become the bride of Henry VIII, Henry’s second son, when he came of age.

And while this looks like another political move, Henry VII is thought to have had mercenary motives as well as lustful ones. He wanted to keep Catherine’s dowry in his control and there was speculation he was smitten by her beauty and personality. He also wanted another son, and the young widow could provide that for him.

There aren’t many details of this attraction and even fewer concerning Catherine’s reaction to Henry VII’s interest. Historical novels suggest the King danced and flirted with the teenage girl to the dismay of his advisors, who tried to talk him out of marrying the teenager.

His negotiations for a marriage contract with Catherine’s parents, Queen of Castile Isabella I and King Ferdinand II of Aragon, never materialized as they objected to the union.

Unwilling to return Catherine’s dowry to Ferdinand, King Henry VII moved forward with the marriage of Catherine to Henry VIII in 1509 while he sought other prospects for his own remarriage.

Queen Isabella suggested King Henry VII marry her niece, Joanna of Aragon (Dowager Queen of Naples), but a satisfactory agreement did not materialize.

And finally, Margaret, Archduchess of Austria, declined Henry’s offer of marriage. He spent his remaining years an unmarried man, passing away in 1509, his son Henry VIII becoming King of England, with Catherine of Aragon at his side as Queen.

What do you think Henry VII and Elizabeth? Let us know below.

Now read more from the author here on “Five Amazing Things About King Henry VIII’s ‘Fixer’ - Thomas Cromwell”.

The Tough Lives of Women in Tsarist Russia

The Roman Dynasty ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917. Here, author Ellen Alpsten tells us of the tough life that women led during the period – and considers how one of the heroines in her book came to be such a powerful figure in a male-dominated country.

A 1750s portrait of Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress of All Russia from 1741 to 1762.

Both researching the wild, pitiless world of the Russian Baroque – think late 17th and early to mid-18th century – and writing The Tsarina’s Daughter made me discover many fascinating if fearsome facts. Next to the incredible ingenuity applied to make people suffer in torture and execution for the slightest offence to any authority, be it the Russian Orthodox Church or the Tsar, I was shocked to learn about the rampant maltreatment of women. 

God’s Beast of Burden

My research made me reflect about my gender and the lives we led throughout history. Women were God’s beast of burden: multitasking and toiling from dawn to dusk. If people and historians go misty-eyed when speaking of the 'good old days', thinking of a closer social cohesion and man's limited spiritual horizons, which made for a simpler life, these were terrible days for the ‘weaker sex’. ‘Her-story’ is not only written by Queens and Princesses, but any woman, of which social standing whatsoever, everywhere. Girls received no education other than household chores. Early marriage - sometimes as early as the age of 12 – happened to an often much elder man, who suited your parents, cementing their status and relationships in the village. This husband probably soon turned violent with drink: the liquor of the serfs, the million-fold ground cover of the Russian Earth is called kvass, a bitter drink made of fermented bread. Only steady stupor allowed the poor to suffer their fate. For any woman, annual childbirth was a gamble of life and death. Also, in Russia, the harsh climate and the lack of healthcare forced a mother to see at least half of her offspring die. There was no privacy and certainly not the modern luxury of me-time, or neither dreams nor hopes - just toiling, toiling, toiling from dawn till dusk. 

War as a harbinger of progress

If life was marginally better for women of high standing, the Petrine laws of inheritance introduced by Peter the Great changed the situation substantially for all women. War brought unimaginable suffering to women – losing their sons and husbands – but it was also a harbinger of progress and modernity. In the case of my research for the Tsarina series, I learnt about the most important conflict European history ever forgot: The Great Northern War, Russia’s battle for survival against the then supreme power-player Sweden. No price was too high to pay for Russia’s survival. In Peter the Great’s realm nothing was as superfluous and expendable as human life. His legislative system responded to the challenge the war against Sweden raised: If all men stand in battle, the women have to be allowed to work, running trade. If all sons stay in the field, an unmarried eldest daughter must be allowed to inherit, whilst a second daughter might be widowed and is provided for by property. 

A milestone for Emancipation

The Italian newspaper La Stampa in its glorious review of The Tsarina's Daughter pointed out the changing female situation as a strong point of the novel: ‘Her voice overcomes a fate raging against her.’ 

If the women in The Tsarina’s Daughter have mostly no choice then to succumb to male dominance, my heroine Elizabeth makes an exception to that rule. If her path proved to be stony and often marked by life-threatening situations, her decisions remind us of the freedom that modern women have today. In her life, we witness a milestone in female emancipation and empowerment. Like an inverse Cinderella story, she bears testimony of the strength of human nature and the absolute will to survive. She also transgressed other borders – when threatened with being banished to a convent for her many affairs and the freedom with which she lived her passions, the Spanish envoy noted, deeply scandalized, that ‘she has not an ounce of nun’s flesh on her body and all her faults are in character and not in her appearance.’ 

A Popular People’s Princess

How then could a woman such as my heroine Elizabeth Petrovna, the great Tsar’s daughter and the only surviving of her fifteen siblings, overcome the deeply enrooted obstacles of a male dominated system? Peter the Great’s death left a vacuum of power, which allowed for one of the most complex situations in Russian history. Such as Goethe’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the country could not master the spirits that it roused: the huge influx of westerners generated by the great Tsar and his successors. As the realm struggled for survival, Elizabeth cleverly played the popular card. The Russians are a communal people – the word for happiness -‘shast’ye’- means being part of something bigger. The Tsarina’s Daughter was one of them, sharing the complexities and stark opposites of the Slavic soul: born to countless palaces, she preferred camping in the Russian countryside. If JS Bach was invited to become the Romanov’s composer of choice, she sung crude peasant songs and danced with her subjects through many a White Night. While she at her death owned 15,000 gemstone-encrusted gowns, she preferred dressing in often traditional male dress, allowing for an unencumbered lifestyle. She allowed unwittingly for an image of a Russian woman that was further institutionalized by the Soviets, equalizing the female situation in Russia – at least nominally so.

The Tsarina’s Daughter by Ellen Alpsten (Amazon), published by Bloomsbury, is out in hardback on July 8, and Tsarina, Ellen’s first book, is out in paperback now (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

The Cold War-era Guatemalan Genocide – And America’s Role in it

The Guatemalan Genocide, coined the Silent Holocaust, had a great impact upon the indigenous Mayan people of the mountainous regions of Guatemala; however, few have heard of it. Between 1981 and 1983 the CIA backed military dictatorship of Guatemala persecuted indigenous Mayans as a proxy in the war against socialist guerillas. Roy Williams explains.

Queqchí people carrying their loved one's remains after an exhumation in Cambayal in Alta Verapaz department, Guatemala. Source: Trocaire / CAFCA archive, available here.

Amid the backdrop of the Cold War and the Reagan administration’s newfound vigor in combatting Soviet style socialism in the western hemisphere, the United States funded the military dictatorship of Efrain Rios Mott. The rise of the Guatemalan dictatorship stemmed from the Guatemalan Civil War and the United States backed coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government in favor of a more easily controlled military dictatorship. From 1960 until 1996, the Guatemalan civil war raged as the military and the government sought to defeat leftist rebels. Amid this conflict, the Guatemalan military carried out cruel acts of genocide upon the indigenous Mayan population who were blamed for rebel activity regardless of their actual involvement. 

To understand the reasons behind the Guatemalan genocide, the history of Guatemala’s civil war remains tantamount. In 1944 Juan Jose Arevalo was democratically elected to the presidency and began instituting multiple reforms. These reforms included increased funding for education, a national minimum wage, and a maximum work week. While these reforms were ultimately beneficial for the Guatemalan people, they failed to recognize one of the most consequential determinants of Guatemalan poverty, land ownership.

The United Fruit Company

In 1951, Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala and continued in the spirit of reform as his predecessor. Arbenz stood as a unique leader in the Latin American world as a proponent of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. At the time of Arbenz’s presidency, Guatemala stood as an ideological leader of the Latin American world in its quest for reform and modernization. On June 17, 1952, the Agrarian Reform Law was passed as a monumental move towards granting Guatemala’s people a chance at land ownership. At the time of passage, 40% of the Guatemalan economy was run by the American company, the United Fruit Company. The United Fruit Company owned large swaths of land and controlled all the country’s railways as well as the electrical infrastructure. Arbenz attempted to pay the United Fruit Company for their large swaths of land but they ultimately refused. Unbeknownst to president Arbenz, the current secretary of state of the United States during the Eisenhower Administration, John Foster Dulles, was a corporate board member of the United Fruit Company. John Foster Dulles’ brother, Allen Dulles, was also the head of the CIA at the time. 

Upon the conflict between the Guatemalan government and the United Fruit Company, a concerted effort began to paint president Arbenz as a communist for his reformist attitude. Slowly but surely public opinion in the United States began to go against president Arbenz and his attempted reforms. In June 1954, the CIA staged a coup of the Guatemalan government led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, which sought to regain the lands of the United Fruit Company. Ultimately the CIA were successful and on June 27, 1954, Armas overthrew Arbenz and became president of Guatemala, marking the end of the 10 years of spring, the only time in Guatemalan history that any leaders were elected democratically without foreign interference.

War begins

Immediately after the coup, Armas began suspending civil liberties and accusing peasants of having communist sympathies. This cycle of military dictatorships continued until 1960 when the Guatemalan civil war began. Initially guerilla resistance began in the cities of Guatemala, but it soon became evident that the mountainous regions of Guatemala would be more effective as a base of operations in resisting the government. The sad coincidence of the movement of guerillas to mountainous regions such as El Quiche is that the indigenous Mayan populations lived there largely uninvolved with the revolutionary politics of Guatemala.

In March 1982, military leader Efrain Rios Montt assumed power - with the help of the military. Montt had strong ties with the Reagan administration in the United States and ultimately received foreign aid in the conflict with the Guatemalan people. Montt claimed that God had put him in power and began his reign by bringing law and order to the major cities of Guatemala. Every Sunday Montt conducted erratic sermons aimed at reducing crime in the cities. Ultimately Montt’s goals succeeded in reducing crime and gained him wild popularity in the cities. Montt then turned his mission towards wiping out all resistance in the rural areas of Guatemala. On May 28, 1982, the government announced a 30-day amnesty plan allowing any guerilla fighters to turn themselves in. The 30-day amnesty plan ultimately failed resulting in the mobilization of the Guatemalan Army against the countryside. Montt instituted the Frijoles y Fusiles program, which would be used to legally justify attacking indigenous populations.  During this period, the government and army systematically massacred the indigenous Mayan populations of mountainous regions such as El Quiche. The government of Guatemala made the horrendous decision that all indigenous populations were considered guerilla sympathizers and treated them as enemies. During this phase of the Guatemalan civil war, 200,000 native Mayans were massacred with 400 villages destroyed. Many of the massacres were committed in rudimentary ambush formats. When Mayan villagers would journey to the marketplace, the army would force as many people into large buildings, bar the door and burn them alive with the aide of gasoline. Other forms of genocide included forced disappearances, torture of suspected guerillas, and indiscriminate massacres.

War ends

The Guatemalan Civil War finally ended on December 29, 1996 when guerilla fighters signed a peace treaty with the government. Efrain Rios Montt was eventually found guilty of genocide in 2013 and sentenced to 80 years in prison. The sentence did not hold, as the Guatemalan constitutional court demanded a retrial and Montt died in 2018 without ever facing justice. Many officials in both the Guatemalan and American governments continue to deny the massacres as genocide, defending their actions as appropriate. The Guatemalan Civil War claimed the lives of some 200,000 people – including over 40,000 killed and disappeared as identified by the Commission for Historical Clarification (although the true figure is higher). Countless mass burial sites dot the landscape of the mountainous regions of Guatemala for which researchers continue to uncover the bodies of those murdered by their own government. 

While the genocidal killings have ended and dictator Efrain Rios Mott is dead, the United States has not atoned for its heinous actions in supporting the killings. The CIA is widely known to have understood its role in funding genocidal persecution whether intentionally or unintentionally. Regardless of the overarching goals of United States’ Cold War foreign policy in containing the spread of socialism throughout the world, the United States still bears responsibility in perpetuating genocide against the Mayan people of Guatemala. In combatting the denial of the Guatemalan genocide, citizens of both Guatemala and the United States must continue to stand up for the truth in remembering the atrocities of the past committed by both governments. By telling the stories of the Guatemalan Genocide and condemning the crimes against humanity perpetuated upon the Mayan people of Guatemala, further acts of genocide may be prevented in the battle against the violence of the state. 

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

Now, read Roy’s article on the Armenian Genocide here.

The Romanovs - The Tsarina’s Daughter

The Roman Dynasty ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917. Here, author Ellen Alpsten tells us of her fascination with Russian history and how she started to write her series on the Tsarinas.

Catherine I, one of the Russian Tsarinas. She was empress from 1725-27.

If ever there was a walk on the wild side, the early Romanovs in the 17th and 18th century took it. The wild and unbridled world of the Russian Baroque gives me the perfect backdrop for my novels of the ‘Tsarina’ series: epics cloaked in ice and snow, personal passions ruthlessly push on in the quest for power, resulting in the birth of the nation we know today.

My family’s stance on Russia is ambivalent – my father grew up in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), or East Germany. Forced to learn Russian he felt free to hate the Soviets. My cousin, however, runs a small, highbrow publishing house, which works with latter-day Russian intellectuals. I myself discovered this geographical behemoth and historical riddle when reading a book called ‘German and Russians’ by author Leo Sievers. It introduced me to the larger-than-life characters of Ivan the Terrible, the ‘Times of Troubles’ and finally the rulers of the young Romanov dynasty, who had been voted into office. I fell in love, head over heels, with these lives, fascinated by their uncompromising fullness.

But how to find out more about the shadowy figures that captured me the most: the women who dared to rise against the oppressing patriarchy in the world’s largest and wealthiest realm? The first century of Romanov rule was largely female-dominated. If the fact had not been ignored, research centered on Russian’s final Tsarina, Catherine the Great, who was not even a Romanov by blood, but a German Princess. Instead, I hoped to surprise and tell something new. Yet where to start? 

Growing fascination

Nikita Romanov said it in 1666: ‘We are as cursed – our men are as meek as maidens, and our women as wild as wolverines.’ Dwelling deeper on such a quote did not allow for half-measures. I read voraciously, and such divers oeuvres ranging from Tolstoy, Pushkin, Gogol, and Dostoyevsky to modern sociological studies such as the deeply disturbing ‘The unwomanly face of war’ by Svetlana Alexeyevich, Biographies like ‘Young Stalin’ by Simon Sebag Montefiore and also the lost, genteel worlds of the few that came at the expense of millions in Vladimir Nabokov’s ‘Speak, Memory’. How else should a foreigner grasp a culture as complex as the Russian? My interest morphed into a passion: I watched Russian films such as ‘Battleship Potemkin’ and the experimental ‘Russian Ark’ movie. And, lucky me, there were fascinating original sources galore, such as the diary of the German merchant Adam Olearius, who visited Tsar Mikhail Romanov’s court, stunned by a people ‘hardly better than animals.’ Invaluable, too, were letters of foreigners at the Russian Court such as the British Mrs Rondeau, and reports by the Dutch ambassadors and his colleagues sent by Princes of German nationality. Rounding off things with Robert Massie’s and Henri Troyat’s biographies about Peter the Great was unavoidable. Last but not least, Professor Lindsey Hughes of the ‘London School of Slavonic Studies’ tome 'Russia in the time of Peter the Great' turned out to be my bible as I dwelled deeper and deeper into the strange, shocking, sensuous world of both Russian history and its soul. It combines seemingly insurmountable contrasts casually, a lack of compromise that is fascinating. Finally, I even read Russian myths and fairy tales, which disclose so much about the imagination of a people.  

It took me a year to dare write the first word of my then debut, ‘Tsarina.’ The series is like threading a loom to weave a story as rich as any tapestry covering the walls of the Winter Palace. The novels attempt an answer to what my heroines’ lives were really like, flying in the face of a brutal patriarchy, and taking Russia from backward nation to beginnings of the modern superpower. Fleshing out those bare bones forced me to consider a myriad of aspects. 

Writing

The Russians are a communal people – the word for happiness -‘shast’ye’- means being part of something bigger. Neither ‘Tsarina’ nor ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’ ever surrendered to fate’s blows but made the best of a given situation. Their minds were not academically trained, they acted with courage, care and cunning, counting on people and rewarding family, friendship, and loyalty. Whatever obstacle there was to overcome, they dusted themselves off and saw another day, ready to be surprised by its gifts. This makes ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’ a very modern book. 

The strict framework of dates, events and details of the Russian Baroque and the Petrine era set of the beauty of my hitherto hidden historical heroines the better. If I was free to construct ‘my’ characters, every aspect had to be correct, from the clothes they wore, to the food they ate, the beliefs they held and how houses, roads, villages, carts etc. looked. As for the dramatic curve, I followed advice that the best-selling French author Benoîte Groult had once given me when I worked as her assistant: ‘To wish our hero well, the reader needs to see her/him sink low.’ Elizabeth, ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’, falls from riches to rags and rises from rags to Romanov! 

After all this research I hope that nobody, who has read ‘Tsarina’ or ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’, will ever forget my heroines again; and I hope for my writing to be as raw and unafraid as their lives were. Any writer dreams of finding such unspoiled, unexploited characters as the ‘Tsarina’ series. 

If an artist has a central theme to his creation, they are mine.

The Tsarina’s Daughter by Ellen Alpsten (Amazon), published by Bloomsbury, is out in hardback on July 8, and Tsarina, Ellen’s first book, is out in paperback now (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

Politics in the Kitchen during the Cold War

The kitchen is the heart of domesticity; the home of the home where food and warmth are enjoyed by family members. But even the kitchen—this private realm in our life—can be part of everyday politics. Here, Liza Hadiz considers the role of the kitchen in the Cold War, including the famous ‘kitchen debate’.

US Vice-President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev taking part in the ‘kitchen debate’ at the American National Exhibition in Moscow, 1959.

The Chamber

Before modern technologies were developed for the household, the kitchen was the drudgery of domestic labor; labor which was generally associated with women’s role. Not surprisingly, the Soviets once viewed the kitchen as a terrible chamber for women. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the kitchen was part of the house that must be rid of for the full emancipation of women. Public dining spaces replaced the kitchen to free women from the derogatory labor and toil of the kitchen, to give women time for self-growth and development—more time to read as well as explore literature and the arts. 

When these public dining places didn’t take off too well and the growing industry brought more people to the cities, the government set up communal apartments for several families to live in. Called kommunalka, these living spaces had a shared kitchen. The kitchens in these homes were public space, where each family sharing the apartment cooked their meals in. 

Among the pots and pans and laundry of all the families living in the apartment, the kitchen was not the best place to be sitting down to enjoy your coffee. Not just because it was a potential hotbed for occupants to engage in conflict, perhaps over a missing kettle, but it was also a dangerous place to carry out the wrong conversation. In the communal kitchen, you would have to watch what you say, as information can be passed on to the government.

A Kitchen of One’s Own

From the 1950s, in the rush to provide housing for the increasing population, low ceiling two-bedroom apartments were developed for the masses—dubbed the Khrushchyovka, after the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This time, they were built for individual families, with their very own bathroom and kitchen too. As extended families of three generations cramped into these small apartments, there was barely space for family members to eat together. But at least they had their very own kitchen.

With families having their own privacy, the kitchen did not become any safer. Being a private space, the government needed to take an even closer look at the kitchen. Agents were watching and tapping kitchens. 

However threatening, families welcomed guests into their small kitchens, and they were the place where conversations about politics and the arts took place. Between the walls of the kitchen, underground self-published literature (samizdat) was shared and read. It was also a place for family and friends to listen to banned music, such as jazz and rock and roll. When a group of people hung out in the kitchen like this, it was considered a form of dissident activity.

Ironically, while freedom of art and freedom of expression were topics discussed at the kitchen table, the discrimination that Soviet women were facing was left out of the discussion.

While after the revolution, Russian women obtained legal, political, and economic rights, it was not long after Stalin came into power that he brought back the traditional gender division of labor. Women were defined as mother, wife, and communist. Women’s condition eroded. Between the neighboring walls of communal apartments, it was no secret that women were victims of abuse.

In 1979, a group of women (Tatiana Mamonova, Tatiana Goricheva, Natalia Malakhovskaya, and Yuliya Vesnesenskaya) self-published the controversial almanac Woman and Russia that revealed what women really faced in the Soviet Union: the double standard as proletariats and as wives and mothers, unequal pay, domestic violence, poor conditions of maternity clinics, and the state’s poor childcare quality. However, the dissident circles did not care to discuss these issues at their kitchen tables and it was not long after the almanac’s circulation that the KGB were after the authors, forcing them to flee the Soviet Union.

The Dishwasher

Twenty years before Woman and Russia was written, in 1959, during an American exhibition at Sokolniki Park in Moscow, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had a heated debate with US Vice President Richard Nixon about women and kitchen design—one which would be remembered years on as part of Cold War history. Nixon proudly introduced the kitchen model of the “typical American house” and then particularly took the dishwasher as an example which he might have thought would represent women’s liberation in the US.  

While pointing at a dishwasher Nixon goes on to say:

“This is our newest model. This is the kind which is built in thousands of units for direct installations in the houses. In America, we like to make life easier for women.” 

In response, Khrushchev said, “Your capitalistic attitude toward women does not occur under communism.” 

Nixon replied, “I think that this attitude towards women is universal. What we want to do, is make life easier for our housewives.”[i]

The dishwasher conversation between the two leaders—dubbed “the kitchen debate”—is quite telling. Women’s wellbeing was some sort of a benchmark for assessing a political system. 

So if the Soviet Union had wanted to liberate women by getting rid of the kitchen, the US had opted for revolutionizing the kitchen. After World War II, women in America were encouraged to stay at home to make way for the employment of men returning from war. During this time, the old-fashioned American kitchen began experiencing a dramatic change. Listening to what housewives felt about their kitchen, in the late 1940s, architects, engineers, and home economics specialists began building modern kitchens. Using new technology, kitchens were turned into workshops to make cooking and washing convenient, less time consuming, and to give women freedom from drudgery. The architect of the successful suburban houses of the 1950s, Alfred Levitt, was quoted as saying: “Thanks to the number of appliances in our house, the girls will have three hours to kill every afternoon.”[ii]

With the new technologies aimed to boost efficiency and reduce domestic labor time, especially for women, couples could operate independently of extended family members. This was the time of the rise of the postwar nuclear family with the male breadwinner/housewife gender roles, from what advertisers and women’s magazines created the image of the postwar middle-class housewife. 

Although as a housewife a woman toils with unpaid labor daily, in the capitalist system Nixon was promoting, this was not considered demeaning. Her devotion to her family was what makes up the American family values of the time. US Cold War propaganda heavily focused on the family where the values of the ideal Western family were expected to sell democracy and capitalism abroad through the image of prosperity that the ideal family suggested.

Beyond the Kitchen

Interestingly, just four years after the kitchen talk with the Soviet leader—where Nixon attempted to use the domestic sphere to indicate the improvement of women’s life in the US—Betty Friedan’s research revealed the contrary. Her book The Feminine Mystique (1963) exposed what was not communicated over the kitchen table: the unhappy white middle-class housewife’s discontent with domestic life. 

Likewise, in contrast to what Khrushchev may have thought about communism’s attitude towards women, Soviet women faced discrimination in the private and public sphere and this fact was even overlooked by dissident circles. Banned over 40 years ago, the self-published Woman and Russia was in last year’s Leningrad Feminism 1979 exhibition. The exhibition allowed us to hear the once silenced voices of women who criticized the Soviet Union. These were the voices denied at the kitchen table.

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

Liza Hadiz is an editor and writer who lives in Jakarta. She writes on topics related to gender and history. Her blog is Some Thoughts from the Cappuccino Girl https://feministpassion.blogspot.com.

[i] Taken from The Kitchen Debate-transcript 24 July 959 Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Soviet Union.

[ii] Levittown Pa. (2003) Building the Suburban Dream.

Sources

Friedan, Betty (1973) ‘Up from the Kitchen Floor.’ NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/04/archives/up-from-the-kitchen-floor-kitchen-floor.html [Accessed August 22, 2020].

GeoHistory (2015) The Evolution and Dissolution of the Soviet Kitchen. https://geohistory.today/soviet-kitchen/ [Accessed July 5, 2020].

Iber, Patrick (2017) ‘Cold War World.’ The New Republic [online] <https://newrepublic.com/article/144998/cold-war-world-new-history-redefines-conflict-true-extent-enduring-costs> [Accessed December 21, 2019].

Krasner, Barbara (2014) ‘The Nuclear Family and Cold War Culture of the 1950s.’ Academia. https://www.academia.edu/9926751/The_Nuclear_Family_and_Cold_War_Culture_of_the_1950s [Accessed December 21, 2019].

Levittown Pa. (2003) Building the Suburban Dream. http://statemuseumpa.org/levittown/three/kitchen.html [Accessed August 22, 2020].

NPR (2014) ‘How Soviet Kitchens Became Hotbeds of Dissent and Culture.’ The Salt. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/how-soviet-kitchens-became-hotbeds-of-dissent-and-culture [Accessed July 5, 2020].

Roache, Madeline (2019) ‘Is Capitalism or Communism Better for Women? How the Kitchen Debate Gave a New Meaning to the Cold War “Home Front”.’ Time. https://time.com/5630567/kitchen-debate-women [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Calvert Journal (2020) The Story Behind the 70s Samizdat that Launched Late Soviet Feminism. https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/11906/woman-and-russia-feminist-zine-samizdat [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Kitchen Debate-transcript 24 July 959 Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Soviet Union. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1959-07-24.pdf [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Kitchen Sisters (2020) Communal Kitchens. http://www.kitchensisters.org/hidden-kitchens/communal-kitchens/ [Accessed July 5, 2020]. 

United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library (n.d.) Step-Saving Kitchens. https://nalgc.nal.usda.gov/step-saving-kitchens [Accessed August 22, 2020].

The Mayflower and the Wampanoag Nation

Wampum: Stories from the Shell of Native America is an exhibition. It’s also part of an on-going quest to find tribal regalia lost as a spoil of war over 350 years ago. This shared history connects England and indigenous America – then and now. Jo Loosemore explains how the exhibition came into being.

The belt in the exhibition. Image courtesy of and printed with permission of the The Box, Plymouth.

In 1676, following the bloodiest war on American soil, a wampum belt was sent to England. It belonged to Metacom (known to the English as King Philip), the leader of the Wampanoag Nation. Destined for King Charles II, the belt never arrived. Why? What happened? Where is it now? Its loss and location remains a mystery, but finding it is an on-going mission for Metacom’s tribal descendants. Accidentally perhaps, I joined their search for the missing belt – and, together, we found so much more.

A quest and questions

Four years ago, The Box Plymouth in the south-west of England, began preparations to mark the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower. That presented some challenges in terms of Mayflower mythology and memory, public perceptions of the passengers and the undeniable impact of the colonial past on indigenous America. Our approach was to work in partnership with the people of the Wampanoag Nation to tell our shared history of conflict and co-existence. The work of shaping a show – the Mayflower 400: Legend and Legacy exhibition – began in March 2017. 

Understandably, the Wampanoag people have a difficult relationship with Mayflower history and its legacy. They are the People of the First Light, who have lived in the American eastern woodlands for 12,000 years. They were also subject to attack from European disease and capture by English adventurers. Yet they enabled the survival of the Mayflower’s colonists, before being subjected to decimation during King Philip’s War in the 1670s and generations of repression. Today the Wampanoag Nation includes the people of Mashpee and Aquinnah, as well as several tribal clans living in modern-day Massachusetts. They didn’t have to work with us, but they decided they would.

Following months of questions and concerns, our exchanges became answers and suggestions. The Wampanoag Advisory Committee to Plymouth 400 recommended we establish a partnership with SmokeSygnals (Wampanoag history and communication specialists) ‘to develop a foundation of a shared history between our people’. The mother and son team of Paula and Steven Peters recognised that we wanted to listen and to learn. My kind of curation is about being open to ideas, ready to create, and committed to getting the story right for contributors and audiences alike. SmokeSygnals transformed my aspirations, understanding and outlook on what the Legend and Legacy exhibition could be, and what The Box’s programme for Mayflower 400 would be. Their contribution also led to the creation of a second, unexpected, exhibition – Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America.

A surprise show

In November 2017, Paula came to England. She was looking for Metacom’s belt.

We began the search at the British Museum. There, in the stores, surrounded by historic wampum belts, she spoke in her ancestral language – a prayer. She touched the pieces of centuries-old shell bead work looking for clues. Were any of these creations Metacom’s missing belt? 

No.

Then, I was unaware of the significance of the search. Now, I recognise what the visit meant and what it inspired. Walking away from the stores, through damp London streets, Paula explained her quest and her ambition. If she couldn’t find the belt in England, she wanted the people of her tribal nation to make a new belt to honour the old.

To be able to pray over those belts in the British Museum was an opportunity for me to be connected with my history and I felt like I was embracing my ancestors. The belt that we make will have an intention and will have stories. It also is going to restore this tradition to our tribal community. Inherent in the wampum bead, inherent in the making of the belt is medicine for us. It’s spiritual healing.

A new belt and a new beginning

We wanted to help - both with search and with the new creation. This was a partnership of possibilities and promise. We committed to finding funding for the making of a new wampum belt and an exhibition showcasing its creation and completion. Historically wampum was used in diplomacy and this project would connect our two peoples through time once more.

In 2019, Arts Council England agreed to support the commissioning of a new wampum belt – made exclusively by tribal members of the Wampanoag Nation, and shown as part of an exhibition touring to English museums along the ‘Mayflower trail’ – Lincoln, Southampton, London, and Plymouth. Paula, and her colleague Linda Coombs (a tribal scholar), returned to England to look again at the historic wampum here, and to teach us about its significance. We learned about the quahog shell, indigenous to the shores of the Wampanoag Nation, and the beadwork which had been created over centuries for treaties, ritual, condolence and adornment. They learned that we wanted to know more about their history and culture, the importance of Metacom’s loss and his legacy. 

Back in America, they began the creation of a new wampum belt. Established artisans worked alongside over 100 community contributors to craft 5000 shell beads into 150cm of symbolic design. Ancestral stories were woven into the imagery and the imaginations of those who created the new piece. Film-makers and photographer followed the process. They documented history being made and restored in Native America. 

On the other side of the Atlantic, we worked alongside our museum partners to develop a touring exhibition, which would welcome Wampanoag culture to England for the first time. Four venues – The Collection Lincoln, SeaCity Southampton, Guildhall Art Gallery London and The Box Plymouth, prepared to present the new wampum belt, its people and their history to English audiences.

The pandemic arrived instead. 

The wampum belt was stuck in transit at a warehouse in Boston. The exhibition was in parts in Cornwall, Plymouth and London. But while the show was delayed, the partnership remained intact and fully committed to seeing the show open – somehow - in England 2020.

An exhibition and an understanding

In August, the new wampum belt arrived. It was unrolled for the first time in Southampton. I opened its box to find that it had travelled with a traditional leather medicine bag. Paula had felt it might be useful and meaningful. It was displayed alongside the belt, and remains with it today. 

Despite Covid19, and colonial history, Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America began its national tour in 2020 and it continues now. Told by Wampanoag voices throughout, the exhibition explores their lives in America today, cultural history and the impact of the colonial past, as well as their creative aspirations for the future.

Wampum is sacred and symbolic. It carries the history, the culture and the name of the Wampanoag people. Wampum belts are a tapestry of art and tribal history. Made from the purple and white shells of the quahog and the whelk, wampum beads embody the Wampanoag connection to the sea and to life itself. This new wampum belt connects the past with the present. It honours Metacom’s historic belt and sustains the search. It also enables us to see and learn about wampum today. 

This belt is uniquely and rightly a way to bring our story to the people of England and remind them of the sacrifices that have been made by our ancestors as a result of their colonisation of our territory. That’s not a pretty story. It’s not a story that a lot of people want to hear, but it’s a truth that has to be told in order to balance the overall history. 

Listening, learning and living the past through Paula, Steven and the Wampanoag artists and artisans they’ve introduced to us, is a privilege. They have made a 17th century moment a meaningful 21st century experience. They are living alongside their ancestors, while reimagining a culture corrupted by colonisation, and living with its consequences today. That’s powerful. Together we realised we could shape a new interpretation of our shared past – and realise a more collaborative future too. We will continue the search for Metacom’s belt – in partnership – and with understanding of what finding it would mean. 

The belt that belonged to Metacom belongs to the Wampanoag people. We don’t know where it is. We don’t know who has it. We don’t know if it remains on one piece or if it’s been divided up amongst many others. But we feel very strongly it is part of our story – it is a document of our history and it is something as important to us as the crown jewels would be to the Queen of England. It belongs at home among the Wampanoag. I don’t think it needs to live in a museum. It needs to live among its people.

Please share any feedback on the exhibition below.

Jo Loosemore is the curator of Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America and Mayflower 400: Legend and Legacy for The Box, Plymouth. More details here.

Notes

This exhibition is the result of a four year partnership between The Box, Plymouth (UK) and the Wampanoag Nation (US) and created to mark the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower.

Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America is on show at The Box Plymouth until 11 July, and then at Guildhall Art Gallery London from 23 July-5 September

Partners

This exhibition is presented by The Box, Plymouth in partnership with SmokeSygnals, US.

Our museum partners are Saffron Walden Museum and the British Museum.

Our venues are SeaCity (Southampton), Guildhall Art Gallery (London) and The Box (Plymouth). 

Our funders are Arts Council England. 

Our programme partners are Mayflower 400.

Our academic partners are the University of Plymouth and the University of Pennsylvania.