The Power of Scotland, King Charles I and the start of the English Civil War

In the latest in the English Civil War series of articles, Myra King looks at how a change imposed by King Charles I and the strength of Scotland put Charles in a position so weak that it would lead to war.

In this series on the English Civil War, we have previously considered the Divine Right of Kings, and Henry VIII and bloody religious change, and how the Gunpowder Plot may have been a Protestant-led conspiracy.

On July 23, 1637 Jenny Geddes threw a chair at a church minister’s head and started the English Civil War.

Edinburgh Minister Dean Hannay condemned himself by attempting to read the new English Prayer Book. This not only angered the congregation but instigated flying furniture. Jenny Geddes screamed, “Villain, dost thou say mass at my lug?” She then continued to curse him with colic and threw the three legged stool she was sitting on. This act started a riot and more chairs were soon thrown. Riots spread so quickly throughout Edinburgh that ministers were forced to arm themselves before service. In one church, the minister actually pointed a gun to his congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer. It was the only thing that kept his head from connecting with a chair.

King Charles I by Anthony van Dyck. 1636.

Flying furniture, riots and guns may seem a complete over-reaction to a simple prayer book but it was, in fact, quite small compared to what that prayer book stood for. Throughout England, the spread of Protestantism meant only one thing - bloodshed! Torture, murder, mass genocide and other horrific crimes filled the land simply because the monarch decided on a different strand of Christianity. But England had always been conquered and plagued by whatever faction was strongest. Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Angles and Normans had all arrived and changed whatever they felt like - this almost always being religion and how the country was run. The monarchs were simply children of their culture.

This was not the case in Scotland however. The Picts, natives of the area we now know as Scotland, were not the people to tangle with. After England fell to the Romans, the Legions marched into Pict territory, expecting to conquer it. They came, they saw, but they most certainly did not conquer. Rather, they got slaughtered. That was the Roman introduction to Scotland. And it did not go much smoother for anybody else. The Scottish were a formidable enemy. When King James I inherited the English throne, he took the tumultuous Stuart Dynasty down to London and for the first time in centuries kept Scotland and England in a peaceful, productive truce. But the decades of peace did not soften the Bonnie Scots. When King Charles I began his campaign to bring religious change to Scotland after he ascended the throne in 1625, he expected that change would be as easy as it had been in England in prior years. He was to be in for a surprise.

THE PATH TO WAR

The Scottish knew the history of English religious genocide and they refused to go the same way. And so, when the prayer book entered their churches, the Scottish rose up as one to stop the start of a genocide. Charles I, although King of the Scots, could not control them from London and so declared war on his own people. Unfortunately he could not raise the funds or an adequate army within England. Charles, like his father, believed that he could run his kingdoms without Parliament and so didn’t call Parliamentary sessions. This meant that he could not get funding or command the armies that he needed. The men he could rally were poorly trained, under fed and improperly attired. The Scottish army was the complete opposite. There were a few minor battles between the English and the Scottish, but neither side really wanted to fight, and finally Charles agreed to a general assembly to discuss disputed topics. Without Charles’s permission, however, Scotland abolished his religion and declared itself free from royal control. Charles was furious and immediately brought back Parliament in order to raise funds for a real army and a real war.

This government, known as the ‘Short Parliament’, refused to do Charles’s bidding until he sorted out their grievances. He refused and dismissed the Parliament after only a few weeks. While Charlie was battling his government, the Scottish army crossed the River Tweed into England. The English army retreated, leaving the whole of Northumberland and County Durham, regions in the far north of England, to the Scots.

Have you noticed the strangest part of all of this? Charles was king of England, and so had to pay for the English army. But Charles was also King of Scotland, and so had to pay for the Scottish army too. This man was such an incompetent leader that he was literally paying to go to war with himself. This only gets worse with his decision to leave the two English counties in Scottish hands in order to pay the Scottish off for attacking the two counties. Up to his eyeballs in debt, Charlie reconvened Parliament in order to raise the funds he could not obtain. This government, known as the ‘Long Parliament’, attacked Charles’s advisers and actually executed his chief supporters. This showed the king that the English Parliament was most certainly not his friend. Luckily for him though, he had another government that he could turn to. And so he went up to Scotland in 1641 to give titles to the two Scottish leaders who invaded England. Interestingly, he gave them titles for fighting against him. This action won him favor with the Scottish but he was in no way their beloved king; in fact they made sure that Charlie boy accepted every one of their decisions without complaint. He was their king in name only.

This did not agree with a man who believed in ‘The Divine Rights of Kings’ and he took his frustrations out on the English. One hundred years before, Charles would have been able to do as he pleased. But too much abuse of power from his predecessors, coupled with the knowledge that the Scottish controlled their King’s strings, had made the English strong.

And just like Jenny Geddes, they were about to throw a chair.

Did you enjoy this article? And would you like to read more in-depth history articles? Well, take a look at History is Now Magazine! It is available instantly and is free for at least one month if you subscribe today! And what’s more, there is no obligation to pay anything if you’re not 100% satisfied with the magazine…

Click here for information on the iOS/Apple edition

Click here for information on the Android edition

References

Slimy Stuarts by Terry Deary

www.britannica.com

www.bbc.co.uk/thebishopswar

www.battlefieldstrust.com

www.historyofwar.org

British History by Miles Kelly

The History of the Last Meal – A final compassionate act or an undeserved reward?

In this article, Robert Walsh writes about the history of the last meal for those condemned to death. He considers its Christian roots and looks at how it has been carried out in different states. Finally, we look at some of the more unusual last meal requests.

Study media reports of executions, recent or decades-old, and you’ll probably find mention of the prisoner’s last meal. Most prisoners spend their entire sentences eating whatever the prison kitchen provides and have no choice. Condemned inmates are traditionally allowed to choose their final meal though. Before British reporters were barred from witnessing hangings in the early twentieth century their reports usually mentioned whether a prisoner enjoyed their final breakfast. Today, American reporters often mention what prisoners have for their last meal, although prison authorities often call it a ‘special meal’, deferring to the prisoner’s feelings about their upcoming death.

The Last Supper. Leonardo da Vinci. Late fifteenth century.

The last meal is usually a tradition, not a rule. No law automatically entitles prisoners to anything other than standard prison meals so it’s a privilege, not a right. It’s also far more significant than being merely a kind gesture. It’s an important part of the execution ritual and has been for centuries. Barring last-minute legal action a prisoner’s last meal is usually their last chance to control anything that happens in their final hours. Modern executions are usually conducted according to strict timetables and rigid rules with minimal deviation there from. In the US, a prisoner might wait over twenty years between sentencing and execution so their last freedom of choice can be very important to them.

RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE

Execution is a grim ritual. The last meal is a part of that ritual and a ritual in itself. In medieval Europe it had religious significance dating back to when religion played a far greater role in daily life than it does today. A mental image of Christ’s Last Supper is often referenced as a parallel to a modern-day convict choosing their final menu. It also symbolizes a prisoner making peace with their executioners, breaking bread with them in the same way that Christ invited Judas Iscariot to the Last Supper. In modern-day Louisiana, a strongly-religious Southern state, Warden Burl Cain routinely invites condemned prisoners to eat their last meal with him and invited guests, offering the condemned Christian fellowship. Cain still supervises the execution, but he extends the invitation regardless. Naturally, the inmate isn’t obliged to accept.

Religion aside, superstition once played its part. In medieval Europe many believed that well-fed prisoners could be executed without fear of their returning as ghosts. The quality of the final meal was also believed to influence the likelihood of their doing so. If the food and drink were of the best quality it was believed that prisoners would be less likely to haunt their executioners. If the meals were poor, many believed prisoners would return as malevolent spirits bent on tormenting those involved in their deaths.

THE MEAL IN DIFFERENT STATES AND TIMES

What prisoners are permitted varies according to their location. In Texas, the last meal was introduced in 1924, the same year that Texas replaced the gallows with the electric chair and the State took over executions from individual counties. With one single Death Row located at Huntsville, the State of Texas centralized and standardized custody of condemned inmates which included granting them a last meal. Today, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice no longer allows last meals. Condemned inmates get the standard meal before execution. Other US States have widely-differing policies. Florida is comparatively generous, allowing a budget of $40. Oklahoma budgets only $15.

New York performed its last execution in 1963 (the state abolished capital punishment in the early 1970s) but was especially generous to its condemned. An inmate at Sing Sing Prison’s notorious ‘Death House’ could order both a last dinner and last supper. For example, murderer Henry Flakes was executed on May 19, 1960; his dinner consisted of barbecue chicken with sauce, French fries, salad, bread rolls, butter, strawberry shortcake with whipped cream, 4 packs of cigarettes, coffee, milk and sugar. Supper was equally generous: lobster, salad, butter and bread rolls, ice cream, a box of chocolate candy, four cigars, two glasses of cola, coffee, milk and sugar. Unlike many prisons today, Sing Sing’s condemned could include tobacco products like snuff, cigars, chewing tobacco and cigarettes. In 1930s Indiana, the State Prison at Michigan City was equally generous with last meal requests. Like Burl Cain today, on May 31, 1938 Deputy Warden Lorenz Schmuhl dined with murderer John Dee Smith at sundown and electrocuted him just after midnight.

Prisoners have often been offered alcohol just before execution, while prisoners facing firing squads have long been offered the traditional last cigarette. Both are partly a compassionate gesture, but also calm an inmate’s nerves in their final moments and make them more co-operative. In 1925 Patrick Murphy was executed at Sing Sing having pleaded with Warden Lewis Lawes for one final drink. In 1925 Prohibition was in force throughout the US so whiskey was forbidden for every citizen, incarcerated or otherwise. Lawes, a firm opponent of capital punishment and well-known to enjoy a pre-dinner Scotch throughout Prohibition, made a compassionate-yet-illegal decision. He broke both prison rules and Federal law, slipping Murphy a small bottle of bourbon an hour before his execution. Murphy took the bottle, looked at Lawes (who loathed executions) and died having returned the bottle to Lawes saying, “You look like you need it more than I do, Warden.”

British hangman John Ellis often recommended prisoners were offered a cup of brandy minutes before their execution. At California’s San Quentin Prison inmates were once allowed a little whiskey immediately before they entered the gas chamber. Nowadays American prisons allow no alcohol of any kind and, unlike 1960s New York, few prisons allow tobacco products as part of a prisoner’s final meal. When the state of Utah used the firing squad, prisoners were allowed a last cigarette but were escorted into the exercise yard to smoke it. Under Utah state law, smoking indoors in public buildings (including prisons) is forbidden because it’s a health hazard.

MORE UNUSUAL RITUALS

There are other lesser-known rituals associated with the last meal. Between 1924 and 1964 Texas electrocuted 361 inmates at Huntsville. As part of their last meal Texan inmates often ordered as many portions of dessert as there were condemned inmates. If a prisoner wanted ice cream and there were five other condemned inmates on Death Row, then the prisoner would ask for six portions of ice cream so that no condemned inmate endured an execution night without a parting gift to raise their spirits. In New York, a number of Sing Sing’s condemned either shared their last meal with another inmate (as Francis ‘Two Gun’ Crowley shared his with John Resko in 1931) or split their meal with all the other condemned (as did Raymond Fernandez, hours before his execution in 1951). Like the last meal itself, sharing food was a tradition rather than a right, but it often kept inmates more settled when one of them was about to die.

It’s not unusual for a prisoner’s final choice to reveal something about them. Some decline a last meal to demonstrate contempt for prison authorities or simply because fear has left them unable to face food. Others opt for old favorites, food they probably haven’t had since their arrest, perhaps as a consolation and reminder of happier times. Some order huge meals, some order small ones, some order food they’ve never tried before out of curiosity. A few inmates make choices that seem bizarre to others, but make sense to them such as Victor Feguer, hanged in 1963. Feguer requested a single olive, asking that the olive pit be placed in his shirt pocket before he was buried. A strange request unless you know an olive pit is a symbol of rebirth. New York’s last execution was of Eddie Lee Mays on August 15, 1963. Mays wanted no food or drink, only a packet of cigarettes and a box of matches. Matches were forbidden for condemned inmates so Mays received his cigarettes, but had to ask guards to light them for him. At San Quentin, one Jewish inmate ordered an elaborate kosher meal then requested his first ham sandwich. San Quentin inmate Wilson De la Roi turned his final meal into a joke. When asked for his choice he requested a packet of indigestion tablets. Asked why, he chuckled, remarking that he might have gas on his stomach.

All in all, the last meal is many things to many people. To some it’s a kind gesture that should be retained as a final compassionate act. To others it’s an unnecessary offer that the prisoners don’t deserve. To prisoners themselves it can be a gesture of defiance, a chance for one final joke, a last chance to try something new, something to look forward to as the clock ticks down or simply not worth bothering with. It’s certainly far more than simply ordering from a menu.

You can find out more about the death penalty in our podcast on prisoner’s final words. Click here to listen.

Finally, if you found the article interesting, tell others. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

References

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15040658

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/comfort-foods-last-meal_n_1839009.html

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/martin-leslie-dale.htm

http://www.kevinroderick.com/gas.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/a-man-who-knew-about-the-electric-chair/

Condemned: Inside the Sing Sing Death House, Scott Christianson, NYU Press, 2001, Page 137.

Ibid, Page 166.

Murder One: They Went To The Death Chamber, Mike James, True Crime Library, 1999, Pages 3-16.

Have a Seat, Please, Don Reid, Texas Review Press, 2001, Pages 1-16.

Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen Prejean, Harper-Collins, 1996, Pages 110-112.

Diary Of A Hangman, John Ellis, True Crime Library, 1996, Page 21.

Death Row Chaplain, Byron Eshelman, Signet Books, 1972, Pages 30-31.

The most beautiful castle in Scotland – Image of the week

Our image of the week is of a stunning castle in Scotland.

Castles have been built in Scotland for well over one-thousand years, and they can be split into five key phases of styles and purposes, going all the way back to the mid-first millennium AD. As noted in the new issue of History is Now magazine:

Scotland was dominated by hill forts perched like eagles atop rocky promontories, the most dramatic example being the fortress of Dunnottar near Aberdeen, and by the enigmatic stone towers known as brochs, found only in Scotland.

The image above is of the stunning Eilean Donan castle, perched next to a location where three lochs meet in the Western Highlands of Scotland. It is one of the most famous of Scotland’s many castles due to its dramatic location and interesting look. As we also note in the magazine:

Scotland’s most picturesque castles, such as Duart on the Isle of Mull or the world famous Eilean Donan, were crumbling ruins until their restoration in the 1910s. Indeed, castles remain very important for Scottish heritage and identity, not to mention tourism.

The image source is David Iliff. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0. Available here.

The latest issue of History is Now magazine features a history of Scottish castles. 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

Animals at War? Pet Mascots

Bill Edwards-Bodmer considers ship mascots and fascinating photos of animals at war in this image-packed article.

US Marine feeding a two-week-old kitten whose mother had been killed during a battle in Korea, circa 1953. The Marine named the kitten “Miss Hap.”

Capturing a moment of extraordinary compassion and tenderness during the violence and bloodshed of the Korean War, the above well-known image demonstrates the remarkable relationship that often existed between animals, and the soldiers and sailors who wage war. Besides the millions of horses who served in cavalry units throughout history, military units and navy ships often adopted animals as mascots. Sailors and marines in particular have a long history of sharing their cramped lives aboard ships with animals.

Cats were one common animal. Mariners in ancient Egypt were known to keep cats aboard their vessels for the vital service the felines provided: ridding the ships of rats and mice that would otherwise eat and destroy provisions, cargo and other supplies and spread disease. Sailors throughout history also believed cats brought good luck, as well as amusement during long voyages. They also adopted cats from the foreign ports they visited.

Sailors on USS Nahant playing with two cats, circa 1898.

Two US Navy pilots playing with a cat while serving in the Pacific during World War II.

Dogs also have a long history of serving at sea. On ships, especially naval vessels, dogs were kept to provide much needed companionship and to boost moral during long, monotonous journeys. Naval crews adopted these dogs as the ship’s mascot. Countless images exist of sailors proudly posing with their ship’s mascot, so showing the positive effect that dogs had. 

Crew of USS Hunchback during the American Civil War. The crewman to the left of the man holding a newspaper is with a small dog.

Sailor with “Mike,” mascot of USS New York, circa 1899.

“Salty,” the mascot of a Coast Guard destroyer escort, circa 1943.

“Blackout,” the mascot of a Coast Guard LCI, circa 1944.

US Marine private takes a nap with his division’s mascot while on Okinawa, 1945.

“Sinbad,” mascot on Coast Guard cutter Campbell, circa 1944.

Besides dogs and cats, more unusual and exotic animals were often adopted as mascots. These animals were usually given as gifts to visiting ships at ports by local officials. This was notably seen on the ships of the famous Great White Fleet of the United States Navy during its world cruise of 1907-1909. The mighty battleships of the US fleet received everything from kangaroos to eagles to bears. Some animals didn’t work out so well: monkeys given to sailors on one of the ships escaped their enclosures and made a home among the smokestacks, biting anyone who tried to catch them (source: steelnavy.org).

Sailors with a goat mascot during the Great White Fleet world cruise, circa 1907-1908.

Pig mascot of USS Connecticut, circa 1908.

Eagle presented to USS Connecticut during the Great White Fleet’s world cruise, circa 1908.

The citizens of Seattle, Washington presented a bear cub to USS Missouri when that ship visited in 1908 as part of the Great White Fleet world cruise.

Feeding a bear mascot on board the USS Connecticut during the Great White Fleet cruise, circa 1908.

The citizens of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia presented USS Connecticut with a kangaroo when that ship visited in 1908 during the Great White Fleet’s world cruise.

Lieutenant John E. Lewis with a kangaroo on board USS Connecticut, circa 1908.

These images provide a light-hearted view of past life in the United States Navy and Marine Corps, and show the special bond that could exist between animals and the sailors and marines who cared for them.

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

For more images please see the Naval Historical Center here or the US Naval Institute here

References

Naval History and Heritage Command - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/ev-1900s/gwf07-09/gwf-sb4.htm

US Naval Institute - http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/dogs-and-the-sea-services

The Weapon that Conquered Ancient Egypt

Adrian Burrows tells us the incredible tale of how a defensive weapon managed to conquer one of the world’s great ancient civilizations. And how cats were an integral part of this weapon.

So far in my series of articles looking at Weird and Bizarre Weapons of History (that’s Bizarre Body Armor and Bat Bombs), I’ve focused on relatively modern inventions. That’s something that I intend to continue over the coming months, but I thought that for this particular article I would take a little diversion. After all, it’s not like bizarre weapons of war were exclusive to the 20th century. Oh no good reader, mankind has come up with many a strange method of defeating their opponents over our history. But what were these inventions? What were the defining weird weapons of Ancient History? Which one will I write about?

There were so many to choose from… The 420 feet long Hellenic Warships (with 7,000 crew on board) were an early contender, then I had to consider the Byzantine Empire’s flamethrower (it had the first hand grenade too) and of course the Zhuge Nu Semi-Automatic Crossbow had to be an option (10 bolts fired in 15 seconds is nothing to be sniffed at). But none of those weapons had been responsible for an entire nation being conquered. The bizarre weapon that I have chosen was accountable for such a feat. Responsible for defeating a nation that at the time was one of the most powerful and advanced in the world. A nation that we are still fascinated with today: Ancient Egypt. And most impressively of all, the weapon in question wasn’t technically a weapon at all… It was a shield.

A meeting between Cambyses and Psammenitus. Artist: Adrian Guignet. 19th century.

The Cat Shield

Invading Egypt was not an easy thing to do. After all, its expanses of near endless sand, lack of water and formidable armies had deterred many invaders over approximately two thousand years of history. The Babylonians themselves had tried to take Egypt by force twice and both times had been repulsed, so why did the armies of Persia think that their fate would be any different? Well, the difference came from the cunning of one man and the knowledge of a culture’s religious beliefs.

The Persian Leader King Cambyses II was well aware that the Egyptians revered the cat above all other animals. The cat represented the goddess Bastet, a goddess of home and love. She was both kind and loving unless she was offended, at which point she transformed into her alter ego ‘Sekhmet the Vengeful’ and brought divine retribution to those who had angered her (she loved the taste of human blood). Cambyses had done his research on his enemy, knowing that to defeat them he had to find their weakness. He had discovered that in Egypt the love for cats was so great that the punishment for killing one was death itself. Herodotus the ‘Father of History’ commented that an Egyptian, if caught in a burning house, would save a cat before trying to put the fire out or saving himself.

And so a plan was formed. I call it… The Cat Shield

Battle of Pelusium

So it came to be that at the Battle of Pelusium, Cambyses intended to deploy the cat shield. The Egyptians, under the leadership of Pharaoh Psammenitus, were feeling confident about victory, and why not? They were positioned in a series of fortresses near the mouth of the River Nile, they knew that their position would enable them to pour down a storm of arrows on the Persian Army, perhaps enough to annihilate the force long before they had managed to join the battle. So, it must have come as a horrific surprise when, as the Persian soldiers advanced, they held aloft battle shields emblazoned with the image of Bastet

The Persians then revealed the second part of their plan. The soldiers released cats ahead of their formation, forming a protective sea between Persian flesh and Egyptian arrow. It wasn’t only cats that the Persians had leading the charge either; they had, according to Polyaenus, ‘ranged before his front line dogs, sheep, cats, ibises and whatever other animals the Egyptians held dear.’ The Egyptian army, well-fortified as it was in Pelusium near the mouth of the Nile, was at a loss. They could not risk firing arrows at the Persian army less they kill or harm the animals at the lead, they could not charge towards the enemy as they would still risk harming the animals and angering their gods... What could be done? Chaos erupted in the Egyptian ranks that soon descended into a full rout. As the Egyptians fled their positions, the Persians pursued and cut them down.

Of course, this being Ancient History, there are always historical holes to examine and question. The logic that protrudes between myth and fact. Primarily, if this is true, how did the Persians stop the cats from wondering off? After all, it’s not like they would have been able to train the creature to march along in front of the army. Different translations of Polyaenus’ writings of the battle lead to different conclusions. Some have theorized that the Persian soldiers actually held the creatures aloft in front of them, others, such as the historian Tom Holland, suggest that the Persians had a much more efficient and vicious way of ensuring that the cats stayed where they should do - by pinning them to the front of their shields. Here’s the quote from Holland’s excellent book Persian Fire:

When the Persians finally met the Egyptians in battle, it is said that they did so with cats pinned to their shields, reducing their opponents' archers, for whom the animals were sacred, to a state of paralysis.  Victory was duly won.  Pelusium, the gateway to Egypt, was stormed, and the bodies of the defeated left scattered across the sands.

Regardless of whether the cat shield was simply an image of a cat on a shield or an actual cat nailed to a shield, there is one thing that cannot be disputed. Egypt was conquered not by offensive weapons, such as a sword or an axe, but by the symbol of defense. The humble shield. The cat shield had been responsible for the fall of a country. The cat shield had ended Ancient Egypt’s sovereignty. The cat shield had forever changed history.

Adrian Burrows works for Wicked Workshops, an organization that brings historical workshops to primary schools across the UK. They are currently delivering many workshops about World War I. They also run Ancient Egypt workshops. Click here to find out more about this great organization.

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

References

http://elektratig.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/did-cambyses-have-cats-nailed-to-his.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18687_6-amazingly-high-tech-ancient-weapons.html

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/43/

Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West by Tom Holland

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!

The first man to sail the world? – Image of the week

Our image of the week is about the expedition of Ferdinand Magellan and the circumnavigation of the world.

Ferdinand Magellan set off from Seville, Spain in 1519 on a trip that would make history. Below is a painting of Magellan that is from the sixteenth or seventeenth century

The reason that Magellan’s voyage made history was that it would be the first to circumnavigate the globe. The voyage included a trip through Tierra del Fuego, also known as the land of fire, at the southern tip of South America, as well as an epic crossing of the Pacific. Finally, after crossing the Pacific Ocean, Magellan was to die in the Philippines in 1521. The voyage pressed on though, and in the end a small number of those who left Spain in 1519 arrived back there in 1522. These men had suffered terribly, but they were lucky enough to have survived.

Below is a depiction of the Victoria, the only ship that made the journey around the world. The image is taken from a late sixteenth century map made by the cartographer Abraham Ortelius.

Now, have you heard about History is Now magazine? It has a range of fascinating articles related to modern history from America and the wider world!

Click here for more details: Android | Apple iOS

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.

John F Kennedy and the Tsar - The parallel lives of two fatherless boys

Helen Saker-Parsons considers the fascinating similarities between the sons of two very important men who were killed in tragic circumstances – John F Kennedy and Tsar Michael II of Russia.

George and John: two men, born fifty years apart into families famed for their power as well as their curses. As young boys, both saw their fathers and their uncles murdered, these personal tragedies having global implications. Neither boy lived to middle age, both killed by a sense of adventure and not an assassin’s bullet. When John Kennedy Junior published his magazine he titled it ‘George’ after Washington: the first President of the United States. He was probably unaware of the existence of another George – Mikhailovich - also known as Count Brasov, with whom his life had strong parallels.

George Mikhailovich as a young boy.

John Kennedy Junior was only two years old, on November 22, 1963, when the world saw his father shot on their television screens. His father held the highest profile of all world leaders as President of the United States. His public death was a contrast to the secretive nature in which George’s father met his demise, although theoretically he too held the potential to lead one of the most powerful countries of the time. It was June 1918, when George was seven years old and his country was in the midst of a Civil War. Three months earlier the Tsar of Russia had abdicated on behalf of himself and his son and nominated his younger brother, George’s father, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as his successor. Although Michael had refused the role unless it could be ratified by an elected assembly, as long as a Romanov heir existed they could be a threat to the Reds. He was thus taken from his place of exile, a hotel room in Perm, by four Bolsheviks and driven by horse-drawn carriage to the forest with his personal friend and secretary, Brian Johnson, on the pretext of catching a train from a remote railway crossing to a safer place of hiding. George’s father was allegedly shot at point blank range with his arms outstretched to his friend. Forty-five years later and the Communists were to be blamed for the murder of John Junior’s father: his killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Marxist, ex US marine having defected to the Soviet Union (there are several other several theories regarding Kennedy’s death though).

A very young John Junior.

MEMORIALS

But whereas the image of John, the toddler in the miniature duffel coat standing and saluting his father’s coffin at Arlington cemetery on his third birthday is etched in memories, George was not to know of his father’s death for some time, rumors being put about that he had escaped from his house arrest in Perm and was planning a counter-revolution. Attempts by his mother to find out the truth saw her arrested and imprisoned. A few weeks after her arrest, Natalia pretended she had developed tuberculosis and was moved to a nursing home from which she escaped. Despite determined efforts and countless rumors of sightings Natalia was forced to have her husband declared dead in July 1924. An eternal flame marks JFK’s place of burial; for Michael Alexandrovich, a plain cross was erected in the woods almost eighty years after his death, in 1996, on the spot where his body was once thought to lay - a local boy at the time having allegedly seen the corpse and marked the spot by carving an M and an A onto a nearby tree.

John Kennedy Junior was brought up with the world’s pity; George Mikhailovich relied on other nations for his survival. In spring 1918 the Danish Embassy arranged for his passage to Germany. Accompanied by his nanny, Miss Margaret Neame, who posed as the wife of an Austrian officer with George as her son, they travelled with false passports - in the name of Silldorff - on a train carrying prisoners-of-war being repatriated back to Germany. A Danish officer, Captain Sorensen, assisted them, since neither spoke German. George's mother and half-sister Natalia were smuggled out of Russia to Kiev, in German-controlled Ukraine, by the Germans. As soon as the war ended the Royal Navy then evacuated the two women to England where they were joined by George and Miss Neame in a rented house in Wadhurst, Sussex, just after Easter 1919.

It was not only the death of their fathers which both boys endured, but also the murder of their uncles. Senator Bobby Kennedy, JFK’s brother, was assassinated on June 6, 1968, in a Los Angeles hotel. Although the act was initially blamed on a lone Palestinian assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, it too has been subject to decades of debate and conspiracy theories. The reasons were more straightforward for the execution of George’s uncle, Tsar Nicholas II; a month after his brother’s murder, he was shot alongside his wife and children by a Bolshevik firing squad in a basement room in a prison in Yekaterinburg.

With power and money often comes decadence. Both boys were born into families famed for their lifestyles. For the women this was reflected in their love of glamour and thirst for romance. Kennedy’s mother, Jackie, took on her late husband’s mantle for ill-advised affairs and high-living, with dubious connections and associations. Brasov’s half-sister too acquired a taste for disastrous relationships. While Jackie was linked with the Russian ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev, several Hollywood actors and went on to marry Aristotle Onassis (a man sometimes cited in the death of Bobby Kennedy), George’s half-sister ‘Tata’ eloped from school to marry the actor John Gielgud’s older brother Val, and then went on to two more marriages.

TRAGEDY

For the men their access to money encouraged a sense of adventure and a love of speed. Both were to die in the summer month of July doing what they enjoyed. John Junior was almost twice the age of George but still less than forty. He was piloting a plane en route to a family wedding with his wife, Carolyn Bessette, when as an inexperienced flyer he apparently lost control in the poor weather conditions. George had inherited his father’s love of speed and automobiles. Whilst at school in England he bought a Norton motorbike that he then took with him to France when joining his mother in her adoptive country after 1927. In 1928, the Dowager Empress Marie died and George inherited one-third of his grandmother’s estate. He bought a Chrysler sports car. In July 1931, having finished his final examinations at the Sorbonne, he set off on a road trip to the south of France with a nineteen-year-old Dutch friend, Edgar Moneanaar, promising his mother to be home for his twenty-first birthday. The car skidded near Sens and they crashed into a tree. Moneanaar was killed. With both thighs broken and severe internal injuries, George was taken to hospital but died without recovering consciousness the following morning.

For some it was not fatalism but fate that killed these two young men: those who believe in the truth of the family curse - though the origins of these curses are disputed. For the Romanovs, Rasputin is often blamed. In a letter Rasputin predicted his own death within the year stating that if he was killed by peasants the tsars would continue to reign for generations to come, but if it was at the hands of the aristocrats then the tsar and his family would be dead within two years. Embittered mothers feature in theories behind the curses for both families. The Kennedy curse allegedly originates from the ‘ol’ country’ when as wealthy farmers in Ireland their ancestors were visited by a desperate starving mother during the famine of 1846. When she was turned away the mother swore on her dying child's life that a curse would henceforth visit the Kennedy family. It started quickly: the Kennedys were evicted from their farm after a rent revolt. Some say the Romanovs were cursed by the mother of a young boy drowned in the Moscow River by soldiers of Tsar Michael I, the first of the Romanov dynasty. In her grief she cursed the new Tsar who went on to lose four of his sons during childhood.

And then there are the Jewish conspiracy theories. The Russian pogroms and a history of anti-Semitic Tsarist behavior are well-documented. Some cite a Jewish conspiracy for the Kennedy misfortunes too. JFK’s father, Joseph, allegedly told a rabbi and his students to stop their prayers while they were on a passenger ship together. Angry, the rabbi cursed him and claimed that his descendants would suffer great misfortune. In another version, it was a Jewish father who placed the curse on Joseph after he refused to help his sons escape from a concentration camp. In yet one more account of the curse, it was an entire Jewish village that cursed Kennedy after they discovered he was dealing weapons to the Nazis.

GREAT POTENTIAL?

But what the boys also share is their unfulfilled potential: had both men lived it is possible they would have reached great heights. Kennedy’s political ambitions have been recorded. He saw his magazine ‘George’ as a tool to express his points of view. Brasov himself may have been accepted as the legitimate heir to the Russian throne. In his father’s manifesto of March 3, 1917 he writes of the need for a constitutional monarchy in Russia showing his acceptance of the need for change. It is possible that the rights of succession could have been changed too, acknowledging the irrelevance of a morganatic marriage and pushing forward George as his rightful successor. Indeed many of the exiled Russian émigrés living in Paris in the 1920s preferred him as the legitimate heir. Although history remains fascinated by the families of these young men, both are overshadowed by events that surround their more high profile relatives. But I can’t help contemplating how things might have been different if their own lives had not been cut tragically short.

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

If you enjoyed this article, let the world know. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below.

The Face Of Anne Frank and the Holocaust

Samantha Jones presents a very personal view of the Holocaust and discusses the tragic story of Anne Frank.

My best friend and I have a strong interest in the Holocaust. Nothing macabre or flippant, but we cannot rid this disbelief that something like that could happen. For my friend`s Creative Arts Major work she focused upon survivors of the death camps, interviewing migrants at the Jewish Museum in Sydney. Aside from this, when I was much younger my mother surprised me with a trip to Amsterdam just to visit Anne Frank’s house, and on another trip while my friend and I were visiting Dachau, we heard on the radio that Miep Gies had passed away. Needless to say, we felt a small personal connection to the event, as ignorant as that may be. 

Anne Frank in 1942.

At the time, for us 18-year-old girls, Anne Frank was the face of the Holocaust. Her writing, so innocent and beautiful, was what we strived for and it mesmerized our minds throughout our adolescence. We were barely able to stomach the tragedy behind her story, always staring in disbelief at our own lives and our similarity in age. One day at the Jewish Museum, we met a survivor who shared barracks with Anne Frank at the Bergen Belsen concentration camp. Naturally, we were amazed that we were standing in front of someone who knew her. I mean imagine. The lady named Helen, calmly laughed and then said through her thick Austrian accent, “Yes girls, but there were others…”

For those of you who don’t know, Anne Frank and her family were Jews who hid from the Nazi persecution in Amsterdam. From 1942 to 1944 the Franks, with another family of three and a family friend, hid in an attic belonging to Anne’s father, Otto. For two years, the hiders never left the attic, never stepped outside, never felt fresh sunlight or breathed crisp air, instead watching the barbaric chaos unfold upon the streets they looked helplessly down on. Family and work friends, including Miep Gies, supplied the hiders with the things they needed; however someone found out and the hiders were arrested.

Anne entered the ‘Secret Annex’ when she was thirteen and began writing a diary during her confinement. When she was fifteen, Anne was taken with her family and sent to the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, where she eventually died with her sister Margot.

Out of the eight hiders, only Anne’s father Otto survived, returning from Auschwitz to the lonely attic and Anne’s diary. Otto Frank published the diary in 1947, and Anne Frank: The Diary of A Young Girl was eventually published in over 60 languages. Now the attic has been transformed into a museum, where tourists can go inside to see where the Franks hid, Margot and Anne’s growth marks on the wall, Anne’s bedroom and the diary itself, which surprisingly resembles a scrapbook. If you get anything out of this article, let it be this. Just go and read the diary.

A SYMBOL

Despite Anne’s diary becoming a piece of classic literature, she has also become one of the most notable faces that represent the millions upon millions of lives lost under Nazi persecution. Miep Gies, the secretary who denied she was a hero, resembles the perspective of Helen, the Austrian survivor in the Jewish museum. Anne was a remarkable writer certainly, but still an ordinary girl. What about the faces that have been forgotten? What about everyone else?

The idea of Anne Frank and Miep Gies being so ‘ordinary’, can be taken as a positive or negative. Ordinary people can change the world everyday. As Gies teaches us: “But even an ordinary secretary or a housewife or a teenager can, within their own small ways, turn on a small light in a dark room.” When we all see the world falling apart, we need inspiration like this to keep going. To stop and really think long and hard about every face, every family, every marriage, every child that had their lives robbed, we would not be able to get through the day. So maybe it is easier for us to idolize one face instead of millions. But as those that were there remind us, to forget others can be as dangerous and devastating as the tragedy itself.

History is biased and picky. It remembers what the writers of history want to remember, and remembering Anne Frank is no different. I mean no disrespect to her legacy by any means, she has inspired me in so many ways I cannot name them all. But does this come at a cost? I think we need to educate ourselves, listen to stories and dig deeper to fully understand something from the past. Otherwise, our understanding, and the idea of justice and truth is distorted, much like the events we study in the first place. Anne Frank leaves an amazing legacy. But as my Austrian teacher tells me, there were others too.

You can read an article related to Alice Herz-Somme, an incredible Holocaust survivor, by clicking here.

Finally, if you’d like others to know about this article, share it, tweet about it or like it by clicking on one of the buttons below.