Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Another Look at the Kennedy Legacy

Robert F.  Kenned Jr.’s suspension of his third-party campaign for president and endorsement of Republican Donald J. Trump, was a development with historical resonance. RFK, Jr. has long been known as a fiercely independent and idiosyncratic lawyer and environmentalist with an eclectic collection of positions and ideas, including vaccine skepticism. But among his other actions and assertions, RFK, Jr.’s embrace of Trump and, by extension, the Republican party, stands out for its direct opposition to the Democrats, the party of his forefathers who did much to shape its values and lore, and inspire future generations of adherents. RFK, Jr. is now campaigning energetically for Trump, and given the still-potent draw of the legendary Kennedy name, his support could conceivably make the difference in a razor-tight race.

Larry Deblinger explains.

Booby Kennedy (left) with President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966.

Upon hearing of RFK’s decision, five of his eight surviving siblings released a brief statement condemning it as a “betrayal” of their family’s values and “a sad ending to a sad story.” Previously,  at least 15 Kennedy family members had shunned RFK Jr.’s candidacy and endorsed Joe Biden for president, before Biden dropped out. These relatives appear to view RFK, Jr. as a black sheep of the family, an aberration whose actions should be lamented and dismissed.

It might be tempting to view RFK, Jr’s “sad story” through the operatic lens that the Kennedy family saga has typically been chronicled, replete with tragic and untimely deaths, noble ideals, soaring oratory, and unrealized dreams. Indeed, RFK, Jr. hinted of his move to come on the basis of a high-minded principle, befitting a Kennedy. In April, RFK, Jr. asserted on CNN that President Joe Biden was a greater threat to American democracy than Trump, even though he called Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election and other of his actions “appalling.” He argued that social media websites had blocked him from espousing his vaccine conspiracy theories under pressure and weaponization of government agencies by the Biden administration, thus violating his Constitutional right to freedom of speech, and threatening the most important pillar of democracy.

But it serves to note that RFK, Jr’s complaint was also of a direct and personal nature. And in this context, it must also be considered that among their traits of good looks and charisma, drive, wit, brilliance, eloquence, and idealism, prominent Kennedys have shown a capacity to act out of sheer spite: personal, petty, mean-spirited, and hateful vindictiveness. Both RFK, Jr.’s father, Robert F. “Bobby” Kennedy, and his uncle Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy, evinced this marked tendency in the political arena at key moments in American history. Through this lens, RFK, Jr.’s action appears not so much a “betrayal” of Kennedy family value as another familiar recurrence of a Kennedy failing, and his allegiance with Trump, little more than a personal and vindictive swipe against the Democratic party.

Youth

From his youth, Bobby Kennedy was a kind of family attack dog, keen to perceive and avenge any slights to himself or his family members. The “runt” of Rose and Joseph Kennedy’s storied litter, Bobby made up for his small size and limited talents (at least compared with his brothers) with tenacity and scrappiness in sports and academics, often spoiling for fights. It did not take much; as a student at Harvard, RFK once smashed a beer bottle over a young man’s head, sending him to the hospital for stitches, simply because he had the temerity to celebrate his birthday at the same Cambridge bar and same time as Bobby.1  And he held a grudge. “When Bobby hates you, you stay hated,” Joe Kennedy once said of the son who seemed most to take after him.2 As an adult, armed with a law degree from the University of Virginia, RFK became an assistant counsel to US Republican Senator Joseph V. McCarthy’s infamous investigative committee that during 1953-54 recklessly and often spuriously alleged Communist influence in the US government and media.

It was during this period that RFK first met then-Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, and for Bobby, it was hatred at first sight. He had known of Johnson as a protégé of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the man who had recalled his father as US Ambassador to England in 1940 and fired him; Johnson was at FDR’s side during much of the humiliating process, and that, apparently, was enough for Bobby.3  FDR had clear and substantive reasons for his action, including Joe Kennedy’s early support for appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s; publicly expressed pessimism over the survival of Great Britain and of democracy in Europe (and privately expressed antisemitism); suspicion of his being a Nazi sympathizer; and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s calls for Kennedy’s dismissal. Nonetheless, son Bobby saw the firing as a family offense not to be forgiven.

So, when Majority Leader Johnson entered the Senate cafeteria with two assistants one day in 1953 and passed a table where McCarthy was meeting with his staff, Bobby sat glowering in his seat while the rest of McCarthy’s team jumped up to shake the hand of the “Leader,” in keeping with Senate decorum. 3 Not to be deterred, the towering, almost 6 foot 4-inch tall, LBJ stood over RFK and stuck out his hand, waiting for a long, awkward moment before Bobby finally rose and shook it without looking at Johnson.

Feud

The epic LBJ-RFK feud was on. There were Johnson’s repeated attempts after the first to squeeze handshakes out of Bobby Kennedy just to torment him, and a few disparaging comments from Johnson about Joe Kennedy’s ambassadorship in England. There was the incident in 1959 on Johnson’s ranch, where RFK was sent by his brother John to sound out Johnson on his intentions of running for president, when LBJ insisted on some deer hunting and Bobby was thrown flat on his back by a rifle recoil. “Son, you’ve got to learn how to handle a gun like a man,” Johnson said as he helped him up.4  

Beyond the insults, RFK despised Johnson as a man who in his opinion exhibited all the worst traits of the classic politician: an unprincipled and conniving lust for power, loose regard for the truth, rampant egoism, and selfish vanity. To RFK’s Northeastern elite sensibilities, Johnson’s rude and crude Southwestern-dirt-poor, working-class manners, physically overbearing political style, and segregationist past were repugnant and worthy of withering scorn, something Johnson fully recognized and resented.

But the true measure of RFK’s pettiness emerged with the ascendance of LBJ to Vice President in his brother John’s administration, and to the presidency after his brother’s death: an inability to respect the office however much he detested the man. Even though JFK had offered LBJ the VP post, considering him vital to his electoral prospects, and LBJ had accepted, during the Democratic convention, Bobby repeatedly visited Johnson in his hotel room to get him to decline the offer. RFK later insisted his attempts were at his brother’s behest, a contention that historians view with skepticism.5,6 It was during this episode that Johnson began calling RFK “that little shitass” and “worse” names, according to a close associate.7

The ill-will continued through JFK’s tragically shortened presidency, under which RFK served as Attorney General. JFK knew that the vice presidency was an extremely confining office for an accomplished power broker like Johnson, and he was determined that LBJ be treated with dignity, if only to assuage his massive ego. In general, JFK and Johnson enjoyed cordial, gentlemanly, and mutually respectful relations.8,9 Yet, RFK radiated disrespect towards Johnson, barging into his meetings without a word of apology and treating him like an underling9; indeed, for all practical purposes, Bobby was the number two in the JFK administration. The tight-knit Kennedy staffers called LBJ nicknames like “Uncle Cornpone” behind his back.10

Out of Office

It was even worse out of the office. Bobby and his wife Ethel held frequent parties for “Kennedy people” (Johnson called them “the Harvards”) at their home, Hickory Hill in Virginia, where the ridicule of LBJ turned kind of sick, according to historian Jeff Shesol in his 1997 book on the RFK-LBJ feud, Mutual Contempt:

Johnson jokes and Johnson stories were as inexhaustible as they were merciless. Those that percolated during the campaign had been humorous, but this new material betrayed a real bitterness, a mean-spiritedness that was hard to explain…Time (magazine)’s Hugh Sidey, a frequent visitor to Hickory Hill was appalled by the gang’s ridicule of LBJ, which he described as “just awful…inexcusable, really.” In October 1963, friends gave Bobby Kennedy an LBJ voodoo doll; “the merriment,” Sidey later reported, “was overwhelming.”11

The frivolity likely vanished after the assassination of JFK in Dallas, Texas, but not the feud between RFK and LBJ, exacerbated by the fact that the shooting occurred in Johnson’s home state. RFK, overwhelmed with grief, resolved to stay on as Attorney General, but without letting go of his animosity. “From the moment Air Force One (bearing JFK’s body) landed in Washington, and progressively in the days and weeks that followed, Bobby was ready to see slights to his brother, his brother’s widow, or himself in whatever Lyndon Johnson did or didn’t do,” wrote LBJ biographer Merle Miller.12         

Although Johnson performed faithfully and admirably in honoring JFK’s legacy and advancing his policy agenda, according to contemporary journalists and historians, his personal attempts as President to show respect and sensitivity to the Kennedys were all rudely rebuffed. “Overtures from Johnson to the Kennedy family after the Kennedy assassination were rejected in a manner that was thoroughly offensive and insulting,” observed contemporary Clark Clifford, an eminent Washington DC attorney and veteran Democratic party insider.12

And the hostility did not stop at mere personal gestures.  As historian Shesol explains of Johnson’s early days as president:

Johnson desperately needed affirmation, and in the hour of his greatest burden, it came from unlikely sources—from the Congress, which had spurned and mocked him for a thousand days; from the cabinet, appointed by his predecessor; from the American people, who cherished John Kennedy in death as they had not in life. All rallied to the new president. They gave him their patience and their trust.

Bobby Kennedy was not among them, and in Bobby’s absence Johnson felt the suspicion and rejection he feared from the rest.13  

Ironically, a book that the Kennedy family members had commissioned expressly to control the narrative of the JFK assassination and aftermath, and protect their image, publicly exposed the intense antagonism towards LBJ, which shocked reviewers. Entitled “The Death of a President,” by William Manchester, who was given extensive and exclusive access to the Kennedys and their records, the book was, in the words of Time magazine, “seriously flawed by the fact that its partisan portrayal of Lyndon Johnson is so hostile that it almost demeans the office itself.” It is impossible to parse exactly what proportion of this hostility might have come independently from the author, rather than the Kennedys (although the author was handpicked and vetted by the family). At any rate, the Kennedys were unhappy with the book for various reasons and sued to stop general publication of it before changes were made. “Bobby worried that the book might make it appear that the Kennedys had not given Johnson a chance to succeed in the Presidency and that their opposition was nothing more than a personal vendetta,” wrote Michael W. Schuyler, an historian at Kearny State University, New Mexico.14

Bobby Kennedy

LBJ went on to win election in his own right in 1964, by one of the largest landslide victories in American history. He then successfully pushed through epochal Civil Rights legislation and social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, anti-poverty initiatives and other legislation ranging from the arts to immigration, environmental protection, education, and gun control, compiling a domestic record that, on the whole, remains a landmark achievement of American progressivism. But his controversial and disastrous Vietnam war policies rapidly undermined his presidency, compelled him to decline to run for re-election, and ended his political career. Bobby Kennedy left the Johnson administration to run for US Senator from New York, which office he won in 1965. He was assassinated while campaigning for president on an anti-war platform in 1968.                                            

It might be reassuring, in terms of the Kennedy legacy, to think that the LBJ-RFK feud was entirely a one-off, generated by the forced proximity and interaction of two dynamic personalities who were almost uniquely born to clash. But that is not the case. A mere 12 years after Bobby’s violent death, a relatively brief but all-too-familiar spectacle of petty and personal spite and resentment involving a Kennedy took center stage in American politics.

1980 convention

The setting was the Democratic party convention of 1980, a presidential election year. The intraparty combatants were the incumbent US president James Earl Carter, son of a peanut farmer from Georgia and Ted Kennedy, US Senator from Massachusetts, scion of the wealthy, celebrated, star-crossed political family, which some Americans viewed like royals in exile. Although Carter had won the party’s nomination handily after a bitter battle, he stood awkwardly at the podium, having completed his acceptance speech, waiting for Kennedy to arrive and, in effect, certify his candidacy as though he were a higher authority.

The contest itself was inherently anomalous, and humiliating for Carter. “Never before had a sitting President, an elected President, with command of both houses of Congress and the party machinery, been so challenged by his own people. What was even more remarkable was the nature of the challenge—a charge of incompetence,” wrote contemporary journalist and historian Teddy White.15

By 1980, Carter’s presidency was foundering, beset on all sides by crises foreign and domestic. The economy was struggling with the combination of persistent inflation, slow economic growth, and high unemployment, called “stagflation.” A revolution in Iran to replace the US-backed Shah with an Islamic theocracy in 1979 spooked Americans who remembered the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s, and drove them to hoard gas. This resulted in long gas lines, dwindling gas supplies, and mounting hysteria, including killings and riots. The infamous Iran hostage crisis of 1979 erupted when Iranian militants captured over 50 Americans at the US embassy in Tehran and kept them for 444 days, prompted at least in part by Carter’s decision to allow the exiled Shah to enter the US for cancer  treatment.

Ted Kennedy

Despite some landmark achievements such as his forging of the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt, Carter failed to convince the American people that he had a sure grip on the helm of state. He had a curiously stiff personal style, despite his ever-present wide smile, and a technician’s approach to solving national problems that was uninspiring to the public and did not always work. Like Carter, his closest advisers were from Georgia, and the team, including the President, came to office with a regional chip on their shoulders, bristling with peevish hyperawareness, if not combative pride, in being outsiders to the Washington establishment. As Carter’s approval ratings began to plunge, sinking to 28% in June of 1979, a bit of that Southern defiance appeared to flare when Carter was asked at a gathering of Congressmen whether he planned to run for re-election (a question insulting in itself), particularly given the possibility that Ted Kennedy might challenge him for his party’s nomination.

“I’m going to whip his ass,” Carter replied, referring to Kennedy, and then repeated it, when asked (in disbelief) if that was what he meant.16 When confronted with the widely reported statement, Kennedy smoothly responded that the president must have been misquoted.

It was the first publicly overt expression of tension between Carter and Kennedy. Later in 1979, further signs of tension and rivalry were palpable at the opening of the John F. Kennedy Library,  in Boston, where they both spoke. The event started out inauspiciously for Carter when he leaned in to kiss Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis on the cheek in greeting, “just as a matter of courtesy,” and “she flinched away ostentatiously,” as Carter remembered decades later.17In their speeches, ostensibly in honor of JFK., both Carter and Kennedy slyly inserted warnings, or shots across the bow, to each other.

Observing with growing disgust Carter’s faltering efforts to be the president the American people wanted and needed, Kennedy became convinced that he could fill the void of leadership, and announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination.

Contest

But the matchup was a contest of weaknesses. While Carter had acquired the image of a bumbler, Kennedy was a deeply flawed and inept candidate. Grave doubts about his character relentlessly shadowed him over the 1969 incident in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts, an island off Martha’s Vinyard, when he drove a car off a bridge and into a pond, causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a young woman who was a passenger in the car. Although Kennedy swam to safety, he failed to call the police for 10 hours during which Kopechne’s life might have been saved. Kennedy further undermined himself with a one-on-one interview on prime-time, network television, in which he was unable to answer the direct question of why he wanted to be president, responding  with an incoherent stream of hesitations and pointless phrases, i.e. an epic word salad. Mirroring this ambivalence, Kennedy campaigned with inconsistent energy and conviction, championing an old-line liberalism that many thought outdated.

By a month before the convention, Carter had won enough primaries and delegates to secure his renomination, with a commanding lead over Kennedy; as promised, Carter had “whipped” Kennedy. And yet, Kennedy refused to bow out, having adopted a “kamikaze-like state of mind,” according to Jon Ward in his 2019 book about the Carter-Kennedy rivalry, Camelot’s End. “Many in the Kennedy camp were disgusted by Carter,” wrote Ward. “They felt he was no better than (Republican presidential nominee Ronald) Reagan, and almost preferred to see Reagan win,”18

The Kennedy camp insisted on an “open convention,” meaning that delegates could be free to vote for whom they wished regardless of the choice of the rank-and-file primary voters they were supposedly pledged to represent. In the meantime, a poll showed Carter with a 77% national disapproval rating.19 The Democrats agreed to the open convention format.

When the open vote was over, Carter had finally won the nomination with almost two-thirds of the vote. Kennedy conceded but he was not done fighting. His camp insisted on a party platform vote, including liberal planks far to the left of Carter’s policies, which would defy and embarrass the President, and would take place right after Senator Kennedy was scheduled to speak, so as to set the most favorable atmosphere for their approval.

The Carter people knew exactly what was planned and were losing patience. “If you have any wisdom and judgment at all, you know you don’t get carried away by personalities and pettiness in a political fight,” recounted Carter’s campaign  manager, Bob Strauss, to The New Yorker. “Politics is tough enough…that you don’t cut each other’s throats.” Carter’s Press Secretary, Jody Powell, later wrote, “We neglected to take into account one of the most obvious facets of Kennedy’s character, an almost child-like self-centeredness,” in his memoir of the election. 

Kennedy’s speech        

In the event, Kennedy’s convention staff did behave childishly, like a bunch of drunken frat-boys, on the day of his speech. Kennedy floor manager Harold Ickes invoked an obscure procedural rule to stop the afternoon convention activities, “in a gesture done purely out of spite,” wrote Ward in a 2024 Politico article.  “We just said, ‘Fuck ‘em,’” explained Ickes in an interview. “I mean, we weren’t thinking about the country. We weren’t even thinking about the general election. It was, ‘Fuck ‘em.’ You know? To be blunt about it.”

Fistfights almost broke out the convention floor when outraged Carter staffers confronted Ickes, who responded with “Go fuck yourself, I’m shutting this convention down.” The fisticuffs were luckily averted by a phone call from Kennedy at his hotel room, curious to know what had stopped the proceedings he was watching on television. When told the convention would be stalled for two hours, Kennedy, after a long pause, told Ickes to allow it to go forward.

Perhaps relieved from the burden of pursuing a losing cause, Kennedy gave a thoughtful, eloquent, stem-winding speech later that night, which is still remembered as one of the best speeches in American political convention history. Kennedy invoked the Democratic party’s heritage of support for the common man, and the wisdom of 19th century poet Alfred Lord Tennyson, with pleas to re-unite the country and the party, lyrically concluding, in a paean to big-hearted, big-spending liberalism, "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

And yet, the good vibes and elevated, Camelot-like aura were shattered by another Kennedy-driven spectacle before a prime-time national TV audience on the last, climactic night of the convention. Carter did not help his cause by starting off his acceptance and campaign kick-off speech with a shouted tribute to Democratic Senator and former VP, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, whom he misnamed as Hubert Horatio Hornblower (Horatio Hornblower was a fictional, Napoleonic-era, British naval officer in a popular 20th century series of stories and novels) before hastily correcting himself. When he had finished his speech, almost 20 minutes ticked by as various party luminaries (and some not so luminary) joined him on the stage for a desultory show of unity, waiting for the final moment, and leaving bored TV news commentators to mutter derisive comments to their audiences.

The Kennedy team had orchestrated that final moment by insisting that Kennedy would not watch the speech at the arena but in his hotel room, and would then make his way to the convention, thus having the dramatically delayed, final appearance of the show, like the top star of a rock concert, or a champion boxer.  

Handshake

When Kennedy did appear, to a roar of excitement, it was obvious to almost everyone watching, or made clear to them by the TV journalists on the scene, that Carter was looking for one thing: the classic political handshake of the party’s top politicians, former rivals, standing together in full view of the spotlights and cameras, their interlocked hands thrust high in the air, in a thrilling and triumphant show of unity, strength, and expectation of victory, of party over personal interest, bitterness, and division. He never got it. Kennedy did shake Carter’s hand five times by Ward’s count, but each time in a crowd, with the brief and perfunctory manner a campaigner might take the hand of someone in a rope line. The TV commentators duly noted each, increasingly embarrassing, failure. As Carter followed him around, Kennedy began to “smirk” and “chuckle,” according to Ward; he finally patted Carter on the back before leaving the arena to cheers.

Two months later, a peripheral, nonofficial member of the Kennedy campaign staff, but with longstanding ties as a helper to the Kennedy family, named Paul Corbin, stole Carter’s briefing books for a general election debate with Reagan and gave them to the Reagan campaign, 20 according to information gathered in a Congressional  investigation and a 2009 book by political consultant and author Craig Shirley.20

After the 1980 election

Carter went on to lose the election to Reagan, but thereafter has led one of the most active, productive, and distinguished post-presidential lives in  American history.  Ted Kennedy, who died in 2009, remained US Senator from Massachusetts for decades, compiling a highly distinguished legislative career, featuring his steadfast advocacy for a national health care system, which was finally realized in at least some form in 2010, under the Obama administration.

With regard to health care reform, however, Carter has charged in his presidential memoirs that his administration’s proposal for a national health plan, which was devised over a two-year period by an array of economic experts and government leaders, including Ted Kennedy, and had support from key Congressional leaders, was scuttled by Kennedy in 1979 when he opposed it “at the very end,” which ultimately resulted in a 30-year delay in national health care.21  Carter repeated the charge in 2010 in TV interviews with 60 Minutes and Larry King, alleging that Kennedy acted “out of personal spite,” and his ambition to run for president and enact his own health care plan. In his own writings, Kennedy had counter-charged that it was Carter who delayed the plan (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/time-has-not-cooled-jimmy-carter-ted-kennedy-feud/).

RFK, Jr.

And so, we arrive at RFK, Jr., son of Bobby and nephew of Ted, choosing to support Republican Donald J. Trump, a convicted felon facing dozens of additional criminal charges, in his campaign for re-election as president. RFK, Jr. appears to justify his stance at least partly as a defense of freedom of speech. But he has yet to explain how supporting a candidate whose relentless abuse and corruption of that very right, by knowingly spewing lies that have sown chaos, threatened the democratic system, and endangered public safety, could possibly serve to protect freedom of speech and democracy. Then again, RFK, Jr.’s stance might have little to do with anything so grand as ideas, principles, and the national interest. After all, he is a Kennedy.  

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

Print References

1.     Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: pg. 63.

2.     Ibid, pg. 66.

3.     Ibid, ppg. 61-3.

4.     Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: pg.10.

5.     Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: ppg. 122-40.

6.     Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: ppg.48-57.

7.     Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: pg. 139.

8.     Ibid., pg. 177-195.

9.     Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: ppg.77-79.

10.  Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: pg. 198.

11.  Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: pg.104.

12.  Ball, Moira Ann. The phantom of the oval office:  The John F. Kennedy’s assassination’s symbolic impact on Lyndon B. Johnson, his key advisors, and the Vietnam decision-making process.  Presidential Studies Quarterly. 1994;24(1):105-119.

13.  Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: pg.119.

14.  Schuyler M.W. Ghosts in the White House: LBJ, RFK, and the assassination of JFK. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 1987; 17(3):503-518.

15.  Ward J. (2019).  Camelot’s End. Kennedy vs. Carter and the Fight that Broke the Democratic Party.  Hachette Book Group;  New York, NY: pg. 146.

16.  Ibid., pg. 126.

17.  Ibid., pg. 152.

18.  Ibid., pg.230.

19.  Ibid., pg.251.

20.  Ibid.,  pg.284-5.

21.  Carter J. (2010). White House Diary. Farrar, Strous and Giroux. New York, NY: pg. 325.

Isaac Newton: The Father of Modern Science

Sir Isaac Newton, was born (according to the Julian calendar in use in England at the time) on Christmas Day, the 25th of December 1642 (New system calendar the 4th of January 1643), at Woolsthorpe Manor in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a hamlet in the county of Lincolnshire, England.

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the most influential scientists in human history, with his groundbreaking work in mathematics, physics, and astronomy laying the foundations for classical mechanics continuing to this day and shaping modern science.

Terry Bailey explains.

Isaac Newton in later life. Painting by James Thornhill.

Early Life and Education

Newton's early life was marked by personal hardships. His father died three months before he was born, and when Newton was three, his mother remarried, leaving him in the care of his maternal grandmother. As a child, Newton displayed a curiosity about the world that would later evolve into groundbreaking scientific inquiries. He was sent to The King's School in Grantham, where he demonstrated a gift for mathematics and mechanics, often constructing elaborate mechanical devices, such as sundials and windmills, during his free time.

At 18, Newton enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1661. Cambridge, however, offered a curriculum centered around Aristotelian philosophy, which Newton found inadequate to explain the natural world. During this time, he encountered the works of philosophers such as René Descartes and astronomers like Galileo Galilei, which inspired his independent thinking. It was during the mid-1660s, when Cambridge was closed, (1665-1667), due to the Great Plague, that Newton made his first breakthroughs.

The Annus Mirabilis (The "Year of Wonders")

Newton's most productive period came during his time away from Cambridge between 1665 and 1667, often referred to as his "Annus Mirabilis." During these years, he developed the fundamental principles of calculus, formulated his theories on optics, and famously began to conceive the laws of motion and universal gravitation.

Calculus: The Foundation of Modern Mathematics

One of Newton's most profound achievements was the development of calculus, a new branch of mathematics that allowed for the analysis of continuously changing quantities. Although the invention of calculus is often attributed to both Newton and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Newton's work predated Leibniz's publication by several years. It is also important to note that Archimedes, 287 BCE-212 BCE had already started developing the early concepts of integral calculus.

Newton used calculus to describe rates of change, which was crucial in his subsequent scientific discoveries. For example, calculus allowed Newton to analyze the motion of objects, calculate the changing velocities of falling bodies, and predict the paths of planets.

Optics: The Nature of Light and Color

During his retreat in 1666, Newton also conducted groundbreaking experiments with optics. Using a prism, Newton demonstrated that white light could be split into a spectrum of colors, showing that white light was a mixture of different wavelengths of light rather than a pure substance.

This discovery revolutionized the field of optics and dispelled prevailing theories that colors were produced by the modification of white light. His work on light also led him to build the first practical reflecting telescope, known as the Newtonian telescope, in 1668. This innovation eliminated chromatic aberration—a problem that plagued refracting telescopes—and allowed for sharper images of celestial objects.

The Principia and Newton's Laws of Motion

In 1687, Newton published his magnum opus, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, often referred to simply as the Principia. This work laid the groundwork for classical mechanics and established Newton's lasting influence on science.

Newton's Laws of Motion

The Principia is perhaps most famous for the articulation of Newton's three laws of motion, which describe the relationship between an object's motion and the forces acting upon it:

First Law (Inertia): An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force.

Second Law (Force and Acceleration): The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting upon it and inversely proportional to its mass. This law is succinctly expressed by the formula F = ma (force equals mass times acceleration).

Third Law (Action and Reaction): For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle explains why a rocket is propelled upward as gas is expelled downward.

These laws transformed the study of motion and became the foundation of classical mechanics, allowing scientists to predict the behavior of moving objects and understand phenomena like the orbits of planets and the trajectories of projectiles.

The Universal Law of Gravitation

Newton's law of universal gravitation is another keystone of his legacy. Newton proposed that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This revolutionary idea provided a unifying explanation for both terrestrial and celestial phenomena.

Newton's law of gravitation explained why apples fall to the ground, why the Moon orbits the Earth, and why planets revolve around the Sun. It was the first time a mathematical theory provided a comprehensive explanation of the mechanics of the universe. With this law, Newton showed that the same forces governing falling objects on Earth were responsible for the motion of the planets, revolutionizing our understanding of the cosmos.

Later Life and Scientific Work

Following the publication of the Principia, Newton's reputation as one of the world's foremost scientists was firmly established. He was appointed Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, a position he held until 1696 when he moved to London to become Warden of the Royal Mint. There, Newton played a key role in reforming England's coinage and combating widespread counterfeiting.

Alchemy and Theology

Although Newton is best known for his contributions to mathematics and physics, he also spent a significant portion of his life studying alchemy and theology. Alchemy, a proto-scientific tradition, sought to transform base metals into gold and discover the elixir of life, (which to the initiated was a metaphorical concept for other scientific Pursuits). While Newton never made significant strides in these areas, his alchemical work reveals the breadth of his intellectual curiosity as he applied solid scientific methodologies to this pursuit.

Newton's theological writings were also substantial, though they remained unpublished during his lifetime. He was deeply interested in biblical prophecy and sought to reconcile his scientific work with his religious beliefs. Despite his unorthodox theological views, Newton believed that the universe operated under divine law, and this conviction reinforced his scientific inquiries. However, the more he studied these ideas the more separate the two concepts became.

Newton's Legacy in Science

Isaac Newton's scientific achievements had a profound impact on future generations of scientists. His methods of inquiry—based on empirical observation, mathematical rigor and logical reasoning became the standard for scientific exploration.

Influence on Physics

Newton's work in physics formed the basis for much of what is now called classical mechanics. For over two centuries, Newton's laws of motion and gravitation remained the cornerstone of physics, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the movement of bodies in the universe.

It was not until the 20th century, with the advent of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, that Newton's ideas were modified to account for the behavior of objects at extreme speeds and small scales. However, even in these contexts, Newton's laws remain a valid approximation for much of the physical world.

It is vital to understand that Newton was not incorrect and Einstein's theories simply were furtherance of Newton's findings. Issac Newton lived in the time of horse and carriage and the concept of light speed was virtually unknown. When Einstein added light speed into the equation it allowed science to move beyond Newton's discoveries, the true aspect of scientific discovery and solid proof of Newton's legacy to the world.

Impact on Mathematics

Newton's development of calculus opened new avenues for mathematical exploration. His methods for calculating the rate of change and determining areas under curves became essential tools in mathematics, engineering, and physics. Calculus remains a central component of modern mathematics education and is used extensively in fields ranging from physics to economics.

Contributions to Astronomy

Newton's law of gravitation allowed astronomers to better understand planetary motion and celestial mechanics. Using Newton's theories, astronomers could predict the orbits of planets and comets with unprecedented accuracy. Newton's work also helped scientists understand the forces governing tides, the behavior of moons, and the dynamics of stars and galaxies.

Side note:- Galileo Galilei had already discovered the first 4 moons orbiting around Jupiter, originally named the Galilean moons, (satellites), on the 7th of January 1610. These moons eventually became known as Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto.

Newton's Philosophical Impact

In addition to his scientific work, Newton influenced the philosophical understanding of nature and human knowledge. His emphasis on observation and mathematical explanation helped shape the Enlightenment view that nature operates according to discoverable laws. Philosophers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant were profoundly influenced by Newton's work, and his ideas were integral to the rise of empiricism and the scientific method.

In conclusion, Isaac Newton's life and work are solid evidence of the power of human curiosity and intellect. From his formulation of calculus and groundbreaking work in optics to his laws of motion and gravitation, Newton reshaped humanity's understanding of the natural world. His influence extended far beyond his era, setting the stage for centuries of scientific progress. Newton's legacy endures, not only in the discoveries he made but in the methods of inquiry and analysis he championed—methods that continue to drive science forward today.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Reflecting telescope, (Newtonian telescope)

A reflecting telescope often referred to as a Newtonian telescope, is a type of reflecting telescope invented by the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton, using a concave primary mirror and a flat diagonal secondary mirror. Newton's first reflecting telescope was completed in 1668 and is the earliest known functional reflecting telescope.

The Newtonian telescope's simple design has made it very popular with amateur telescope makers.

Refracting telescope

A refracting telescope often referred to as a refractor is a type of optical telescope that uses a lens as its objective to form an image, known as a dioptric telescope and was the earliest type of optical telescope.

The first record of a refracting telescope appeared in the Netherlands about 1608 when a spectacle maker from Middelburg named Hans Lippershey unsuccessfully tried to patent one.

News of the patent spread fast and Galileo Galilei, happening to be in Venice in May 1609, heard of the invention, constructed a version of his own, and applied it to making astronomical discoveries.

Chromatic aberration

Chromatic aberration, also referred to as chromatic distortion, color fringing, and sphero-chromatism, is a common optical phenomenon that occurs when a lens cannot bring all wavelengths of light to a single converging point

Jupiter's moons

Jupiter currently has 95 moons that have been officially confirmed and recognized by the International Astronomical Union, (IAU).

The British Labour Party and Welfare: The Legacies of the Attlee and Wilson Governments

The British Labour Party won the 2024 British general election. With that in mind, Vittorio Trevitt looks at the past Labour governments of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson. He considers how these governments handled welfare policy.

Clement Attlee with John F. Kennedy in 1961.

The UK General Election held in July 2024 was a truly historic event, with Labour returning to office after more than a decade in opposition. The fact that Labour did so with such a massive majority means that they have a strong mandate to transform Britain into a fairer nation. Although the state of public finances has resulted in Labour removing universal Winter Fuel Allowances for most pensioners (ironically reversing a policy implemented under the Blair Government in 1997) and more cuts likely to follow, it is highly probable that as economic conditions improve there will be greater leeway for Labour to expand social provisions, such as fulfilling its proposals for extending rights to statutory sick pay and introducing free breakfast clubs in all English primary schools. In the past, Labour has encountered severe financial difficulties but has still managed to establish a broad array of social security grants that have done much to ameliorate the quality of life for ordinary households. Two former Labour administrations that Starmer and his ministers can look to for guidance are the Attlee Government of 1945-51 and the 1964-70 and 1974-76 Wilson Governments.

Attlee Government

The Labour Government that came to power in the first election following the end of the Second World War has long been held in high esteem not only by historians but also by Labour Party activists and politicians. Led by veteran Labourite Clement Attlee, it was by far the most radical and successful that Britain had experienced by that time. Although the country Labour inherited was in a parlous financial state (the legacy of World War II), Attlee and his ministers would not disappoint an electorate hungry for change after years of strife and sacrifice. Over the next 6 years, they drastically changed Britain for the better. One way it achieved this was through the construction of a comprehensive and universalistic welfare model. Although Britain had a long history of welfare provision, the Attlee Government greatly built on the existing framework by setting up a system that covered all citizens. One of the pillars of this new solidaristic edifice, the National Health Service, was notable in making free access to every form of healthcare (such as medical and dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids) a right for every citizen; one that the service has continued to uphold despite frequent cuts and overhauls in the decades since its “birth.” The 1946 National Insurance Act set up a broad network of cash payments incorporating a range of risks such as old age, widowhood and funeral costs. Apart from the normal rates, increases could be made in national insurance paymentsfor particular cases. Also, where employers had failed to meet the contribution requirements of the Act, resulting in recipients losing partly or entirely the maternity, sickness or unemployment benefits that were theirs by right, such individuals could retrieve a civil debt from said employers representing the lost amounts. A Five Year Benefit Reviewwas also included, aimed at ensuring the adequacy of allowances in helping beneficiaries to meet their basic needs. Additionally, groups such as trade unions were enabled to set up their own schemes if they so wished.

The equally far-reaching Industrial Injuries Act passed that same year bestowed various cash grants upon workers suffering from work-related injuries such as disablement gratuities and special hardship allowances (aimed at workers unable to carry out their current lines of work or equivalent due to their injuries). Five distinct benefits were also made for dependents of workers who tragically lost their lives, while allowances were given in cases of approved hospital treatment, constant attendance and unemployability; the latter geared towards disability pensioners unable to take on any form of employment. In addition, the National Assistance Act introduced two years later established a non-contributory social safety net for those in need; providing support such as shelter and nutritional assistance.

The Attlee years also witnessed the passage of other welfare measures affecting different strata of British society.Dockworkers became entitled to pay in cases of unemployment or underemployment, while a state scheme for mature university students was set up. Regulations provided numerous pension entitlements for NHS employees while the National Insurance and Civil Service (Superannuation) Rules, 1948 provided for preserved pension rights with a compensation award in cases where individuals experienced the impairment or loss of opportunity to earn a further pension. As a means of helping people reach their potential, a special scheme was instituted in 1947 whereby individuals with a gift for skilled crafts became eligible for grants to undertake training in other locations if no suitable facilities existed near where they lived.

In 1946, certain pensioners with disabilities that added to wear and tear became entitled to a new clothing allowance, while a couple of years later greater eligibility for special education allowances for children was introduced. The 1948 Local Government Act generalised various powers to pay subsistence and travelling allowances to members of local authorities while also providing payments in cases where council business attendance led to financial loss. The 1947 Agriculture Act incorporated several forms of compensation, such as for disturbance and improvement, while the 1948 Criminal Justice Act provided for the enforcement of payments of compensation or damages. Under the 1948 Children Act, local authorities were empowered to care for children who were orphaned, deserted or unable to be looked after by their parents due to circumstance. Amongst its many provisions included accommodation for children reaching 3 years of age, along with grants for students to help them with the costs of maintenance, training or education. A year later, a system of legal assistance was inaugurated that entitled most people to free legal support in both civil and criminal cases.

Impact of the Attlee Government

The extent to which the social security legislation of the Attlee Government dramatically improved people’s lives can be gauged from a poverty study conducted in York in 1950 by the legendary researcher and humanitarian Seebohm Rowntree; using that location as a representative sample. A follow up to a previous survey carried out in the same area in 1936, it estimated that the percentage of working-class people in York who lived in poverty stood at 2.77% in 1950, compared with 31.1% 14 years earlier. Although the study undoubtedly overestimated the extent to which poverty fell during that period, it nevertheless highlights the fact that the Welfare State established under Attlee did much to diminish the numbers experiencing hardship. G.R. Lavers, who co-authored the report, argued that the largest improvement since 1936 had come about as a result of the welfare reforms instituted since 1945, going as far as to claim that the Welfare State had greatly overcome poverty. This assertion gave Labour a positive message to convey to the public during the 1951 election campaign, but despite their efforts would be voted out of office; not returning to power until 1964 under the leadership of former minister Harold Wilson.

Wilson Governments

Like Attlee’s Administration, Harold Wilson and his ministers inherited a nation in a difficult economic position; one that eventually resulted in the currency being devalued. This culminated in detestable austerity policies including higher charges for school meals. Also, In a dubious move, one that undoubtedly reflected exaggerated perceptions of welfare fraud that persist to this day, a “four-week rule” was instituted in July 1968 in certain places. This involved social assistance benefits being removed from recipients after this time if it was believed that there was suitable work available. Assessing the impact of this measure, one study edited by the anti-poverty activist and future cabinet minister Frank Field provided the estimate that 10% of those affected by the rule subsequently ventured into crime as a consequence of their losing their benefits. Despite a ministerial claim that this policy had been a success in tackling benefit fraud, Field’s study suggests that it was a misguided decision that caused unnecessary hardship.

Nevertheless, for most of its period in office Labour not only boosted public spending but also rolled out a programme of radical welfare reform that did much to lessen inequality. New benefits were introduced concerning risks that previously had been left uncovered by the Attlee welfare laws. Redundancy pay was set up, along with income supplements for beneficiaries such as unwell, injured and jobless persons; the latter to lessen the impact of unemployment for skilled employees. New allowances for partially incapacitated men were also established, with increased amounts were permitted in certain cases.

The 1965 Solicitors Act allowed for grants to be paid in hardship situations, while other laws introduced varying forms of compensation for those affected by compulsory land purchases and damage. National Assistance was superseded by a new Supplementary Benefits Scheme; an overhaul carried out partly to prevent detailed individual enquiries. Reflecting this philosophical shift, changes were made, for instance, to rent allowance payments for non-householders (previously, these had been dependent upon a household’s make-up). Although not without its faults, it was a definite improvement over the previous social assistance arrangements. Higher benefit rates were provided and, although the allowances under the new scheme were mostly the same as under National Assistance (with exceptions such as an additional allowance for long-term claimants), what differed was the fact that the new scheme sought to ensure that benefits would be given as a right to those who met the means-tested conditions, while seniors were entitled to an income guarantee. Measures were also carried out with the intention of enabling widows and women whose marriages had dissolved to receive higher pensions, while regulations established improved levels of financial assistance for disabled people (such as an allowance for severe disabilities), and allowed for Christmas bonuses to be disregarded in the estimation or calculation of earnings when determining national insurance payments. Local tax rebates were created to assist less well-off ratepayers, and the 1965 Matrimonial Causes Act was designed to helpwomen by means of ordering alimony and other forms of payment to the concerned parties. Additionally, measures were undertaken to tackle homelessness and deliver residential services to persons who are ill and living with disabilities.

The social security record of Wilson’s first administration can be justified by the impact its policies had on those living on low incomes. In 1970, the amount that benefits and taxes added to the incomes of those earning £315 annually was more than twice the equivalent amount from 1964. Measurements have also suggested that the number of individuals living in poverty was far lower in 1970 than in 1964; further justification of Labour’s welfare record from the Sixties. One such benchmark, utilising a 1970-based absolute poverty line, has suggested that the percentage of poor Britons fell from around 20% to around 15% by the end of Wilson’s first premiership. Wilson’s last government from 1974 to 1976 would also see further landmarks in social security, with various laws passed that established new entitlements including invalidity pensions and mobility and invalidity care allowances for the disabled, earnings-related pensions, and Child Benefit; a universal payment which for the first time included financial support to families with at least one child and enhanced the amount of assistance allocated to low-income families.

The administrations in context

In a way, both administrations reflected the spirit of the times that they governed in. In the decade or so following the end of the hostilities, several war-torn nations in Europe came under the leadership of left-wing coalitions that expanded their social aid systems, while even poorer nations led by progressives including Burma (Myanmar), Guatemala, Iran and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) undertook reforms in this field. Similarly, during Wilson’s first stint as prime minister several developing nations led by reformers throughout the Sixties like India, Turkey, Honduras and the Philippines also embarked upon their own programmes of welfare innovation. The revolutionary social security reforms implemented under Attlee and Wilson therefore reflected broader geopolitical trends during their incumbencies.

The record of the Attlee and Wilson administrations shows that even under dire economic circumstances there is much that can be achieved in strengthening the social security structure that has done much throughout the decades to prevent and mitigate poverty in the United Kingdom. Like their forebears, the Starmer Government must never lose sight of Labour’s goal to make Britain a nation free of injustice. A more generous welfare system is a prerequisite to this. Although it is likely that it will take time until the financial situation improves to the point that Labour will be able to pursue looser, more expansionary fiscal measures to attain its reformist vision, the Starmer Government must nevertheless reinforce the Welfare State as an effective tool against the scourges of poverty, as most Labour governments have done so in the past. The welfare records of the Attlee and Wilson ministries are ones that the new Labour administration can learn greatly from today.

 The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The History of America’s Love Affair with Hot Air Balloons

Every October for the past 52 years, the International Hot Air Balloon Festival takes place in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This event is the world's largest hot air balloon festival, with over 500 hot air balloons and nearly 1 million people in attendance. The hot air balloon made its first American flight in 1793, yet it still captures our attention and imagination. So, what is the history behind these magnificent flying balloons?

Angie Grandstaff explains.

A depiction of an early balloon flight in Annonay, France in 1783.

The Origins of Hot Air Balloons

The idea of flying is something that humans have fantasized about for centuries. Many have theorized about how this could happen. English philosopher Roger Bacon hypothesized in the 13th century that man could fly if attached to a large hollow ball of copper filled with liquid fire or air. Many dreamed of similar ideas, but it wasn’t until 1783 that the dream became a reality.

French brothers Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Etienne Montgolfier were paper manufacturers who observed that a paper bag would rise if hot air was put inside it. Many successful experiments proved their theory. The Montgolfier brothers were to demonstrate their flying balloon to King Louis XVI in September 1783. They enlisted the help of a famous wallpaper manufacturer, Jean Baptiste Réveillon, to help with the balloon design. The balloon was made of taffeta and coated with alum for fireproofing. It was 30 feet in diameter and decorated with zodiac signs and suns in honor of the King.

A crowd of 130,000 people, including King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, watched the Montgolfier brothers place a sheep, rooster, and duck in a basket beneath the balloon. The balloon floated for two miles and was safely returned to the ground with the animals unharmed. This successful flight showed what was possible, and they began planning a manned trip into the sky.

There was much concern about what the high altitude may do to a human, so King Louis XVI offered a condemned prisoner to be the first to fly. But Jean-Francois Pilatre de Rozier, a chemistry and physics teacher, asked and was granted the opportunity to be the first. The Montgolfier brothers sent de Rozier into the sky on several occasions. Benjamin Franklin, the Ambassador to France at the time, witnessed their November 1783 flight. Franklin wrote home about what he saw, bringing the idea of hot air balloons to American visionaries.

An American Over the English Channel

Advances were being made with different fabrics and gases, including hydrogen, to keep the balloon aloft. Many brave individuals were heading into the skies. Boston-born Dr. John Jeffries was eager to fly. Jeffries offered to fund French inventor Jean-Pierre Blanchard’s hot air balloon expedition to cross the English Channel if he was allowed a seat. Dr. Jeffries was a medical man interested in meteorology, so this trip into the clouds fascinated him.

The two men headed into the air from the cliffs of Dover, England in January 1785. Blanchard’s gear and a boat-shaped gondola carrying him and Jeffries weighed down the hydrogen-filled balloon. The balloon struggled with the weight as it headed across the channel, so much so that they had to throw everything overboard. Their desperation to stay in the air even led them to throw the clothes on their backs overboard. The pair landed safely in France minus their trousers but were greeted by locals who thankfully clothed them.

First Flight in America

Blanchard’s groundbreaking achievements in Europe brought him to America in 1793. He offered tickets to watch the first manned, untethered hot air balloon flight. The first flight was launched from the Walnut Street Prison yard in Philadelphia. George Washington was in attendance with other future presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and James Monroe. Blanchard, who did not speak English, was given a passport by Washington to ensure safe passage wherever he landed. Blanchard ascended 5,800 feet into the air and landed 15 miles away in Deptford, New Jersey. 

Europe dominated the field of aeronautics, but Blanchard’s first American flight demonstrated the possibilities of flight to America and its leaders. It inspired American inventors and explorers to take to the skies. It was a significant step in the global progress of aviation. An interesting side note about Blanchard: his wife Sophie was also an avid balloonist, a woman ahead of her time. They both died in separate ballooning accidents.

Early American Balloonists

The Montgolfier brothers' ballooning adventures led to balloon madness in America. There was much interest in the science of flying balloons as well as how balloons can be used as entertainment.

Philadelphia doctor John Foulke was fascinated with the science of ballooning. He witnessed the Montgolfier brothers’ successful manned hot-air balloon flights in Paris with Benjamin Franklin. Foulke returned to his Philadelphia home and conducted experiments, sending small hot air balloons into the sky. He lectured at the University of Pennsylvania on ballooning, even inviting George Washington to one. Washington could not attend but was keenly interested in hot air balloons and saw their potential for military use. Foulke began raising funds to build America's first hot air balloon but never reached his goal.

While Foulke was lecturing about the science of ballooning and attempting to raise funds, a Bladensburg, Maryland tavern owner and lawyer, Peter Carnes, was ready to send a balloon into the air in June 1784. Carnes was a very ambitious man with an entrepreneurial spirit. He saw American’s enthusiasm for the magnificent flying balloons as a way to make money. Interestingly, Carnes had very little knowledge about how to make a balloon take flight, but against all odds, he built a balloon. His tethered unmanned balloon was sent 70 feet into the air. Carnes set up a more significant event in Baltimore, selling tickets to a balloon-mad city for a manned flight. Unfortunately, Carnes was too heavy for the balloon, but a 13-year-old boy, Edward Warren, volunteered to be the first. Warren ascended into the sky and was brought back safely to the ground, becoming the first American aviator.

Cincinnati watchmaker Richard Clayton saw ballooning as an opportunity to entertain the masses. In 1835, he sold tickets to the launch of his Star of the West balloon. This 50-foot high, hydrogen gas-fueled balloon carried Clayton and his dog. Once a mile above the city, Clayton, wanting to put on the best show for his crowd, threw his dog out of the balloon. The dog parachuted to the ground safely. Clayton’s nine-hour trip took him to present-day West Virginia. This voyage, Clayton’s Ascent, was commemorated on jugs and bandboxes, some of which are part of the Cincinnati Art Museum’s collection. Clayton traveled to many American cities with his balloons and entertained thousands. Clayton used his connections with the press to help bring in the crowds.

Thaddeus Lowe was a New Hampshire-born balloonist and inventor who was primarily self-educated. He began building balloons in the 1850s, traveling the country, giving lectures, and offering rides to paying customers. Lowe believed hot air balloons could be used for communication and was devising a plan to build a balloon that could cross the Atlantic Ocean when the Civil War began.

Balloons in the Civil War

President Lincoln was interested in finding out how flying balloons could gather intelligence for military purposes. In June 1861, Lowe was summoned to Washington D.C., where he demonstrated to President Lincoln how a balloon's view from the sky combined with telegraph technology could give the Union Army knowledge of the Confederate troop movements. President Lincoln saw how this could help his army. So, he formed the Union Army Balloon Corps. Thaddeus Lowe was the Corps' Chief Aeronaut. Lowe used a portable hydrogen gas generator that he invented for his seven balloons.

The Peninsula campaign gave Lowe his first chance to show how his balloons could contribute positively to the Union Army. In the spring of 1862, he was able to observe and relay the Confederate Army’s defensive setup during the advance on Richmond. Lowe’s aerial surveillance gave the Union Army the location of artillery and troops during the Fredericksburg campaign in 1862 and the Chancellorsville campaign in 1863.

The Balloon Corps made 3,000 flights during the Civil War. The surveillance obtained from these flights was used for map-making and communicating live reports of battles. The balloon reconnaissance allowed the Union to point their artillery in the correct direction even though they couldn’t see the enemy, which was a first. The Confederates made several attempts to destroy the balloons, but all attempts were unsuccessful. The balloons proved to be a valuable tool in war. 

Unfortunately, Thaddeus Lowe faced significant challenges from Union Army leaders who questioned the cost of his balloons and his administrative skills. Lowe was placed under stricter military command, a difficult situation for him. Ultimately, Lowe resigned from his position in the Balloon Corps, and the use of balloons during battle ceased. Lowe's journey led him back to the private sector, where he eventually settled in Pasadena, California, and continued his inventive pursuits, eventually holding 200 patents.

Modern Hot Air Balloons

Hot air balloons lost their popularity as America entered the 20th century. But in the 1950s, Ed Yost set out to revive the hot air balloon industry. Yost is known as the Father of Modern Hot Air Ballooning. He saw the need for the hot air balloon to carry its own fuel, so he pioneered the use of propane to heat the inside of the balloon. Yost also created the teardrop balloon design. He experimented with balloons, including building his own, and made the first modern-day hot-air balloon flight in 1960. Yost was strapped in a chair attached to a plywood board beneath a propane-fueled balloon traveling for an hour and a half in Nebraska. His improvements made hot air balloons safer and semi-maneuverable. Yost crossed the English Channel and attempted to cross the Atlantic Ocean solo. His attempt across the Atlantic failed, but he built a balloon for Ben Abruzzo, Maxie Anderson, and Larry Newman to try again. The Double Eagle II was the first balloon to cross the Atlantic in 1978.

Yost’s achievements and those of many other American hot air balloon enthusiasts helped the sport of hot air ballooning take flight in the second half of the 20th century. Hot air balloon festivals now take place around the country year-round and are major tourist attractions. The Albuquerque International Hot Air Balloon Festival is the world's biggest hot air balloon festival. Hot air balloons have become big business for travelers who want a bird’s eye view of America.

Humans have always wanted to conquer the skies. The curiosity and ingenuity of people like the Montgolfier brothers laid the foundation for Americans to push the boundaries of aviation. The early experiments of scientists and entertainers helped 20th-century inventors and adventurers build safer hot air balloons. Today, there is a vibrant hot-air balloon culture in America. Millions of Americans celebrate the scientific milestones and the sheer joy of flight every year. The history of hot air ballooning shows us the power of imagination and dreams.

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

References

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/presidential-writings-reveal-early-interest-ballooning

https://balloonfiesta.com/Hot-Air-History

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/thaddeus-sobieski-constantine-lowe

https://fly.historicwings.com/2012/06/the-first-american-aviator/

https://ltaflightmagazine.com/the-first-aerial-crossing-of-the-english-channel/

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-and-ballooning

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/us/04yost.html

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ed-yost-father-of-ballooning-subject-of-new-albuquerque-balloon-museum-exhibit/article_917c38b2-6138-11ee-9a3d-4786ca2ea0c6.html

https://www.space.com/16595-montgolfiers-first-balloon-flight.html

https://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/history-richard-clayton-balloon

Admiral Nimitz’s Plan for the Battle of Midway – Formulated, but Forgotten

The naval victory at Midway on June 4, 1942 has rightly been recognized as one of the greatest in the history of the US Navy, and one of the most significant victories in the history of armed conflict. However, events did not follow the plan formulated by US Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Chester Nimitz, and the battle was very nearly lost by Pacific Fleet forces. Conspicuously missing from earlier accounts of the Battle of Midway is a description of the Nimitz plan to confront the Japanese carrier fleet.

Dale Jenkins explains. Dale is author of Diplomats & Admirals: From Failed Negotiations and Tragic Misjudgments to Powerful Leaders and Heroic Deeds, the Untold Story of the Pacific War from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Chester Nimitz while Chief of Naval Operations.

The actions taken by Pacific Fleet forces during the Midway battle deviated significantly from the Nimitz plan. But, despite the deviation, the battle was won. What occurred at Midway was essentially a broken play, but positive action from a junior task force commander, astute calculations from an air group commander, and intrepid, skilled flying from carrier pilots saved the day. 

The intelligence team at Pearl Harbor had decrypted sufficient Japanese messages by May 27 to advise Nimitz of expected Japanese fleet movements on June 4. Nimitz’s intelligence staff, headed by LCdr Edwin Layton, informed him that the Japanese carrier fleet, or Striking Force:

“would probably attack on the morning of 4 June, from the northwest on a bearing of 325 degrees. They could be sighted at about 175 miles from Midway at around 0700 (0600 local) time.”(1)

Layton expected four or five Japanese carriers steaming from the northwest at 26 knots. There were four: Akagi(flagship of carrier Striking Force commander Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo), Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu. Nimitz had a week to plan a defense of the attack, formulate a counter-attack, and continue to assemble forces on Midway to carry out the plan. He issued Operation Order 29-42 that detailed the forces that were to be employed, including the scouting operation of PBY amphibious planes and a picket line of submarines.

Additional Japanese forces included an amphibious Occupation Force operating south of the carrier force, a separate force to attack the Aleutian Islands, and a battleship force trailing 300 miles astern of the carriers. The battleship force included super-battleship Yamato with Combined Fleet commander Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto embarked.

The Japanese planned to launch 108 planes, half the total air complement of the four carriers, against the shore defenses of Midway Island at 0430 on June 4 when approximately 220-240 miles from Midway,. The remaining reserve force would be armed with anti-ship bombs and torpedoes to combat any unexpected Pacific Fleet forces. The Japanese command expected the Pacific Fleet carriers to rush to the scene from Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese would destroy them with their carrier planes and battleships in a showdown confrontation.

To counter the Japanese carrier force, Nimitz had planes on Midway Island and three Pacific Fleet carriers, Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown, under the overall command of Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher. Fletcher, embarked on Yorktown, was in direct command of Task Force 17. A more junior rear admiral, Raymond Spruance, embarked on Enterprise, commanded Task Force 16 of Enterprise and Hornet.  

Operating range

A particular problem was the difference in operating ranges between the Japanese carrier planes and those of the Pacific Fleet. The Japanese operating range was 240 miles, and the equivalent for the Pacific Fleet planes was just 175 miles.  That difference meant the Japanese planes could attack the Pacific Fleet carriers when the Pacific Fleet planes were out of range of the Japanese carriers. Nimitz had to have a plan that would get the carriers through the band between 240 miles and 175 miles without being spotted and attacked. The difference, 65 miles, meant that a carrier covering that distance, averaging 25 knots, would have to steam for 2 ½ hours to cross the band where they were vulnerable to attack without being able to return it.

Nimitz designed an attack on the Japanese carrier fleet by moving the Pacific Fleet carriers through the night of June 3-4, under cover of darkness, to arrive at a position where they had the best chance to launch an attack before they were discovered by Japanese scouts. He planned to use PBY amphibious planes from Midway as scouts because the Japanese could sight the PBYs without being alerted to the presence of carriers. The light wind coming out of the southeast meant that the Japanese carriers, steaming into the wind, would launch and recover planes without changing course. Layton based his calculations on the PBYs taking off from Midway at 0430, plus plane and ship speeds, to arrive at his calculation that the PBYs should encounter the Japanese at about 0600, 175 miles from Midway.  The planes on Midway would launch immediately upon receipt of the scouting report.  Japanese carriers would move about 35 miles after the PBY report until the Midway planes intercepted them about 0720, 140 miles from Midway.

Nimitz formulated a plan for a concentration of force of Midway planes and carrier planes. To accomplish this, he determined that the Pacific Fleet carriers were to be at a position 140 miles northeast of the interception point at 0600. That position also was 200 miles directly north of Midway Island and was designated as the navigation reference point for the carrier force. When the report from a PBY was received at approximately 0600 the planes from both Midway and the three carriers would launch their planes. In a successful execution, all the Pacific Fleet planes would arrive over the Japanese carriers at approximately 0720 in a concentration of force. The goal was a victory by 0800-0815.

Because the Japanese planes attacking Midway would not return before 0830, the Pacific Fleet attack would be against just half of the Japanese air defenses. In addition, if the flight decks of the Japanese carriers were heavily damaged, even if the carriers themselves were not sunk, the planes returning from Midway would have to ditch in the ocean.

A graphic of Nimitz’s plan at the Battle. Copyright Dale Jenkins. Printed with permission.

After-action report

The after-action report of Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher confirms the intended movements of the carrier force in conformity with the Nimitz plan:

ENTERPRISE and HORNET maintained their air groups

In readiness as a striking force. During the night of June 3-4

both forces [TF-17 and TF-16] proceeded for a point two

hundred miles North of Midway. (Emphasis added) Reports of enemy forces to the Westward of Midway were received from Midway and Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet. These reports indicated the location of the enemy Occupation Force but not the Striking Force.(2)

The ComCruPac (Fletcher) report refers to PBY scouts on June 3, when the Occupation Force was sighted and the carrier Striking Force was still under heavy clouds. It confirms Fletcher’s knowledge of the plan and his intended movements. Further confirmation of the Nimitz plan and the ordered position of the carriers to be 200 miles north of Midway at 0600 on June 4 is contained in published accounts of at least three contemporary historians who had the opportunity to interview participants during and after the war: Richard W. Bates, Samuel Eliot Morison, and E. B. Potter. (3)

On June 3 the PBYs took off from Midway at 0430 and contacted the Japanese occupation force. This contact confirmed that the Japanese were proceeding with the plan as previously decrypted by Layton’s intelligence unit. The carrier force was still under a heavy weather overcast and was not discovered on June 3.

On June 4 the PBYs launched again at 0430. At 0534 a sighting of enemy carriers was transmitted to Admirals Fletcher and Spruance, and to the forces on Midway. At 0603 the earlier report was amplified:

“2 carriers and battleships bearing 320 degrees, distance 180, course 135, speed 25 knots.” (4)

Immediately after receiving the latter report the planes on Midway took to the air.  Fighters rose to defend Midway, and six Avenger torpedo planes and four B-26s fitted with torpedoes flew to attack the Japanese carriers.  Two more carriers were in the Japanese formation but were not seen by the PBY pilot.

However, Pacific Fleet carriers were not in position to launch planes at 0603 because Fletcher, while heading southwest overnight June 3-4 toward the designated position 200 miles north of Midway, decided that the scouting as ordered in Operation Order 29-42 might not be sufficient. At first light, he ordered Yorktown carrier planes to conduct a separate sweep to the north and east. To do this the carriers had to change course to the southeast to launch planes into the wind, and to be on that course to recover the planes. These course changes took the carriers away from the interception point. When the 0603 message from the scout arrived, the carriers were 200 miles east and north of the interception point and 25 miles beyond their operating range of 175 miles. 

At 0607 Fletcher sent a message to Spruance:

“Proceed southwesterly and attack enemy carriers when definitely located. I will follow as soon as planes recovered.”(5)

Spruance, detached with Enterprise and Hornet, proceeded southwest at all possible speed to close the range, but at an average speed of 25 knots it would take an hour to cover 25 miles.  Meanwhile, the planes from Midway arrived separately over the Japanese carriers and attacked. The plan for a concentration of force had failed.

The Avengers and B-26s, arriving at 0710, flew into the teeth of the Zero fighter defenders. They attempted valiant torpedo runs against two of the four carriers, but the inexperienced pilots were hopelessly outclassed by the fast, agile and deadly Zeros. There were no hits or even good chances for hits, and the Zeros sent five of the six Avengers flaming into the ocean. The B-26s hardly did better, but one pilot, with his plane on fire and probably knowing he was never getting home, dove at the bridge of the Japanese flagship. He missed by a few feet and crashed into the ocean.

B-26 pilot

The B-26 pilot may have done as much as anyone that day to turn the tide of the battle.  At 0715 the shocked Admiral Nagumo, already notified that the Midway attack had run into heavy resistance, decided that a second attack on Midway was required. He ordered the armaments of the standby force to be changed from anti-ship bombs and torpedoes to point detonating bombs for land targets.  All of this would require over an hour to complete, and not before the Midway attack force would be returning to land about 0830, low on fuel.

Admiral Spruance, ready to launch planes from his two carriers at 0700, plotted courses to a new interception.  Ranging closely together between 231 degrees and 240 degrees, but delayed at the launch, the planes expected to arrive at the new interception at 0925 – almost 2 1/2 hours after the launch time.

At 0917, with the Midway force landed, Admiral Nagumo turned northeast to confront the Pacific Fleet carriers that a Japanese scout had discovered earlier. Decisions he had made, including landing the Midway planes, had delayed any attack on the American carriers. The Americans were still making attacks, but the Zeros swept them aside easily. Now Nagumo was supremely confident. Rearming and refueling the entire air complement on all four carriers would be completed by 1045. They would launch a massive, coordinated attack of over 200 planes and sink the American carrier fleet.

The Enterprise and Hornet planes crossed the revised intercept point at 0925 but found nothing but open ocean. The Hornet air group commander took his squadrons southeast to protect Midway.  The Enterprise air commander realized that the Japanese carrier force probably had been delayed by earlier actions.  He took two squadrons of dive bombers on a northwest course to retrace the Japanese movements, then began a box search that came upon a Japanese destroyer, and that led to the Japanese carriers.  Diving out of the sun at 1025 caught the Japanese defenders by surprise, and in five minutes Akagi and Kaga were destroyed. The Yorktown planes suddenly appeared and destroyed Soryu.

Hiryu, the remaining Japanese carrier, launched dive bomber and torpedo plane attacks which led to the loss of Yorktown. Later in the day on June 4 Enterprise dive bombers destroyed Hiryu. The greatest victory of the US Navy had been realized.

Aftermath

In the aftermath of the Midway victory no one was going to complain about not following the Nimitz battle plan, least of all Admiral Nimitz.  Consequently, the existence of the plan has been overlooked until now. Whether following the plan would have resulted in the same victory by Pacific Fleet forces, or the same victory without as many losses in ships, planes and personnel, has never been explored and is left to speculation.

As a reminder, Dale is author of Diplomats & Admirals: From Failed Negotiations and Tragic Misjudgments to Powerful Leaders and Heroic Deeds, the Untold Story of the Pacific War from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

References

(1) Layton, Edwin T., And I Was There, Konecky & Konecky, Old Saybrook, CT, 1985, p. 430

(2) Report of Commander Cruisers, Pacific Fleet (Adm. Fletcher), To: Commander-in-Chief,

United States Pacific Fleet, Subject: Battle of Midway, 14 June 1942, Pearl Harbor, T.H., Para. 3, included as Enclosure (H) in United States Pacific Fleet, Advance Report – Battle of Midway, 15 June 1942

(3) Bates, Richard W., The Battle of Midway, U.S. Naval War College, 1948, p. 108; Morison, Samuel Eliot, Coral Sea, Midway, and Submarine Actions, Naval Institute Press, 1949, p. 102; Potter, E.B., Nimitz, Naval Institute Press, 1976, p. 87.

(4) Morison, p. 103.

(5) Morison, p.113

Archimedes: Greek Genius of the Ancient World

Archimedes of Syracuse, one of the greatest mathematicians and inventors of antiquity, profoundly influenced fields ranging from geometry to hydrostatics. Born in 287 BCE in Syracuse, a Greek city-state on the island of Sicily, Archimedes lived during a period of scientific discovery and political turbulence. His contributions not only advanced the knowledge of his time but also laid the foundations for future innovations, impacting fields as diverse as engineering, physics, and military strategy.

Terry Bailey explains.

Portrait of a scholar (Archimedes?). Domenico Fetti, 1620.

Early life and education

Archimedes was born into a family connected to the ruling elite of Syracuse. In his work 'The Sand-Reckoner', Archimedes gives his father's name as Phidias, an astronomer about whom nothing else is known, it is assumed this is what likely sparked Archimedes' early interest in the sciences. Little is known about Archimedes' early years, but it is believed he travelled to Alexandria in Egypt, the intellectual hub of the Mediterranean world, to study under the successors of Euclid. This connection with Alexandria placed Archimedes within the vibrant mathematical community of his time.

Upon returning to Syracuse, Archimedes dedicated himself to a life of inquiry and discovery. His surviving written work indicates a keen desire to explore both the abstract principles of mathematics and their practical applications. He had a deep love for pure mathematics but was equally committed to solving real-world problems.

Mathematical contribution

Archimedes' work in mathematics established him as a towering figure in the discipline. One of his most celebrated achievements is the approximation of pi (π). Archimedes developed a method of calculating the value of π by inscribing and circumscribing polygons around a circle, finding their perimeters and using this data to estimate π with remarkable precision. His method, known as the method of exhaustion, is considered an early form of integral calculus and remained the most accurate approximation of π until modern times.

Another significant contribution is Archimedes' principle of the lever. In his treatise 'On the Equilibrium of Planes', Archimedes laid down the laws governing levers and balance. His famous statement, "Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I will move the Earth, (World)," captures the essence of his discovery that a small force, applied correctly using a lever, can move large objects. This principle revolutionized mechanics and influenced engineering practices for centuries.

Archimedes also made strides in understanding the concept of centroids in geometry. In his work, 'On the Quadrature of the Parabola', he calculated the area of a parabolic segment and demonstrated that the centroid of a parabola lies along its axis. His ability to combine abstract reasoning with physical insight was unparalleled in the ancient world.

Hydrostatics and the principle of buoyancy

Archimedes is perhaps best known for his work in hydrostatics, particularly his discovery of the principle of buoyancy. This principle states that any object immersed in a fluid experiences an upward force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object. The story of Archimedes' Eureka, (Greek: εὕρηκα, I have found), moment is legendary, even if not exactly what occurred.

King Hiero II of Syracuse asked Archimedes to determine whether a crown made for him was pure gold or adulterated with silver. While bathing, Archimedes realized that the water displaced by his body in the bath provided a way to measure the volume of the crown and thus its density. Leaping from his bath in excitement, Archimedes is said to have run through the streets shouting Eureka!, I have found it!

Archimedes' principle of buoyancy became a cornerstone of fluid mechanics, underpinning theories of flotation and sinking. This discovery had practical applications in shipbuilding, as it allowed engineers to calculate whether ships would float based on their weight and the water they displaced.

Inventions and engineering feats

Archimedes' inventive genius was not limited to theoretical work; he also designed practical machines that were ahead of their time. One of his most famous inventions is the Archimedean screw, a device used to raise water. The screw consists of a helical surface inside a cylinder, and when turned, it would lift water from a lower to a higher elevation. Originally designed for irrigation in Egypt, the Archimedean screw is still used today in some parts of the world for pumping water.

In the realm of warfare, Archimedes applied his knowledge of mechanics to develop powerful machines that helped defend Syracuse during the Second Punic War. His military devices were so effective that they became the stuff of legend. Among these were massive catapults capable of hurling projectiles at enemy ships, and large cranes or "claws" that could grab ships, lift them out of the water, and then smash them back down, sinking them. Another invention, known as the Archimedes' heat ray, allegedly used mirrors to focus sunlight onto Roman ships, setting them on fire. While the historical accuracy of the heat ray remains debated, it highlights the blend of scientific theory and military necessity in Archimedes' work.

The method of mechanical theorems

One of Archimedes' lesser-known yet most significant contributions to mathematics is the method of mechanical theorems, detailed in his work of the same name. In this treatise, Archimedes explored the use of mechanical reasoning to discover mathematical theorems. By imagining geometric figures as physical bodies with weight, he was able to "balance" them and deduce geometric relationships. This approach was revolutionary because it introduced an early form of integral calculus long before Newton and Leibniz developed the field in the 17th century.

Archimedes' spiral—a curve traced by a point moving uniformly away from a central point while the point revolves around that point—was another breakthrough. He used this spiral to square the circle, showing that the area under one turn of the spiral was equal to a quarter of a circle's area. His work on spirals remains relevant in modern mathematics, particularly in polar coordinate systems.

The Sand Reckoner, challenging the size of the universe

Archimedes' curiosity extended beyond the Earth and into the cosmos. In his treatise 'The Sand Reckoner', he set out to determine whether it was possible to calculate the number of grains of sand that could fill the known universe. While this might seem like a trivial exercise, Archimedes used it as a way to propose a new system for expressing large numbers, challenging the conventional Greek numeral system. His estimate pushed the boundaries of ancient cosmology and provided a method for handling astronomical magnitudes, illustrating his unique ability to connect mathematics with natural philosophy.

Archimedes' death and legacy

The legacy of Archimedes is indelibly tied to his tragic death during the Siege of Syracuse in 212 BCE. The Romans, led by General Marcus Claudius Marcellus, laid siege to the city, and Archimedes played a critical role in designing machines that delayed the Roman advance. According to Plutarch, Archimedes was so engrossed in his work during the siege that he was oblivious to the Roman army entering the city. A Roman soldier found Archimedes working on a mathematical problem, allegedly Archimedes responded, "Do not disturb my circles," referring to the geometric figures he was drawing in the sand, the soldier, either misunderstood or ignored the orders, killing Archimedes on the spot, despite orders from Marcellus that Archimedes was to be spared.

Archimedes' contributions to science and engineering left an enduring legacy. His surviving works were studied, copied, and transmitted through the centuries, influencing Islamic scholars in the medieval period and later the European Renaissance. His method of approximation and mechanical theorems paved the way for the development of modern calculus, while his inventions demonstrated the power of applied science. Archimedes' influence can be seen in the works of later astronomers and mathematicians such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and even physicists mathematicians and engineers of today.

Rediscovery of Archimedes' works

Many of Archimedes' original writings were lost over time, but his ideas and concepts survived through Latin and Arabic translations. One of the most exciting discoveries related to Archimedes' work came in 1906 when the Archimedes Palimpsest was uncovered. This medieval manuscript contained previously unknown works by Archimedes, including The Method of Mechanical Theorems. The palimpsest was produced when monks in the 13th century scraped off the original Archimedean text and reused the parchment for religious writings. Modern technology has allowed scholars to recover the erased text, providing new insight into Archimedes' mathematical genius.

Archimedes stands as a beacon of human ingenuity and intellectual curiosity. His profound insight into mathematics, physics, mechanics, and applied science such as hydrostatics continues to resonate today, demonstrating how a single individual's quest for knowledge can shape the course of human history.

From his invention of the Archimedean screw to his principles of levers and buoyancy, Archimedes' achievements spanned both theoretical brilliance and practical applications. His life and work exemplify the synergy between scientific inquiry and the real-world problems that science seeks to solve, making him one of the most remarkable figures of the ancient world.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Surviving writing of Archimedes:

·       Measurement of a Circle

·       The Sand Reckoner

·       On the Equilibrium of Planes

·       Quadrature of the Parabola

·       On the Sphere and Cylinder

·       On Spirals

·       On Conoids and Spheroids

·       On Floating Bodies

·       Ostomachion, (Loculus of Archimedes or Archimedes' Box)

·       The cattle problem

·       The Method of Mechanical Theorems

·       Book of Lemmas or Liber Assumptorum is a treatise with 15 propositions on the nature of circles

·       Archimedes' Palimpsest described above includes treatises:-

·       On the Equilibrium of Planes

·       On Spirals

·       Measurement of a Circle

·       On the Sphere and Cylinder

·       On Floating Bodies

·       The Method of Mechanical Theorems

·       Stomach-ion

·       Speeches by the 4th century BC politician Hypereides

·       A Commentary on Aristotle's Categories

·       Associated other works

Euclid

Euclid (Εὐκλείδης) was a Greek mathematician, often referred to as the "father of geometry." He lived around 300 BCE, during the reign of Ptolemy I in Alexandria. His most famous work, Elements, is a comprehensive compilation of the mathematical knowledge of his time and became the foundational text for geometry for centuries.

Elements consist of 13 books covering geometry, number theory, and mathematical logic. Euclid also contributed to optics, astronomy, and the study of conic sections. His work laid the groundwork for deductive reasoning in mathematics, a method still used today.

A Return from the Dead in Unstable 17th Century Russia?

Here is a fascinating history from early 17th century Russia, featuring somebody who apparently returned from the dead and a coup to take control of the country. This the story of Prince Dmitri. Lanny Cotton, who wrote the below for a podcast originally, explains.

Ivan the Terrible. By Hans Weigel.

Today, I would like to tell you a story. A story about a sinister conspiracy, a lost and noble prince, an evil tyrant, and a war over the soul of an empire. Or, more likely, a story about a crazed conspiracy theory, a deceitful imposter, an unfortunate monarch, and a chaotic civil war which brought death and destruction to said empire. Along the way we’ll play knife games with the boys, mutilate a poor, innocent church bell, and perform history’s first and only reverse sled-by shooting. I hope you enjoy the ride.

PART ONE

Our story begins with Ivan the Terrible, the first Tsar of Russia. Ivan is himself a fascinating figure, but here our story concerns itself with what happened after his death. Oh, and a side note: the epithet “the Terrible” is somewhat misleading. The Russian word “grozny” is translated into “terrible” in the sense of something “inspiring terror”, rather than being of low quality. It wasn’t a pleasant nickname, but it wasn’t an insult either, and it suited the paranoid Tsar who had thousands of his subjects murdered on the slightest provocations. Ivan’s first wife was a woman named Anastasia Romanovna, who he chose out of a lineup of a few hundred other eligible maidens. It seems that Anastasia and Ivan got along fairly well, and she managed to keep his more violent tendencies at bay. The couple had six children, four of which would die in infancy. This left Ivan with an heir and a spare, Prince Ivan Ivanovich and Prince Feodor. In the summer of 1560, Anastasia died of a sudden illness. Ivan was convinced that his beloved wife was poisoned and began a purge against the boyars, the Russian nobility, having many noblemen tortured and executed. Was this pure paranoia? In 2001, Anastasia’s body was examined by Russian scientists, who discovered a high buildup of mercury in her bones, a sign that the Tsar’s wife may have actually been poisoned. 

Ivan took at least five more wives after Anastasia, though there are later reports of another two which historians doubt. Technically, this was illegal under the rules of the Russian Orthodox Church, which only permitted three marriages in a lifetime. Ivan was Tsar, though, and didn’t have to care about the rules. The next two wives, Maria and Marfa, also died suddenly, kicking off another couple rounds of purges. The two after that, both named Anna, eventually bored their imperial husband and found themselves shipped off to nunneries. The sixth and final of Ivan’s canonical wives was named Maria Nagaya. Ivan and Maria didn’t get along well, and she almost got nunneried like the Annas, but then she got pregnant. Maria gave birth on October 19, 1582 to little Prince Dmitri, Ivan’s third son.

So let’s talk about the sons. First is Prince Ivan Ivanovich. This Ivan seems to have been a good heir, intelligent and capable, and he might have made a good Tsar. But we’ll never know, because on November 15th, 1581, the two Ivans got into a heated argument which ended in the Tsar striking his son and heir with his scepter. The blow broke the prince’s skull and sent him into a coma. Four days later he died without waking up. This left Feodor as heir, which was problematic because Feodor was kind of useless. Feodor was weak and sickly since childhood, and while personally nice he never showed interest in rulership, preferring to spend his days in prayer and meditation. Some historians believe he may have suffered from some sort of learning disorder, in particular placing him somewhere on the autism spectrum, though we’ll never know for sure. When Ivan died in March of 1584, Feodor was crowned Tsar. However, Feodor didn’t actually reign. The responsibilities of government were turned over to a council of boyars, led by a man named Boris Godunov. The Godunov family was not powerful or influential, Boris had only gotten into the Muscovite court because his father-in-law was the head of the oprichnina, Ivan the Terrible’s infamous secret police.  Feodor was at this time 27 years old, though it was clear that he would never make a good Tsar, and that his regency would be in effect perpetual. And since Feodor didn’t have any children of his own, the technically illegitimate Dmitri stood to inherit the empire. This meant that he could pose a threat to Boris’ regency, should he grow up to be a better ruler than his half-brother. 

Shortly after Ivan’s death and Feodor’s ascension to the throne, Boris had the sixteen month old Dmitri and his mother Maria sent off to the town of Uglich on the Volga River. The young prince seemed to have suffered from epileptic seizures, but other than that was healthy. His hobbies are said to have included watching cows be slaughtered and beating chickens to death with sticks, which maybe aren’t the most wholesome activities for an eight year old, but who am I to say? He also seemed to have enjoyed a game which consisted of throwing a marlinspike into the ground. What happened next isn’t quite clear. On May 15th, 1591, the eight year old Dmitri was found dead of a neck wound. There are two theories about what happened. The official story, published soon after, was that Dmitri had a seizure while playing the game and ended up falling onto his marlinspike. This was the conclusion of an inquiry led by a boyar by the name of Vasily Shuisky. Remember that name. But the other theory was much sexier. This theory stated that Boris Godunov, the tsar in all but name, had murdered the rightful heir in order to seize the throne for himself. His death was rather convenient for the regent. Incidentally, Maria Nagaya was sent to a nunnery after all, once her son was dead.

The church bell rang to signal the death of the prince. Can you imagine which of the two theories the people of Uglich believed first? That’s right, as soon as the bell rang they knew that their beloved prince had been murdered by the cruel tyrant in Moscow. And so they rioted, led by Boris’ political enemies. The citizens of Uglich did usual riot stuff, murdered tax collectors, burned buildings, stole stuff, the whole thing. Soldiers from Moscow soon arrived to put down the rioting, and many of those who took part were exiled to Siberia. One of these exiles was the bell which had begun the riot by announcing the prince’s death. In addition to being exiled, the bell had its “tongue” removed and was whipped through the streets. In 1892, three hundred years after its heinous crime, the bell was pardoned by Tsar Alexander III and allowed to return to Uglich. It was even given a new tongue. So Dmitri is dead. But his story isn’t over, it’s just beginning. Because in the years after his death, a third theory emerged. This theory stated that the prince was not, in fact, dead. He had been replaced by another poor child who died in his place, and was spirited away from Uglich just before the regent’s agents arrived to carry out their scheme. 

Tsar Feodor died in February of 1598, less than seven years after his brother. The incompetent tsar had only one child, a daughter who died in childhood four years earlier. Without a clear heir, Boris Godunov declared himself Tsar, breaking a dynastic line that had ruled Russia, according to legend, since the Viking chief Rurik of Novgorod seven hundred years earlier. Things went bad for Tsar Boris pretty quickly. The rumors of his role in the prince’s death had not gone away in the intervening years, if anything they had just spread further. The older and wealthier boyars, those that had survived Ivan’s purges at least, resented Boris for his low birth, which meant from the beginning he was surrounded by potential enemies. During Boris’ tenure as imperial regent he had strengthened the power of the aristocracy at the expense of the peasants, in 1592 ending the traditional practice of serfs being able to move freely for the two weeks surrounding St. George’s Day. Without this privilege serfs were effectively made a part of the land itself, to be bought and sold with the land they worked. This would long outlive Boris and remained law until the 19th century. This was done in a desperate attempt to reverse the economic downturn which plagued Russia during the regency. So Boris was unpopular with both the nobility and the peasantry. This would only get worse, because of events taking place on the other side of the planet, in Peru.

PART TWO

In February of 1600, the volcano Huaynaputina, in modern day Peru, erupted. The eruption spewed thousands of tons of ash and debris into the atmosphere, where it partially blocked sunlight across the planet for years to come. Russia was among the hardest hit. 1601 was cold and wet, bad news for agriculture. Winter came early that year, ruining harvests across the empire. Food became scarce, prices skyrocketed, and the imperial treasury was stretched to breaking point. The result was perhaps the harshest famine in Russian history. It’s impossible to put an exact number on the death toll, but historians believe that about one third of the entire Russian population died during the next ten years, from starvation or disease or violence. The situation had spiraled far out of control, and the Tsar was powerless to stop it. What popular support he had dissolved. In the superstitious 17th century, this famine was taken as a sign of God’s wrath. A low-born had schemed his way to the throne by murdering Dmitri, the rightful heir, and possibly the pious Feodor as well. But if the tyrant was overthrown, who would replace him? 

Remember that third theory I mentioned? Well, in 1603 Dmitri returned from the dead. We still don’t know who exactly this man was, but he was about the same age and looked fairly similar to the dead prince, only a decade older. He first emerged in Poland, under the protection of a powerful Ukrainian nobleman by the name of Adam Vishnevetskii. Poland was the main rival of the Russian Empire, a powerful kingdom to the west. Unlike Russia, Poland had a weak ruler and a powerful aristocracy. The Sejm, the Polish parliament, could veto any of the king’s decisions. Unlike just about every other monarchy in Europe, the Polish monarchy was non-hereditary. When the King died, the next king was elected by the Sejm. The Polish nobility saw the weakness of Russia and supported Dmitri in order to further destabilize their mortal enemies. In October of 1604, Dmitri crossed the border at the front of a Polish army. Boris was unable to organize an effective defense. The Russian army was scattered and mostly under the control of local magnates, many of whom opposed the Godunov regime. The food shortages had hit the army hard, desertion was rampant as hungry soldiers left their posts to become bandits or just return home to protect their families. As word of Dmitri’s return spread across Russia, the peasantry rose in support of their true Tsar, the long-lost prince. Boris waged a war of propaganda against the Pretender, claiming to have “discovered” that his true name was Grigory Otrepev and that he was a disgraced former monk. Boris’ health continued to decline amidst famine and civil war, and in April of 1605 he suddenly died. He was succeeded by his son, the sixteen year old Feodor. Feodor II didn’t last long. Two months into his reign, the teenage Tsar was overthrown and assassinated by Dmitri’s supporters in Moscow. Dmitri himself showed up a few weeks later to enter the city, and was proclaimed Tsar Dmitri I. His “mother”, Maria Nagaya, was brought back from the nunnery and publicly acknowledged him as her lost son. For all intents and purposes, this rando was now the son of Ivan the Terrible and the true Tsar. The evidence? Trust me bro.

Almost immediately Dmitri messed it up. His alliance with the hated Poles caught up to the Pretender, and rumors spread that he was a secret Catholic, bent on subverting the holy Orthodoxy and twisting Russia towards damnable Catholic heresy. Oh, and remember that name I told you to remember earlier? I’m sure you do, intelligent and wise listener. Vasily Shuisky, the man who had led the inquiry which concluded that Dmitri had died in an accident, changed his story once Dmitri arrived in Moscow. Now he backed Dmitri’s version of the story, admitting that he lied in his initial report due to pressure from Godunov. But Vasily personally hated the new Tsar. And his once messianic reputation among the peasantry began to fade as conditions failed to improve in the countryside. Not only that, but tensions began to grow between the citizens of Moscow and the new Polish arrivals, soldiers and noblemen supported by Dmitri. This situation was not eased when Dmitri announced his plan to marry a Polish woman, the daughter of one of the noblemen who supported his invasion. On the morning of May 17th, 1606, a week after the wedding and a year after his ascension to the throne, an angry mob stormed the palace. Dmitri tried to flee by jumping out a window and running along the rooftops to safety, but he slipped and fell, breaking his leg. The assassins found the Tsar in the alleyway and killed him, presumably telling him to stay dead this time. Dmitri’s body was stripped naked and dragged through the city, while Vasily Shuisky proclaimed him as a heretic and an imposter. His body was publicly displayed in Red Square for three days, before being loaded into a cannon and fired in the direction of Poland. Two days later, Vasily Shuisky proclaimed himself Tsar Vasily IV, ending the reign of False Dmitri… the First. That’s right, we’re not done yet.

PART THREE

Word of the coup spread through Russia, triggering a new wave of unrest and resentment. While the sheen had started to fade from the Pretender, he was still fairly popular in the provinces. Vasily worked out a pretty clever way to discount the legend of Dmitri’s survival. He sent agents to Uglich to dig up the prince’s body, and these agents “discovered” that the body was miraculously undecomposed. In Russian Orthodoxy, if a body fails to decay that means that the soul of its former inhabitant has ascended to Heaven and been made a saint. So the eight year old princeling who enjoyed torturing farmyard animals had been worthy of sainthood. He could not be on Earth, he had ascended to Heaven, and Vasily had proof. The prince’s coffin was taken from Uglich to Moscow in a grand procession. The coffin, however, was closed. It did smell nice, apparently. The sainted prince was taken to Archangel Cathedral in Moscow where his coffin was displayed for several days, until even incense could no longer cover up the smell. Then the body was quietly buried. The trick didn’t work. A new rumor emerged in Moscow. Not only did Dmitri survive the first assassination, he also survived the second one. The body dragged through the streets of Moscow and displayed in Red Square was another imposter, and the true Dmitri had escaped once more. 

The unrest that began with the assassination of Dmitri had by this time escalated into full scale rebellion in western and southern Russia. But these rebels didn’t have a claimant to the throne, so even if they overthrew the government in Moscow they would still struggle to find a Tsar. Into this scene comes a traveling beggar claiming to be Andrei Nagoy, a cousin of Prince/Tsar Dmitri, who claimed to have secret information on his cousin’s whereabouts. His true identity is still unknown, though tradition holds that he was either a priest’s servant banished after sleeping with the priest’s wife, or a Jew who had converted to Christianity to escape persecution. Either way, he was captured by the rebels in July of 1607 in order to reveal Dmitri’s whereabouts. Under threat of torture, this man revealed himself to be the missing prince, escaped from Moscow as he had with Uglich, returned once again to take his rightful throne. Upon this shocking declaration, the rebels pledged their allegiance to their Tsar once more, and suddenly the beggar had an army of thousands at his back. But this Tsar would never make it to Moscow. Like the first false Dmitri, Dmitri number two’s army had a large contingent of foreign mercenaries, largely Polish. But this Dmitri didn’t get along quite as well with the Polish nobility, which meant he lacked the funding to pay those mercenaries. Dmitri II made progress in his campaign northeast, but met with heavy resistance along the way, and his army was hemorrhaging men due to desertion from lack of pay. He received the endorsement of the first False Dmitri’s Polish wife, who recognized the pretender as her lost husband. 

In 1609, King Sigismund of Poland personally intervened in Russia, officially declaring war on the Moscow government and laying siege to the strategic city of Smolensk. His goal was to place his son, Vladislav, on the Russian throne, effectively making it his vassal. This was a complete disaster for Dmitri. His Polish soldiers preferred to fight on the side of their king rather than a Russian pretender, and those nobles that had supported Dmitri defected to the Polish side, declaring Vladislav the new Tsar instead of the pretender. Another faction defected from both sides. These were those patriotic boyars who opposed the Polish invasion on principle, and saw both Vladislav and Dmitri as foreign interlopers. Back in Moscow, the pro-Polish faction staged a coup against Tsar Vasily in July of 1610, forcing him to become a monk while they established a council of Seven Boyars, turning over control of the capital to the Polish army in September. False Dmitri II didn’t outlast his nemesis for long, though. Pushed back and weakened, Dmitri lashed out at his inner circle. On forged evidence he had one of his bodyguards, Peter Usanov, whipped and fired in December of 1610. The former bodyguard then went out and got drunk with his friends, wandering around the city. Then he stumbled upon his former boss on a sleighride, and being drunk and pissed off, pulled out his pistol and shot Dmitri to death. This is the end of False Dmitri II. Two down, one to go.

It’s a cliche at this point that Russia is not a good place to invade, and by 1612 the war had started to go the other way. The Patriotic boyars, led by Dmitri Pozharsky, consolidated their power in what part of Russia remained free and negotiated an alliance with Sweden, then a major military power on the rise in central Europe. Incidentally, the king of Sweden was the uncle of the King of Poland. The Polish soldiers in Moscow were now essentially under siege, much of the city was controlled by rebels and their forces outside the city walls were constantly being raided.

It’s about this time that Dmitri returns from the dead for the third, and final, time in the border city of Pskov. We don’t know a lot about this guy, just that he showed up in Pskov and said he was Dmitri. His support outside that city was limited to a handful of rebels sitting outside Moscow and harassing random Poles. The first False Dmitri was a big deal, the second was an occasion, but the third was just redundant. And besides, this Dmitri lacked the charisma of the first and the timing of the second and quickly wore out his welcome. He was overthrown by his subjects and turned over to Moscow, where he was executed in May of 1612. And so ends the time of the False Dmitris. Finally, on October 27th, 1612, Prozharsky retook Moscow from the Polish occupation force. The anniversary is still celebrated as National Unity Day. With the last pretender defeated and the capital liberated, the boyars assembled a grand council to decide, once and for all, who was going to be Tsar. They settled on the sixteen year old Michael Romanov, the son of the Patriarch of Moscow and the great-nephew of Anastasia Romanovna, Ivan the Terrible’s beloved first wife. Despite his young age, Michael managed to hold onto power until his death thirty-two years later, kicked the Poles out of Russia, and established a dynasty which would rule Russia until the Russian Revolution in 1917. 

The period between the death of Feodor I and the ascension of Michael I is known in Russia as the “Time of Troubles”. In fifteen years over one third of the population of Russia had died, the empire had been torn apart by famine and civil war, and central authority had completely collapsed. The Empire that arose from this chaos was more authoritarian than the one that had fallen. The vast majority of the population were serfs, in effect slaves tied to the land. After fifteen years of chaos the nobility accepted Tsarist autocracy as a restoration of proper order. The Tsar became a quasi-religious figure, chosen by God to guide Russia and prevent a second Time of Troubles. The legacy of this autocratic turn still lingers in Russia to this day.

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

References

The main source here is A Short History of Russia’s First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty by Chester S.L. Dunning, if you want to know more go read it. It's a good book.

The Andaman Islands - And Why We Need to Protect the People There

The seventy-seventh anniversary of India and Pakistan’s Independence from Great Britain recently took place, ending a nearly 200 year reign dating back to the British victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. But one territory of India has known a very different type of independence for much longer than that.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

Maurice Vidal Portman with Andamanese chiefs.

Only six weeks away from Indigenous People’s Day, and tucked away in the Andaman archipelago, is a small island known as North Sentinel. It’s not only one of the most dangerous places on earth, it’s also one of the most important. Unlike the other islands in the Andaman Chain including South Sentinel Island, this island is quite different.

It is home to one of the last isolated tribes on earth, the Sentinelese. It’s been nearly 1200 years since Marco Polo explored the Andaman Islands and first described what we believe were the Sentinelese mistakenly as cannibals.

After the British claimed dominion over the India in 1757 — an East India Company shipped first noticed fires on its beaches in 1771. The first colonial, Holmfray (a British surveyor) landed on the Island in 1867. That same year, the MV Ninevah ran aground on North Sentinel’s reef. The 106 passengers and crew fended off attacks by the Sentinelese until a British ship rescued them.

Maurice Vidal Portman

When Maurice Vidal Portman became British Government Administrator to the Andaman’s — he may multiple trips to the Island starting in January 1880. In one such trip, taking an elderly Sentinelese couple and their grandchildren back to Port Blair. After the elderly grandparents died of disease shortly after arriving at Port Blair, the children were returned to the island with gifts.

In 1896, a convict who escaped from a nearby penal colony drifted his way onto the shores of North Sentinel. His body was found days later full of arrows. And then there was the MV Primrose ran aground on the reefs of North Sentinel Island in 1981. After several harrowing days where the Sentinelese attempted to use boats to board the ship — the shaken crew was rescued. In 2006 — a boat with two fisherman drifted onto the beaches of the island and were killed by the Sentinelese. Most recently in 2018, American Missionary John Allen Chau landed on the island was killed by the tribe. In 1975, they even fired arrows at King Leopold III of Belgium.

Thankfully, recent history shows us that not all encounters ended in hostility. North Sentinel isn’t just a forbidden, largely unexplored island. In the 1990s, multiple trips to the island from local anthropologists even saw the tribe accepting coconuts as gifts. Sanctioned trips to the island ceased in 1997.

Although the isolated land of wonderment continues to be a magnet for encounters between one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes and modern civilization, we cannot allow it to be for many reasons, and a few of those should serve as dire warnings.

Lack of immunity

Just like those two elderly Sentinelese that Maurice Vidal Portman abducted, the Sentinelese have no immunity to modern diseases which are prevalent in our society today. Whether the tribe’s population is 50 or 400, contact with us — which they clearly don’t want — could wipe them out completely. Contact from a single American missionary could be catastrophic to the entire tribe.

Since the dawn of man, we’ve made choices about our planet. Whether because of tribal belief, invaders who abduct their elders and children, or some history that we don’t know like the Japanese occupation of the Andaman Islands, the Sentinelese want nothing to do with us. Successful trips to the island and periods of contact have frequently ended with Sentinelese standing on their haunches and brandishing weapons. We should honor their wishes.

Gateway to the past

North Sentinel Island isn’t just a forbidden, unexplored Island. It’s a gateway into our past. Around 60,000 years ago, it’s believed that the Sentinelese walked from the nearby continents and became trapped on the Island as sea levels rose. They are a window into our past, a rare look back at where we’ve come from. One that should not be disturbed.

With a world population of approximately 8,091,734,930 and a population of less than 500 on North Sentinel — the responsibility is ours to protect them. Not the other way around. The tribe preserves the lifestyle that they choose each and every day by being independently sustainable on that remote island. Even though they are technically part of India — they don’t know it.

It could be argued that we need to study their way of life and make every attempt to see North Sentinel Island. But with the dangers that it posses to the people of North Sentinel from both disease and from the unfortunate violence when outsiders are encounters, makes the status quo that has withstood for thousands of years most appropriate.

In 2004, after a tsunami had crashed into the Andaman Islands, the Indian Navy dispatched a helicopter to fly over North Sentinel to offer assistance. A lone tribesman emerged pointing a bow and arrow at the helicopter and so communicated the Sentinelese view of us — please leave well enough alone.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt is a historical writer who lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

The U.S. Civil War’s “Kill-Cavalry” Legend: General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick

Hugh Judson Kilpatrick was a Union cavalry commander who was notorious for sending his men into difficult situations but continued to be promoted despite his lack of military sense or personal integrity. It turned out that this was precisely the sort of leader the Union army needed in its cavalry arm. He was a determined and fierce fighter, which were good and necessary qualities in a cavalry leader. Still, he also had a propensity for shady dealings. Moreover, he often ordered suicidal cavalry charges against infantry. The rifled musket had rendered the cavalry charge outdated and dangerous. By the Civil War, the value of cavalry was essentially limited to screening, raiding, and reconnaissance, a lesson that Kilpatrick never seemed to grasp.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

Early Years

Kilpatrick graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1861, shortly after the war began, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 1st U.S. Artillery. In just three days he was a captain in the 5th New York Infantry On June 10, 1861, Kilpatrick gained notoriety by becoming the initial US Army officer injured in the Civil War when he was hit in the thigh by canister fire while commanding a company in the Battle of Big Bethel.

He was promoted to Lt Col of the 2ns New York Cavalry Regiment. For months he was relegated to staff jobs and minor skirmishes. That changed at Second Manassas when he was sent on a raid that culminated in a cavalry charge with consequences that became all too familiar to Kilpatrick’s leadership. He raided the Virginia Central Railroad early in the campaign and ordered a twilight cavalry charge the first evening of the battle, losing a full squadron of troopers.

His men despised him due to his arrogant attitude and disregard for their safety. He earned the unflattering nickname "Kill Cavalry" due to his reckless and impulsive style in the beginning. His camps lacked sanitary facilities and were not very comfortable, often visited by prostitutes who came to see him. He was first arrested for profiting from selling confiscated Confederate goods. The second occasion involved accepting bribes in exchange for obtaining low-quality horses for his soldiers. He was imprisoned in 1862 for corrupt activities, and later for a night of drinking. His soldiers noticed that despite his many failures and misconducts, and the fact that his official dealings were often ethically challenged, he continued to be promoted primarily due to his skill in political maneuvering, but also because he was a West Point graduate who was fearless under fire.

Promotion to Brigade Command

In February 1863, Major General Joseph Hooker established a Cavalry Corps led by Maj Gen George Stoneman, with Kilpatrick in charge of its 1st brigade, 2nd division.

In April of 1863, General Hooker began moving his troops to compel General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to vacate their positions at Fredericksburg. He dispatched a 10,000-strong cavalry led by Major General George Stoneman to maneuver between Lee and the Confederate capital, Richmond. At the same time, he was aiming to maneuver past Lee's defenses, a plan that led to the Battle of Chancellorsville. Stoneman's expedition shares some intriguing similarities with Stuart's raid in the month prior to Gettysburg.

Hooker's intention in sending the Union cavalry to raid instead of serving as a screen for Lee was to disrupt Lee's supply lines, sabotage railroads, and divert attention away from Hooker's main operation across the Rappahannock. Hooker anticipated that Stoneman would cut off Lee's supply route by destroying the crucial Orange and Alexandria Railroad in Gordonsville. Hooker hoped that this action would force Lee to pull out of Fredericksburg, isolating him from supply and transport.

The main cavalry brigadier of this raid was Brig Gen John Buford, a popular and effective officer. He sought out a field command and joined the Reserve Brigade in battle, where most of the Regular Army cavalry units in the east were stationed. Buford's Brigade, consisting of the First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth U.S. Cavalry, departed from their base at Falmouth, Virginia, to start their bold and ambitious raid. The very next day, they found themselves in battle with the enemy at Kelly's Ford.

However, the weather shifted and heavy rain fell for 16 days, causing the river to swell to the point where the ford was impassable. Some of his horses had broken down by the time he was able to cross. Stoneman found himself trapped in the enemy territory and was unable to cause as much chaos as expected, resulting in Hooker being unaware of Lee's movements due to Stoneman's absence.

Despite these setbacks, Kilpatrick stood out as the star of the raid. While the cavalry overall did not succeed in diverting Lee as planned, Kilpatrick gained renown for boldly seizing wagons, destroying bridges, and circling Lee, nearly reaching the outskirts of Richmond.

Promotion to Brigadier General

Kilpatrick also was conspicuous at Brandy Station, where he led one of Gregg’s brigades in a charge up Fleetwood Hill. He was promoted to Brig Gen on June 13, 1863 just 2 years after graduating from West Point.

In the middle of June 1863, General Lee was maneuvering his troops towards the west before heading north through the Shenandoah Valley, utilizing the Blue Ridge Mountains as cover. Hooker was receiving a barrage of messages from Lincoln and Stanton, instructing him to locate Lee and launch an attack. To achieve this, he needed to find a way to penetrate the strategic cavalry defense established by Jeb Stuart and Wade Hampton. Despite having fewer soldiers, the Confederate cavalry understood the importance of securing the mountain passes due to the significant consequences.

After Chancellorsville and before Gettysburg, there were major changes made in the cavalry command structure. Stoneman was sent west, and General Alfred Pleasanton took command of the Cavalry Corps. Brig Gen John Buford and his brigade were transferred to the 1st Cavalry, and he took command of the Division. Brig Gen Wesley Merritt took command of the Reserve brigade. Grimes Davis had been killed at Brandy Station, and Col. Gamble was assigned command of Buford's 1st brigade. Kilpatrick is promoted to Division command, with George Armstrong Custer promoted to brigade command.

The Union's nearest approach was during the Battle of Aldie on June 17, 1863, just 2 weeks before Gettysburg. Aldie was a town where a road passed through that connected Ashby's Gap and Snicker's Gap. Following four hours of fierce combat, the Confederate troops retreated but maintained control of the mountain passes. Kilpatrick was in charge of the advance, following the lead of division commander Brig Gen David McM. Gregg. The Confederate officer Thomas Mumford led a brigade that successfully halted the Union forces. The initial skirmish at Aldie marked the beginning of a sequence of minor battles on Ashby's Gap Turnpike, during which Stuart's troops effectively stalled Pleasanton’s advance through Loudoun Valley, preventing him from discovering Lee's army. Hooker got dismissed, but Pleasonton was the one who didn't succeed.

Gettysburg

In the Gettysburg Campaign, Judson Kilpatrick participated in several cavalry clashes against Confederate Major General J. E. B. Stuart's cavalry, such as the Battle of Aldie (June 17, 1863), the Battle of Middleburg (June 11–June 19, 1863), and the Battle of Upperville (June 21, 1863). Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major in the regular army for his "Gallant and Meritorious Services" at the Battle of Aldie.

During his time at Upperville, he was briefly taken prisoner but managed to escape. On June 29, 1863, Major General George G. Meade appointed Judson Kilpatrick as the leader of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Potomac. He battled Stuart in Hanover on June 30. On July 2nd, he was still in the midst of a struggle with Wade Hampton at Hunterstown. On July 3rd, he eventually arrived at the Gettysburg battlefield. George Armstrong Custer's brigade was told to go to East Cavalry Field to join Gregg's division, while Kilpatrick and his single brigade were sent to the west side of the field.

It was clear that the end of the battle was near after Pickett’s Charge failed. Undoubtedly, Kilpatrick believed that he had been absent from the major fight. However, he then commanded a cavalry attack on the infantry positions of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's Corps on the Confederate right flank, located just to the west of Little Round Top. Trying to outmaneuver the retreating Confederates at Big Round Top and disrupt their withdrawal, Kilpatrick asked one of his commanders to attack the enemy skirmish line between Big Round Top and the Emmetsburg Road. Following the unsuccessful attempt by the 1st West Virginia Regiment to break the line, Kilpatrick insisted that another regiment, the 1st Vermont which had already suffered casualties, be brought into the fight.

But a cavalry charge against massed infantry was well known at that time to be futile.

This was truly a pointless, self-destructive assault that went against all the principles of war during that era. Kilpatrick's lone brigade commander, Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth protested against the futility of such a move. Kilpatrick essentially challenged his courage and supposedly provoked him to attack. Farnsworth replied, “General, do you mean it? Shall I throw my handful of men over rough ground, through timber, against a brigade of infantry. The 1st Vermont has already been fought half to pieces. These are too good men to kill.”

“Do you refuse my order?” snapped an angry Kilpatrick.” If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it.” Demanding a retraction, the equally furious Farnsworth turned in the saddle. “General, if you order the charge, I will lead it,” he said, “but you must take the responsibility.”

The following assault unfolded exactly as Farnsworth had predicted - a complete disaster. Confederate riflemen took cover behind rocks, trees, and fences and dismounted numerous Union riders, including Farnsworth, who was struck by at least five fatal wounds. The rebellious Farnsworth, when asked to give up, decided to end his own life, as reported by Confederate Colonel William C. Oates. However, this version has been challenged by other witnesses and dismissed by the majority of historians.

Kilpatrick received much criticism for ordering the charge, but no official action was taken against him. There were no consequences for his outrageous order, and actually, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the regular army effective July 3, 1863, for “Gallant and Meritorious Services at the Battle of Gettysburg.”

Farnsworth was a rising star, one of the 3 “boy generals” who had just been promoted to his generalship despite his young age with 2 others  -- Custer and Wesley Merrtit – both of whom would go on to illustrious military careers. Famously, Merritt had engaged in a fistfight with Kilpatrick while they were undergraduates at West Point, and despised his vainglorious superior.

Kilpatrick, having lived up to his nickname all too well, showed no remorse. He pointed out that the Union infantry had not capitalized on the distraction created by the mounted diversion he had offered them. As for Farnsworth, he gushed sentimentally: “We can say of him, in the language of another, ‘Good soldier, faithful friend, great heart, hail and farewell.”

The Retreat From Gettysburg

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry harassed Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Williamsport (July 6–16, 1863) and the Battle of Boonsboro (July 8, 1863).

Upon reaching Williamsport, Confederate cavalry Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden, leading the operation, discovered that the pontoon bridge had been destroyed, and the wagon train carrying wounded soldiers was attacked by Federal cavalry. The Potomac River overflowed at Williamsport, Maryland on July 6, 1863, causing Imboden's wagon train to get stuck. He assembled a defensive unit comprising of an artillery battery and as many injured soldiers as possible who were able to handle muskets. In the afternoon of July 6, 1863, Buford led Union cavalry to the east of Williamsport, surrounding the town. Kilpatrick chose an alternative path that led him along the main thoroughfare. At sunset, Custer and his Michigan "Wolverines" came to battle but were promptly withdrawn.

There were insufficient healthy soldiers around to man the defenses. Imboden asked his wagoners (wagon drivers) to join the fight with walking wounded, and over 600 readily volunteered. This hastily organized force turned back attacks from Union cavalry generals  Buford and Kilpatrick, saving the wagon train. Imboden, with the river at his back, put on a stubborn defense until General Fitz Lee's cavalry arrived and the Federals were driven off

Imboden fooled the enemy by advancing a line of infantry about 100 yards beyond the crest of the ridge and then slowly pulling the men back out of sight.

On July 6, Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick's cavalry division drove two Confederate cavalry brigades through Hagerstown before being forced to retire by the arrival of the rest of Stuart's command.

By July 7, Imboden stopped Buford's Union cavalry from occupying Williamsport and destroying Confederate trains.

On the morning of July 14, Kilpatrick's and Buford's cavalry divisions approached from the north and east respectively. Before allowing Buford to gain a position on the flank and rear, Kilpatrick attacked the rearguard division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth, taking more than 500 prisoners. Confederate Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew was mortally wounded in the fight.

On July 16, Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg's cavalry approached Shepherdstown where the brigades of Brig. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and John R. Chambliss, supported by Col. Milton J. Ferguson's brigade, held the Potomac River fords against the Union infantry. Fitzhugh Lee and Chambliss attacked Gregg, who held out against several attacks and sorties, fighting sporadically until nightfall, when he withdrew. Meade chose not to attack Lee, who was entrenched, believing the position could not be successfully breached.

The Richmond Raid

In the spring of 1864, Judson Kilpatrick led a failed cavalry raid against Richmond, Virginia. This event is likely the most intriguing military initiative Kilpatrick participated in, and to this day, its true purpose remains a mystery.

Early in February 1864, Kilpatrick consulted with President Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton. He received permission for a raid that, in conjunction with an infantry feint and another cavalry raid near Charlottesville, would approach Richmond from the north, destroying rails, canals, and Confederate infrastructure along the way. There may also have been a plan to free prisoners of war from Belle Isle.

At a social gathering on February 23, Kilpatrick encountered Ulric Dahlgren and asked him to participate in the mission. Dahlgren was the son of noted Union rear admiral John A. Dahlgren. Ulric was prepared to return to the battlefield despite losing his right leg at Gettysburg the summer before. The idea was for him to command a smaller group, circle around Richmond, and attack the capital from the southern direction.

The Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid (February 28–March 3, 1864) lived up to the “Kill-Cavalry” legend. Kilpatrick and Dahlgren set out from Stevensburg, Virginia, on the evening of February 28. The following afternoon, Kilpatrick and his detachment of 3,500 men reached Beaver Dam Station and began ripping up rails and destroying Confederate property. They failed, however, to prevent an approaching train from reaching Richmond and spreading the alarm. Confederate home guard units mobilized around the capital, and late that evening Confederate cavalrymen under Major General Wade Hampton set off in pursuit of the raiders.

By March 2, after slow progress through sleet, snow, and rain, Kilpatrick reached the inner defensive lines of Richmond. But there was no sign of Dahlgren inside the city, so Kilpatrick waited. On the night of March 2, Kilpatrick considered another attack on Richmond, but the arrival of Hampton’s troopers foiled these plans. Kilpatrick finally reached the safety of Union lines at Yorktown on March 4.

The raid turned into a fiasco when Kilpatrick’s men were stopped northwest of the city. The supporting group was routed when it could not cross the James River. Dahlgren and his detachment of about five hundred men had made it to the James River at Dover Mills but were unable to cross because of recent rains. After turning to approach Richmond from the east, Dahlgren encountered stiff resistance at the Battle of Walkerton. He retreated toward Union lines on the Peninsula, but Confederate cavalrymen and bushwhackers ambushed and killed him.

The raid accomplished nothing except minor damage to railroads and buildings. The death of Dahlgren, however, led to one of the most controversial episodes of the war when documents were found on his body and were subsequently published by the Richmond press. The papers detailed plans to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Public opinion in both the North and the South was aggravated, and only a disavowal by General Meade to General Lee settled the incident.

It is still unclear under whose authority the Dahlgren Papers were generated or if they were authentic. A thirteen-year-old member of Richmond’s home guard, William Littlepage, searching for valuables, instead discovered on the Union colonel’s body handwritten orders to free Union prisoners from Belle Isle, supply them with flammable material, torch the city of Richmond and capture and kill Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. The papers were eventually forwarded to Fitzhugh Lee, who brought them to Mr. Davis and Mr. Benjamin.

Outraged Confederate authorities published them in the press. Dahlgren’s father, among many others in the North, insisted they were fabrications, while the Richmond Examiner waxed indignant: “The depredations of the last Yankee raiders, and the wantonness of their devastation equal anything heretofore committed during the war.”

It has been suggested that Booth’s assassination plot was motivated by this event. It has never been determined if the papers were forged or if they written by Dahlgren, Kilpatrick, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton or President Lincoln.Some have suggested that the papers were forged and intended to justify the numerous plots by the Confederate Secret Service to kidnap Lincoln or to blow up the White House. Nevertheless, a handwriting study performed on the papers by the Smithsonian Channel seemed to confirm that the documents are authentic and that Edwin Stanton was the originator of the assassination order.

The Western Theater – Atlanta Campaign

During his tenure as a cavalry commander in the East, Judson Kilpatrick developed an unsavory reputation as a braggart, womanizer, and reckless leader who tolerated lax discipline amongst his troops. He had been arrested for bribery at least twice. You’d expect that his military career would soon be over. Following Judson Kilpatrick’s failed raid against Richmond, Virginia in 1864, Union General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant demoted Kilpatrick from divisional to brigade command.

But on April 26, 1864, Kilpatrick was sent west and placed in command of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Cumberland. He participated as a division commander throughout the Atlanta campaign against Joseph E Johnston.

General Sherman was “mistrustful of cavalry.” Yet as one of the finest military thinkers of the Civil War, he knew only too well how critically important that arm of the service was to any large-scale campaign. He was a “nervous and somewhat careless rider,” which may have colored his opinion of his cavalry. David Evans has written that Sherman “had no affinity for horse soldiers, no grasp of their capabilities, and no patience with their limitations.”

All this became painfully obvious during Sherman’s Atlanta campaign (May-September 1864). While his infantry columns eventually triumphed and captured Atlanta after a series of hard-fought battles, his cavalry fumbled most of its strategic assignments. Some of the blame lay with Sherman, who persisted in sending his riders against the Rebel railroads that converged on the Gate City, operations for which they were ill-prepared. Wrecking iron track is not easy for lightly equipped riders, and most of the damage they inflicted was quickly repaired. Sherman’s inability to choke off Atlanta using only his cavalry was one of the great frustrations he experienced during that campaign.

On May 13, 1864, Judson Kilpatrick suffered a severe bullet wound to the thigh fighting in the Battle of Resaca. He was brevetted to colonel in the regular army for “Gallant and Meritorious Services”. Kilpatrick assisted in the capture of Atlanta in 1864.

Kilpatrick had the good fortune to receive this minor wound early in the Atlanta campaign. He was absent during many of the underachieving cavalry expeditions that so annoyed Sherman, though soon after his return in late July he undertook his own railroad wrecking operation, which delivered much less than expected.

On August 13, 1864, General Sherman issued directives for the XX Corps to retreat to the railroad bridge at the Chattahoochee River. Their primary responsibilities included fortifying the crossing, safeguarding the trains, hospitals, and artillery reserves, while the remainder of the Army was to advance collectively towards the Macon railroad situated south of East Point. In the subsequent days, Sherman's admiration for Cavalry Division Commander Judson Kilpatrick grew due to Kilpatrick's enthusiasm, initiative, and confidence, which stood in stark contrast to his other cavalry leaders. Consequently, Sherman tasked Kilpatrick with a mission to disrupt the Macon railroad near Jonesboro. After a four-day reconnaissance around Atlanta, Kilpatrick returned to report that repairs to the Macon road would require approximately ten days.

In his Memoirs, Sherman recounts a telegraphic communication sent to Halleck, stating, "Heavy fires in Atlanta, caused by our artillery. I will be all ready, and will commence the movement around Atlanta by the south, tomorrow night, and for some time you will hear little of us. I will keep open a courier line back to the Chattahoochee bridge by way of Sandtown. The XX Corps will hold the railroad-bridge, and I will move with the balance of the Army, provisioned for 20 days." This marked the initiation of Sherman's Great Left Wheel maneuver towards the railroads south of Atlanta, setting the stage for the Battle of Jonesboro and the subsequent evacuation of the city.

March to the Sea

Sherman's March, spanning approximately 300 miles across Georgia, was completed within a mere 36 days, with 25 of those days dedicated to actual marching. Despite common misconceptions, this remarkable feat was not achieved without opposition. Sherman encountered several skilled cavalry units along the way, resulting in skirmishes that required strategic camouflage of his movements and intentions.

To execute his plan, Sherman divided his army into two distinct "wings," each following separate but parallel routes that were spaced 20-60 miles apart. The southern column, known as the Army of the Tennessee, marched alongside the Georgia railroad and the Macon and Western railroad. Meanwhile, the northern column, led by the Army of Georgia, followed the Georgia railroad in a coordinated effort to advance through the region.

General Henry Slocum was in command of the left wing, composed of the newly created Army of Georgia, (XIV Corps and the XX Corps) The Army of the Cumberland. Gen. Oliver O. Howard commanded the right wing, consisting of the XV and XVII Corps of the Army of the Tennessee. Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick commanded the cavalry.  Under the leadership of General Henry Slocum and General Oliver O. Howard, the left and right wings of Sherman's army, respectively, made significant progress. Despite initial setbacks in the east, these generals proved their capabilities in the western theater, showcasing their strategic prowess. Additionally, Sherman's decision to detach armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to address Hood's threat in the Franklin-Nashville campaign further demonstrated his adept command of military operations. Sherman also detached two armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to deal with Hood in the Franklin–Nashville campaign.

Sherman faced a difficult decision when it came to selecting a cavalry leader for the March to the Sea campaign. He opted for a complete reorganization of the mounted corps under his command and brought in Major General James H. Wilson, an outsider, to take on the role. However, Wilson was needed in Tennessee to accomplish another task, leaving Sherman with the challenge of choosing a commander for the mounted force that would accompany his foot soldiers. After considering officers who had previously failed him, Sherman ultimately selected Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick, a choice that many would have considered unlikely.

Asked to describe Kilpatrick, Sherman said "He's seven kinds of damned fool, but he's a good cavalry commander". Sherman decided that for his march to Savannah, he would only take one cavalry division and he picked Kilpatrick to command it because he figured "a damned fool" would be perfect for the job. Another source reports this quote as Sherman saying, “I know that Kilpatrick is a hell of a damned fool, but I want just that sort of man to command my cavalry on this expedition.”

Kilpatrick's reputation as a cavalryman was far from favorable, with one of Sherman's staff officers describing him as vain, conceited, and ungraceful. Despite these negative perceptions, Kilpatrick performed well during the March to the Sea, a feat that may have been attributed to Sherman's close supervision. This decision to appoint Kilpatrick, despite his shortcomings, proved to be a strategic choice that contributed to the success of the campaign, probably because he was closely monitored by Sherman personally.

During the March to the Sea campaign, Kilpatrick led approximately five thousand troopers, who were divided into two brigades. In the initial phase, he was assigned to the Right Wing under Major General Oliver O. Howard, who was also a veteran of the Army of the Potomac, just like Kilpatrick. His primary responsibility was to protect Howard’s exposed right flank as his columns advanced from Atlanta towards Macon, which was to be bypassed. A trooper in the 9th Ohio Cavalry was well aware that the cavalry's role was to always be positioned between the infantry and the enemy. After Stoneman, who was now also part of Sherman’s army, was captured, Kilpatrick led a raid against Macon.

Reports of violence against southern citizens during the March have been exaggerated in modern times. However, Sherman was on the verge of ordering an increase in violence after receiving a specific report from General Kilpatrick. There were several reports of Union soldiers being killed and mutilated by Wheeler’s men. General Kilpatrick had included several of these reports in his official correspondence with Sherman, who monitored the situation but did not respond to the cavalry chieftain until Thursday, December 1, 1864. Kilpatrick had been informing Sherman of numerous instances of murder and mutilation of his men after they had been taken prisoner.

Sherman wanted to ensure that Kilpatrick had communicated his concerns to Confederate cavalry commander General Joseph Wheeler before issuing any retaliatory order. Once Kilpatrick had alerted Wheeler, if he obtained substantial proof that Rebel soldiers were committing any excesses, he would receive official approval to retaliate. In such a situation, Sherman’s command was: “You may hang and mutilate man for man without regard to rank.” The killings stopped for unknown reasons. It is worth noting that almost 40 years later, Filipino soldiers opposing Wheeler in that conflict were mutilated, and Wheeler claimed that the Filipino army was responsible.

The Shirt-Tail Skedaddle

During the spring of 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was by the side of Major General William T. Sherman as they engaged in skirmishes with Confederate cavalry throughout the Carolinas Campaign. One particular event that stood out was the Shirt-Tail Skedaddle, which became a legendary and humorous moment amid the campaign.

The allure of flirtation and suggestion is not a modern phenomenon reserved only for the present day. Marie Boozer, a prominent figure during the Civil War era, was known for her captivating charm and beauty. She was considered the "it" girl of her time, captivating the attention of many suitors with her coquettish ways.

Mary "Marie" Boozer's reputation as the most beautiful lady in Columbia, SC, preceded her and continued to flourish despite the turmoil of war. Her beauty was so renowned that even prominent figures like General John S. Preston and General Sherman were captivated by her charm. The scandalous tales surrounding Boozer and her ambitious mother, as depicted in  Tom Elmore's book “The Scandalous Lives of Carolina Belles Marie Boozer and Amelia Feaster: Flirting With the Enemy” tells the story of Boozer and her ambitious, Yankee-supporting mother, who was herself considered a beauty, married four times. Essentially, the mother was promoting her daughter in a social-climbing scheme.

Following Wade Hampton's departure from Columbia SC on February 17, 1865, the town succumbed to Sherman's forces and was engulfed in a devastating fire, vividly depicted in Royster's The Destructive War. Within three days, 1400 establishments and residences were reduced to ashes. Realizing that a war-torn, burnt-out town was not conducive to their aspirations, Marie's mother made the decision to accompany the Union army, with her daughter in tow. The soldiers, naturally, were more than willing to have two attractive women join their ranks. Despite the attention from the soldiers, Marie and her mother had already chosen a particular officer to look after them: Judson Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick and Marie were frequently seen together.

Judson Kilpatrick narrowly avoided capture by Wade Hampton during the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads on March 10, 1865. General Hampton, along with Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps, surprised Kilpatrick’s camp in an attempt to delay Kilpatrick’s cavalry and allow Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee’s infantry to cross the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville, North Carolina. Due to Kilpatrick’s overconfidence and failure to post enough cavalry pickets, Hampton and Wheeler’s attack caught the Federals off guard. Kilpatrick had to flee into a swamp wearing only a nightshirt to escape capture. Marie was left behind, reputedly in a scanty nightdress, to be cared for by the Confederate cavalry, who were (naturally) only too pleased to liberate her from the Yankees.

Despite the embarrassing incident, Kilpatrick managed to regroup his troops and recapture his camp after intense dismounted fighting. Hampton, upon learning that infantry reinforcements were on their way, decided to withdraw, having achieved his objective of keeping Kilpatrick’s cavalry occupied for a significant amount of time. The Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads left a mark on the federal commander’s reputation, but Kilpatrick’s escape in his nightshirt became a subject of ridicule known as Kilpatrick's Shirt-tail Skedaddle.

Marie overcame this minor setback to become a celebrity. She eventually made her way north, married a wealthy Northerner, and later married a French count after a dramatic divorce. Further sordid tales continue from there. Her life story became legendary, with tales of her reign as a queen of international society in Europe. Despite the initial misfortune at Monroe’s Crossroads, Marie’s resilience and subsequent adventures added to her intriguing narrative.

End of the War

On March 13, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick took part in the capture of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for which he was brevetted to brigadier general in the regular army.

• Effective the same date (March 13, 1865) Judson Kilpatrick was brevetted to major general in the regular army “for Gallant and Meritorious Services” during the Carolinas Campaign.

• Judson Kilpatrick led his cavalry during the Battle of Bentonville (March 19–21, 1865), the largest Civil War engagement fought in North Carolina, and the final battle of the Carolinas Campaign.

• In early April 1865, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry served as Major General William T. Sherman’s escort when Confederate General Joseph Johnston surrendered his troops at Bennett’s Place.

• On June 18, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major general of volunteers.

• He later became the US Ambassador to Chile, marrying a lady from a wealthy family.

One last story about Judson Kilpatrick that you just could never make up. Lieutenant General Wade Hampton, the highest-ranking cavalry officer in the history of the Confederacy, and Major General William T. Sherman's chief of cavalry, Kilpatrick, had a long history of clashes on various battlefields during the Civil War. From Brandy Station to the Atlanta campaign, these two adversaries had faced off multiple times before the Carolinas Campaign.

Following Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, General Johnston led his troops to Greensboro and then sought to make peace with Sherman. Convinced that further bloodshed was unjustified, Johnston arranged to meet Sherman at James Bennett's house near Durham Station on April 17. The two officers, along with their entourages, gathered at the appointed time for negotiations.

As Sherman and Johnston conducted their discussions inside the Bennett house, General Hampton and his son relaxed outside. Hampton, dressed in his finest uniform and sporting a black felt hat with gold braid, exuded an air of confidence. Despite carrying a switch instead of his usual broadsword, Hampton's presence still conveyed a sense of authority and readiness to defend his beliefs.

Determined to end the fraternizing among his men, Hampton snarled, “Fall in!” When Kilpatrick approached to protest, remembered one witness, “Wade Hampton looked savage enough to eat ‘Little Kil’”, which prompted his antagonist to return “his looks most defiantly.”

“The war is over,” proclaimed Kilpatrick to his old adversary. “Let the men fraternize.”

“I do not intend to surrender,” snapped Hampton. He added that he would never fraternize with the Yankees, “but would retaliate with torch and sword” to avenge the style of war the North had waged. With a stern tone, Hampton again snarled at his troopers, “Fall in!”

The dialogue swiftly transitioned into a series of insults, blending humor with genuine animosity. Hampton initiated the exchange by mentioning Monroe’s Crossroads, prompting Kilpatrick to retaliate with accounts of battles where he had emerged victorious. The conversation escalated into a heated argument, drawing the attention of a crowd of officers and journalists. Johnston and Sherman eventually intervened to diffuse the confrontation.

Following the conclusion of the conflict, Hampton went on to serve as governor and later as a US Senator representing South Carolina. Kilpatrick became involved in politics and served as US Ambassador to Chile, where he met his wife. They went on to raise a family of several children.

In 1881, President James A. Garfield nominated Judson Kilpatrick to resume his role as ambassador to Chile, a decision that required Senate approval. Wade Hampton, despite their past rivalry, presented Kilpatrick's name to the Senate, leading to his unanimous confirmation for the position.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid/

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-dahlgren-affair-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-on-richmond/

https://www.battlefields.org/visit/heritage-sites/dahlgrens-cavalry-raid

https://civilwarmonths.com/2024/03/02/the-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-takes-a-sinister-turn/

https://www.historynet.com/kill-cavalrys-ride-sea/

https://www.wistv.com/story/22292427/columbias-it-girl-in-the-1860s-as-notorious-as-todays-celebrities/  

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/A-Southern-Belles-Notorious-Tale

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2017/02/16/wade-hampton-and-judson-kilpatrick/#:~:text=Beginning%20in%20the%20spring%20of%201863%2C%20Wade%20Hampton,Sherman’s%20chief%20of%20cavalry%20for%20his%20Carolinas%20Campaign.

Hero of Alexandria: The Father of Automation

If you thought automation and robotics are a modern development, then you could not be further from the truth. Hero (Ηρων) of Alexandria (sometimes referred to as Heron) is often hailed as one of antiquity's greatest engineers and inventors who was a monumental figure in the history of science and technology of the ancient world. His contributions to mechanical engineering, mathematics, robotics and automation continue to resonate, influencing the development of various technologies that are still relevant today.

Living in the 1st century CE, Hero is best remembered for his ingenious devices, many of which were powered by water, air pressure, and steam—pioneering innovations that made him the father of automation.

Terry Bailey explains.

An illustration of Hero’s aeolipile.

Life of Hero of Alexandria

Hero's precise dates of birth and death are not well-documented, but he is thought to have lived in the Roman province of Egypt during the 1st century CE, possibly under the rule of emperor Vespasian. Alexandria, the city where he resided and worked, was a vibrant intellectual hub, home to the famous Library of Alexandria and many scholars. Hero likely studied and worked at the Museion, (Museum), (μουσείο), of Alexandria, an institution that supported scientific research and housed many of the era's most important intellectuals.

Little is known about Hero's personal life, as much of the biographical data about him has been lost over the centuries. What is clear, however, is his status as a polymath. Making significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering, and his works were highly regarded by scholars in both his time and during the Renaissance. His influence extended beyond the Greco-Roman world, impacting Islamic scholars who preserved many of his writings and eventually the European world.

Hero's Inventions

Hero's inventive genius is best demonstrated through his numerous mechanical devices. He designed automated machines powered by water, air, and steam that performed tasks automatically without human intervention. These inventions ranged from toys and gadgets to practical devices, many were seen as marvels of engineering during his time.

Some of his most significant inventions include:

1. Aeolipile (Hero's Engine)

Hero's most famous invention is the aeolipile, which is often considered the earliest recorded example of a simply steam-driven device. The aeolipile consisted of a spherical vessel mounted on a set of bearings. Attached to the sphere were two bent nozzles. When the vessel was heated, water inside it turned to steam, which was forced out of the nozzles, causing the sphere to spin. While the device was not used for practical purposes, it demonstrated the potential of steam power and laid the groundwork for his later developments in engine technology.

2. The Automatic Temple Doors

The ingeniously designed system developed by Hero to open and close temple doors using the same principles of steam power that Hero discovered on his Aeolipile was a marvel. In this device, the fire would be lit on an altar, heating water. The steam produced would flow into a container, causing it to displace air or liquid into a system of counterweights, which in turn moved the temple doors. This dramatic use of automation not only impressed worshippers but also showcased the mechanical principles Hero was developing and his ability to utilize steam.

3. Vending Machine

Long before modern convenience stores and vending machines, Hero designed what is often considered the world's first vending machine. His machine dispensed water when a coin was inserted. The coin would land on a lever that opened a valve, allowing a set amount of water to pour out. Once the coin slid off the lever, the valve would close. This was a prime example of Hero's knack for designing automated systems that performed repetitive tasks efficiently.

4. The Programmable Cart

The development of a programmable cart, which could be pre-set to follow a specific course was groundbreaking. The cart was powered by a falling weight, and strings attached to the wheels that controlled its direction. By adjusting the length of the strings, Hero was able to "program" the cart to move in a particular pattern. This early form of automation and programming revealed a very forward-thinking approach to engineering.

5. Hydraulis (Water Organ)

One of Hero's mechanical masterpieces was the hydraulis, an early form of a pipe organ that used water pressure to produce sound. The device utilized air pushed through pipes by water that produced music that was both automated and regulated. It is widely considered one of the earliest known musical instruments that combined mechanics with artistry, in addition to, basic mechanical programming. Needless to say, it is from this we derive the modern word hydraulics, (from Ancient Greek ὕδωρ (húdōr) 'water' and αὐλός (aulós) 'pipe)

6. Automata and Theatrical Devices

It was his fascination with automata, or self-operating machines, that offered him an opportunity to produce fully automated theatre shows complete with theatrical settings. He designed mechanical birds that could sing and even designed a miniature theatre complete with figures that moved automatically. These inventions were primarily used for entertainment, but they also highlighted Hero's understanding of pneumatics and robotics. His automata amazed audiences and further demonstrated his mastery of mechanical engineering.

Greatest Achievements and Legacy

Hero's inventions were undoubtedly revolutionary, but perhaps his greatest achievement lies in his ability to document and share his knowledge. The writings of his work have survived the ages, offering a wealth of information about the scientific and technological advancements of his time. Some of his most important works include Pneumatica, Automatopoietica, Mechanica, and Metrica. These texts not only describe his inventions but also delve into the principles of mathematics, geometry, and physics that underpinned his work.

1. Pneumatica

The treatise Pneumatica is one of his most famous works, where Hero describes a variety of machines that operated on the principles of air pressure and hydraulics. This includes devices like the aeolipile, the automatic temple doors, and various fountains. Pneumatica is a treasure trove of early engineering, showing how Hero applied scientific principles to everyday life, from temples to theatres.

2. Automatopoietica

In Automatopoietica, the focus was on automata and robotics. In this work he explained the mechanics behind self-operating devices, offering insight into how machines could perform tasks automatically. This work is an early exploration of robotics, showing that the concept of automating tasks was already being considered in ancient times.

3. Mechanica

The Mechanica explored the fundamental principles of mechanics, such as levers, pulleys, and gears. This work reveals the underlying principles of his inventions and shows Hero's broad understanding of mechanical forces. In Mechanica, he also delves into architectural engineering, explaining how large structures like temples and catapults could be constructed using mechanical systems.

4. Metrica

In Metrica, Hero turned his attention to mathematics and particularly geometry. This work is significant because it compiled various mathematical formulas and theorems that could be applied to practical engineering problems. Metrica includes formulas for calculating the area and volume of different shapes, as well as methods for measuring distances and determining the size of objects. This blend of theoretical mathematics and applied science helped bridge the gap between abstract geometry and practical engineering.

Influence and Impact

Although much of Hero's work was ignored during the Middle Ages, it was rediscovered by Islamic scholars and engineers during the Islamic Golden Age. His works were translated into Arabic and studied by thinkers like Al-Jazari, who expanded upon Hero's concepts. Later, during the Renaissance, Hero's writings became widely available in Europe, and his engineering principles were further developed by scientists and inventors such as Leonardo da Vinci.

Hero's greatest legacy is his role as a pioneer of automation. His inventions demonstrate that the idea of machines performing tasks independently of human intervention is not a modern one but dates back thousands of years. His inventions particularly the aeolipile, foreshadowed the Industrial Revolution, where steam engines became a driving force of change. Hero's work serves as evidence of the innovative spirit of the ancient world and continues to inspire engineers and inventors to this day.

In conclusion, Hero of Alexandria was a visionary whose work laid the foundations for automation and mechanical engineering. His life and inventions are remarkable examples of ancient ingenuity, and his influence extends far beyond his era. From the aeolipile to automata, Hero's devices were centuries ahead of their time, demonstrating a deep understanding of physics, mechanics, and mathematics. His writings and inventions not only entertained and served practical purposes in his time but also shaped the future of technology. As the father of automation, Hero's legacy endures, reminding us of the incredible potential for human innovation and development that ancient cultures provided humankind.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Automation

The word automaton is derived from the Ancient Greek automaton (αὐτόματον), which means "acting of one's own will". It was first used by Homer to describe an automatic door opening or automatic movement of wheeled tripods.

Robotics

We derive the term robotics from the Czech word robota meaning 'forced labor'. It was used for the first time, 100 years ago, in a play by the author of the same nationality, Karel Capek.

The full term robotics was first used by American science fiction author Isaac Asimov in 1941 from robot +‎ -ics by comparison to "physics ... hydraulics, celestial mechanics, and so on" in his short story Liar

Mechanics

The word Mechanics is derived from Ancient Greek: μηχανική, mēkhanikḗ, lit. 'of machines', is the area of physics concerned with the relationships between force, matter, and motion among physical objects.

Pneumatics

We derive the word Pneumatics from the Ancient Greek πνεῦμα pneuma' wind, breath and related to the use of gas or pressurized air in mechanical systems.