The Worst King of England? The Story of George IV

King George IV of England was king for only ten years until his death in 1830, but he made a lasting impression. So much so that some have dubbed him England’s worst king. Georgie Broad explains why…

Upon the death of King George IV of England in 1830, The Times newspaper said of him “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than the deceased king”. Hardly very complimentary, but it was a truth that was felt by the majority of English citizens during his reign and echoed by many historians today. Throughout his tempestuous and turbulent reign, George IV earned a great many enemies and was the butt of many libelous jibes and quips. But just how devastating was his rule, and should he really go down in history as one of the most dismal monarchs in British history?

Mistresses and Marriage

George’s life was not terribly rich in good relationships. He had a strained and poor relationship with his father, King George III, and these rocky relations carried on throughout his life. Even his “extra-curricular” interactions with his mistresses were dysfunctional, and they earned him a lot of unwanted attention. George IV’s father strove to cultivate an era of, as Dr. Steve Parissien puts it, “sexual respectability”, and to reinforce more traditional family values throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s. George IV was able to almost totally subvert his father’s moralistic hard work all by himself… With a little help from his litany of mistresses…

George IV acquired his first mistress at the humble age of seventeen, and was secretly (and illegally) married to one Mrs. Fitzherbert, a staunch Roman Catholic, before he married his wife Caroline of Brunswick. Through these various trysts with other women, George IV ended up fathering a considerable number of children. George did not always keep his mistresses under the radar, and allegedly connected with actresses and members of the aristocracy. This string of affairs led to something of an uncertain and tacky image of the king being created, one that did not sit well with a great many English people at the time. It also stood in stark contrast to the ideals that his father lay out before him.

After much persuasion, and due to the fact he desperately wanted to settle his debts, George married his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in 1795; however the marriage was a train wreck from its beginning to its rather prompt end after the birth of their only child, Princess Charlotte. George may have had problems, but he wasn’t the only one. Caroline rarely washed, was unfit, and so physically repulsive that George turned to copious amounts of alcohol to cope with the idea of marrying her. He was so drunk on their wedding night that he collapsed and remained in that temporary resting place until the next morning. These bad feelings about Caroline were not just confined to the king. Parliament and government disliked her too – to the extent that they offered her £50,000 to stay out of the country, which she hastily ignored before settling in London. Even so, when she was accused of having affairs, she was popular enough with various civilians that they greeted her and her carriage upon its arrival at the House of Lords.

So it seems then that among the dignitaries the marriage was not very popular, although the English people sat a little more on the fence. Alas for George, his problems didn’t confine themselves solely to the women in his life.

A cartoon of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, reflecting popular opinion of the couple.

Regency and Rule

George IV did not walk right into his kingship. When his father was overcome by a recurrent illness, George IV stepped into the position of Prince Regent, something that allowed him rule of the country… in theory. During his regency and rule, George remained fairly disengaged with politics, instead preferring to leave such proceedings to governors and ministers. In doing so, the new ruler was taking a much less active role in government and the ruling of the country than his father before him. This once again proved quite a jarring difference between the new ruler and his father throughout the minds of the English people, and contributed to a social malaise in the country. In terms of representation throughout the United Kingdom, George IV visited Ireland and Scotland on state visits for the first time in many years. This of course promoted a sense of unity among the United Kingdom; however, in England, George IV was still leaving a lot to be desired.

Instead of looking toward the ruling of the country, George turned his attention to matters of style and culture, echoes of which can still be found in architecture today. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens disliked George IV’s reckless spending, his extravagant coronation was popular throughout the country, and helped him on his reign-long development of the more dramatic, theatrical and pageant-like side of monarchy that we can still see in the international aristocracy today. But his careless and excessive spending did not always strike such a chord in the nation…

The regal and wonderful coronation of George IV.

Drinking, Debt and Dining

The aforementioned debt that drove George to marry Caroline was beyond extensive. Before he became king, his debts reached heights of £630,000 in 1795, which equates to around £55,111,000 today, according to Michael De La Noy in his Pocket Biography of the King. Although various grants were available to help George IV out of his debts, the situation did little to ameliorate his public image. He instead created an image of a lavish and wasteful big spender to add to his womanizing ways, which often left the English public cold, especially due to the less than plentiful economic position of the country at the time.

One of the main things that George liked to spend his money on was drink and good food, a trend that persisted for the entirety of his reign. Toward the end of his rule, his health deteriorated so badly that he didn’t like to make many, if any, public appearances due to the public reactions to his weight though. Not only did these health problems lead to a rapid and irreversible deterioration in George IV’s public image, but it also had severe repercussions on his health. With the litany of health problems that dogged the latter years of the monarch’s life, from gout to suspected mental instability, the king didn’t so much as go out with a royal and regal bang, but instead something of an underwhelming fizzle.

A famous caricature by James Gillray showing George IV in his later, less flattering years

Legacy

Nowadays, we often praise and venerate Georgian style, from clothes to architecture and customs; however the monarch who created many of these trends has gone down in history as one of the worst that Britain has known. Positive reviews can be found of George IV, for example those of the Duke of Wellington, crediting him as “the most accomplished man of his age”, although you need to look through a lot of negative reactions first, including another from the Duke of Wellington detailing how George IV was in fact “the worst man he ever fell in with his whole life”. Contradictory, critical and downright cruel most of the time, accounts from during and many years after the reign of George IV have perpetuated an image of a useless, lazy, and unfit king; being petulant, easily swayed and irresponsible to boot. In that light, we must re-examine George IV and ask ourselves: is it fair to go as far as dubbing him the worst King of England?

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

Image sources

http://www.historic-uk.com/assets/Images/carolinesecretaryvalet.jpg?1390900293

http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/CoronationService.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3518/3640/1600/Gillray_Voluptuary_051126.0.jpg

How the Victorians used Opium

The dangers of opium were not fully understood in the Victorian period. And this led to the not too uncommon consumption of laudanum, a drink that contained opium. Here we introduce you to laudanum in the Victorian Age.

Lord Byron, famed opium user, in Albanian clothes. Painting by Thomas Phillips, 1813.

If you think drug addiction is a recent problem, think again. When I read Frankenstein recently I discovered that Doctor Victor Frankenstein used laudanum (an alcoholic tincture of opium). A drink of laudanum was made of approximately 10% opium and 90% alcohol, and flavored with cinnamon or saffron. It was first used by the ancient Greeks, and in the nineteenth century was mostly used as a painkiller, sleeping pill, or tranquilizer. It was cheaper then poppy oil and could be drunk like you’d drink scotch. It took a while for the Victorians to understand the negative side effects though. Indeed, it was only in 1919 that the production and export of opium was prohibited, and in 1928 a law was passed that prohibited its use.

Wikipedia’s list of laudanum-users is so incredibly long, it makes no sense to copy it. Here are some notable users: Lord Byron (of course!), Kate Chopin (from The Story of an Hour), Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, and Edgar Allan Poe.In literature, it is mentioned in a number of books.Mary Shelley’s character Victor Frankenstein uses laudanum to help him sleep after the death of his friend, Henry Clerval.In Jack Finney’s Time and Again, the main character, Si Morley, wonders if a live baby in an 1882 display case has been “doped up with one of the laudanum preparations I’d seen advertised in Harpers.”The character Cassy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin kills one of her children with laudanum to prevent it from growing up as a slave.In Charles Dickens’ novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood it is the drink of choice for the sinister uncle Jasper.In Bram Stoker’s Dracula Lucy Westenra’s maids are poisoned (though not killed) by Dracula with a dose of laudanum put into wine.And Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote the poem fragment Kubla Khan immediately after waking up from a laudanum-induced dream.

So, it was a rather popular drug. In fact, innumerable Victorian women were prescribed the drug for relief of menstrual cramps and vague aches and used it to achieve the pallid complexion associated with tuberculosis (frailty and paleness were particularly prized in females at the time). Nurses also spoon-fed laudanum to infants. Finally, and sadly, the Pre-Raphaelite muse Elizabeth Siddal died of a laudanum overdose.

This article is provided by Geerte de Jong from 19thcentury.wordpress.com.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below...

References

http://www.jellinek.nl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum 

The Fascinating Wanderer who opened the World of Japan to the West

Kevin K. O’Neill tells us about the life of Patrick Lafcadio Hearn, a man born in Greece, but who later lived in Ireland and the US – until he fell in love with a country that was just opening up to the world in the late 19th century. Japan.

Ninja, samurai, hara-kiri, kamikaze, all are Japanese words familiar to English speakers today. Indeed many people, especially those living on the west coast of the United States, are well aware of Japanese culture and often become ‘Japanophiles’ or people who love things Japanese. The size of this group has risen significantly over the last twenty years due in part to the rise in popularity of ‘anime’ or Japanese cartoons. Unlike their American counterparts, anime are created for all ages and tastes. Post war Japan was impoverished and anime filled the entertainment need without the expense of movie making. However, before Japan took a part of center stage in the 1930s and 1940s, little was known of Japanese culture in the English-speaking world except through the observational writings of travelers. Japan, after initial western contact in the 1600s, closed itself off from the world until, in a true case of gunboat diplomacy, Commodore Perry forced them to open trade in the 1850s.

A Japanese print showing Commodore Matthew C. Perry. Perry played a key role in opening Japan to the West in the 1850s.

In the late 19th century, Europe was in a tizzy over Japan, including such things as pottery (and the crumpled paper it was shipped in, due to the woodblock prints), the Gilbert and Sullivan play ‘The Mikado’ and other items reflecting Japanese aesthetic taste. While information flowed freely much of it was of little value, such as Oscar Wilde’s comment; “… Japan is a pure invention… There is no such country, there are no such people.” A few writers, such as the German Philipp von Siebold, attempted to bring day to day life in Japan to the Western world but their writings were through the eyes of scientists more interested in botany, medicine, or trade. This changed with a writer, Lafcadio Hearn, who went native and became Japan’s first naturalized English speaking foreign citizen. As an aside, the clown of hamburger fame is called Donald McDonald in Japan in deference to Ranald McDonald who taught English prior to Hearn’s arrival.

Troubled Youth

Born Patrick Lafcadio Hearn on an Ionian island in 1850 to a senior British military surgeon of Irish descent and a woman from the minor Greek nobility, Hearn was never acknowledged as legitimate by his father’s side of the family, probably due to his father’s Protestant relatives not recognizing the legitimacy of a Greek Orthodox marriage. With his father on the move due to military service Hearn was relocated to Dublin, Ireland at the age of two. Educated in Roman Catholic schools Hearn lost his faith at an early age, largely due to his parent’s marriage never being recognized and a playground incident that left him disfigured and blind in his left eye.

Portraits and photos of Hearn are of his right profile. Branded a good for nothing misfit, Hearn was sent to the United States at the age of nineteen. Settling in Ohio, Hearn lived a poor life until finding low level journalistic work. Hearn then dropped Patrick from his name because of the source in Saint Patrick and the fact that Lafcadio conveyed the exotic roots of his birthplace, the island of Lefkada. He also thought it was a catchy name for a writer. Hired as a newspaper reporter for his writing talent he developed a reputation for sensitivity with accounts of the poor and of tawdry sensationalism for his descriptions of violent crime. Fired from his job for the crime and associated scandal of inter-racial marriage, he went to work for another newspaper, but with the alleged completion of his divorce he moved to New Orleans. The legality of his marriage and divorce was in dispute until his death.

Hearn wrote for several newspapers and magazines in New Orleans and was prolific in both the variety and volume of his works. With a personality akin to Poe he embraced voodoo as a subject for writing. Hearn wrote many editorials harshly condemning the many failures common to all big cities. It is possible his disenfranchisement with the Western world sown during his early life grew as he bemoaned the ills of New Orleans with diatribes against crime, corruption, and bigotry.

Home at Last, Life in Japan 

Hearn traveled to Japan as a newspaper correspondent, a job that quickly finished as he was able to land a job teaching English in a town in western Japan, Matsue, where he married Setsu Kozumi a daughter of a samurai family. They had four children and to preserve his son’s social and legal legacy Hearn took his wife’s surname becoming known as Yakumo Kozumi. Hearn, even more prolific than before, wrote many books and articles about Japan covering a variety of subjects. Hearn’s fascination with the macabre was apparent in his most popular book, Kwaidan (Ghost Story). Kwaidan, a compilation of tales such as Mimi-nashi Hoichi (Earless Hoichi) and Yuki-onna (Snow Woman), was made into a movie of the same name in 1964 that was awarded the Special Jury Prize at the 1965 Cannes film Festival.  Another of Hearn’s works, Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation (published posthumously in 1904), was relied on by Bonner Fellers, General MacArthur’s military attaché and advisor on Japanese psychology at the end of and after World War II. Fellers received the ‘Second Order of the Sacred Treasure’ from Emperor Hirohito for his “long standing contribution to promoting friendship between Japan and the United States”. The relationship between MacArthur, Fellers and Hirohito is the subject of the 2012 film Emperor.

Hearn wrote about much more than ghosts or psychological impressions, he left a significant legacy with his collection of oral folktales collected at a time when ‘Old Japan’ was being pushed into the shadows by modernization. Hearn also wrote about the art of raising silkworms, incense admiration, haiku, food preparation, insects, training regimes of geisha and monks, and a myriad of other subjects. The deceptively simple title of his In a Japanese Garden conceals a sweeping study that predates the modern Feng Shui movement by one hundred years. Throughout his writings from his time in Japan one can almost feel the Western mind collating the Eastern philosophy of life. That the Japanese embraced him as a kindred soul is shown by the honor they hold for him to this day. The Hearn Memorial Museum at Matsue is still popular and was the subject of a 1984 NHK historical drama. Hearn’s book Out of the East is still used in Japanese schools today.

While it is doubtful Hearn would have been remembered by history had he not visited Japan and did what the brothers Grimm did for European folklore, one hopes his storm tossed soul finally found peace in the Land of the Rising Sun. Indeed much of his later writing expounds the merits of the Buddhist way with fanatical zeal.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, please share it, like it or tweet about it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

The author has used the English format of given name first, surname last, when writing Japanese names as opposed to the “Surname, Given Name” used commonly in Japan.

References

• Kwaidan; Stories and Studies of Strange Things - Lafcadio Hearn
• In Ghostly Japan - Lafcadio Hearn
• https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/hearn.htm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafcadio_Hearn

A Scene of Chaos in a 19th Century Asylum – Image of the week

Our image of the week looks at a scene of anarchy in an eighteenth century asylum.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries life was extremely hard for many. And it only became more so when you possessed a mental health problem. Indeed, in this period mental health issues were known, but often not fully understood. One such arena in which ‘lunacy’ was often not considered was court. So, an ongoing battle was fought in the nineteenth century and in to the twentieth century to have mental health issues considered as part of trials.

At the same time, those who did manage to have their mental health problems recognized as being a mitigating factor in crimes were sent to some less-than-nice places.

The image above is a scene entitled In the Madhouse, painting eight of William Hogarth’s A Rake’s Progress. In the scene we can see the inside of Bethlem Hospital (‘Bedlam’), the foremost criminal lunatic hospital of its day. The painting was produced in the 1730s. The hospital’s roots can be traced as far back as the thirteenth century, while in the Georgian era, it housed many people who were classed as insane by the authorities. The image itself shows us a picture of chaos inside the hospital, with dark figures lurking who are undertaking all sorts of weird and wonderful activities.

The latest issue of History is Now magazine features an article on criminal lunacy in the nineteenth century. The magazine also has a range of fascinating articles related to modern history from America and the wider world.

Click on the following links for more details and to get the latest issue for FREE today: Android | Apple iOS

America’s Great 19th Century Statement of Intent

In this fascinating article, Wout Vergauwen tells us about the Monroe Doctrine, an Empire of Liberty – and America’s expansion across the West and beyond into the rest of the American Continent.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND MANIFEST DESTINY

“We shall divert through our own Country a branch of commerce which the European States have thought worthy of the most important struggles and sacrifices, and in the event of peace … we shall form to the American union a barrier against the dangerous extension of the British Province of Canada and add to the Empire of liberty an extensive and fertile Country thereby converting dangerous Enemies into valuable friends.”

Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

Thomas Jefferson was a great many things, but above all he was a visionary. Yet, it is hard to imagine that even he understood to the fullest extent what his Empire of Liberty could become. Several presidents have, at least to a certain extent, broadened the interpretation. Whereas Jefferson’s empire ideally stretched, as Katharine Lee Bates wrote “from sea to shining sea,” it would become an idea that was applied to the United States’ expansionist efforts, both at home and abroad. However, the first extension of Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty almost caused Mr. Madison to lose US territory in the War of 1812. Luckily for the Americans, the British were too busy fighting Napoleon to pursue their efforts in North America. Ultimately, the British and the Americans signed the 1814 Treaty of Ghent, reaching a modus vivendi on the expense of the Native Americans. Yet, it quickly became clear that Uncle Joe intended to look across the border. 

A portrait of Thomas Jefferson from 1791. At the time Jefferson was Secretary of State. Painted by Charles Willson Peale.

When the Spanish failed to control their colonial possessions in the Americas, another opportunity arose for the United States to expand their sphere of influence. Given that the United States had only gained independence as recently as half a century earlier, they did not feel confident to invade a world power’s possessions, even if that world power was waning. However, colonial insurrection in present-day Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico was too good a chance to let go by. Both the Monroe administration and Congress favored action of at least some sort, because the possibility of having Spain intervene in Latin America would first of all pose a threat to American security. Second of all, reinforced Spanish colonies would also prevent any further expansion of influence across the continent.

Although still dreaming of an Empire of Liberty, caution was required. Spain did indeed still possess Florida, and it would have been unwise to provoke more than strictly necessary. However, immediately after Florida was ceded to the United States, Washington was inevitably going to act quickly. As soon as 1822, the United States recognize the rebelling colonies as independent countries. And besides the ideological ‘support-another-former-colony’ idea, there were several important reasons for having done so. Indeed, a Holy Alliance consisting of Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia had formed in Europe, trying to uphold monarchy and suppress liberalism. The rumors were that after crushing rebellions in both Spain and Italy, the alliance might help Spain to regain control over its prestigious colonies. In a statement supported by Congress, James Monroe read a statement written by future president John Quincy Adams. The American continents, he declared, “are henceforth not to be considered subjects for future colonization by any European power.” That might have been the end of it supposing that there was such a thing as a capable American army. But this was 1823.

FROM TEXAS TO THE WORLD

Just as in 1814, the Americans had the British to thank. Indeed, making a bold statement is one thing. Upholding it is another. Luckily, British interests aligned with America’s. By then, the British had already set up very profitable trade routes with Spain’s former colonies, and they were not going to give them up easily. Already in the early 18th century James Thomson wrote “Rule, Britannia! Rule the waves.” And yes, by 1823, they did. Commanding the most powerful Navy ever seen, King George IV was not going to let an Armada supported by the Holy Alliance cross the Atlantic. The Spanish, still remembering the fate of the Great Armada, decided to hold back and let the Americans have it their way.

Finally having gained the confidence they had lacked since 1776, the Americans went the full mile by 1845. The trigger was, once again, a foreign threat. Although this threat was much less serious when compared to previous ones, some Americans still believed the British might cause trouble in California, Oregon, and Texas. The latter is a special case here. Ever since the Lone Star Republic gained independence from Mexico in 1836, a large majority of the population had wanted to join the United States. Southern states favored the admission of Texas, yet Northern states originally opposed the admission. They feared that Texas might be admitted as a slave state – or worse, divided in up to five slave states – and thus disturb the balance in Congress. Even though a treaty was finally drafted on February 27, 1844, it was not signed. John L. O’Sullivan, an editor from New York, urged President Polk to finally sign the treaty and admit Texas to the union, if only because it was their “manifest destiny.” The term quickly became popular and thrived on the assumption that Providence had intended the United States to control the entire North American continent.

Even though successful attempts were never made to annex Canada, as was Mr. Madison’s dream, Manifest Destiny guided US policy for the rest of the century. Whether manifest destiny caused Polk to annex Texas in 1845 is not entirely clear, and your guess is as good as mine. Yet, in the subsequent eight years, undoubtedly guided by manifest destiny, the US would gain control over the remaining third of its contingent states. An 1846 treaty with Britain gained them Oregon country, also including Washington and Idaho. An 1848 treaty with Mexico gained them present-day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Finally, the 1853 Gadsen purchase gained the United States the final part of its contingent states – a thirty thousand square mile border area between Mexico and the United States.

Ultimately, by the end of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt would square the circle by amending the Monroe doctrine, thereby confirming America’s global intent. His Roosevelt Corollary was thus the capstone of Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, let the world know. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below!

An Introduction to... The Georgian Era

In this article, Jennifer Johnstone presents an introduction to the Georgian Era, including a look at the class system and some very famous writers!

The Georgian era was a time of sumptuous architecture, literature, music, and style. It was the era that made the modern world we know today. The Georgians gave us many things, from some of our most famous writers such as Jane Austen and Mary Shelley to the industrial revolution. There was also the third Georgian King, King George, who lost American colonies, and went mad. And a class system we still see today in modern Britain.

Frontispiece to Mary Shelley, Frankenstein published by Colburn and Bentley, London 1831 Steel engraving in book.

Classification of the Georgian era

The Georgian era began with the German ‘House of Hanover’, or as they’re otherwise know ‘The Hanoverians’. The period lasted from approximately 1714 to 1830. There were three monarchs in the era, all Kings: George I, George II, and George III. The dynasty was accepted with the Act of Settlement (1701). Even though these kings were accepted as monarchs following the Act of Settlement, it is claimed by some that they were not particularly popular monarchs, especially George I. However, the aim of this article is not necessarily to decipher if the Georgian Kings were popular, rather, it’s main purpose is to show what the Georgians brought us. And one thing the Georgians did give us was some of the world’s best-known literature.

Literature of the Georgian era

The Georgian era brought us some great writers, such as Jane Austen, Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, John Keats, and Lord Byron. Interestingly, it is the female writers, Mary Shelley and Jane Austen, who have stood the test of time, and are as much celebrated in today’s second Elizabethan era, as they were during the era they lived in, the Georgian era.

Today, Jane Austen is celebrated all over the world. There are numerous societies, celebrating the life and work of the woman who gave us stories such as Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Sense and Sensibility, and of course, Mansfield Park. An example of the celebration of Jane Austen comes from the ‘Jane Austen Centre’, a place that is hosting a summer ball and a Jane Austen festival in 2014. Another example of Austen’s relevance in the hearts of the British public is that she will appear on the ten-pound note from 2017. This could show that Jane Austen is as relevant today as she was in Georgian England. It can even be argued that with Austen being the face of the new ten-pound note, she is one of the most loved British authors of all time. After all, few other authors have been given a place on bank notes.

When we think of the Georgian era, we often think of Austen’s worlds and a grand upper class lifestyle. We rarely think of it as a gothic era, full of monsters, but this is what makes Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein a welcome breath of fresh air. Shelly gives us something completely different in her work.

Mary Shelley’s work of Frankenstein gives us a monster created under the eccentric scientist Victor Frankenstein. Frankenstein covers some of the same themes as Austen’s novels, including romance, and social class; however, there are also the themes of knowledge, alienation, guilt, and vegetarianism. Frankenstein forces us to think about the more negative aspects of society, and how societies can mistreat others. Perhaps, this was not surprising, as Shelley was the daughter of the feminist philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft was a critic of the way women were treated in society, most famously noting this in her work The Vindication of Women’s Rights. Both Shelley and Austen spoke out against prejudice, and the patriarchal nature of society.

Industrial Revolution

The Georgians did not only give us great literature, they also gave us an industrial revolution and an agricultural revolution.

Before the industrial revolution, British industry was normally small scale and relatively unsophisticated. What this meant was that there were not the large factories or mass production that began in the Georgian era; rather, production was usually on a small scale. Meanwhile, the agricultural revolution changed the way that the farming world worked. A change in the way Georgians used tools during the industrial revolution, also saw a change in people’s living patterns and lifestyles. People began to live longer and moved to the cities.

Class structure

The Georgians shaped the nature of the social class system, and this remains in modern Britain. The upper class was a small segment of society and included the wealthiest. It was an elite aristocracy that was closed off to all others. The upper class was not infrequently subject to criminal acts in Georgian England though, as there was not a police force in the modern form. Secondly, there was the middle class. This class was a little broader than the upper class, but it still retained a small percentage of society. It was made up of various businessmen and professionals. And, last but not least, there was the working class. The working class made up the majority of the Georgian era’s population. It was a class that was exploited by the rich and it was often forced to work in the newly formed factories. Children, from as young as five, were even made to work.

Conclusion

The Georgian era attained an eloquent fashion, style, music, and literature, and is seen as a time that shaped the modern era that we live in today. It shaped the foundations of modern Britain, giving the country an industrial and agricultural revolution, along with a class structure that still exists in modern Britain. The Georgians also gave us some of our finest literature. Simply put, the Georgians gave us modernism.

If you want others to learn about the Georgian period, tell the world! Like, share, or tweet about the article by clicking one of the buttons below.

What to make of this British colonial episode? – Image of the week

Our image of the week is from a rather gruesome colonial episode.

The Ashanti Wars occurred between the 1820s and the start of the twentieth century. They took place in the Ashanti Empire, a territory in modern-day Ghana, West Africa, and were fought between the British Empire and the Ashanti Empire

The above image is a scene from a battle early in these wars, in July 1824 to be precise. It shows the British in their red coats overcoming the Ashantis. But what can we take from it? The fact that European technology was superior to the Ashanti’s more traditional weapons? Or that this was a victory for ‘civilization’?

Or merely that it was just a futile battle in a war that ultimately damaged the territory and in which nearly everybody was a loser?

Now, have you heard about History is Now magazine? It has a range of fascinating articles related to modern history! In the latest issue there is even a piece related to the Ashanti Wars.

Click here for more details: Android | Apple iOS

Crime and Punishment in Nineteenth Century London

Last month Kevin K. O’Neill described some of the nefarious exploits by various criminals operating in the dim anonymity of early 19th century London. Body snatchers, thieves, beggars, conmen and other inhabitants of the rookeries, or slums, all operated relatively freely, opposed only by a few private organizations before the formation in 1829 of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel, the original ‘Bobbie.’ This month we delve into more aspects of crime and the social ferment that characterized London at that time.

The Upper Class, Gambling, and Blackmail

The English upper class was no stranger to the indulgences and excesses practiced openly by the lower classes. Indeed many had a morbid fascination with the danger and debauchery of their lives. Steering clear of the Rookeries, the well to do often frequented the Flash Houses and successors to the 18th century ‘Hellfire’ clubs located in safer areas for reasons of gambling, gin, and women. Many young men met social demise via alcohol, venereal disease, predatory usury, or blackmail, as they were considered easy prey.  Even those that gambled their fortunes away in the higher-class clubs often turned to moneylenders of ill repute.

The Original Tom and Jerry

The allure of the well to do with the dark underbelly of London is well portrayed by Pierce Egan’s ‘Life in London or, the Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorne, Esq. and his elegant friend, Corinthian Tom, accompanied by Bob Logic, the Oxonian, in their rambles and sprees through the Metropolis.’ Released monthly at a shilling a copy in 1821, this slice of life serial proved wildly popular. Spin off serials and plays were penned while behavior such as ‘Tom and Jerry Frolics,’ became part of the linguistic landscape. The two main protagonists were from opposite ends of British society with Tom being the elegant ‘Swell’ searching for excitement, and Jerry the unworldly country bumpkin searching for the good life. Their pugnacious and bawdy exploits were eagerly read by all social classes and the pervasive slang used was popular enough to inspire the publishing of a glossary. Egan, a sports writer with a knack for satire, crisscrossed the social boundaries of London with Tom taking Jerry to fancy nightclubs for elegant affairs and Jerry taking Tom for riotous nights of gin, easy women, and street boxing

A shilling well laid out. Tom and Jerry at the exhibition of pictures at the Royal Academy.

Vivid illustrations by the Cruikshank brothers were a large part of the success of ‘Life in London’ with their appeal withstanding the test of time more than the text. One of the foremost political cartoonists of the day, George Cruikshank, also illustrated many of Charles Dickens’ works under the direction of Dickens. The influence he had on Dickens’ writing, especially Oliver Twist, is debated to this day.

Peep O’ Day Boys. A Street Row. The author losing his ‘reader.’ Tom and Jerry showing fight and logic floored

The Ratcliffe Highway Murders, Impetuous for Change

In December of 1811 murder most foul was committed in two separate attacks in the Wapping area of the Ratcliffe Highway. Seven people from two families were bludgeoned to death by a shipwright’s maul in what can only be described as a frenzied attack. While violence was common along the notorious Ratcliffe Highway, these murders were singular in that they were ‘break and enter’ murders against relatively upstanding citizens. An unfortunate soul, John Williams, and several others, were suspected and thrown in jail on little evidence.

Williams ultimately ‘cheated the hangman’ in what was deemed a suicide by the authorities, causing them to put the dead man on trial. Williams’ suicide being the main indicator of guilt in the prosecutor’s mind, he was convicted. The Ratcliffe murders were spread to the public through the ‘Penny Press,’ with the gruesome details both appalling and enthralling the public. John Williams’ burial procession was followed by a huge crowd with estimates of up to 180,000 people attending his macabre burial. Unqualified to be buried on consecrated ground because he committed suicide, Williams was buried head down in a small grave to insure discomfort in the after life, at a crossroads to confuse his soul should it wander, and with a stake through his heart. It seems likely though, that he was not the murderer; he was convicted to appease an upset populace. Whether his suicide was staged to cover up the real murderer is still not clear.

Punishment

In this period, punishment was freely dealt out with, what may appear to the modern person, an almost fiendish glee. Debtors prisons, death for petty thievery, and horrible internments were all part of the penal system in early 19th century London. Deportation, usually to Australia in the years after the American Revolution, was also used to alleviate the growth of crime in England. By the early 19th century there was a backlog of prisoners to be ‘transported’, as the official sentence of deportation was termed. These boys and men were sent to ‘The Hulks.’ Established in the middle of the 18th century, the Hulks were ships used as prisons as they were no longer seaworthy. Many sunk in the mud of the River Thames, while they were cold, damp, and rotting, with prisoners packed like sardines in their own filth. New prisoners started at the bottom and slowly graduated up through the three levels to where, if they were lucky or nasty enough to have survived, they reached the top level and were transported. Prisons, such as the ‘Stone Jug’, as Newgate Prison was known, were only slightly better than the Hulks with staged fights, trials of those that broke unwritten codes, and priestly absolutions of those to be hanged.

Another ghastly aspect to the penal system were treadmills. Essentially, they were human hamster wheels, originally developed to apply human power to industrial machinery. Found inefficient in industry these ‘shin breakers’ were relegated to the prisons to break incorrigible prisoners. The number of crimes punishable by hanging stood at around 200 early in the century and included such minor transgressions as pick pocketing and stealing food. Hangings were public and often festive; however the severe punishment of trivial offenses, such as food theft at a time of great poverty, often caused riots as public unrest at injustice broke out.

Metropolitan Police and Reforms

In 1822 Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary. In 1829, with the Ratcliffe Highway and Burke-Hare murders still fresh in the public’s minds, Sir Robert was able to generate enough political will to establish a unified police force, despite the long standing misgivings of the populace. The people feared a unified armed force that could be used to suppress protest or maintain an unpopular government. Peel addressed these concerns with the “Peelian Principals”, a code for an ethical police force that included elements such as personal identification for officers, no bounties or rewards for arrests, public order and low crime rates as indicators of success, and total accountability to the people. Termed ‘policing by consent’ it is followed to this day by many free countries’ police forces. In 1823 Sir Robert lowered the number of crimes punishable by death to around 100.

It is difficult today to look back on London at this time without a certain amount of distaste at the casual injustices and misery. Even so, it should be remembered that London was one of the first cities to become industrialized, with massive unplanned urban growth being a major factor in the civic confusion that defined the era. Out of this societal chaos good men, such as Sir Robert Peel, created laws and a political ethos that defines much of the free world today.

Want to read more on this subject? Well, you can read about Charles Dickens and poverty here.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, let the world know by clicking on one of the buttons below! Like it, tweet about it, or share it!

Bibliography

The Maul and the Pear Tree, Critchley and James, 1971

Thieves’ Kitchen, Donald Low, 1982

Image Source

Engravings by George and Robert Cruikshank from the 1869 reprint of Life in London, Pierce Egan, John Camden Hotten, Piccadilly, 1869. Image source here.

The President who needs a Spin Doctor? In Defense of Ulysses S. Grant

Ulysses S. Grant is an often maligned president; however, a closer examination of his presidency reveals that he did a lot of good, especially around policies related to Native Americans and African Americans. Here, Rebecca Fachner argues why his presidency needs to be reexamined.

Ulysses S. Grant needs rehab. Actually, he doesn’t need anything, he’s dead; but his reputation and legacy deserve a reexamination. There is a lot to admire and like about Grant, but for some reason he has been consigned to some obscure corner of American history, not forgotten, but not properly remembered either. During his lifetime, he was almost as popular as Lincoln, but has fallen into ignominy and near obscurity since his death. Everyone agrees that he was a great general, of that there can be no doubt, but somewhere between taking the Oath of Office as President and his death, he meandered into a historical gray zone from which he has yet to emerge. 

The Peacemakers, c. 1868. William Sherman, Ulysses S Grant, Abraham Lincoln, and David Porter on the River Queen in March 1865.

Grant was a true American success story, rising from obscurity and failure to become commander of the largest army on the continent and later President of the United States. Grant attended West Point and served in the Mexican War, but did not make it as a peacetime soldier. Grant was working as a clerk in a tanner’s shop in Galena, Illinois when the Civil War began, having also failed in private life. The stories of Grant’s military successes in the Civil War are well known, and they propelled him to a successful bid for the White House in 1868, just three years after the end of the war.

He was not a perfect man, and certainly not a perfect president, but he was actually much better than history gives him credit for being. He was quite popular while he was in office, partly because of his moderate positions on the two most important issues of the day. Those two issues were Native American policy and African American policy, and are probably more responsible than anything else for Grant’s subsequent fall from historical favor.

A BELIEVER IN EQUALITY

Grant was President during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, and was a staunch advocate of citizenship and equality for African Americans while in the White House. He was instrumental in the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gave all men the right to vote regardless of their race.  Grant also helped to pass a series of laws that were known as the Enforcement Acts, designed to help protect African Americans and their right to vote. He even sent federal troops to restore order when white Southerners began to use violence to prevent former slaves from voting. In the end, Grant’s policies of Reconstruction were hampered not because he lacked the will, but because the voters did.  As time passed and the South was reintegrated into the Union, support for Reconstruction gradually diminished. With the onset of an economic panic in 1873, voters just lost interest in Reconstruction. 

He presided over what author and historian James Loewen has called the “Springtime of Race Relations,” a brief period of reconciliation and equality that followed the Civil War. As Reconstruction sputtered to an end, white Southerners took the opportunity to quell this nascent bloom in race relations, and gradually reinstituted a policy of segregation and discrimination. By the mid 1890s, the US had entered into what is known as the nadir of race relations, a period that saw a new low point in relations between blacks and whites. As this nadir went deeper, it began to reshape American history. Suddenly, Grant’s pursuit of equality for African Americans became a liability to his legacy, rather than an attribute. His accomplishments began to be discredited, and the sense that Grant had been a failed President comes from this period of American history, not Grant’s own.

Regarding Grant’s Native American policy, he was moderate and even compassionate in his dealings with Native Americans. He pursued what was called the Peace Policy, hoping to bring Native Americans closer to the United States, to eventually integrate them and make them into citizens. He advocated decent treatment for all Native peoples, addressed corruption in federal Native American affairs, and appointed a Seneca Indian to be the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ely Parker, the first major non-white political appointment. Grant sought to house Native American tribes on reservations and wanted to help them become farmers. From a modern perspective Grant’s Native American policy leaves much to be desired; however during his time this represented a tolerant and liberal view.

In the end, Grant’s Native American policy was perhaps more well meaning than well executed, but there is an important caveat to this. In the summer of 1876, as Grant’s second term was drawing to a close, the Battle of Little Bighorn occurred in what is now Montana. The battle is better known now as Custer’s Last Stand, where Lakota and Cheyenne warriors wiped out George Armstrong Custer and his Seventh Cavalry. News of the defeat stunned the nation, and war hawks were eager to use the opportunity to paint all Native Americans as dangerous and bloodthirsty. Calls for revenge rang out all over the country and Grant’s conciliatory policy toward Native Americans suddenly looked like weakness. His peace policy was quickly abandoned in favor of a continuation of the harsh repression and removal that had been going on for decades.

GRANT IN PERSPECTIVE

It is true that Ulysses S Grant was no politician; he disdained the political process and wanted the Presidency to be above party divisions. He did not understand, nor did he wish to learn about the business of politics, and his administration suffered for this. Although his motives were good, his actions as President were uncertain and underwhelming. As natural a leader as he was in battle, somehow this just did not translate to the political realm.

Grant’s administration is often accused of having been one of the most corrupt in American history. While it is true that his second term was plagued with scandal and several of his cabinet members were accused of corruption, there was no implication, then or now, that Grant was involved. Corruption charges were never levied against him, he was never a target for investigation, and his honesty was never impugned. The charge that can be laid at Grant’s door was that he proved to be a very bad judge of character, and remained doggedly loyal to the men he appointed to cabinet positions, even after it was clear that they were corrupt. 

His reputation suffered as a result of the scandals in his cabinet, and in 1875 he announced that he was not going to seek a third term as president. In 1880, however, the Republicans strongly considered nominating Grant to a third term at their convention that year, so he couldn’t have been too unpopular. Ultimately, the Republicans decided to go with James Garfield, and Grant died of throat cancer in 1885. 

Ulysses S. Grant is interred in New York City, and the story of his tomb provides an interesting parallel with his legacy. He was given the largest tomb in North America and a million and a half citizens turned out to watch his funeral procession. In the twentieth century, however, the tomb was largely forgotten, falling into disrepair, covered in graffiti and trash. It wasn’t until the early 1990s that a campaign was started to force the National Park Service to improve the conditions of the site and restore the tomb and surrounding area. Grant’s Presidential legacy underwent a similar downward spiral, but has yet to experience a true reexamination.

This article was provided by Rebecca Fachner. You can read Rebecca’s last article on the mystery of King Henry VIII’s ‘seventh’ wife by clicking here.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

Bibliography

Loewen, James. Sundown Towns; A Hidden Dimension of American Racism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005.

“American President; Essays on Ulysses S. Grant and His Administration,” Miller Center, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.millercenter.org

Charles Dickens, Poverty in Britain and Racism

In this article, Jennifer Johnstone continues her look at Charles Dickens and poverty in Victorian Britain. She considers his impact on social change, and then thinks about something that you may not know – his perhaps racist views.

In part one of this two-part look at Charles Dickens and poverty, we considered how Dickens may have viewed social inequality and poverty in modern Britain. We reflected on how he might have viewed the Welfare State, and looked at some of his works, including Oliver Twist. In this concluding part of ‘Dickens and Poverty’ we will explore Dickens further. I want to examine whether or not he was a true social critic of inequality at heart, by reflecting on what Dickens’ impact was on Victorian Britain. Was he the social reformer that we often think of him? Then we will look at a less favorable aspect of Dickens, a Dickens that we don’t often see when he is critiqued. But before that, I begin by looking at his work Little Dorrit. 

A caricature of Charles Dickens. L'Eclipse, June 14, 1868.

Little Dorrit

Little Dorrit is a story about debt and imprisonment; it is also a condemnation towards the government and society. Dickens portrays his characters in Little Dorrit as people being down on their luck, while the characters analyze themselves in relation to poverty. By analyze, I mean that they feel shame or guilt for being in poverty. As such, Dickens touches on a theme that is in Oliver Twist - poverty breeds crime. Little Dorrit is about different social classes, and how these classes are seen within society. Indeed, a major theme of Little Dorit is social stratification, and instead of valuing a person for who they are, and what impact they have on others, Victorian society is portrayed as a shallow society, obsessed with material goods.

Dickens’ highlighting of this shallowness, and the focus on unimportant material objects, is a valuable contribution by the writer because it highlights that people often value material possessions more than they value people. But, what impact did Dickens have in the real world, outside his writings?

Dickens’ limited impact?

Although Dickens was a vocal critic of parts of Victorian society, the influence Dickens had in changing Victorian attitudes towards poverty is debatable. Some argue that Dickens did not reform Victorian Britain very much, that he did not influence social change. Perhaps there is something to be said for this. After all, true social reform and the Welfare State were not introduced in Britain until much later, after Dickens death. If you were poor in Victorian Britain, then the government did not look after you; instead, you had to rely on charities, or you became destitute. It was only in the year of Dickens’ death, 1870, that we were beginning to see the early stages of a welfare state. But, it can be suggested that it is mere coincidence that the reforming Education Act (1870) coincided with Dickens’ death, and had nothing to do with Dickens’ vocal condemnation on deprivation and poverty. Rather than the Education Act being about Dickens, it was more about the politics of the time, military politics to be precise. This argument is given further credence when we consider that little else was reformed socially in Britain until the early 20th century.

There are two important reasons that can be suggested for why Dickens’ work did not have much of an influence in Victorian society. The first is illiteracy levels. With such high levels of poverty, and a lack of education for the poor, Dickens’ audience was not the poor, but the rich. That leads to the second reason why he did not create the social reform he sought; many of the rich did not want to share their wealth with the poor, something that is suggested through laws such as the ‘The Poor Law.’ So, we can perhaps say that part of the reason that social reform arose much later than 1870 was that in later years the poor became better educated, and could read Dickens’ work.

Dickens and Poverty

Charles Dickens had sympathy towards the poor because he was one of them. He was a man who worked in the factories he portrayed in his novels, and who despised those same factories. He was born into poverty, but he was treated unfairly and harshly just for being poor. Therefore, he knew what it was like to be in the position of the poor; whereas most of the unsympathetic and immoral upper classes, had no such reality check. But, the upper class being out of touch with the poor, was as much a problem in Victorian Britain as it is today. And, I think that Dickens would have condemned this today too.

Researching Dickens has led me to conclude that he was ahead of his time. Instead of seeing human beings, the upper class Victorians vilified the poor. Essentially, they made their life a living hell. But this was not only a period of suppressing the poor British people, but a period of colonization, and the suppression of other people, in other nations.

Dickens and Native Americans

Analyzing his views about other cultures, we see a different side, a darker side, to Dickens. For example, Dickens essentially expressed racist views about Native American people. Indeed, in The Noble Savage, he expressed a hatred of their existence. We can even go as far to say that Dickens did not oppose the genocide of Native Americans; for example, he writes that they could be ‘civilized out of existence.’ One could argue, that by Dickens using the word ‘civilized’, he means to humanely remove Native Americans. It is clear that he is explicitly stating that they should be wiped out, however much flowery connotation there is to his language. As you can’t really remove a culture out of existence, without using force, or even brutality. In effect, Dickens seems intolerant of the Native American’s way of life. The Noble Savage projects a dark side of Dickensian ideology, and that is one of contempt for other ways of life, contempt for another race. What it shows is something that is not often discussed when we look at the history of Dickens; his racist attitudes.

It is important to look at how Dickens viewed other races and cultures. This is because, if we can see that Dickens was as opposed to the oppression of other cultures and races as he was to his own, then it would show that he is all an all round good character, condemning suppression, whether in relation to poverty our not. Dickens did a very good job at highlighting the poverty in his own country, but Dickens failed in applying his message universally - that you should stand up for the underdog, and the suppressed, whoever they maybe.

In sum

In conclusion, it seems to me that Dickens was a very interesting character, much like the characters he created. Not only that, but an odd man too. Odd in the sense that for someone who chastised the rich of his own country for treating the poor like dirt, he was a supporter of oppressing other groups. So, many of the attitudes that Dickens held in contempt, and was vocally opposed to, were the very attitudes which he expressed to other peoples. In short, Dickens was not a very consistent character; he was as complex as the characters he portrayed.

Dickens, though, stood up for the impoverished in a way that nobody else of his time did. But, there is more that Dickens could have, should have, expressed in his works; the suppression of other people, in other countries.

If any words could be expressed to Dickens about himself, suppression, and poverty, they would be ‘’Please sir, I want some more....’

In the meantime you can read more about crime in 19th century Britain here.

Now, if you enjoyed the article, please like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html

http://classiclit.about.com/od/dickenscharles2/a/aa_cdickensquot.htm

http://exec.typepad.com/greatexpectations/dickens-attitude-to-the-law.html

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/diniejko.html

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16907648

http://www.dickens.port.ac.uk/poverty/

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html

http://charlesdickenspage.com/twist.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/jan/12/welfare-reform-charles-dickens

Little Dorrit: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/LittleDorrit6x9.pdf

Olive Twist: http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/Oliver-Twist.pdf

A Christmas Carol: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Dickens/Carol/Dickens_Carol.pdf

The Noble Savage: http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2529