Astrophysics, the study of the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, is a clear indication that humanity has an insatiable curiosity and relentless pursuit of knowledge. From the earliest civilizations to the modern era, our understanding of the cosmos has evolved exponentially, propelled by the brilliance of countless minds across centuries.

Here, Terry Bailey takes us on a brief yet captivating journey through history, tracing the origins and development of astrophysics and astronomy from its humble beginnings to the awe-inspiring advancements of the present day.

A depiction of Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.

Our journey commences in ancient times, where the seeds of astrophysics were sown amidst the fertile intellectual landscapes of early civilizations such as ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Greece to name a few. Among the pioneers of this era were Democritus of Thrace born in the 5th Century BCE, whose revolutionary atomic theory posited that all matter consisted of indivisible particles called atoms. Although his ideas primarily pertained to terrestrial phenomena, it laid a foundational framework for understanding the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

Another luminary of antiquity was Aristarchus of Samos, whose heliocentric model challenged the prevailing geocentric, (Earth centric), worldview. In the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus proposed that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun—a concept far ahead of its time. Despite facing resistance from contemporaries such as Aristotle, Aristarchus's visionary insight foreshadowed the Copernican revolution millennia later. Additionally, he calculated and estimated the distance to the Moon and the Sun and size of the Sun. It was after realizing the Sun was far larger than Earth he concluded that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene emerges as yet another luminary of antiquity, renowned for his groundbreaking contributions to geometry, astronomy and mathematics. In the 3rd century BCE, Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth using simple trigonometric principles, and calculated the Earth's axial tilt. In addition, Eratosthenes also worked on calculating the distance to the Moon and Sun as well as the diameter of the Sun adding to the works of Aristarchus of Samos - showcasing the ancient world's nascent grasp of celestial mechanics.

 

Renaissance

As the world transitioned into the Renaissance period, the torch of astrophysical inquiry continued to burn brightly in the hands of visionaries such as Nicolaus Copernicus. Building upon the heliocentric model proposed by Aristarchus, Copernicus's seminal work "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium", (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres),  revolutionized our understanding of the solar system. Thereby, placing the Sun at the center of the cosmos, Copernicus catalyzed a paradigm shift that would forever alter humanity's perception of its place in the universe.

The Enlightenment era ushered in a golden age of scientific discovery, with luminaries such as Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei making indelible contributions to astrophysics / astronomy. Kepler's laws of planetary motion provided a mathematical framework for understanding the dynamics of celestial bodies, while Galileo's telescopic observations offered compelling evidence in support of the heliocentric model.

 

20th century

The dawn of the 20th century witnessed the birth of modern astrophysics / astronomy marked by transformative developments in theoretical physics and observational techniques. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity completely changed our understanding of gravity, by adding to Isaac Newton findings, Einstein’s work offered profound insight into the curvature of space-time and the behavior of massive objects in the cosmos. Meanwhile, advancements in spectroscopy and telescopic technology facilitated unprecedented discoveries, allowing astronomers to peer deeper into the universe than ever before.

The latter half of the 20th century witnessed a surge in astrophysical / astronomical research, fueled by technological innovations such as space-based observatories and supercomputers. The advent of radio, X-ray and Gamma astronomy opened new vistas of exploration, enabling scientists to study cosmic phenomena beyond the visible spectrum. Concurrently, the emergence of particle astrophysics shed light on the enigmatic nature of dark matter and dark energy—two elusive entities that comprise the majority of the universe's mass-energy content.

In recent decades, the field of astrophysics has witnessed a convergence of disciplines, as researchers unravel the mysteries of black holes, gravitational waves, and the cosmic microwave background, (CMBR). Groundbreaking discoveries such as the detection of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) have provided empirical validation for Einstein's predictions, while opening new avenues for studying the dynamics of space-time.

As we stand on the precipice of a new era of exploration, the future of astrophysics / astronomy appears more promising and tantalizing than ever before. From the quest to uncover the origins of cosmic inflation to the search for extraterrestrial life, humanity's insatiable curiosity continues to drive scientific inquiry to unprecedented heights. As we gaze upon the vast expanse of the cosmos, we are reminded of our shared quest to unravel the mysteries of existence and unlock the secrets of the universe.

 

In perspective

In retracing the illustrious history of astrophysics / astronomy, we are reminded of humanity's enduring quest for knowledge and understanding. From the ancient musings of Democritus and Aristarchus to the groundbreaking discoveries of modern-day physicists, the journey of astrophysics serves as proof to the boundless potential of the human intellect. Gazing upon celestial weave of the cosmos, humans are reminded of our humble place within the vast expanse of space and time—a reminder of the profound interconnectedness that binds us to the universe itself.

I should add that amateur astronomers are now playing an increasingly active role in cosmic research, a number of projects are currently running that actively engage amateur astronomers to aid in the searching of the cosmos.

The vast expanse of the cosmos means it is impossible to observe the whole universe all the time, therefore, by engaging experienced home based astronomers across the globe it allows more of the cosmos to be observed, thus providing researchers with extra eyes to report possible finds.

Amateur astronomy is currently one of the fastest growing pastimes, as a professional astrophysicist I actively encourage everyone to look skyward and explore the cosmos either for pure pleasure and wonder or with the aim of possible becoming engaged in a live project.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

 

Special notes:

Size of the observable universe

The observable universe is more than 46 billion light-years in any direction from Earth, therefore, the observable universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter. Given the constant expansion of the universe, the observable universe expands another light-year every Earth year. However, it is important to note this is only the observable universe and Earth is simply part of the universe and not at the center of the universe.

One light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometers.

 

 

Point of interest:

Recent ground breaking research has identified evidence that suggests black holes are the source of dark energy, however, it must be remembered that this research is in the early stages and required more work.

Although, other researchers have proposed sources for dark energy, what makes this research unique is this is the first observational research where nothing was added to explain the source of dark energy in the Universe. This research simply uses existing proven physics, in other words black holes in Einstein's theory of gravity are the dark energy.

As further research is carried out and empirical testing hopefully provides the same answers then the mystery of the source for dark energy with be known at last, resolving a physics conundrum.

 

Theory of general relativity

A simple summing up of the core principles of general relativity.

John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, summed up the core of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. “Matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to move”.

In perhaps the pivotal moment of the Civil War, on July 3 at 1 pm, about 12,000 men charged across a field about a mile in length and were cut down in an extraordinary artillery barrage. The infantry attack was named after Confederate General George Pickett, who led the charge of his division from the south portion of the field. Generals Pettigrew and Trimble also led their divisions in the charge from the northern part of the field.  These divisions advanced toward the center of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge, encountering fierce resistance in the form of intense artillery and rifle fire from Union troops strategically placed on higher ground.. Only men from Pickett’s division made it to the Angle and pierced the Union line; Pettigrew and Trimble never crossed the Emmitsburg Pike.

Here, Lloyd W Klein explains what happened during Pickett’s Charge.

If you missed it, part 1 on General Lee’s advance to Pennsylvania is here, part 2 on day 1 of the battle is here, and part 3 on day 2 of the battle is here, and part 4 on Culp’s Hill, Cemetery Hill, and East Cavalry Field here.

Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Meade Staff Meeting

Late in the evening of July 2nd,, General Meade held a council of war to decide what should be done after two days of intense warfare. Probably Meade had already decided this issue and was using the meeting not as a formal council of war, but as a way to achieve consensus among officers he had commanded for less than a week. His senior staff officers and corps commanders concurred that, despite the significant losses suffered by the army, the most prudent course of action was to maintain their current position and await the enemy's attack.  As the meeting ended, Meade took aside Brig. Gen. John Gibbon, in command of the II Corps, and predicted, "If Lee attacks tomorrow, it will be in your front. ... he has made attacks on both our flanks and failed and if he concludes to try it again, it will be on our center."

 

Lee’s Plan

In contrast, General Lee did not convene a similar council of war, and his subsequent reports indicate that no alternative course of action was seriously considered. General Lee had intended for an early morning assault to coincide with the attack on Culp's Hill, but the arrival of Pickett's forces was delayed. The reasons behind this delay have been a topic of debate among historians ever since, and it remains a point of contention.

Longstreet’s intent to try a flank attack further around the Union right was immediately denied by Lee that morning, who insisted on an infantry attack on the Union center. Longstreet considered the attack unlikely to succeed, and according to his memoirs, he told Lee so in the moment. His reluctance to order Pickett’s Charge is one of the most renowned anecdotes of the Civil War. His memoirs describe that he told Lee: “General,” said Longstreet, “I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know as well as anyone what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position.” His reluctance and doubt have reverberated in history.

 

Pre-Attack Bombardment

The July 3 bombardment before Pickett’s Charge was the largest of the war, with hundreds of cannons from both sides firing along the lines for one hour, starting around 1 p.m. The Confederate artillery, numbering between 150 to 170 guns, unleashed a barrage along a two-mile line, aiming to weaken the Union defenses and silence their artillery. The cannonade is believed to be the most intense artillery attack in history up to that moment.  Despite the massive scale of the bombardment, its impact was limited.

The Confederate guns inflicted some damage on the Union batteries, but they largely overshot their targets. Part of the reason the Confederate bombardment was ineffective was that Confederate artillerymen missed their marks due to poor visibility from the smoke on the battlefield. July 3, 1863, was an extremely hot, windless day and the smoke from the guns hid the lines from the Confederate gunners, who thus could not adjust their range. The smoke from the firing hung low over the battlefield during the summer heat so no one could see what the effect on the defense line was and to make adjustments. Another factor was that It was usual to aim over the heads of the enemy so the explosion would maximize the shrapnel below. Further, at Cemetery Ridge, the line was very narrow, so there was little room for error. For these reasons most of the shells sailed over the heads of the line into the rear, causing mostly unimportant damage.

Fuses. But the most significant problem was that the fuses used burned longer than expected. The fuses used were not the usual ones; these had an extra second burn before detonating. The reason for this originated in a fire in the Richmond arsenal producing the fuses. An explosion in Richmond Harbor in April 1863 blew up the fuse manufacturing area, which led to a deficiency of the usual artillery fuses, so replacement ones had to be used from ordnance supplies manufactured in Selma and Charleston. These new fuses took 1 second longer than what the artillery commanders were used to, delaying detonation.

The Bormann fuse was the most common fuse used on smoothbore field artillery ammunition during the war. Both sides used this design.  Bormann fuses were notoriously unreliable and were often replaced with copper fuse adaptors to accept the standard paper time fuse. The Confederates adopted the Bormann fuse, a mechanical fuse, in 1861 and immediately began having problems.

The inferiority of the Bormann fuse combined with the intentional overhead trajectory led to the inefficiency of the artillery. If firing overhead and the fuse explosion is delayed by a second, it will not explode until it has gone past the target. Today, manufactured products are tested for effectiveness before they are sent to the supplier. After Gettysburg, Lt James Dinwiddie working for the Ordnance Dept investigated the fuses and it was found that they contained a resin filler that would soften and mix with the powder in humid warm weather such as that in the first days of July. The filler mixing with the powder was the cause of the longer burning fuses and non-detonating shells.

The CSA artillerymen had no idea that there was a problem with the fuses coming out of Selma and Charleston that would make them burn longer than a fuse of the same length coming out of Richmond. The design modification was intended to make the fuses burn slower, but no one had informed the Confederate artillery commanders.

A week after the battle, tests were conducted on the various fuses supplied from around the Confederacy at the Richmond Laboratories. The findings showed that those fuses in shells intended to explode over the Federal position at Gettysburg ranged anywhere from 150 to 200 yards further to the rear before exploding. A 4-inch fuse would burn at the rate as a Richmond fuse one cut to 5 inches. Why this product testing wasn’t carried out sooner isn’t known.

 

The Confederate Artillery: Organization and Position

Focusing on the Confederate artillery positioning, the Confederate cannons are placed in a wide perimeter. While those focused on Culps Hill make sense, you will note how many batteries are placed north and northwest of town where no troops are going to charge. Confederate authority dictated that artillery remain under the control of their corps command. Thus, Alexander had to organize his artillery without other help. As a result, there was insufficient concentration of Confederate fire on the objective.

The Confederate officer responsible for this configuration was Lee's artillery chief, Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton. Although he was Lee’s friend, his major contribution to Pickett’s Charge was to obstruct the effective placement of artillery from the two corps besides Longstreet.  The responsibility for the artillery cannonade to start the charge was given to Longstreet’s Corps Artillery chief, the outstanding young artillerist, Col. Edward Porter Alexander, who had effective command of the field.

Confederate authority dictated that artillery remain under the control of their corps command. As a result, there was insufficient concentration of Confederate fire on the objective. When Lee reorganized after Chancellorsville and Jackson’s mortal wounding, creating 3 Corps instead of 2, the army’s reserve artillery was disbanded and its batteries reassigned to the infantry corps. This provided each corps with five artillery battalions and the flexibility of assigning battalions to the infantry divisions or keeping them under corps command. This seemingly trivial command structure change had huge implications on July 3rd.

Note that the Confederate configuration is based on the corps location. The artillery stayed with their commander. The Union placement is based on intuitive defense. Aside from the command arrangement, geography factored in: the Confederates were occupying a wider area and many of their artillery placements were based on the needs of the previous two days and what grounds they had suitable for artillery placement.

Alexander did not have full confidence that all the enemy's guns were silenced and that the Confederate ammunition was almost exhausted. Longstreet ordered Alexander to stop Pickett, but the young colonel explained that replenishing his ammunition from the trains in the rear would take over an hour, and this delay would nullify any advantage the previous barrage had given them. The infantry assault went forward without the Confederate artillery close support that had been originally planned. When the Union artillery died down, General Alexander believed that the time to charge had arrived.

 

 

The Union Artillery Organization and Position

Were it not for General Henry J Hunt, Chief of Artillery of the Army of the Potomac, the Union might have lost the battle and perhaps the war.

Before the war, General Hunt was a member of a team that had revised the drill and tactics for the artillery arm of the US Army. He was the lead proponent of a radical organization concept: instead of allowing artillery batteries to be commanded by the infantry command, where they were used only to protect troops, he proposed strategic control by artillery commanders. The idea was that artillery could do much more than protect: they could attack, both on offense and defense.

On the morning of July 3, while inspecting the Union lines, he found an elevated vantage point from which he observed something whose importance only an expert in artillery tactics would grasp: the Rebel batteries were forming in line or going into position along a line that stretched from the Peach Orchard to the edge of town to the north. He alone knew what that meant. He also observed hurried activity in the Confederate infantry lines.

General Hunt understood that these were signs of an impending enormous attack. And, he knew from Colonel Sharpe of BMI that General Pickett commanded a division that had not yet seen action. Convinced that a massive infantry assault was imminent, Hunt rode back along the Union position, directing his battery commanders to reserve fire and avoid an artillery duel, which would simply exhaust the ammunition supply before the infantry’s appearance.

He lined the artillery up to catch the invasion in a crossfire. His idea was to create enfilading fire along the lines of the invading troops rather than face-on. Consequently, when he fired, entire lines of men disappeared. Hunt had only about 80 guns available to conduct counter-battery fire; the geographic features of the Union line had limited areas for effective gun emplacement. He also ordered that firing cease to conserve ammunition but to fool Alexander, Hunt ordered his cannons to cease fire slowly to create the illusion that they were being destroyed one by one. By the time all of Hunt's cannons ceased fire, and still blinded by the smoke from battle, Alexander fell for Hunt's deception and believed that many of the Union batteries had been destroyed. Hunt was also saving his ammunition for the infantry charge rather than long-distance firing.

But Pendleton ran out of ammunition; Longstreet inquired if this should delay the attack, but Pendleton’s supply wagons would have required over an hour delay, by which time all of the firing benefits from the bombardment already undertaken would have been lost.

Hunt, the best-known artillerist of his day, had argued for years that a single commander of artillery should be in charge. The Confederates never accepted Hunt’s command ideas, so each division and regiment had their own artillery under the division leader’s command. Hunt had full authority over his army's artillery while the ANV's artillery was directed by the three corps artillery chiefs (note- Alexander at this time was not the 1st corps artillery chief, he was technically just a battalion commander. Putting him in charge of the bombardment was a huge breach of protocol).

This caused the flanks of the attack to be pushed toward the center of the Union line: The Angle. Note how Alonzo Cushing’s battery just north of the Copse of Trees becomes the central focus. He was at the center not by intentional design but rather because the two Confederate flanks converged on his position to escape the crossfire.

Next, he ordered the last four batteries of the artillery reserve to start moving toward the Union battle line. He arranged his lines of fire from the sides of the line to aim toward the center, creating crossfire and plunging fire lanes. And he insisted that the batteries hold their fire when the Confederate batteries began their barrage – to conserve ammunition for what he knew was coming. And, he could so order, despite General Hancock ordering them to fire because he was the artillery commander independent of the Infantry. His theory of command was proven in practice.

He also ordered that firing cease to conserve ammunition, but to fool Alexander, Hunt ordered his cannons to cease fire slowly to create the illusion that they were being destroyed one by one. By the time all of Hunt's cannons ceased fire, and still blinded by the smoke from battle, Alexander fell for Hunt's deception and believed that many of the Union batteries had been destroyed. Hunt was also saving his ammunition for the infantry charge rather than long distance firing. The diminishment in US artillery fire was intentionally designed by Hunt (CO of the Artillery reserve) to create the impression among the rebels that the US artillery had been silenced and therefor would be unable to respond effectively to Pickett's charge. There was actually a substantial row between Hancock, who wanted the artillery firing to boost the morale of his troops, and Hunt who wanted to gull the rebels.

As the barrage continued, Hunt gave orders that deceived the Confederates; he directed several batteries to withdraw near the center of the line, causing the Confederates to think the batteries were destroyed. However, Hunt replaced the withdrawn batteries with artillerymen and cannons from the reserve, making sure the artillery line stayed strong along the ridge.

When the Confederate infantry broke the Union lines at The Angle, Hunt rushed forward, directly into the fray, firing away with a pistol at the advancing Rebels until his horse was shot, pinning him to the ground, but with no serious injury.

Hunt’s artillery knowledge, determination, and brilliant tactics ensured the Union line’s cannons had ammunition to fire when the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge began. Trusted by Meade and forceful enough to inspire his artillerymen to obey his orders rather than Hancock’s, General Hunt garners huge admiration from those who understand his contributions. Hunt was able to control the Union artillery as a single force which Pendleton could not do on the Confederate side Because Hunt was in charge of all of the artillery separate from Corps command, he was able to create this deception. Hunt had to resist the strong arguments of Hancock, who demanded Union fire to lift the spirits of the infantrymen pinned down by Alexander's bombardment.

General Hunt anticipated the infantry attack across the field connecting Seminary Ridge and Cemetery Ridge in the afternoon of July 3. As the map shows, he lined the artillery up to catch the invasion in a crossfire and plunging fire. His idea was to fire along the lines of the invading troops rather than face-on. Consequently, when he fired, entire lines of men disappeared. See the map which shows the lines of fire Hunt placed the Union artillery in position for, while the Confederate line of fire was straight ahead.

 

The Infantry Charge

Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three-quarters of a mile under heavy Union artillery and rifle fire.

The charge was made by 3 divisions. Pickett’s division led the charge. General Pettigrew led Heth’s division (of Hill’s Corps), who had been injured on Day 1. General Trimble led Pender’s division, who had been killed on Day 2. Two brigades from Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson's division (Hill's Corps) was to support the attack on the right flank: Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox and Col. David Lang (Perry's brigade). Hill’s illness precluded him from selecting who would attack from his corps; surprisingly, his troops who had fought heavily on Day 1 were chosen but those lightly used were not.

During the assault, the Confederates started to bunch up towards the center of the line. This was precisely at a bend in the Union line called the Angle.  At this location, the Union line formed a 90-degree angle behind a stone wall. The 71st and 69th PA Regiments were positioned on this wall, with support from the 1st NY Battery. Under Gen. Armistead, the Confederates overran the 71st and 69th PA before reaching the 1st NY Battery

 

What was the landmark that was the objective of the attack?

Although traditionally the Copse of Trees near the Angle has been cited since Bachelder as the visual landmark of the attack, this is probably mythical. Lee’s objective was very likely on July 3 exactly what his original objective on July 2 was: the actual focus of the attack was Cemetery Hill and the trees they were keying on were those of Ziegler’s Grove, which was much more prominent then. Lee’s attacks on both days were intended for the Union center. It was much more strategically significant than the open area where the Copse of Trees was. It was more elevated and a perfect artillery platform (hence why the Union had artillery there) and it would command the road network.

Cemetery Hill was the key to the fishhook position. Lee saw this July 1 from Seminary Ridge and his goal never wavered for 3 days. The fundamental problem was that the town of Gettysburg is right beneath that hill, and there remains no direct route even today, you have to go by Culps Hill or Cemetery Ridge. Today’s Steinwehr Avenue runs close but perpendicular to where you’d need to go. The only possible staging area would be the old Cyclotron site, and imagine that with artillery blasting the whole time from there. Washington Street does get near, but it goes directly into the center of the town. So, Lee either has to get his army up Emmitsburg Road onto Steinwehr, then make a right turn onto Washington Street or nearby, or take Culps Hill or Cemetery Ridge.

If Ziegler’s Grove was the intended focus of the attack to crush Cemetery Hill, how did the attack end up at the Angle at Cemetery Ridge instead? Hunt’s placement of his weapons forced the charge to go south. This caused the flanks of the attack to be pushed toward the center of the Union line: The Angle. Note how Alonzo Cushing’s battery just north of the Copse of Trees becomes the central focus. He was at the center not by intentional design but rather because the two Confederate flanks converged on his position to escape the crossfire.

 

The fences on Emmitsburg Turnpike

To cross from their positions on Seminary Ridge, the infantry had to cross Emmitsburg Turnpike about 100 yards before Cemetery Ridge. Witnesses noted that Pickett’s men crossed the road without problem from the southern end of the attack and were the ones who made it to Cemetery Ridge.  However, Trimble and Pettigrew’s men were caught in the road and very few moved further east. Hess first identified that a significant part of the problem was that the fences on either side of the road posed an obstacle to cross. Many were killed trying to get over the fence. But on the southern part of the road, these fence posts had been removed the day before during the July 2 battle, so they didn’t pose a problem for Pickett.

 

The fences on both sides of the road on the south part of the field were down from the action of July 2nd but not on the north side and this proved to be a huge obstruction. After crossing Emmitsburg Road, Kemper’s brigade was hit by flanking fire, driving it to the left and disrupting the cohesion of the assault. General Hunt had arranged his artillery to create crossfires and plunging fires on the south end. On the north part of the field, the Emmitsburg Pike was lined with fences which became huge obstacles to cross during the battle. The casualties piled up where men attempted to cross, only to be shot in the act. Many of the troops just took cover in the road.  Pettigrew’s men were in a similar situation although at least some of his men were caught in artillery at the start of the battle, and panic developed. Meanwhile, those fence posts had been removed on the South part of the field in the Rebel attack on July 2. There was no problem for Pickett to get to the wall, but then Stannard and artillery units opened up firing on the flank, forcing the attack to the north.

 

Hancock

Winfield Scott Hancock was one of the heroes of the Battle of Gettysburg, Hancock's leadership and bravery were conspicuous during Pickett's Charge. As the Confederate forces prepared for Pickett's Charge, Hancock rode along the Union lines, boosting the morale of his troops. He famously told his men, "There is no reason why any man should be nervous...I shall lead you through this battle!"

Hancock was himself wounded during the Charge and needed to be assisted off the field after the attack was over. It was a severe wound caused by a bullet striking the pommel of his saddle, entering his inner right thigh along with wood fragments and a large bent nail. He was helped from his horse by aides, and with a tourniquet applied to staunch the bleeding, The nail wasn’t removed for over a month despite repeated attempts. A surgeon finally was able to remove it by having him assume the position he was in when wounded sitting on his horse. He suffered from its effects for the remainder of the war and for the rest of his life, carrying a cane.

On July 3rd, his Corps was positioned on Cemetery Ridge and therefore commanded the Union center. Hancock recognized the Confederates' intentions to launch a major assault and anticipated that the Confederate attack would focus on Cemetery Ridge and made preparations to defend against it. He coordinated with other Union generals to reinforce the defensive line and prepare for the Confederate assault.

Hancock was himself wounded during the Charge and needed to be assisted off the field after the attack was over. It was a severe wound caused by a bullet striking the pommel of his saddle, entering his inner right thigh along with wood fragments and a large bent nail. He was helped from his horse by aides, and with a tourniquet applied to staunch the bleeding, The nail wasn’t removed for over a month despite repeated attempts. A surgeon finally was able to remove it by having him assume the position he was in when wounded sitting on his horse. He suffered from its effects for the remainder of the war, and for the rest of his life.

He almost died. Although he was wounded during the assault, he remained on the field until the Confederate attack was repulsed. When the fighting ended, the general was taken by stretcher and ambulance to a field hospital. He journeyed through Pennsylvania to Philadelphia and then Norristown to convalesce. His wound gave Hancock enough trouble, especially when riding a horse, that he was forced to give up active command at Petersburg in 1864, and it bothered him for the rest of his life. 

 

General Gibbon, who had been warned the night before, commanded the 2nd Division, II Corps. Gibbon's division bore the brunt of Pickett's Charge, where Gibbon was wounded. His leadership at the Angle was instrumental in the victory.

Alexander S. Webb was the brigade leader at the Copse of Trees. The 71st PA stopped the Confederate advance and forced the Confederates to seek cover behind a stone wall. Hand-to-hand fighting began in the Angle, and 2 companies fell back. Webb ordered a charge by the neighboring 72nd to drive the Confederates back, but the regiment refused the order. He then went to lead the 69th PA but was wounded in the thigh and groin. By this time, Col. Devereux's 19th MA Regiment and the 42nd NY Regiment rushed in and drove the Confederates out. He received the MOH in 1891.

Armistead

Brig Gen Lewis Armistead is esteemed as leading Pickett’s Division on the south end of the attack. He led his brigade from in front, through the artillery attack, hat on his sword, toward the Angle, over the stone wall, before being mortally wounded. Armistead embodied every positive attribute a courageous American military leader could display in a desperate moment.

Armistead of course was pre-war friends with General Hancock, his opponent that day. Armistead was the older man by seven years, so their paths never crossed at West Point, but army records show they met for the first time while serving on the frontier in 1844. After working together for 16 months in the remote outposts of modern-day Oklahoma, they fought in the same regiment and experienced some of the same battles in the Mexican War, where both were breveted for gallantry. Then, for a brief period after the war, as the U.S. Army occupied Mexico, Armistead commanded a small company and Hancock was one of his lieutenants. Captain Armistead was in command of the small garrison at the New San Diego Depot in San Diego, which was occupied in 1860. He was a close friend of Winfield Scott Hancock, serving with him as a quartermaster in Los Angeles, before the Civil War.  He was However, during the Battle of Gettysburg, they found themselves on opposing sides of Pickett's Charge, with Armistead leading Confederate forces and Hancock defending the Union position.

It is reported that he was struck by multiple bullets as he and his men reached the stone wall. Traditionally, it is said that he was shot with 3 bullets. Armistead's wounds were not believed to be mortal; he had been shot in the fleshy part of the arm and below the knee, and according to the surgeon who tended him, none of the wounds caused bone, artery, or nerve damage. Other accounts suggest the wounds were located in the upper thigh or groin area. The exact details of his wounds may vary in different accounts, but it is generally agreed upon that he suffered injuries to his lower body.

He was then taken to a Union field hospital at the George Spangler Farm where he died two days later. Dr. Daniel Brinton, the chief surgeon at the Union hospital there, had expected Armistead to survive because he characterized the bullet wounds as not of a "serious character." He wrote that the death "was not from his wounds directly but from secondary bacterium, fever, and prostration.”  One hears frequent discussions of Stonewall Jackson’s death from non-mortal wounds, but rarely Armistead’s. Infection and sepsis were the main causes of battlefield death if the initial wound was not itself mortal. Although this death would not have happened after penicillin was discovered in the mid-1930s, it was a common story in this war. Hancock wasn’t at Gettysburg long enough to see his friend and was in sufficient distress that it wouldn’t have been possible anyway. He might not even have known at the moment.

 

How many would have been needed to carry the position?

Longstreet ordered nine infantry brigades to make the charge on July 3. Five more brigades were held in reserve, which Longstreet never ordered to advance. Longstreet states in his autobiography that he estimated that it would have required 30,000 men to take Cemetery Ridge.

Mathematical modeling based on the Lanchester equations developed during the First World War to determine the numbers necessary for successful assaults demonstrates that with the commitment of one to three more infantry brigades to the nine brigades in the initial force, Pickett’s Charge would probably have taken the Union position and altered the battle’s outcome.  If he had put most of those reserves into the charge, the model estimated it would have captured the Union position. However, the Confederates would have been unable to exploit such a success without the commitment of still more troops.

Calculations based on the Lancaster Formula which was developed in World War I suggest that 20,000 men would have been needed to make a lodgment, but perhaps 5-10,000 more would have been needed to defeat the inevitable counterattack, which is not far off from the number Longstreet hypothesized.  The authors do not include Wilcox’s and Lang’s brigades in the initial force.  If these troops and Anderson’s entire division had attacked with the initial force, this would have supplied five additional brigades and around 5,000 more men, making the attack force fourteen brigades and from 15,000 to 18,000 men. These numbers would have guaranteed a lodgment at the Angle.  Another five brigades and one regiment scheduled for the second wave of Pickett’s Charge from Pender’s and Rodes’ divisions, as well as at least another brigade from McLaws’ division, were also available.  Had all of these men been brought into the attack column, the total would be nearer to the 30,000 men Longstreet thought necessary.

However, assuming the same rate of casualties, the cost would have been about half, or 15,000 casualties. There would have been insufficient fresh troops left to take advantage of that success. And what about the next hill and the next one? Various regiments might have been recruited for this effort: essentially, all of Longstreet and all of Hill’s Corps. But, assuming the 50% casualty rate on this additional number, and realizing that Lee only had 60,000 men at this point, while it’s theoretically possible they might have held this line, the cost would have been intolerable. Add another 10,000 casualties and it’s hard to see how Lee could have continued the war after taking that ridge.

This illustration shows the Union line kneeling and firing, with only the officers standing. The destroyed artillery from earlier bombardment is seen in the foreground. The rebel attack is coming from the southern or left side, very accurate since Armistead was originally placed far in that direction. It shows a large contingent of southern troops in the Emmitsburg Road just as suggested by Hess in his book and as I noted in my Pickett’s charge challenges. It shows the heavy smoke from the weaponry and seminary ridge in the background.  Note also the Codori Farm at the top left.

 

Casualty Rate

Between 10-15,000 infantry made the charge. The duration of Pickett’s Charge was 50 minutes. Total Confederate losses during the attack were 6,555, of which 1,123 Confederates were killed on the battlefield, 4,019 were wounded, and 3750 were captured including many of those listed as wounded. Many of the “wounded” died over the next days to weeks. Do the math: that’s 22 killed and 80 wounded per minute; about 1.7 casualties per second.

The casualty rate of Pickett’s Charge is typically given as 50-60%, with 10% killed on the

battlefield and 30% wounded with another 30% captured, many overlapping the wounded category. The Union loss is thought to be 1500 casualties. Pickett's division suffered 2,655 casualties (498 killed, 643 wounded, 833 wounded and captured, and 681 captured, unwounded). Pettigrew's losses are estimated to be about 2,700 (470 killed, 1,893 wounded, 337 captured). Trimble's two brigades lost 885 (155 killed, 650 wounded, and 80 captured). Wilcox's brigade reported losses of 200, Lang's about 400.

These figures are similar to the famed Charge of the Light Brigade (Crimean War, 1854) where, a British cavalry unit attacked Russian forces. The casualty rate was exceptionally high, with around 40% killed or wounded. These rates surpass the Assault on the Great Redoubt (Battle of Borodino, Napoleonic Wars, 1812), where The French Grand Army's assault on the Russian Great Redoubt during the Battle of Borodino resulted in high casualties; estimates suggest casualty rates of around 30%, and also the Assault on Marye's Heights (Battle of Fredericksburg, 1862), where the casualty rates for the Union troops were estimated to be around 15-20%.

The Confederate Army lost many of its top officers. Brigadier General Armistead was mortally wounded and captured. Garnett was killed in action; his body was never recovered and is believed to be buried with his men in Richmond, Virginia. Kemper was wounded and taken prisoner by the Union. Although the newspapers reported he was killed in the battle, his family did not believe it and were able to free Kemper from the Union prison.

 

Was Pickett’s Charge a Bad Decision?

The criticisms often directed at Lee for Pickett’s Charge are unwarranted. What else could he do under the circumstances? He had tried both flanks. He couldn’t go left because it led further away from any viable target. He couldn’t go right because it lengthened his supply line and he was out of artillery ammunition. If he turned around and declared victory, he wouldn’t have changed anything in the trajectory of the war and he’d be right where he started.

The Gettysburg campaign was a roll of the dice at a crucial moment.. You have to see it as a desperate final try to win the war on the battlefield. Despite all of Lee’s victories, the Union had not given up and in fact, were winning in the Western theater. The west was being lost and the confederacy was running out of time. Resources are dwindling. Davis and Lee know that things aren’t looking promising. He was a riverboat gambler who rolled the dice in every battle. From that perspective, it starts to make sense.

One hears suggestions that General Lee was ill and that he had heart disease, weakening his judgment. A contemporary analysis shows no reason for this suspicion. Heart attacks do not lead to poor judgment 2 months after they occur.

Faced with circumstances on July 3, Lee had no other options but to attack, and no other place to attack than the center.  If he retreated then the campaign would be a failure. The salient on Cemetery Hill is the obvious place to attack. Ewell is stalled on the left. Longstreet tried on the right the day before. He wants to go further to the right but there is no road there and no supply line. Hill is sick. Longstreet is being obstinate. Stuart had gotten nowhere that morning. General Lee is all alone. Where Lee miscalculated is that Hunt had created a deadly crossfire with artillery that had never been done like that before. Lee had not anticipated as devastating an artillery defense and indeed, none like it had ever been organized. Lee lost that day but look at all the other gambles he won.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

Further Reading:

·       Hess, Earl, Pickett's Charge--The Last Attack at Gettysburg.  UNC Press, 2010.

·       J David Petruzzi, The Complete Gettysburg Guide. SavasBeattie, 2009.

·       Michael Shaara, The Killer Angels: The Classic Novel of the Civil War (Civil War Trilogy).Modern Library, 2004.

·       Stephen W Sears, Gettysburg. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

·       Carol Reardon and Tom Vossler, A Field Guide to Gettysburg, Second Edition: Experiencing the Battlefield through Its History, Places, and People. University of North Carolina Press, 2017.

·       William A. Frassanito, Gettysburg: A Journey in Time. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1975.

·       https://theconversation.com/picketts-charge-what-modern-mathematics-teaches-us-about-civil-war-battle-78982

·       Edwin B Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. Charles Scribner, 1968.

·       James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America. 2nd edition, Lippincott, 1912. Accessed at: http://www.wtj.com/archives/longstreet/

·       Michael J. Armstrong and Steven E. Soderbergh, “Refighting Pickett’s Charge:  mathematical modeling of the Civil War battlefield,” Social Science Quarterly 96, No. 4 (May 14, 2015), 1153-1168. 

·       Richard Rollins, “The Second Wave of Pickett’s Charge,” Gettysburg Magazine, No. 18, July 1998, 104-110.

·       Lloyd W Klein and Eric J Wittenberg, “Did General Lee’s heart attack impact the conduct of the Battle of Gettysburg?” Gettysburg Magazine 67:July 2022; 62-75.

·       James M McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.

·       Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volumes 1-3. Random House, 1963.

·       https://emergingcivilwar.com/2018/06/26/artillery-henry-j-hunt-chief-of-artillery-for-the-army-of-the-potomac/

·       https://militaryhistorynow.com/2022/11/27/armistead-and-hancock-rethinking-the-storied-friendship-between-opposing-generals-at-gettysburg/amp/

·       Lloyd W Klein,  “Why Pickett’s Charge Failed”. The Civil War Center. https://thecivilwarcenter.com/2022/06/29/why-picketts-charge-failed-analysis-and-significance/

The historic preservation movement has shifted its focus multiple times and broadened its purposes throughout its existence. Here, Roy Williams returns and considers how it has evolved over time – and how it can be focused today.

The American Heritage Documentation Programs team measures the Kentucky School for the Blind. In Louisville, Kentucky, 1934.

In the beginning the historic preservation movement’s emphasis was preserving heritage through the built environment. The preservation of the built environment provided a framework and grounding point for understanding the culture and heritage of a nation. This provided understanding of the core valued concepts, institutions, and values which make up a nation. In addition to the preservation of the built environment, the National Park Service initially was formed to protect landscapes from the destructive industrial ravages of the 19th century. Ian Tyrell provides the argument that the rise of support for the National Park Service came as a direct result of a perceived global threat to the environment and the immediate need for conservation.[1] In this, the conservation of the environment and historic preservation have similar causes and roots. The two major reasons for preservation stand in pragmatic conservation for the utility of future use and preservation for the sake of preserving the existence of land and sites regardless of their utility to humans.

 

1970s

The historic preservation movement largely stood in its goals of preserving heritage and identity until the 1970s when the conservation of the environment began to become an important aspect of historic preservation. Questions of how much environmental destruction was wrought from the demolition of buildings and effects of new construction provided another angle to the importance of historic preservation. The embodied energy present in the construction of an old building provided the argument that older buildings should be preserved both out of cultural continuity regarding historic preservation as well as for the pragmatic aspect that the energy of construction would be wasted in the demolition of older buildings. The embodied energy of new construction would also add to the greater energy costs on top of the demolition of the older building. While this conclusion seems straight forward initially, there are opponents to the concept. Helena Meryman adheres to the concept of embodied energy in buildings but delves deeper into the world of materials associated with the preservation of the built environment with an emphasis upon the maintenance and conservation of the environment. In this regard, Meryman argues that while many materials should be recycled and previous methods of craftsmanship should be utilized in maintaining historic reconstructions, the importance of evaluating the potential of certain resources and their environmental impacts remains tantamount. Specifically, Meryman provides the counter argument against the proponents of wood as a sustainable material, that the lumber industry does contribute to deforestation and that, “The rates of timber consumption are exceeding the rate of renewal of natural forests.”[2] Instead, Meryman argues for the attempted extension of the life of current wood materials associated with historic structures and only using newly harvested wood for repairs when absolutely necessary. The National Park Service utilizes a concept known as replacement in kind which allows for the use of new materials at times allowing flexibility in the maintenance and rehabilitation of historic structures, the problem however with replacement in kind stands in the continued dependence on newly harvested lumber. The National Park Service provides the guidelines for when replacement in kind may be utilized as follows,

“The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation generally require that deteriorated distinctive architectural features of a historic property be repaired rather than replaced. Standard 6 of the Standards for Rehabilitation further states that when replacement of a distinctive feature is necessary, the new feature must “match the old in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual properties, and, where possible, materials” (emphasis added). While the use of matching materials to replace historic ones is always preferred under the Standards for Rehabilitation, the Standards also purposely recognize that flexibility may sometimes be needed when it comes to new and replacement materials as part of a historic rehabilitation project. Substitute materials that closely match the visual and physical properties of historic materials can be successfully used on many rehabilitation projects in ways that are consistent with the Standards.”[3]

 

Embodied energy

Embodied energy is largely an accepted philosophical aspect of the debate between preservation, demolition, and new construction, the costs involved in the creation of materials such as lumber, brick, steel all amount to a substantial amount monetarily and in carbon output. The energy expended in moving materials from one location to another for the actual construction also amounts to a substantial amount especially in carbon output regarding transportation through the combustion of gasoline and diesel engines. Finally, the human labor utilized to create residential and commercial buildings remains a factor in the overall energy costs embedded in a building. The question from this embodied energy in buildings then arises in whether an older building is more environmentally friendly when retrofitted and updated than the construction of a new building? While at first glance, this seems straightforward the answer is not so simple and has engendered a small but passionate debate regarding the future regarding the nexus of preservation, environmental conservation, demolition, and construction.

Some scholars argue that the previous costs or embodied energies of an older building should not factor into current decision making regarding the demolition or preservation of a building. This current of thought argues that the energy that went into the construction of a building 50 to 100 years ago is water under the bridge and has no factor in this decision. Tristan Roberts drives this point home, arguing that resources expended in the past are not relative to the present, stating that, “when it comes to the energy expended in the 19th century to build that structure, that’s not a good reason for saving a building from demolition — it’s water under the bridge. Energy spent 2, 20, or 200 years ago to build a building simply isn’t a resource to us today.”[4]  Rather, they argue that the only two factors that should be considered are the costs of demolition and the potential benefits of more energy efficient construction. If the costs of demolition and its environmental impact cannot be offset quickly by more energy efficient new construction, then it is best to wait and leave the current building present for use. If the costs of demolition can be offset quickly by the more energy efficient new construction, then the demolition should proceed. The problem with this argument is that it stands in a philosophical binary regarding environmental destruction and energy efficiency rather than a larger more nuanced analysis. What does it matter which option is technically more efficient if both methods continue to add carbon-based pollution to the atmosphere and destroy the environment? Even with the recycling of materials, the costs of demolition and new construction both still pollute the environment and add to overall carbon emissions. Is the goal of this binary decision making to take the best of two bad options or is it to solve the problem and work towards an environmentally sustainable future? The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that,

“A new, high-performance building needs between 10-80 years, depending on the building type and where it is built, to offset the environmental impact of its construction. In comparing new and retrofitted buildings of similar size, function, and performance, energy savings in retrofitted buildings ranged from 4-46 percent higher than new construction. The benefits of retrofitting and reusing existing buildings are even more pronounced in regions powered by coal and that experience wider climate variations.”[5]

 

Green buildings

The United States Environmental Protection Agency details that, “600 million tons of C&D debris were generated in the United States in 2018, which is more than twice the amount of generated municipal solid waste. Demolition represents more than 90 percent of total C&D debris generation, while construction represents less than 10 percent. Just over 455 million tons of C&D debris were directed to next use and just under 145 million tons were sent to landfills. Aggregate was the main next use for the materials in the C&D debris.”[6] The context for this amount of waste provides a framework in understanding how Construction and Debris waste amounts for twice the amount of debris created from municipal solid waste. While new construction may produce less construction and debris-based waste, the reality that older buildings are demolished to make room for the construction of new buildings makes this problem inherently interconnected.

The sentiment of the environmental turn regarding historic preservation can be summarized best, in the words of Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, who said, “The greenest building is the one that already exists”[7] Simply put, the importance of preserving buildings for the purpose of environmental conservation serves both goals of the environmental movement as well as the historic preservation movement. Architect Steward Brand took this concept and developed it extensively in presenting how architects should not be confined to the realm of mastering space but to becoming artists of time.[8] Brand argues that buildings should be constantly updated and refined and utilized by humans to ensure their potential and utility. In this regard, Brand also believes that buildings should be constantly updated by their occupants rather than destroyed for the purposes of new construction. Following Brand’s deeper points, he argues that all buildings are made up of six shearing layers Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan & Stuff. The organization Restore Oregon provides supplementary evidence to this premise regarding environmental impact. Restore Oregon utilizes the Eco-Northwest study which detailed that,

“Renovating a 1,500 SF older home reduces embedded CO2 emissions by 126 metric tons, versus tearing down the same structure and replacing it with a new 3,000 SF residential building. Such savings may be better understood this way: a savings of 126 metric tons of embedded CO2 is roughly equivalent to the prevention of 44,048 gallons of gasoline emissions being released into the atmosphere. In the case of a 10,000 SF commercial building, which would typically utilize more energy-intensive materials and construction techniques than residential construction, the CO2 emissions savings would be 1,383 metric tons, or the equivalent of 484,127 gallons of gasoline burned.”

Substantially, the ECONorthwest study also presented the reality that preserved buildings have a far greater positive impact on CO2 Emissions than the removal of present combustion engines when accounting for the average annual 474 gallons of gasoline used by American vehicles, arguing that, “renovating an older home, rather than demolishing and replacing it, equates to removing 93 cars from the road for an entire year, while a single commercial renovation equates to removing 1,028 cars from the road for the same period of time.” This stands as significant statistical analysis when considering the broader trends of historic preservation and environmental conservation as united fields.

 

Reuse and deconstruction movement

A particular bright spot regarding sustainability and the middle ground between preservation and demolition is the recent advancements in the reuse and deconstruction movement. Rather than the current largescale trend of demolition, deconstruction aims to dismantle older buildings for the purpose of reuse and recycling. Deconstruction ordinances such as those in Portland Oregon dictate that older residential buildings must be deconstructed, and their materials reutilized. This revolutionary concept could potentially pave the way for a more circular economy in which waste is recycled and reused rather than discarded for new construction. However, the movement remains in its early stages, “There isn’t a salvage economy in the U.S. for commercial buildings,”[9] said Jason F. McLennan, the chief executive of McLennan Design and the creator of the Living Building Challenge, with most of the projects remaining residential in nature. Reuse at this stage is not necessarily more profitable due to the labor included in deconstruction and the process of storing materials. The most advantageous aspect of reuse remains in the preservation of historic materials as well as the preservation of embodied energy remaining in the materials.

Re: Purpose Savannah led 501(c)3 nonprofit advocates for sustainability through deconstruction, salvage, and reuse of historic buildings.[10] This effort towards deconstruction and recycling provides a viable alternative to the waste and pollution generated from conventional demolition. Upon research and documentation in preserving the history of a structure, Re:Purpose Savannah deconstructs the materials storing them and selling the salvaged material at their own lumberyard in Savannah. Re:Purpose Savannah’s documentation of historic deconstructed buildings includes detailed analysis of the building’s history, history of owners, photos, mapping, and its larger connections to American history all digitized on their website for the purpose of preservation all while the materials are recycled. Another example of reuse of buildings in a potentially viable manner is the development of deconstruction and recycling companies such as The Re Store, Re-Use Consulting, and Unbuilders throughout the country, reselling recycled building materials to builders. These companies originated with the beginning of deconstruction ordinances in the 1990s. Localities which have enacted deconstruction ordinances include Portland Oregon, King County Washington, and Vancouver British Columbia.[11]

The Portland Oregon Deconstruction ordinance of October 31, 2016, dictates that all structures built from 1940 earlier, (Amended from 1916) are subject to the ordinance. This means that all buildings falling within the ordinance must be deconstructed rather than mechanically demolished for the purpose of recycling valuable materials rather than being crushed and landfilled.[12] The city of Portland further regulates this process by determining that the building must be deconstructed by a certified deconstruction contractor rather than any unlicensed and unregulated construction firm or individual. The ordinance does allow for exemptions if the building is deemed unsafe for human life but generally the most valuable reusable material exists in the framing of the house allowing for very little room for exemptions.

 

Economic benefits

While the marketplace for deconstruction is still in its developing stage, there are certainly economic benefits to its further implementation. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network details the benefits of recycling C&D debris as well as the reusing of material on the project site. Specifically, USDN displays how deconstruction ordinances can significantly reduce waste and the amount of material disposed away in landfills. According to USDN, the Foster Hill California ordinance dictates that 50% of all C&D tonnage to be diverted from landfills to reuse, similarly, Portland’s deconstruction ordinance diverts an estimated 8 million pounds in material to reuse annually.[13] As deconstruction ordinances expand, the amount of materials reused rather than discarded will increase significantly improving overall sustainability, the largest problem stands in implementing ordinances and expanding the market from residential buildings to commercial deconstruction.

The principles of Historic Preservation show that abandonment can be one of the worst things for a building. When a building sits vacant, it becomes vulnerable to the degradation of time, climate-based factors, and wildlife which will utilize the building regardless of humans but may destroy certain aspects of it. The importance of keeping buildings in use stands as a significant goal both between those who are more directed towards the environmental preservation of the built environment as well as those based in concerns of historic preservation. The preservation of buildings in cities throughout the country for the purpose of environmental conservation as the utmost priority can serve multiple goals in maintaining a form of historic preservation, practicing environmental conservation, and in preventing cities from losing their historical character and the effects of the ever-present cultural danger of urban environments hollowing out.

One particular piece of artwork which describes the environmental turn within the historic preservation movement and the larger consideration of embodied energy stands in the gas can building artwork entitled Preservation: Reusing Americas Energy provided by the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Preservation week in 1980.[14] This artwork shows a commercial style building as a gas can to describe the embodied energy present in the building which should be preserved rather than destroyed for the purpose of new construction. In this regard, the building is depicted as having 640,000 gallons of gasoline embodied within the building and should not be preserved to continue utilizing that energy rather than destroyed. The artwork is certainly representative of the times when considering the stagflation and high gas prices of the late 1970s going forward in the 1980s. The importance of preservation for the purpose of utility is on full display as one of the most consequential aspects presented. While the representation of embodied energy as gasoline may feel dated as we continue to transition from fossil fuel-based energy to more sustainable solutions, the importance of conservation and the embodied energy stored in buildings remains an ever-present issue.

 

Paradigm change

Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances, by Tom Mayes provides another argument directly implicating the current tactics of urban planning and city management which professes to be utilizing environmentally friendly practices yet demolishes buildings without a second thought. Mayes argues that “few cities actively promote the reuse of existing buildings as a green strategy.”[15] With most being discarded and their materials ending up in a landfill with the new materials gained through extractive methods and transported using fossil fuels. This process of demolition and construction continues the process of environmental destruction all while cities pretend to be solving the issue with new ultra-modern style sleek energy efficient construction. This process does not help the issue of environmental conservation in any meaningful way but continues the process of disposability which continues to destroy the environment. Nigel Whiteley describes this process of disposability and hyper consumerism which became established in the 1950s and the 1960s, displaying how products became designed with an explicit understanding that they would soon become obsolete for other products to take their place in demand.[16] This process of disposability moved from fashion to automobiles, to construction. Logically the development of a throw away disposable culture eventually leads to the disposal of buildings for the consumption of newer and more developed buildings with no concern for the energy expended in their previous historic construction. This also has a significant impact of historic preservation as the continuity of urban environments is broken for newer construction rather than the continuance of previous historic structures which grounded the identity of the area.

The present issues faced by both the historic preservation and environmentalist movements can be best summarized by the words of John Muir, “People need Beauty as well as Bread” The importance of maintaining the pragmatism of a working economy and environment cannot be overlooked. The world of human interaction and commerce cannot stop to ensure that the environment can recover, however, new and innovative practices can be put into place which will ensure that the environment can be conserved for future use. Much like the preservation of the human identity through the environment which has shaped human history, the preservation of the built environment is inexplicably unified with this purpose. Whether in the reduction of CO2 emissions by the preservation and retrofitting of older buildings or in the protection of vast swathes of landscapes to protect both the environmental and cultural identity, both movements are linked together. The importance of adaptation and innovation in accomplishing these goals remains significant in addressing the current challenges and problems both fields face.[17]

 

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Lindlaw, Scott. “Preservations Urge Weighing Environmental Impact of Teardowns.” New Bedford Standard-Times, April 9, 2008. https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/lifestyle/2008/04/09/preservations-urge-weighing-environmental-impact/52453454007/.

 

 

Secondary Sources

Journal Articles

Adam, Robert. “‘The Greenest Building Is the One That Already Exists.’” The Architects’ Journal, August 13, 2021. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists#:~:text=Carl%20Elefante%2C%20former%20president%20of,the%20one%20that%20already%20exists’.

“Deconstruction Requirements.” Portland.gov. October 31, 2016. https://www.portland.gov/bps/climate-action/decon/deconstruction-requirements.

“Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction.” Urban Sustainability Directors Network. https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating-building-deconstruction.

MAYES, TOM. “Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances.” In Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 162–65. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd19hg.31.

McMahon, Edward T., and A. Elizabeth Watson. “In My Opinion: In Search of Collaboration: Historic Preservation and the Environmental Movement.” History News 48, no. 6 (1993): 26–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42655670.

Meryman, Helena. “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161.

National Park Service. “Evaluating Substitute Materials in Historic Buildings.” Last Modified October 6, 2023. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/evaluating-substitute-materials.htm.

  “Our Mission.” Re:Purpose Savannah. 2023. https://www.repurposesavannah.org/mission.

Preservation Green Lab, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.

Prevost, Lisa. “Sustainability Advocates Ask: Why Demolish When You Can Deconstruct? New York Times.September 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/waste-salvage-deconstruction-sustainability.html.

Roberts, Tristan. “Does Saving Historic Buildings Save Energy.” Green Building Advisor, May 2, 2011. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/does-saving-historic-buildings-save-energy.

“Successes of a Sister City: Deconstruction around the World.” Re-Store.org. July 25, 2019. https://re-store.org/successes-of-a-sister-city-deconstruction-around-the-world/.

“Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#:~:text=Demolition%20represents%20more%20than%2090,materials%20in%20the%20C%26D%20debris.

Tyrrell, Ian. “America’s National Parks: The Transnational Creation of National Space in the Progressive Era.” Journal of American Studies 46, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427306.

Whiteley, Nigel. “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s.” Oxford Art Journal 10. no. 2 (1987): 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360444.

 

 

 

Books

Miller, Marla R., and Max Page. Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States. UPCC Book Collections on Project MUSE. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1425207&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1995.


[1] Ian Tyrell, “America’s National Parks: The Transnational Creation of National Space in the Progressive Era,” Journal of American Studies 46, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427306.

[2] Helena Meryman, “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies,” The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161.

[3]“Evaluating Substitute Materials in Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, Last Modified October 6, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/evaluating-substitute-materials.htm.

[4] Tristan Roberts, “Does Saving Historic Buildings Save Energy,” Green Building Advisor, May 2, 2011, https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/does-saving-historic-buildings-save-energy.

[5] Preservation Green Lab, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.

[6]“Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed November 7, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#:~:text=Demolition%20represents%20more%20than%2090,materials%20in%20the%20C%26D%20debris.

[7]Robert Adam, “‘The Greenest Building Is the One That Already Exists,’” The Architects’ Journal, August 13, 2021, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists#:~:text=Carl%20Elefante%2C%20former%20president%20of,the%20one%20that%20already%20exists’.

[8] Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built, United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1995.

[9]Lisa Prevost, Sustainability Advocates Ask: Why Demolish When You Can Deconstruct?” New York Times, September 1, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/waste-salvage-deconstruction-sustainability.html.

[10] “Our Mission,” Re:Purpose Savannah, 2023, https://www.repurposesavannah.org/mission.

[11] “Successes of a Sister City: Deconstruction around the World,” Re-Store.org, July 25, 2019, https://re-store.org/successes-of-a-sister-city-deconstruction-around-the-world/.

[12] “Deconstruction Requirements,” Portland.gov, October 31, 2016, https://www.portland.gov/bps/climate-action/decon/deconstruction-requirements.

[13] “Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction,” Urban Sustainability Directors Network, https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating-building-deconstruction.

[14] Scott Lindlaw, “Preservations Urge Weighing Environmental Impact of Teardowns,” New Bedford Standard-Times, April 9, 2008, https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/lifestyle/2008/04/09/preservations-urge-weighing-environmental-impact/52453454007/.

[15] Tom Mayes, “Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances,” In Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 162–65. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd19hg.31.

[16]Nigel Whiteley, “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s,” Oxford Art Journal 10, no. 2 (1987): 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360444.

[17]Edward T. McMahon, and A. Elizabeth Watson, “In My Opinion: In Search of Collaboration: Historic Preservation and the Environmental Movement,” History News 48, no. 6 (1993): 26–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42655670.

The telescope stands as a timeless symbol of human curiosity and ingenuity, allowing us to peer into the depths of the cosmos and unravel its mysteries. From the humble beginnings of the first optical telescopes to the cutting-edge technology of space-based observatories, the evolution of telescopes has been a testament to humanity's relentless pursuit of knowledge about the universe.

Terry Bailey explains.

A 17th century depiction of a Dutch telescope.

The story of the telescope began in the early 17th century, with the Dutch spectacle maker Hans Lipperhey often credited as its inventor. Lippershey's simple yet revolutionary design consisted of a convex objective lens and a concave eyepiece, which allowed for distant objects to be magnified. This basic principle laid the foundation for the development of optical telescopes.

One of the most notable figures in the early history of telescopes is Galileo Galilei, who improved upon Lipperhey's design and used his telescope to make groundbreaking astronomical observations. In 1609, Galileo observed the Moon’s surface, in addition to the first 4 moons of Jupiter, as well as the phases of Venus, forever altering our understanding of the cosmos and challenging the prevailing geocentric model of the universe.

Throughout the centuries, optical telescopes continued to evolve, with advancements in lens and mirror technology leading to increasingly powerful instruments. In the 17th and 18th centuries, astronomers such as Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton made significant contributions to telescope design, developing the reflecting telescope, which used curved mirrors instead of lenses to gather and focus light.

By the 19th century, the construction of large refracting telescopes with massive lenses became feasible, allowing astronomers to explore the universe with unprecedented clarity. The construction of the Yerkes Observatory's 40-inch refractor in 1897 marked a milestone in telescope engineering and remained the largest refracting telescope in the world for decades.

 

20th century

While optical telescopes provided valuable insight into the visible universe, astronomers soon realized that much of the cosmos remained hidden from view. In the early 20th century, the discovery of cosmic radio waves by Karl Jansky paved the way for the development of radio telescopes, which could detect radio emissions from celestial objects.

One of the earliest radio telescopes was built by Grote Reber in 1937, consisting of a large parabolic dish that focused radio waves onto a receiver. Radio telescopes opened a whole new window into the universe, allowing astronomers to study phenomena such as pulsars, quasars, and the cosmic microwave background radiation, (CMBR).

In the mid-20th century, the discovery of X-rays from celestial sources prompted the development of X-ray telescopes. Unlike optical telescopes, which use lenses or mirrors to focus light, X-ray telescopes must employ grazing-incidence mirrors to reflect and focus X-rays onto detectors. The launch of the Uhuru satellite in 1970 marked the first dedicated X-ray observatory in space, revolutionizing our understanding of high-energy phenomena such as black holes and supernovae and remnants.

While ground-based telescopes provided valuable observations, they were limited by atmospheric distortion and light pollution. The advent of space orbiting telescopes promised to overcome these limitations by placing observatories above Earth's atmosphere, allowing for clearer and more detailed observations of the cosmos.

One of the most iconic space telescopes is the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), launched by NASA in 1990. Equipped with a 2.4-meter primary mirror and an array of scientific instruments, Hubble has captured breathtaking images of distant galaxies, nebulae, and other celestial phenomena. Its observations have led to numerous discoveries, including the expansion rate of the universe and the existence of dark energy.

In 1999, NASA launched the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the most powerful X-ray telescope ever built. Orbiting high above the Earth, Chandra has provided unprecedented views of X-ray sources such as black holes, supernovae and galaxy clusters, shedding light on the violent processes that occur throughout in the universe.

 

Recent years

As technology continues to advance, astronomers are already planning the next generation of telescopes that will push the boundaries of our understanding of the cosmos. One such project is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which was launched in 2022. With its massive segmented mirror and advanced infrared instruments, JWST is able to peer deeper into space than ever before, probing the early universe and studying the formation of stars and galaxies.

Another groundbreaking project is the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), a next-generation radio telescope that will consist of thousands of antennas spread across a vast area. Scheduled for completion in the late 2020s, SKA will be the largest and most sensitive radio telescope ever built, allowing astronomers to explore the universe with unprecedented precision and detail.

In addition to these flagship projects, numerous ground-based and space-based observatories are in development, each poised to expand our knowledge of the cosmos in the instruments unique way based upon the device’s design specifications. From the search for habitable exoplanets to the study of dark matter and dark energy, the future of astrophysics / astronomy is filled with promise and discovery.

 

The history of the telescope is a true testament to humanity's insatiable curiosity and relentless pursuit of knowledge about the universe. From the humble beginnings of the first optical telescopes to the sophisticated instruments of today, telescopes have revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and reshaped our place in the universe.

As we look to the future, the next generation of telescopes promises to unlock even more secrets of the universe, from the nature of dark matter and dark energy to the search for extraterrestrial life forms. With each new technological advancement, we move closer to unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos and gaining a deeper understanding of our place in the vastness of space.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

Special notes

It is important to understand that based upon the speed of light and the vast distances to celestial object observed by telescopes, across all wave lengths of the light spectrum, that by the time the light reaches an observer, these observations are already in the past.

For example if an observer looks at the nearest galaxy, (M31j, to our own, galaxy, which is 2.5 million light years away, then the light from the Andromeda galaxy, (M31), has already taken 2.5 million years to reach Earth, thus the image observed in a telescope is already 2.5 million years old.

 

The Electromagnetic light spectrum, includes Gamma γ-rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves.

 

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, which is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second.

 

One light year is the equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometers.

 

Point of interest

The current count of moons officially recognized orbiting the planet Jupiter is 95.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were a series of judicial procedures led by the Roman Catholic Church in the later Middle Ages in response to movements that the Church considered heretical.  Here, Jeb Smith starts a series looking at the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages.

Pope Gregory IX, who started the Papal Inquisition.

Introduction

Medieval historians will be the first to tell you that what they believe about the period is not what occurred. Monty Python movies are not an authentic source! There are numerous subjects on which we are misinformed. These inaccuracies paint a darker and more dreadful picture of medieval European society than what really existed. Common stereotypes involve superstitious monks, tyrannical kings, mistreatment of women, bloodthirsty and racist Crusaders, bigotry against outsiders, and rampant disease and death. In contrast, we tend to view our modern society as superior, enlightened, and advanced. Today's society has undoubtedly progressed in sanitation, medical care, and many modern conveniences. However, we have also experienced a loss of valuable things like personal freedom, self-rule, satisfaction, leisure, celebrations, strong community bonds, family, morality, connection to God, and much else.

In the 13th century, Europe began a significant transformation that marked the end of the Middle Ages.[1] The way of life for peasants and lords in the mid-14th century was vastly different from what it was at the beginning of the 12th. Whenever I refer to the Middle Ages, I am referring to this period, the era I describe as "Christendom," spanning from approximately 700 to 1300 A.D. A main focal point of my book Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty was to dispel many myths we hold regarding medieval kingship and the political systems of the medieval period in general. Other topics are also addressed, such as life expectancy, health, the condition of serfs, and the work rate of peasants, but there are still many issues that need to be clarified about the period.

 

The Medieval Inquisitions

The modern American perception of the Inquisitions is a myth! Professor and historian Edward Peters wrote, “the myth was originally devised to serve variously the political purposes of a number of early modern political regimes, as well as Protestant reformers, proponents of religious and civil toleration, philosophical enemies of the civil power of organized religions, and progressive modernists, but the myth remained durable, widely adaptable, and useful.”[2]Protestants were all too eager to exaggerate the evils of medieval Catholicism and believe lies and exaggerations that seemed to justify their separation from the Catholic Church.  and modern secular, democratic societies seize on the chance to portray preceding, "unenlightened" cultures as inferior to their own. Moderns, says Edwards, are often influenced by movies such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, historical novels, past propaganda and inaccurate journalism, and thus still hold on to the many myths and misconceptions surrounding the Inquisition. Among scholars, though, there is no dispute about the Inquisition; it is well-known and researched.[3] However, these myths serve a function in a secular society. Professor Rodney Stark wrote, “Great historical myths die hard... writers continue to spread traditional myths... even though they are fully aware of the new findings. They do so because they are determined to show that religion, and especially Christianity, is a dreadful curse upon humanity.”[4]

The Inquisitions are often erroneously thought of as a medieval phenomenon. Although they did exist then, they were not as frequent or deadly as the later and more infamous Inquisitions of the Renaissance era, such as the Spanish Inquisition. As medieval scholar and professor Thomas Madden stated, "Our understanding of heresy and inquisition is not really in sync with the way things were in the Middle Ages. It has much more to do with the early modern concept of Spanish inquisitions which is a completely different thing."[5] Likewise, the witch hunts occurred almost wholly during the "Age of Reason." Nevertheless, I will discuss the Medieval and Spanish Inquisitions (in a later article) to highlight their similarities and differences and clarify misunderstandings of them.

In the medieval era, the Church generally had a different approach to handling heretics than in later times. It's important to note that the Inquisition only had jurisdiction over former Catholics and not Jews or Muslims, who could not be accused or put on trial.[6] Initially, their response towards individuals who previously held Catholic beliefs but had now adopted heretical views was to convince them through discussion and argumentation.[7] Professor Rosemary Morris wrote, "The response of the western Church authorities to heresy was, at first, to mobilize the forces of persuasion." The 12th century Saint Bernard criticized the people of Cologne for killing heretics, stating that faith cannot be forced upon them and must be born of persuasion.[8]

When the Pelagian heresy that was "blasphemous against the grace of Christ" was converting Catholics in Britain, the medieval scholar Saint Bede records that in response bishops from Gaul came to the land "and the word of God was by them daily administered, not only in the churches, but even in the streets and fields, so that the Catholics were everywhere confirmed, and those who had gone astray, corrected."[9]As a result, the heretics were forced into hiding and out of public areas where they once preached. Eventually, they did return to public discourse, and were allowed to make their case by the Catholic priests. The priests responded to the heretics in front of people during the debate and refuted the heresy once again. This helped the people to judge fairly, and the heresy was defeated.

In part, there was little persecution of heretics because the early heretics were less evangelistic, they kept to themselves and thus avoided the wrath of the Church. In the 9th century, Agobard of Lyon wrote that recently the heretics "no longer practice their wickedness in secret, as others do, but proclaim their error publicly and draw the simple and weak to join them" and due to their misleading the simple, those heretics and their supporters, says Agobard, should be under "anathema" only.[10]

 

Severe Inquisitors

The excessively severe Inquisitors were thoroughly examined and, if necessary, dismissed.[11] In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council condemned bishops who became heretics and removed them from their position.[12] During the "dark ages" of Christendom, heretics and other religions were tolerated more than they were by eastern Byzantines; and it wasn't until the 13th century, when secular Roman law returned, that heretics were punishable by death.[13] In 1162, Cathars were sent to Pope Alexander III, who refused to condemn or persecute them, stating, "it was better to pardon the guilty than to take the lives of the innocent."[14] In 1216, during the fourth Lateran Council, the Church condemned unrepentant heretics to excommunication but not death.  Professor Edward Peters informs us that during the medieval period, "patience, instruction, and toleration" were applied to manage "religious dissent."[15] Further, during Christendom a centralized Inquisition suppressing opposition never existed.[16] Before the 13th century, it was up to each local bishop to handle heretics. There was no widespread effort to counter heresy. The heretics' persecution increased in the 13th century when Pope Innocent III cited Roman law and the Church (and, due to the return of Roman law in governance, society as a whole) centralized, weakening the power of local bishops.

The Inquisition was not a medieval or even Christian invention. Instead, it utilized Roman law and practices, such as torture, which were widely adopted during the 13th century.[17] The origin of the inquisition is often attributed to the Catholic Church, but it actually stemmed from secular law, not Christianity. As historian Thomas F. Madden explains, "The Inquisition itself is a product of Roman law. And that means a legal code that had nothing at all to do with Christianity. That developed over many centuries before Christ was even born."[18] Not especially devout secular leaders, such as Emperor Frederick I, were known to be ruthless towards heretics.[19] And, as Catholic apologist Steve Weidenkopf wrote, "The death sentence was handed down and carried out by the state. The church itself never executed any heretics."[20]

 

Sorcery

Likewise, before the 13th century sorcery received little attention and was only practiced in remote regions. In the 9th century, the bishop Agobard of Lyon came across some locals who believed that humans could produce hail and thunder through witchcraft.[21] He described their beliefs as foolish and crazy, stating that they were utterly ignorant of God. In response to this belief, Agobard suggested using proofs from Scripture to judge the matter and allow Truth itself to overcome the most foolish errors. In 906, Regino of Prum said the locals were "beyond a doubt infidels" who returned to pagan beliefs, claiming witches could travel via midnight rides through the air and that sorcerers could transform people into animals.[22] C.S Lewis wrote, "There was very little magic in the Middle Ages; the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic."[23]

During Christendom as I define it, practices such as sorcery, magic, and witchcraft were rare. The British Isles had its first Inquisition in 1309, with no convicted individuals.[24] The first witch was not burned at the stake until 1275. She was accused of having sex with a demon among other abominable practices. Professor Richard C. Hoffmann wrote, "early medieval Christian authorities debunked such superstitions and reserved all power to God alone.”[25] It wasn't until the 13th century that the Church began associating sorcery with heresy.

During the Middle Ages, the church had a more laid-back approach towards certain superstitious practices that didn't directly impact church doctrine or individual salvation. They were more accepting of pagan "magic" and sorcery, and even universities taught occult practices and astrology.[26] The Anglo-Saxon Dooms, written between 590 and 975, instructed witches and other groups to be expelled from the land, not killed or tortured, but only sent away.[27] It is likely that most of Europe, perhaps three quarters of it, never experienced witchcraft or a witch hunt. These practices seemed to be robust in some areas and non-existent in others.[28]

The significant reaction to the heresy of the medieval period occurred in 1209 in southern France. During the early 13th century, the Albigensian Crusade was launched against these heretics in southern France. It was falsely attributed to the Inquisitions, but it was actually called in response (in part) to the murder of papal legate Peter of Castelnau.[29] Professor Burman wrote, “the spark that set off the so called Albigensian crusade was the murder in January 1208 of Peter of Castelnau...Peter was more than a mere legate – he was ‘an alter ego of the Pope.’”[30]Heretics denied the divinity of Jesus and claimed that a phantom was on the cross. The Cathars believed that sex, children, and marriage were evil, and they sanctioned homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, and suicide.[31] They believed the material world was evil and that our souls were trapped inside our physical bodies, thus suicide freed the spirit from its prison. They believed that the Old Testament God was evil and created matter to trap souls. According to them, the purpose of life was to free oneself from the corrupt physical body. The Church responded by holding councils and condemning the false teachings, but this did not stop the spread of the heresy. The Popes sent missionaries to the areas to preach and teach the truth, but when a papal legate was murdered in response, the Pope called a Crusade, not an Inquisition. While many heretics were killed during the crusade, others were massacred by locals who had no tolerance for their beliefs. The Church and the Pope, who called the crusade, were unable to prevent this happening.[32] The heretics attempted to replace Catholicism rather than coexist with it. The purpose and desire of the Pope in calling the crusade was to reform the heretical clergy and lay people.

 

Persecution of witches

The persecution of witches did not begin in earnest until the second half of the 15th century with the papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus and the publication of the "Hammer of Witches."[33] The witch craze and witch hunts did not originate in the medieval period but emerged during the 16th and 17th centuries and occurred at the same time as the rise of modern science and nationalism.[34] The first execution for witchcraft in England was in 1563. The first trial in Scotland was in the second half of the 16th century.[35]The witch hunts were conducted as much by secular as by religious authorities, and were supported by significant thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin.[36] Even later, during the witch craze, skeptics of some of the claims of witchcraft said they really saw "visions or dreams, for frantic men think they see marvelous things, such as beats and other horrors, when in actual fact they see nothing."[37]  According to Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger in the Hammer of Witches holy men are not deceived like the "maniacs" are.[38]

In the following article, we will cover myths surrounding the Inquisitors themselves and the origins, purpose, and results of the Inquisitions.

 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

 

 

Bibliography

-Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. New York, London: J.M. Dent; E.P. Dutton, 1910.

-Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Dorset Press, 1992.

-Carroll, Warren H. 1993. The Glory of Christendom. N.p.: Christendom Press.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated. Crown Publishing Group, 1995.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.

-Davis, Michael Warren. The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative Isn't Enough. Regnery Gateway, 2021.

-Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization). Simon & Schuster, 1980.

-Ferrara, Christopher A. 2012. Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. N.p.: Angelico Press.

-Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

-Holmes, George, ed. 1988. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

-Jarrett, Bede. 2007. Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200-1500. N.p.: Archivum Press.

-Jones, Andrew W. 2017. Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX. N.p.: Emmaus Academic.

-Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 2014.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001

-L. PLUNKET, IERNE L. 1922. EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai, England: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

-Madden, Thomas, director. “The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.” 2008.

-Madden, Thomas. “The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture.” The Great Courses Series, 2019.

-The following citation were derived from Medieval Sourcebook Fordham University (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler "The Drunkard" of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)(“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”) (GUI, BERNARD, and Translation by David Burr. “BERNARD GUI: INQUISITOR'S MANUAL.”.)(Schroeder, H. J., translator. The Disciplinary Decrees of the Ecumenical Counci,. St. Louis:, B. Herder Book Co., 1937).(Agobard of Lyons, and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);.Agobard of Lyons (9th Century): On Hail and Thunder.”)

-Pernoud, Regine. Glory of the Medieval World. Dobson Books Ltd, 1950.

-Peters, Edward. Inquisition. University of California Press, 1989.

-Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Wiley, 2006.

-Smith, Jeb. 2024. Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty.

-Smith, Jeb. 2023. The Road Goes Ever On and On. N.p.: Christian Faith Publishing, Incorporated.

-Stark, Rodney. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. Templeton Press, 2017.

-Thatcher, Oliver J. “The Library of Original Sources - Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp. 211-239.” Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co, 1901.

-Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475: Formerly entitled a History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500. 4th ed., Knopf, 1983.

-Weidenkompf, Steve, director. The Real Story of the Inquisitions. Catholic Answers.

-Weidenkopf, Steve. The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths. Catholic Answers, Incorporated, 2017

-Wickham, Chris. Medieval Europe. Yale University Press, 2017.


[1] (Smith 2024)

[2] (Peters 1-2)

[3] (Peters 295, also see 308)

[4] (Stark)

[5] (Madden)

[6] (Holmes 1988, 203)

[7] (Tierney and Painter 362-363) (Durant 1950, 67) (Pernoud 1950, 113)

[8] (Pernoud 1950, 114)

[9] (Bede, Book 1 chapter 17)

[10] (Agobard of Lyons and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);)

[11] (Wickham 169)

[12] (Schroeder)

[13] (Durant 1950, 776-777) For the return of Roman law during the period see cite monarchy

[14] (Burman 25)

[15] (Peters 46)

[16] (Peters 3, 68)

[17] (Wickham 157-158) ((Burman 31) (Peters)

[18] (Madden 2008)

[19] (Pernoud 114)

[20] (Weidenkopf 2017)

[21] (Agobard of Lyon translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);)

[22] (Smith 2023 103)

[23] (Smith 2023 101)

[24] (Burman 98)

[25] (Hoffmann 339)

[26] (Burman 119)

[27](Thatcher)

[28] (Weidenkopf 2017)

[29] (Tierney and Painter 359-360)

[30] (Burman 27-28)

[31] (Carroll 1993, 165)(Tierney and Painter 355-356)

[32] (Peters 50-51)

[33] (Burman 123)

[34] (Burman 115-116) (Durant 1950, 567) (Durant 1950, 567)

[35] (Kors and Peters 303, 318)

[36] (Weidenkopf 2017, 131)

[37] (Kors and Peters 201-203)

[38] (Kors and Peters 201, 237)

On March 7, 1770, a contingent of British soldiers were on patrol in the streets of Boston and were directed to respond to an incident involving a British soldier who had been taking the brunt of harassment from a group of colonial protesters. Still years away from the start of the American Revolution, tensions across the 13 colonies were at a boiling point due to unfair taxes, land restrictions, and presence of the British military. Suddenly they were confronted with a mob of angry colonists.

Here, Ryan Reidway gives his take on the Boston Massacre.

The Boston Massacre. By Paul Revere. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Russell Sage, 1910, here.

Outnumbered, far from home, inexperienced, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, the Redcoats under the command of Captain Thomas Preston fired upon the crowd. Tragically five colonists in the mob ultimately died. Among the dead was an escaped slave Crispus Attucks who is often considered by historians as the first casualty of the American Revolution.

In the trial that followed John Adams, founding father and the second President of the United States, participated in the legal defense of Captain Preston and eight of the British soldiers in court. With the odds against him and without public support, Adams and his legal team successfully argued for their innocence and release from imprisonment of Captain Preston and six of the eight soldiers. The two other soldiers were branded on the thumb with an M for Manslaughter and then ultimately released. In his closing arguments Adams argued this:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defense; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offense of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause. The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady, undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men.”

 

Legal case

Adams and his legal team that consisted of Robert Auchmuty Jr., and Josiah Quincy Jr. were the only ones willing to take on  a case like this due to the rising opposition and public outcry against Preston and his men. Ironically the reason there was so much outrage in the colonies was due to the response to the incident by Adams' cousin and leader of the Sons of Liberty Sammuel Adams.

For years Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty had been stirring up anti British sentiment in Boston for what they considered to be a series of  unfair regulations and taxes. Paul Revere who would later become famous for his famous Midnight Ride in which he is quoted “One if by land and two if by sea”, before the battles of Lexington and Concord, and founding member of the Sons of Liberty, created and distributed the illustration above throughout the 13 colonies.

After careful examination of the illustration one will notice that none of the colonists portrayed in the image have a variety of weapons or objects such as oyster shells, snowballs, or rocks in their hands or around their bodies. And yet this clearly is not how it happened. From both Preston's account written only hours after the altercation and the closing legal arguments of John Adams, the mob had the means if not the intention to cause bodily harm to Preston and his men.

 

Massacre?

This image, forged from anger after the event, was distributed first in the city of Boston, and then around the rest of the 13 colonies. Revere even proclaimed his depiction as the “Bloody Massacre on King Street.” However Revere was not present to witness the event first hand and yet was the first one to call it a Massacre. Webster Dictionary defines Massacre as the “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.”

So to call it a Massacre may have been a bit of a stretch. Tragic loss of life? Yes. An unfortunate and upsetting incident? Indeed. But from the very definition of the word it is very clear that there are two reasons why Revere had no business calling it a massacre. The first reason is implied: intention. Did Captain Preston’s soldiers set out that night with the intention of killing those colonists?

No. There is no historical evidence anecdotal or otherwise to show that was what those men were thinking or planning to do.  They were caught in a bad situation that was compounded by the fact that most were inexperienced, perhaps not in the art of being a soldier, but as a quasi police/occupational force. The second and arguably more evident, is the fact that the definition points out that victims of massacres are usually unarmed. We know for a fact that the colonial mob was not unarmed. Perhaps at a disadvantage in terms of fire power (ie: rocks vs. muskets) but armed nonetheless. 

Neither of these points were ever present in the narrative surrounding Paul Revere's depiction of the event and still it was sold to the public as yet another example of aggression towards the Colonies by the King George III government. If a plantation owner in Charleston, a merchant in Philadelphia, or a shopkeeper in New York City,  saw this illustration with the title Bloody Massacre on King Street, how could History expect them to feel anything other than anger and frustration towards the British Crown or its agents present in the 13 Colonies.       

It is certainly expected that the events that followed this incident drummed up the feelings of patriotism and love of country for many Americans. As it should. However, in the Republic that was built from the ashes of the American Revolution, Article 3 of the United States Constitution argues for the value of a virtuous court system based on rule of law and not on the whims of one individual or even that of the entire population.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

References

Hodgson, John, and John Adams. n.d. “Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770.” Founders Online. Accessed May 9, 2024. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016.

Preston, Thomas. 2015. The Trial of the British Soldiers [T. Preston and Others] of the 29Th Regiment of Foot, for the Murder of Crispus Attucks [And Others]. N.p.: Creative Media Partners, LLC.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

In the Second World War, the story of the EDES National Republican Greek League stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of resistance against Nazi occupation. Formed in the crucible of Greek patriotism and fueled by a fervent desire for liberation, EDES played a pivotal role in challenging the Nazi juggernaut, forging alliances with British intelligence, and laying the groundwork for Greece's post-war reconstruction.

Terry Bailey explains.

First, if you missed Terry’s article on ELAS’ role in World War 2, read it here.

Napoleon Zervas (the second from the left) with fellow EDES members.

The genesis of EDES can be traced back to the tumultuous years of the 1940s when Greece found itself engulfed in the flames of war and facing the specter of Axis domination. Founded in 1941 by Colonel Napoleon Zervas, EDES emerged as a beacon of hope amidst the darkness of occupation. Zervas, a decorated veteran of the Balkan Wars and the Greco-Turkish War, embodied the ethos of Greek nationalism and staunch anti-communism that would come to define EDES's ideology.

Unlike its communist counterparts such as ELAS (Greek People's Liberation Army), EDES espoused a vision of republican governance and sought to establish a Greece free from both Axis tyranny and the specter of communism. Drawing inspiration from Greece's storied history of resistance against foreign invaders, EDES rallied patriots from diverse backgrounds under its banner, united by a common purpose: to reclaim Greece's sovereignty and dignity.

 

Resistance efforts

EDES's resistance efforts were characterized by a blend of guerrilla warfare tactics, sabotage operations, and clandestine intelligence gathering. Operating primarily in the mountainous regions of Epirus and western Greece, EDES fighters waged a relentless campaign against Nazi forces, disrupting supply lines, ambushing patrols, and bolstering civilian morale through acts of defiance.

One of EDES's most notable achievements was its collaboration with British Special Operations Executive (SOE), the clandestine organization tasked with supporting and organizing resistance movements across occupied Europe. Through Operation Animals, SOE agents forged alliances with EDES operatives, and their communist counterparts in ELAS, providing crucial logistical support, training, and intelligence to bolster resistance efforts in Greece. Operation Animals was part of the larger strategic deception plan to fool the axis powers into believing that amphibious landing would occur in Greece instead of the real target of Sicily.

EDES's partnership with SOE proved instrumental in several key tactical operations, including the destruction of Axis infrastructure, the liberation of strategic territories, and the rescue of Allied prisoners of war. However, tensions occasionally simmered between EDES and its communist counterparts within the Greek resistance movement, leading to intermittent clashes and rivalries over territory and influence.

 

As the war progressed

As the tides of war shifted in favor of the Allies, EDES began laying the groundwork for Greece's post-war reconstruction and transition to democratic governance. With the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, EDES played a pivotal role in facilitating the return of exiled Greek political leaders, advocating for the establishment of a constitutional republic, and demobilizing its forces in accordance with the terms of the Varkiza Agreement.

However, EDES's aspirations for a democratic Greece were soon overshadowed by the turbulent civil conflict and the emerging Cold War rivalry between Western powers and the Soviet Union. The disbandment of EDES's armed forces and the subsequent outbreak of the Greek Civil War in 1946 marked the end of the organization’s active involvement in Greek politics.

 

In context

Despite its relatively short-lived existence, the legacy of EDES endures as a symbol of Greek resilience and defiance against oppression. Its members, many of whom sacrificed their lives in the struggle for freedom, are remembered as heroes of the recent Greek history. Moreover, EDES's commitment to democratic ideals and its collaboration with Allied forces during the Second World War laid the groundwork for Greece's eventual integration into the community of democratic nations.

Therefore, the story of the EDES National Republican Greek League stands as a poignant chapter in the Second World War’s resistance movements. From its humble beginnings as a fledgling guerrilla force to its pivotal role in challenging Nazi occupation, EDES embodied the spirit of Greek nationalism and defiance against tyranny.

Though its post-war aspirations were overshadowed by the prolonged civil conflict, the legacy of EDES endures as a testament to the enduring power of resistance and the human spirit in the face of adversity and the wish to be free from Nazi dictatorship or the overshadowing specter of communist rule.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The 1862 Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln took place during the US Civil War. Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at what the Emancipation Proclamation was and the moral and political motivations for it.

First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln. By Francis Bicknell Carpenter, 1864.

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”

Abraham Lincoln, December 1862 Annual Message to Congress

 

The earth laughs, the sun laughs

over every wise harvest of man,

over man looking toward peace

by the light of the hard old teaching:

“We must disenthrall ourselves.”

Carl Sandburg, From “The Long Shadow of Lincoln: A Litany”

 

 

Carl Sandburg the poet, and lover of words, recognized that Lincoln’s use of the word “disenthrall” in this context was intentional and multi-layered. The word means “to set free” or “to liberate” and Lincoln chose this word on purpose. Lincoln’s genius was in his ability to find new solutions to complicated problems by “thinking outside the box”, which is Lincoln’s literal meaning here.  But he was also “setting free” the slaves. Moreover, crafting the goal of “setting free” the slaves into a war aim meant changing the war’s purpose. It meant giving a new reason to fight the war, adding to our resolve to carry it through. Also, we see that by doing so, the country was going to change – we were setting ourselves free from what the country had been before and would become something new; there was no going backward. “A new birth of freedom”, as he would say a year later. And in doing so, we were liberating ourselves from an immoral practice. As a nation that enslaved humans, we were ourselves enslaved to defend its existence, and now we would be “set free” of that burden, America’s Original Sin.

Lincoln, a highly astute and practical statesman, adeptly maneuvered through the political landscape by employing a pragmatic approach to problem-solving. He relied on empirical evidence to determine effective solutions that would not only maintain his position of authority but also garner sufficient support from the public to bring his government along. Lincoln's profound comprehension of the gravity of the situation, coupled with his remarkable skill in articulating his ideas, reverberates throughout history. The Emancipation Proclamation, hailed as a momentous moral decision, also aligns with this interpretation, further highlighting Lincoln's pragmatic political leadership.

Sandburg’s insight is founded on Lincoln’s 1862 Annual Message to Congress, introducing the Emancipation Proclamation:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

 

There is no doubt that Lincoln didn’t solve all of the problems of his, or our, times, especially connected with race. But neither have the next 30 presidents. Lincoln won the war, but that didn’t mean everyone agreed on what should be done after the war; there were as many views as people on that subject. And then, of course, he was assassinated right as the war ended.

 

What Were Lincoln’s Views On Slavery?

Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the unity of the nation, a goal he successfully achieved. This accomplishment was unparalleled, as no other individual could have accomplished this feat. Lincoln's journey towards emancipation was far from simple, as it required more than a mere proclamation. The process necessitated a constitutional amendment and political consensus, both of which were absent at the onset of the war. Furthermore, there was widespread disagreement regarding emancipation, with individuals from both the northern and southern regions expressing dissent. Nevertheless, Lincoln devised a strategy to bring about this significant transformation, a feat that undoubtedly warrants immense recognition. It is important to acknowledge that although the Southerners found ways to circumvent certain laws after the war, and true equality wasn’t a reality until the Civil Rights era, slavery did end. Lincoln deserves credit for this achievement. In the northern states, black individuals were granted voting rights, legal freedom, and equality, a truly remarkable accomplishment.

Throughout his public and private addresses, Lincoln consistently voiced his moral opposition to slavery. He made it clear that he held an inherent aversion to the institution, firmly stating, "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." "I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel”, he noted.  However, the challenge lay in determining the appropriate course of action to address slavery's existence and bring about its demise. Slavery was deeply entrenched within the nation's constitutional framework and played a significant role in the country's economy. Consequently, finding a solution to this complex problem proved to be politically challenging.

In addition, there was the question of what would become of the four million slaves if liberated: how they would earn a living in a society that had long rejected and marginalized them. His proposition to send African Americans to colonies in Africa rather than keeping them in America, although criticized, stemmed from his recognition of the deeply ingrained prejudice within the American character, prevalent in both the North and the South. Lincoln believed that African Americans would prefer to return to their ancestral homeland due to the pervasive discrimination they faced. However, it was through his friendship with Frederick Douglass and his acknowledgment of the bravery displayed by black troops that Lincoln came to understand that America was indeed their homeland. African Americans desired equality within their own country and had no desire to be relocated elsewhere. This realization challenged Lincoln's previous notions and highlighted the importance of achieving equality within the United States.

Lincoln also had to balance the necessity and emphasis on saving the Union relative to freeing the slaves. His response to Horace Greely’s editorial calling on Lincoln to free the enslaved people is definitive in this regard; he clearly says that his primary goal is to save the Union, and everything that he does, or doesn’t, do is based on his analysis of that test. The last paragraph states: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” Often this response is quoted out of context to suggest that Lincoln didn’t care about slavery. Its intent however is to demonstrate that while Lincoln the man hated slavery, his role as president meant he had to remain focused on what his primary job responsibility – saving the Union -- required.

One month later he released the preliminary emancipation proclamation having determined that freeing the slaves was a necessary goal of the war, which the majority in the Union now supported.

Eric Foner's book, The Fiery Trial, delves into Abraham Lincoln's evolving perspective on race and slavery throughout his lifetime. Foner has said, “I have never called Lincoln a racist. He shared some of the prejudices of his time. Was Lincoln an anti-racist? No not really. Was he an egalitarian in the modern sense? No. Race was not a major concern of Lincoln. He didn’t think about race very much. To ask if he’s a racist is the wrong question. And if you ask the wrong question, you’re going to get the wrong answer.”  While Lincoln always recognized the immorality of slavery and supported the freedom of slaves, his stance on rights shifted in accordance with the changing sentiments of the Republican Party and the North. As a politician, Lincoln strategically positioned himself in the middle ground of prevailing opinions to secure electoral success. It is important to note that he did not lead the way, as Frederick Douglass astutely observed. Despite being influenced by figures like Douglass, Lincoln's stated views on race indicate that he did not truly consider African Americans as his social equals. Foner distinguishes between Lincoln's belief in equal natural rights, his eventual acceptance of legal rights, and his likely lack of support for social acceptance, which he probably never did favor, a sentiment shared by many white individuals in the 19th century.

 

What was the Emancipation Proclamation?

The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, marked a significant moment in American history. This executive order, which came at a time of great political turmoil, demonstrated a remarkable display of political courage. It was a decision that Lincoln believed to be morally right and necessary for the nation's progress. The Battle of Fredericksburg had dealt a severe blow to Northern morale, plunging the country into a state of despair. In response to the victory at Antietam on September 22, 1862, Lincoln took the opportunity to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, setting the stage for the eventual liberation of millions of enslaved individuals.

As the commander-in-chief, Lincoln strategically employed the Emancipation Proclamation as a war tactic. By emancipating enslaved people, he aimed to weaken the South's labor force and disrupt their war efforts. However, Lincoln was not oblivious to the potential consequences of his actions. He recognized the deep-rooted racial divisions within the nation and feared the long-lasting impact of his decision. Nevertheless, during his second presidential campaign, Lincoln boldly advocated for the permanent abolition of slavery through a constitutional amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation effectively altered the legal status of over 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the Confederate states, granting them freedom once they escaped their enslavers' control and sought refuge with Union forces.  The 13th Amendment to the Constitution made this the law of the land.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves. It only applied to the ten states that were still in rebellion on January 1, 1863 and did not extend to the approximately 500,000 slaves in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, as well as parts of Virginia and Louisiana that were no longer in rebellion. This has led to debates regarding the effectiveness and impact of the proclamation. Rather than being a definitive act of liberation, it should be understood as a policy announcement that guided the actions of the army and declared freedom as the Union forces advanced.

Lincoln understood that the federal government's authority to abolish slavery during peacetime was limited by the Constitution, which assigned the issue to individual states before 1865. However, during the Civil War, Lincoln utilized his authority as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In doing so, he claimed the power to emancipate slaves in the rebellious states as a necessary measure to suppress the rebellion. Lincoln also referenced the Confiscation Act of 1861 and the Confiscation Act of 1862 as additional sources of authority in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 as sources for his authority in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

While the immediate aim of the Emancipation Proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy's war effort, its broader significance was evident. The document signaled that the United States would no longer support the enslavement of individuals based on their race, a practice deeply ingrained in the nation's history. Furthermore, it opened the door for Black men to participate in national affairs on equal terms. Lincoln actively encouraged Black Americans to join the U.S. Army, which traditionally served as a pathway to citizenship, and urged them to work diligently for fair wages. In this way, the Emancipation Proclamation not only sought to undermine the Confederacy but also aimed to redefine the principles and values of the United States.

 

Political Versus Moral Motivations

Martin Luther King Jr once said that “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” As previously noted, December 1862 was one of the darkest moments in our history. After two years of battle and hundreds of thousands of casualties, the Union appeared to be losing the war. People were losing hope and disaster loomed. Lincoln at this moment made an extraordinary paradigm-shattering decision to shift the focus of the war slightly from saving the union to freeing the slaves, arguing they were one and the same.

But although it was presented chiefly as a military measure, the proclamation marked a crucial shift in Lincoln’s views on slavery. By declaring emancipation, the focus of the Civil War shifted from preserving the Union to abolishing slavery, thereby setting a definitive path for the nation's future after the war.

The Republican abolitionists in the North were elated by Lincoln's wholehearted support for their cause, which they had elected him to champion. Although the enslaved individuals in the South did not immediately rise in rebellion upon the proclamation's signing, they gradually began to emancipate themselves as Union forces advanced into Confederate territory. Towards the end of the war, a substantial number of enslaved people left their former masters in large numbers. They actively contributed to the Union Army by engaging in combat, cultivating crops, undertaking various military roles, and working in the mills of the North. While the proclamation did not receive unanimous praise from all northerners, particularly white workers and troops who feared job competition from the influx of formerly enslaved individuals, it did have the distinct advantage of dissuading Britain and France from establishing official diplomatic relations with the Confederacy.

 

Conclusion

The mythological Lincoln on Mt Rushmore is America's greatest president. We desire our heroes to have been just and motivated to do the right thing. The real Lincoln indeed was, but he was also doing the politically intelligent thing as well. Whichever motive you think was primary and which secondary (although his response to Horace Greeley seems definitive in favor of the political), he found the solution by “disenthralling” ourselves from our past.Morality aside, it was a brilliant political maneuver, perhaps the most magnificent achievement in American history, and it saved our country.

The signing of the Emancipation Proclamation symbolized Lincoln’s unwavering determination to preserve the Union at any cost, while simultaneously finding moral virtue. This act held both political and ethical significance, as it transformed emancipation into a war objective. It is crucial to acknowledge that human beings, including Lincoln, are imperfect, intricate, and often contradictory. Contrary to the idealized image of Lincoln, he was not immune to the complexities of human nature. Ultimately, the limitations of Lincoln’s racial perspectives are an indictment of the larger society. To truly comprehend our identity, it is imperative to examine the unvarnished reality of American history, rather than subscribing to an appealing fairy tale. The intricate and inconsistent nature of human experiences provides a more accurate depiction of our racist past than superficial notions. Just as the romanticized portrayal of Robert E. Lee as the "Marble Man" should be rejected,  so should the myth of Lincoln as the "Great Liberator Father Abraham." A comprehensive understanding necessitates recognizing the arduous journey Lincoln undertook to achieve greatness. This genuine narrative, rather than the oversimplified fable, is truly inspiring and represents the authentic story of our nation.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Many modern history buffs associate the function of Medieval Kings with monarchs of the later Renaissance period, or the pagan Roman Emperors that preceded them. However, during the "early" and "high" Middle Ages kings ruled in very different ways from those other monarchs. The Middle Ages provided a unique form of politics enabling self-government and liberty at a level that surpassed every other system of governance, including democracy.

Jeb Smith explains.

Henry I of England, who ruled from 1100-1135. From the illuminated Chronicle of Matthew Paris.

In my book, Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK), I seek to correct many of the common misunderstandings Americans – and indeed others - have regarding the political systems of the Middle Ages. Many believe kings had absolute power (something even the monarchs of later centuries never achieved) and made law as they wished. They were the law! Anything they desired or declared became law. This is much more in line with certain modern dictatorships, but it does not align with Medieval Europe; quite the opposite.

For example, the Medieval king was under the law, and his limited, specified authority was derived from it. He could not violate the law or customs of the people in any manner or create new laws for his advantage. Instead, he was given a duty to perform by the people for their benefit. He existed to serve them, not the other way around. In fact, there were often no professional legislative bodies to adjust the law at all! Unlike in democracies ruled by politicians, the law was conservative, maintained over hundreds of years untouched by rulers, and devoid of any mechanism to adapt, add to, or take away from it. It belonged to the people, not to those in power who were meant to serve them.

 

Part of the people

Further, the king was not elevated above his people but was one of them. He was the "king of the Anglo-Saxons" or the "king of the Franks," not a monarch who has authority over subjects within his geographical realm like the Roman emperors of old, the monarchs of later ages, or the politicians of today. Thus, kingdoms came and went, and borders were loosely defined since the law followed the people, not the king, who was replaced at death by another servant who must uphold the people's customs.

The law allowed the king only a minimal influence on affairs. Politicians, unelected bureaucrats, and capitalists have significantly more power and control over your lives than a medieval king over a peasant. The king had no authority (nor did anyone, for that matter) to legislate new laws or manipulate his people's economy, politics, and rights. There was no legislation! The law was practiced and enshrined over many generations, and it was the king's duty to protect and uphold it. If he did not, if he attempted to violate it, expand his powers, or enact new laws, it was the obligation of everyone in the realm, from priest to prince to peasant, to stand up and resist him, overthrow him, to reestablish justice and the supremacy of the law.

The most powerful political position in a society was never weaker than that of the feudal kings of Europe. Frequently, a king’s authority amounted to control (again within the limitation imposed by law that predated his birth) of his family lands. He was often a symbolic king only. Some of his vassals openly ignored him, failed to take an oath of allegiance, or resisted him. Other great lords within his “realm” were more powerful than he was and could muster a stronger force than the king. Most of what was considered his realm was ruled by various dukes, lords, knights, monasteries, churches, etc. The Middle Ages were extraordinarily decentralized. For example, in 800 A.D., Ireland was made up of perhaps 150 separate kingdoms, and by 1200 A.D., there were 200 autonomous city-states in Northern Italy. The kings ruled only minor sections and often had difficulty controlling even those areas.

 

Warfare

Likewise, the king lacked infrastructure and the ability to tax his people heavily; the level of taxation was minuscule compared to today. He lacked the Roman Emperors’ and modern states' ability to maintain standing professional armies. This made military operations smaller-scale and less devastating than modern or ancient warfare, which regularly drafted conscripts and was supported by national taxes.

I am unsure of any better anti-war policy than to start having our politicians fund their own wars out-of-pocket and lead their armies to the front lines for the conflict. Then, have those who vote for them make up their armies rather than drafting conscripts. It will not take long for diplomacy to start working more efficiently. People are much more likely to engage in war when they spend other people’s money, and send others to die for their personal gain.

However, kings led their loyal, oath-bound followers and friends into war during the Middle Ages, making each loss mean something. Conscripts do not have personal relationships with their politicians and presidents; feudal warfare meant everyone was valuable, and so they tried not to lose men in war and not carelessly sacrifice them.  In Roman times professional soldiers, mercenaries, slaves, urban warriors, prisoners, criminals, and the landless masses made up the bulk of the armies. By contrast, having extra time to train and advancements in equipment, the rural aristocratic Christian lord became a knight and dominated the battlefield, replacing the brutality of an earlier age with much less sanguinary and more modest warfare. Lords needed fewer soldiers because aristocrats could afford the time to train and to upkeep expertly crafted armor, and their horses could dominate multiple hired soldiers. The treatment of soldiers drastically improved because the warriors were valuable. They were loved and loyal, oath-bound, personally known vassals of a lord, not conscripted masses sent to be slaughtered. The lords would not easily sacrifice those they loved but instead dealt carefully with them; further, because they were valued, they were worth more alive when captured.

When conducted by faithful oath-bound followers of the lord rather than draftees and conscripts, war became detached from the rest of society. The warfare between noble and royal houses and oath-bound vassals often left the rest of the population unaffected. Medieval wars were not nations at war where production and the population at large were engaged in conflict. Instead, the lord's followers and the money he gained from his lands sustained the wars; thus, they were much smaller and less lethal. The aims were smaller, and so were the costs. Because the lord paid for the war and valued his loyal vassals, who were not easily replaced, battles often resulted in few deaths. Casualties for an entire war were usually only a few hundred. Some battles could feature just a dozen or so knights.

 

From King to Monarch

In my book, I argue that the Middle Ages passed away during the 14th century. Many factors contributed to its demise. The great plague, the rise of merchants, trade, towns, cities, money economies, the loss of power of the Church and the Pope due to schisms, and the centralization of secular powers all played a part. However, the most impactful force during the transformative 14th century was the widespread return of Roman law. As secular Roman law returned, kings slowly transformed into monarchs, rulers above their people, able to legislate new law, rulers over geographical areas, and they began to tax more widely and heavily. They were imposing new restrictions and obligations on vassals and peasants. The ancient political systems under Rome, which ruled its subjects by force and cohesion, returned. Government was no longer viewed as to benefit man, but man to benefit the ruling elite. The situation only worsened during the 17th century as the Protestant “divine right of kings” was instituted, and later, under democracy, when the modern nationalist blind obedience to the state reared its ugly head.

 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

In the tumultuous landscape of the Second World War, Greece found itself at the crossroads of history. Amidst the chaos of invasion and occupation by Axis forces, a beacon of hope emerged in the form of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS). Born out of necessity and fueled by the fervor of resistance, ELAS would leave an indelible mark on the nation's history, shaping its destiny for years to come.

Terry Bailey explains.

The ELAS in the Vermio Mountains, with a Soviet military group in 1944.

Formation of ELAS

The origins of ELAS can be traced back to the early years of the Nazi occupation of Greece. Following the Axis invasion in April 1941, the Greek people faced the harsh reality of foreign rule and oppression, something the Greek culture had experienced before, only this time from the Nazis. In the face of this adversity, various resistance groups began to coalesce, driven by a shared desire for liberation and independence.

One of the most significant of these groups was the National Liberation Front (EAM), a broad coalition of leftist and communist organizations. Under the umbrella of EAM, ELAS was established in 1942 as its military wing, tasked with the mission of confronting the Axis occupiers and their collaborators.

Led by a diverse array of leaders, including communist guerrilla fighters and patriotic nationalists, ELAS quickly garnered widespread support among the Greek populace. Drawing upon the rich tradition of Greek resistance throughout history, the organization tapped into a deep well of national pride and defiance, inspiring countless individuals to join its ranks.

 

Resistance Against the Nazis

ELAS waged a relentless campaign against the Nazi forces occupying Greece, employing guerrilla tactics and unconventional warfare to great effect. Operating primarily in the rugged terrain of the Greek countryside and mountainous region, ELAS fighters carried out ambushes, sabotage missions, and acts of sabotage, striking fear into the hearts of their enemies, while working alongside British SOE operatives.

However, ELAS's impact extended far beyond the battlefield. The organization also played a crucial role in the resistance's efforts to support and protect vulnerable civilians, providing aid, shelter, and medical care to those effected by the horrors of war, in doing so, ELAS earned the respect and admiration of the Greek people, solidifying its status as a symbol of hope and resilience in the face of tyranny, yet the organization had a hidden agenda and it was this reason that support was provided to the Greek people based on future aims and political manifestos.

 

Post-War Plans and the Civil War

With the end of the Second World War in 1945, Greece stood on the brink of a new era of freedom and democracy. However, the euphoria of victory was short-lived, as the country soon found itself plunged into a bitter civil conflict. At the heart of this conflict was the struggle for control between rival political factions: on one side, the communist-led forces of ELAS and its allies, and on the other, the conservative government backed by Western powers.

What began as a battle for liberation against foreign occupiers quickly escalated into a bloody internal struggle for power and ideology. ELAS, emboldened by its wartime successes and bolstered by popular support, sought to capitalize on its position to shape the future of Greece in line with its socialist vision. However, the conservative government, fearful of communist influence and determined to maintain its grip on power, moved swiftly to suppress ELAS and crush the burgeoning communist movement.

The ensuing conflict, known as the Greek Civil War, raged from 1946 to 1949, tearing the country apart and exacting a heavy toll on its people. Despite their efforts, ELAS and its allies were ultimately unable to overcome the combined might of the government forces and their Western backers, who did not wish communist rule in Greece. With the defeat of the communist backed ELAS in the Greek Civil War it was officially disarmed and disbanded, marking the end of an era of resistance and the beginning of a new chapter in Greek history. Though the communist dream of revolution had been quashed, the legacy of ELAS lived on, serving as a testament to the enduring spirit of resistance and the fight for justice and freedom.

 

Legacy of Resistance

Despite its ultimate defeat, the legacy of ELAS endures as a symbol of courage, sacrifice, and defiance. For many Greeks, the memory of ELAS and its heroic struggle against fascism remains a source of inspiration and pride, reminding them of the power of unity and solidarity in the face of adversity. In the decades since its dissolution, ELAS has been commemorated through monuments, memorials, and cultural artefacts, ensuring that its contributions to Greek history are never forgotten. Moreover, the values of democracy, equality, and social justice for which ELAS fought continue to resonate with people around the world, serving as a beacon of hope in an uncertain world, however, this continued underlining believe in equality is based upon the organization’s original manifesto which had a heavy left wing flavor.

As Greece navigates the challenges of the 21st century, the spirit of ELAS lives on simmering under the surface, inspiring future generations to stand up against oppression and injustice wherever they may find it. Though the battles may have ended long ago, the fight for a better world continues, fueled by the enduring legacy of the Greek People's Liberation Army and the belief by poor communities that these manifesto ideas are the answer to unequaled living conditions.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.