An important date? When Mormon founder Joseph Smith met the president

Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon faith, a group who suffered at the hands of attackers in the years after the faith was founded. This led Joseph Smith to seek the support of President Martin Van Buren. But following meetings with the president, Smith decided to take action into his own hands – and started a tradition that continues to this day… William Bodkin explains.

A painting of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, from the early 1840s.

When asked his opinion of Martin Van Buren, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, said that his dog was better suited to be president.  Smith felt his dog would at least make an effort to protect his abused and insulted master.  Van Buren, however, could not bother to lift a finger to help the oppressed.  Smith was not alone in his dislike for Van Buren.  The eighth president of the United States is often described as the least loved national politician of his time.  This was with good reason.  Van Buren was the original Frank Underwood, or Francis Urquhart, in “House of Cards”.  Van Buren relentlessly schemed and plotted his way to the Oval Office, casting aside all in his path while ingratiating himself to Andrew Jackson.  Without Jackson’s endorsement, Van Buren’s chances of winning the White House were slim to none. 

But Jackson owed his Presidency to Van Buren’s pure political pragmatism.  Van Buren had clawed his way to the top of New York State politics as head of the “Albany Regency”, the first political machine in the United States.  Then, while representing New York State as a Senator, he masterminded Jackson’s comeback victory in the 1828 presidential election by turning Jackson’s nickname of “Old Hickory” into the first presidential brand name.

The story behind Smith’s feelings about Van Buren lies in an often overlooked part of American history.  In late 1839, these two men who had begun their distinctive American success stories from the vast expanse of Upstate New York met at the White House.  Smith, the son of a farmer from Palmyra, sought from Van Buren, the son of a tavern keeper from Kinderhook, justice for the Mormons following the war the state of Missouri had waged on them.

Missouri versus the Mormons

One of the Mormon faith’s founding tenants was the idea that Jesus Christ had appeared to Native Americans and that America would be the place for the Second Coming.  Jesus would return in Western Missouri, near the City of Independence.  Smith, a formidable preacher, and to some, a prophet, sent a few missionaries to Missouri.  The Mormon faithful soon followed, hoping to build their Zion.

Mormons were greeted with suspicion and derision by Missourians.  They thought Mormonism could not be compatible with democracy since, to them, Mormons seemed obedient only to Smith.  Armed bands of Missourians began roaming the countryside, terrorizing Mormons.  In 1836, the Missouri Legislature created a new county, Caldwell, in the northwest corner of the state for the Mormons.  The solution proved short-lived.  Mormon immigrants and converts arrived daily, causing the population to spill over Caldwell’s borders into adjoining Daviess County.

The 1838 War began over the Mormon right to vote.  William Peniston, a Whig politician and a colonel in the Daviess County militia, had sought Mormon support in his campaign for the state legislature.  When the Mormons supported his Democratic opponent instead, Peniston gave a fiery speech denouncing them.  Peniston’s supporters tried to stop Mormons from voting on Election Day, with one man stating that Mormons had no more right to vote than “Negroes”.  A melee ensued, ending only when the Mormons withdrew.

The violence continued.  Mormons were murdered and assaulted. Mormon houses were burned to the ground.  Mormon livestock was set free.  Finally, the Mormons resolved to fight back.  On October 24, 1838, at Crooked River, a band of Mormon men encountered what they thought was an armed mob out for blood. Unfortunately, they were the local militia.  In the resulting exchange of gunfire, three Mormons were killed.

When word of Crooked River reached Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs, he declared the Mormons to be in “defiance of the laws of the state.”  On October 27, 1838, Boggs issued an order directing that the Mormons must be “exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace.”  Shortly after Boggs issued this order, a militia unit from Livingston County descended on a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill in Caldwell County.  The militia killed, in cold blood, eighteen Mormon boys and men despite their efforts to surrender.  One militiaman who dragged a wounded ten-year-old boy from his hiding place to shoot him justified it by saying that “nits make lice, and if he had lived, he would have become another Mormon.”

Surrender and Petitioning for Justice

After the Haun’s Mill massacre, the Mormons surrendered.  Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were arrested for treason against the State of Missouri based on the Crooked River skirmish, even though Smith was not there.  The Mormon leadership languished in jail for months, however, before being formally charged.  Smith began to suspect that his imprisonment was an embarrassment to the state.  After six months in prison, in the spring of 1839, Smith and the others were permitted to escape by a friendly sheriff who graciously agreed to get drunk and look the other way.  The leaders fled, and joined the Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois where they had taken refuge.

After his escape, Smith considered petitioning the federal government for compensation for the lives and land lost in the Missouri war.  Smith, in truth, had great faith in the Constitution and in democratic government.  He decided to go to Washington, D.C. himself so that he might make the case to Van Buren and to Congress.  Smith arrived in the nation’s capital on November 28, 1839.  The next day, Smith and two other Mormon leaders, accompanied by Congressman John Reynolds of Illinois, went to the White House.  Smith carried with him petitions outlining the Mormon’s grievances.

Van Buren smiled as Reynolds introduced Smith as a Latter Day Saint, but his visage quickly turned to stern business as Smith presented the Mormons’ grievances.  Reportedly, Van Buren looked at the party and exclaimed, “What can I do?  I can do nothing for you! If I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole state of Missouri.” 

Reports of what happened next vary.  Some say Van Buren agreed to reconsider.  Smith and his party then left to present their case to Congress.  They received help from Illinois’ congressional delegation, who were all too aware of the presence of this growing block of voters in their state.  The Mormons presented to the United States Senate 678 petitions seeking compensation for losses in Missouri ranging from 63 cents to $505,000.  The petitions were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where they met stiff opposition from Missouri’s Congressional delegation. The Committee, not wishing to offend Missouri’s delegation, decided that the petitions were not for the federal government to consider, but were a matter for the Missouri courts.

During this time, Smith apparently met a second time with Van Buren, who was more diplomatic but still unmoved.  Approximately a week or so following the first meeting, the Whigs, for the 1840 election, re-nominated the surprisingly popular William Henry Harrison, who had narrowly lost to Van Buren in 1836.  With an election on his mind, Van Buren allegedly told Smith words that would reverberate throughout Mormon history: “Your cause is just, but I cannot help you.  If I help you, I will lose the vote of the state of Missouri.”

Smith realized what he was up against.  He knew the Mormons would never receive a fair trial in Missouri. He believed strongly that Missourians who understood this had helped him escape.  But Van Buren’s callousness shook Smith at a deeper level.  Smith wrote that Van Buren was merely “an office-seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition.”

What the future held

It is a reflection of the magnitude and scope of presidential power that a brief meeting with a president can have a major impact on Americans, whereas to the president, it may have been of minor significance.  The mostly Mormon scholars who have attempted to research this episode have found that the meeting between Smith and Van Buren was not mentioned in Van Buren’s papers.  But for the Mormons, the meeting was a pivotal event, which can be seen from Smith’s reaction to it.

After the meeting, Smith came to the same realization that every other group new to America does, that the best way for Mormons to gain the protection of the government was to seek public office themselves.  Smith worked with the Illinois legislature to build protections for Mormons into Nauvoo’s City Charter, held office in Nauvoo himself, and, in 1844, Smith ran for president.  With patience and in time, the Mormons have followed Smith’s lead and flourished.

As of writing this, Utah’s United States Senator Orrin Hatch, a Mormon, is President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.  By law, Hatch is third in line for the presidency following the Vice-President and Speaker of the House of Representatives.  In 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney headed the Republican Party’s ticket and was the first Mormon major-party nominee for president.  Governor Romney surprised many by publicly considering a run for the presidency again in 2016.  And while Mr. Romney ultimately decided to pass on standing for the presidency again, it could not have been an easy decision in light of Mormon history and Mr. Romney's knowledge that he has represented, in his lifetime, the best hope of a Mormon becoming president and perhaps gaining an increased acceptance for a faith that remains frequently misunderstood.

Van Buren, despite not offending Missouri, lost the 1840 election to William Henry Harrison.  It cannot be said that his treatment of the Mormons played any role in his loss.  The reality is that Van Buren’s loss likely had more to do with the Panic of 1837 and the economic depression that followed, and the growing factionalism in America that pit the North against the South and both of them against the West.

Missouri, for its part, did eventually acknowledge its wrongs.  In 1976, the state finally formally rescinded Governor Boggs’ extermination order.  In his order, Governor Christopher Bond expressed deep regret on behalf of all Missourians for the injustice and undue suffering caused to Mormons in 1838.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, do feel free to share it! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

William's previous pieces have been on George Washington (link here), John Adams (link here), Thomas Jefferson (link here), James Madison (link here), James Monroe (link here), John Quincy Adams (link here), and Andrew Jackson (link here).

Author’s Note:  The author gratefully acknowledges the research guidance of Latter Day Saints Elizabeth Vogelmann and Dr. Steven C. Harper in preparing this article.  Any errors in summarizing Mormon belief are solely the author’s own.

Sources

Miller Center of the University of Virginia, American President Martin Van Buren (http://millercenter.org/president/vanburen).

• Fire and Sword: A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, 1836-1839, Leland H. Gentry and Todd M. Compton (Greg Kofford Books, 2010).  See, Chapters 9 & 10.
• Rough Stone Rolling: The Life of Joseph Smith, Richard Lyman Bushman (Random House 2007).  See, Chapters 19-22.
• Running for President: The Candidates and Their Images: 1789-1896 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Ed.) “1836,” Daniel Feller, author.
• Missouri State Archives: The Missouri Mormon War (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/mormon.asp).
• Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, Richard Neitzel Holsapfel and Kent P. Jackson, eds. “1839-1840: Joseph Smith Goes to Washington,” Ronald O. Barney, author (Deseret Book, 2010).  Taken from online source: (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-and-seer/joseph-smith-goes-washington-1839-40).

Italy’s role in World War One

World War I was a stage for many battles, big and small. Often overlooked or overshadowed by the more famous battles taught in the classroom, the fighting on the Italian Front proved to be very important for Italy’s reputation as a country and its inhabitants. It led to a significant loss of life, the absorption and reclamation of new territories, domestic unrest, and new alliances… for a while.   Georgie Broad introduces World War One's Italian Front.

Italian Alpini troops in 1915. From the Bibliotheque Nationale de France.

Italy enters the war… But only just

In the years leading up to World War One, Italy had been allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, a group more commonly and widely known as the “Triple Alliance”. Italy and Austria-Hungary had canonically be considered foes since 1832, and this tension showed in the August of 1914 when the Italian Government refused to enter the war alongside Austria-Hungary, and politicians began to consider the advantages of backing the Allies.

Many at the time, citizens and people in power alike, believed that Italy’s entering into the war at all was a bad move for the country. Even so, Italy as an entity was a relatively new nation state, becoming a unified country only after the Risorgimento in the nineteenth century, and as a result, it was eager to establish itself on the European political scene as a force to be reckoned with. This ambition was all very well and good, though compared to other European powers (especially the countries Italy would be fighting should it enter the war), Italy lacked major industry. Most of its economy remained agriculturally based. But most importantly, it lacked a competent military. Such was the indecision that two groups formed – the “neutralisti” (who wanted to stay out of the war and who formed a majority), and the “interventisti” (who wanted Italy to enter the war). After much debate, those who wanted to enter won the debate, helped by the backing of Prime Minister Antonio Salandra and Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino. With the promise of territorial expansion and resources from Britain, on May 3, 1915, Italy ceased to be a part of the Triple Alliance, and 20 days later declared war on Austria-Germany.

Early battles on the Italian Front

Fighting along the Italian Front was comprised of several battles, many of which took place in the Isonzo region. As was widely suspected, the Italian Army proved to be militarily inexperienced, leading to Italian officers overcompensating for their lack of military prowess with risky and overly aggressive tactics. Despite the fact that the Austrians were heavily outnumbered, the early battles in the Isonzo region lasted over two years and caused a significant loss of Italian life. As unequal as the number of troops was, the armies eventually reached a stalemate and the battles bogged down to the most base trench warfare.

Meanwhile, on the home front….

This turn of events made the controversial Italian involvement in the war even more unpopular, causing the already angry neutralisti to start saying “I told you so”. This attitude started to spread to the wider Italian population from Pope Benedict XV to the poorer citizens living in the small, far flung foothills of the country. While disapproval from the Pope was damning enough, it was in fact the unrest among the average citizen that caused more problems for the Italian war effort. Rumors of the lack of progress and high death rate began to spread around Italy, fuelling opposition in the population. It also led to the refusal of some to enlist and the rejection of conscription. Meanwhile, desertion in the army itself reached its highest ever level.

Such a high level of opposition eventually forced the awkward resignation of Italy’s Prime Minister and former avid supporter of Italy’s entry into the war, Antonio Salandra. Salandra was replaced by the ageing Paolo Boselli, which turned out to be a rather bittersweet progression. Boselli was the political equivalent of beige paint; he possessed no immediately obvious initiative, charisma, or talent – but he was a safe bet. He was not exactly the morale boost Italy needed, but any leader was better than no leader at all.

Later battles and victory

After the early battles that took place in the Isonzo region led to a stalemate, Italy’s bullish officers got tired of waiting and launched a counteroffensive in 1916, known as the Asiago Offensive. Alas for the Italians, this offensive resulted in no real gains.

However, the situation did improve with time. Later in 1916, fighting continued in the Isonzo and eventually the Italians captured the town of Gorizia. This was exactly the shot of morale that the Italian Army so desperately needed. From then on, victory for the Italians seemed a more realistic prospect, and in 1918, two vital battles occurred that secured the Italians victory for good. The Battle of the Piave River left Austrian troops in dire need of supplies and Italian troops in grave need of reinforcements (which eventually came from Britain, France, and the USA). After Italy received reinforcements, Armando Diaz – an Italian general - launched an offensive over the River Piave on Vittorio Veneto. This attack crushed the Austrian defensive line, resulting in an eventual truce flag being sent to Italian commanders on November 3, 1918, along with Austrian requests for peace terms. It was accepted, and fighting along the Italian front ceased.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world. Tweet about it, share it, or like it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

Selected bibliography

www.alphahistory.com/worldwar1/italian-front
www.firstworldwar.com/features/minorpowers_italy.htm
www.faregliitaliani.it/FareItaliani/temi/la-prima-guerra-mondial.htm

The Dramatic 1960 US Election – JFK vs. Nixon

The 1960 US presidential election is surely one of the most famous in history. It pitched the glamor of JFK against political heavyweight Richard Nixon. Here, Christopher Benedict looks at the fascinating key areas in the election including JFK’s religion, civil rights, and those TV debates.

You can read Chris’ article on JFK and Eleanor Roosevelt’s uneasy relationship in the 1950s here.

Kennedy and Nixon before the first presidential debate in September 1960.

Step Right Up!

“There’s a sucker born every minute” is a phrase which continues to live its wrongfully folkloric life as having been fathered by P. T. Barnum, the greatest showman on earth and four-term Connecticut legislator whose abolitionist ideals led him to switch allegiances from the Democratic Party to become a sworn Lincoln Republican.

Though the origin of the aphorism is believed to trace instead to David Hannum, who financed the exhibition of the alleged ten-foot tall mummified remains of the ‘Cardiff Giant’ in 1869 and took great exception to Barnum’s simultaneous display of a mold he had made and passed off as the real deal (a fake of a fake), journalist and Gangs of New York author Herbert Asbury attributes the saying in his 1940 book Gem of the Prairie: Chicago Underworld to Michael Cassius McDonald. A charismatic Irish immigrant whose four-story gambling house ‘The Store’ was often referred to as Chicago’s “unofficial City Hall”, McDonald is said to have uttered the immortal words to calm the nerves of his business partner Harry Lawrence over his concern as to how they could possibly attract enough of the Windy City’s inhabitants to patronize their establishment. Wielding great enough influence, both criminal and political, he formed a syndicate known as McDonald’s Democrats which strong-armed the mayoral election of 1879 in the direction of Carter Harrison Sr., a distant cousin of President William Henry Harrison. 

Politics and show business have long been cozy bedfellows. There are carnival-like elements inherent to campaigns, conventions, and elections which rub shoulders with those of traveling ten-in-one sideshows and three-ring, big-top circuses of old. So, it seems only natural that both of 1960’s presidential aspirants would invoke similarly germane imagery as the election cycle wound down through the home stretch.

“The people of the United States, in this last week, have finally caught up with the promises that have been made by our opponents,” said Vice President Richard Nixon from the steps of Oakland’s City Hall on a windswept November 5. “They realize that it’s a modern medicine-man show. A pied piper from Boston and they’re not going to go down that road.”

John F. Kennedy, meanwhile, speaking before a frenzied constituency at the Boston Garden two days later, took the analogy one step further by quipping, “I run against a candidate that reminds me of the symbol of his party. The circus elephant, with his head full of ivory, a long memory, and no vision. And you have seen elephants being led around the circus ring. They grab the tail of the elephant in front of them.”

The Religion Issue

Not since anti-Prohibitionist New York Governor Alfred E. Smith in 1928 had there been a Catholic nominee for the U.S. presidency. While it may be difficult today to fathom what a substantial stumbling block this presented then to upwardly mobile politicians, the very notion of a non-Protestant potentially merging church and state was very real and simply unthinkable, making Kennedy’s Catholicism an allegorical cross to bear. So much so that his Press Secretary Pierre Salinger recalls attempting to enlist the staunchly conservative Reverend Billy Graham to aid their cause during a train ride from West Virginia to Indianapolis. 

“We were in the process of trying to get the nation’s leading Protestant churchmen to sign a public statement urging religious tolerance in the political process,” Salinger said. After initially promising his signature to the document’s final draft, Kennedy confidante and speechwriter Ted Sorensen later received a far less amenable response, in the form of “a flat-out no”, remarking that it would be wrong “to interfere in the political process.” Salinger noted that “later that year, however, Graham appeared at a number of political rallies for Richard Nixon. Apparently, it would have been wrong to interfere in the political process on behalf of a Democrat.”

Forced to directly confront the issue, Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, not to mention the nation at large, on September 12, 1960.

“Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President”, he stated in clear defiance without the tone of agitated self-defense. “I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

The Red Menace

With the domino theory put in place in the 1950s and threatening to set off a chain reaction of toppled democracies across the map, replaced by Communist adherents to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the incoming Commander-in-Chief would be expected to deal assertively with the bogeymen of the “red scare” in the forms of South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem, Castro in Cuba, and particularly First Secretary of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. 

Nixon had earned a reputation as a hard-liner in the struggle to seek and destroy socialist tendencies with tough words and even tougher endeavors. First serving as legal counsel on Joseph McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee, he became a household name for his successful prosecution of Communist spy Alger Hiss in 1948. It was suggested that Hiss represented all that Nixon despised. Wealthy, liberal, Harvard-educated, and handsome. Sound familiar?

Senator Kennedy was persistently needled as being “soft on Communism” by Nixon, who had slapped his 1950 Senatorial opponent Helen Gahagan Douglas with the libelous epithet “pink lady” for her New Deal progressiveness and references to HUAC as a “smear organization”. Interestingly enough, in 1950 Kennedy, his father Joe an anti-Communist McCarthy crony, privately supported Nixon. “I obviously can’t endorse you,” he admitted, “but it isn’t going to break my heart if you can turn the Senate’s loss (Douglas, herself a former actress) into Hollywood’s gain.”

Khrushchev, who would go toe-to-toe with Kennedy during the Vienna Summit, Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Wall standoff, and Test Ban Treaty, offered this after-the-fact personal assessment of both candidates in his memoirs. “I was impressed with Kennedy. I remember liking his face which was sometimes stern but which often broke into a good-natured smile. As for Nixon...he had been a puppet of Joseph McCarthy until McCarthy’s star began to fade, at which point Nixon turned his back on him. So, he was an unprincipled puppet, which is the most dangerous kind,” he wrote. “I was very glad Kennedy won the election... I could tell he was interested in finding a peaceful solution to world problems and avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union.”

Civil Rights

An initial Kennedy backer until he felt snubbed during a personal meeting and came to the conclusion that the Democrat was unwilling to move forward on civil rights issues, retired Brooklyn Dodger and destroyer of baseball’s color barrier Jackie Robinson campaigned instead for the Republican nominee but bemoaned the fact that “the Negro vote was not at all committed to Kennedy, but it went there because Mr. Nixon did not do anything to win it.”

Kennedy, in a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt who was pushing the reluctant Senator into progressive action in courting the support of the black community, wrote, “With respect to Jackie Robinson… he has made uncomplimentary statements to the press about me,” sulking that, “I know that he is out to do as much damage as possible.” Nixon’s running mate Nelson Rockefeller, with Robinson’s blessing, was eventually called upon to espouse the ticket’s fidelity to civil rights in what was considered a too-little, too-late effort.

Kennedy, meanwhile, placed a conciliatory phone call to Coretta Scott King following the arrest of her husband Martin and fifty-two fellow protestors staging a sit-in at the Magnolia Room of Rich’s Department Store in Atlanta. Sentenced to four months of hard labor after all others involved had been released, Martin Luther King was freed only when news of Kennedy’s gesture, as well as brother Robert’s personal intervention on King’s behalf, reached the Georgian judge who had presided over the case. “Because this man was willing to wipe the tears from my daughter’s eyes,” said an emotional King, “I’ve got a suitcase of votes and I’m going to take them to Mr. Kennedy and dump them in his lap.”  

It is worth noting that these maneuvers on the part of the Kennedy brothers carried more than a slight whiff of patronizing opportunism and that, although the both of them did evolve dramatically and genuinely in later years on race relations, it was a birthing process which was painful and sluggish.

The Debates

“Without the many panels and news shows, without his shrewd use of TV commercials and telecast speeches, without television tapes to spread wherever needed his confrontation with the Houston ministers, without the four great debates with Richard Nixon, John Kennedy would never have been elected President,” asserted Ted Sorensen. 

Though they squared off four times (Kennedy lobbied fruitlessly for a fifth), it was the first on September 26, 1960 in Chicago’s CBS Studios which proved to be as visually revealing as it was historically significant. The first ever televised presidential debate, the new medium did Nixon no favors. Having just been released from the hospital after the knee he injured on the campaign trail had become dangerously infected, the Vice President, underweight and sporting a five o’clock shadow, was still susceptible to feverish sweats and a sickly complexion which may have been alleviated somewhat had he not refused a cosmetic touch-up. Nixon’s poor physical appearance was augmented by his unfortunate choice of a grey suit which was ill-fitting and represented poorly in black and white against the studio’s similarly drab backdrop. 

Contrasted against Kennedy’s navy blue suit, copper-colored tan, and million dollar smile, Nixon staggered into a situation which found him already at a decided disadvantage. Like college kids cramming for an exam, Kennedy went through hours of dry runs with Sorensen and Salinger and his levels of confidence and preparedness were evident for all to see. Falling back on practices learned while starring on Whittier College’s esteemed debate club, Nixon continually addressed Kennedy personally, looking away from the television cameras to do so, appearing anxious and adversarial. Poll results differ to this day, but most seem to suggest that the two combatants were evenly matched in terms of verbal content as heard by radio listeners which was betrayed by the pair’s physical incongruities visible to home viewers.

One person who concurred was Nixon’s own running mate Henry Cabot Lodge who remarked, “That son of a bitch just lost the election.”

First Ladies

On assignment for the April 1953 edition of the Washington Times-Herald, their Inquiring Camera Girl Jackie Bouvier interviewed both Vice President Richard Milhouse Nixon and newly elected Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy. Jack and Jackie had been quietly seeing one another since a dinner party the year before where, as then-Congressman Kennedy recalled, “I leaned across the asparagus and asked for her for a date.” Their relationship attained a public profile in January 1953 when the Hamptons-born beauty (with brains to match) accompanied Kennedy to Dwight Eisenhower’s inaugural ball. Pregnant with John Jr. and confined to bed rest for much of the 1960 campaign, Jackie may not have been an observable presence, but did contribute in the way of a syndicated newspaper column called Campaign Wife which combined personal anecdotes with political affairs, as well as handling correspondence and giving interviews. 

Pat Nixon, on the other hand, was never far from Richard’s side, or the public consciousness. A “Pat For First Lady” movement gained strength among the schoolteachers and housewives to whom she tailored her message, and her likeness could be seen on nearly as many buttons and bumper stickers as that of her husband. An attempt was even made in the press, ill-conceived and ill-fated, to manufacture a race for First Lady between Pat and Jackie based on clothing choices as much as, if not more than, party platform.

Dismissed by Mamie Eisenhower as “that woman” for her inimitable fashion sense, Jackie, in turn, took a catty swipe at her 1960 rival for First Lady by telling historian and Kennedy think-tank member Arthur Schlesinger Jr. that Jack “wasn’t thinking of his image, or he would have made me get a little frizzy permanent like Pat Nixon.” 

Postlude

Both men would, of course, achieve the Presidency. Nixon not until 1968, and only after the path had been paved by Lyndon Johnson’s concession to neither seek nor accept his party’s nomination as well as the assassination of Robert Kennedy a mere four and a half years after his own brother, on that fateful November day in Dallas, was made a national martyr on equal footing, in the hearts and minds of generations of Americans, with the beloved Abraham Lincoln.

All of this calls to mind something P. T. Barnum actually did say. “You have to throw a gold brick into the uncertain waters of the future, and faith because there will be many difficult days before you will see the returns start rolling in.”

Did you enjoy this article? If so, do feel free to share it! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

And remember… You can read Chris’ article on JFK and Eleanor Roosevelt in the 1950s by clicking here.

Sources

• The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore White (1961, Atheneum House).
• With Kennedy by Pierre Salinger (1966, Doubleday).
• Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady by Greg Mitchell (1998, Random House).
• Khrushchev Remembers by Nikita Khrushchev, edited by Edward Crankshaw (1970, Little, Brown, and Co.).
• Letter from Jackie Robinson to Theodore L. Humes, November 16, 1960.
• Letter from John F. Kennedy to Eleanor Roosevelt, September 3, 1960.
• The Kennedy Legacy: A Peaceful Revolution for the Seventies by Theodore Sorensen (1969, MacMillan).
• Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, Interviews with Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. 1964, with introduction and annotations by Michael Beschloss (2011, Hyperion).
• Jack Kennedy: The Illustrated Life of a President (2009, Chronicle Books).

What if… The Nazis had not invaded Crete in World War Two?

In 1941, Nazi Germany launched a successful invasion of the Greek island of Crete. But what if this had been unsuccessful? In this article, Nick Tingley examines how it could have seriously impacted the German invasion of Russia – and may have even changed the course of World War Two itself.

Italian marines after landing on Crete in May 1941.

Operation Tidal Wave

“In the midst of the dark sea is a land called Crete, fair and fertile, surrounded by the waves.”

-       Homer, The Odyssey

In the early hours of a June morning in 1942, Maleme airfield was a hive of activity. For the first time since the failed German attempt to capture Crete in 1941, American bombers rolled up to the airstrip and their crews began their final preparations for a great attack, codenamed “Operation Tidal Wave”. Finally, a flare was launched into the sky and the rows of bombers began to race along the strip before leaping up into the sky. Once in the air, they were joined by escort craft from the nearby airfields of Heraklion and Rethymnon, and soon the bomber force began to turn north and disappeared away from the island. Their targets were the nine Ploiesti oil refineries in Romania that, under continuous air attack from the island fortress, soon became unusable for the Axis powers.

As the bombers disappeared into the distance, the commander of the Allied ground troops on Crete, Major-General Bernard Freyberg VC, watched with satisfaction. As he watched, his mind returned to the two weeks in May 1941, when the determined soldiers of “Creforce” successful beat back a large German airborne invasion and showed the world that the Allies would not be defeated by Nazi Germany.

Operation Mercury

Unfortunately for Freyberg this was not the case. A year earlier, on the morning of May 20, 1941, the Germans launched an airborne invasion of Crete, codenamed Operation Mercury. Whilst the Germans had suffered heavy casualties, enough to convince Adolf Hitler that the German military should never again conduct a large-scale airborne operation, the 40,000 men of the Allied defense were soon overwhelmed and Crete became the latest possession of the Third Reich.

The capture of Crete was perfect for the German military machine. Not only did it mean that the Balkan flank was secured only a few days before the invasion of Russia, Operation Barbarossa, was launched, but it also allowed the Germans to create a staging point to allow for easy troop movement between Europe and North Africa. From the airfields, the Germans were able to launch significant convoy strikes on ships travelling between Egypt and the Allies’ other island possessions in the Mediterranean: Malta and Cyprus.

For the Allies, it represented a significant blow to their morale. The Battle of Crete had depended largely on the Allies holding the island’s airfields but disorganization and an unclear defensive plan had led to the airfields being captured and the Allied troops being overrun and forced to evacuate to Egypt. But the capture of Crete was more than just a military embarrassment; there was also a considerable fear that the Germans might use Crete as a staging point for an invasion of Cyprus or Egypt to support the German and Italian forces that were operating out of Libya further to the west. It was only when the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa that it became clear that this was not the intention.

In Crete itself, the invasion and occupation led to a civil uprising amongst the civilians who lived there. For the first time in the war, the German Army encountered widespread resistance from the civilian population, with thousands of civilians taking up arms against their German invaders. During the first few months of the occupation, the Germans routinely executed male civilians in reprisal for the deaths of German soldiers. In the Massacres of Kondomari and Viannos alone, the death toll exceeded 500.

The Barbarossa Question

The Battle of Crete is one of the more interesting what ifs to have come out of the Second World War. For decades, historians have placed differing amounts of weight on the importance of the battle. For some, the capture of Crete was incidental and, had the battle gone the other way, would have made very little difference to the outcome of the war. Others have suggested that Crete was vitally important and point to its strategic location as the main reason for its importance.

One of the key subjects that is always discussed when talking about the Battle of Crete is the impact it had on Operation Barbarossa. Some historians are keen to point out that Barbarossa was launched shortly after the Battle of Crete was won and make the suggestion that the invasion of Russia might not have gone ahead at all if Crete had not been captured. To discover whether this is indeed the case, we must examine several links between Operation Barbarossa and Operation Mercury: Hitler’s intentions towards both operations, the troop units that both operations shared, and the impact that the units used in the Battle of Crete made on the invasion of Russia.

Hitler authorized the invasion of Crete in April 1941, making it clear that he wanted to use units that were already in the area as they were used during the invasion of Greece. He also stated that any units involved in the operation that had already been earmarked for Barbarossa should conclude their missions by the end of May so that they would be available for the invasion of Russia. In doing this, Hitler had made his position completely clear – Barbarossa was the priority and, if the invasion of Crete could not be launched in time, Operation Mercury would not go ahead at all.

This would indicate that, in Hitler’s view at least, the inevitable capture or destruction of troops from a failed attempt to take Crete would have implications on Barbarossa. Hitler had made himself completely clear and by putting emphasis on his orders to have the units returned in time for Barbarossa, we can begin to suggest that a failed attempt on Crete may have had far greater implications for the German army than one might first think.

The Deployment of Troops

One of the things that the invasion of Crete did for the Germans was to help secure the Balkan flank. With Crete and, more importantly, its airfields in German hands, Hitler felt confident of launching the invasion of Russia without fearing a flanking attack through Greece. However, if the invasion had failed, and the units had been lost, this could have been quite a different story.

The three main units that were involved in the German attack on Crete were the 7th Flieger Division, the 5th Mountain Division and the 8th Air Corps. The 7th Flieger Division were the main thrust of the attack and were dropped across Crete with the simple task to secure the airfields so that the 5th Mountain Division could follow. The 8th Air Corps operated from Greece, providing aerial support for the troops on the ground.

In order to accurately determine how the loss of these units would have affected Barbarossa, we must address two scenarios. In the first, the 7th Flieger Division land on Crete but fail to take the airfields meaning that the 5th Mountain Division would never join the battle. In the second, the airfields are taken but an Allied counter-attack overruns them leaving both divisions to their fate. In the first scenario, the 7th Flieger Division would be all but destroyed meaning that it would not be available for Barbarossa, however the Mountain Division would have survived.

But would this have made a vast difference to Barbarossa? In reality, whilst both units survived the battle, the number of German casualties was so high that neither unit took part in the opening stages of Barbarossa. The 7th Flieger Division would not return to full strength until September 1941 and the 5th Mountain Division would not end up on the Eastern Front until April the following year. In fact, out of the three main units, only the 8th Air Corps was ready to take part in Barbarossa and was swiftly returned to the Eastern Front to conduct pre-emptive strikes in June 1941.

Even so, an Allied victory on Crete would have had a profound impact on the deployment of German troops in the region. If the Allies had held Crete, it is almost certainly true that Germany would have had to redeploy troops to protect the Greek coast against a possible Allied attack there. This would have meant rushing some of the units intended for Barbarossa down to Greece. In addition to this, the Allies would have still had three fully functioning airfields as the Germans would have left those intact to help supply their invasion. In order to combat the potential British attacks that may have followed, it is almost certain that the 8th Air Corps would have remained in Greece to conduct regular operations to knock out the British Air bases. It may have even been the case that, because of the threat from an Allied Crete, more aerial units would be moved down to Greece to help protect the convoys of supplies that travelled between Europe and Libya.

A Different Tidal Wave

In reality, it seems unlikely that an Allied Crete would have had much of an impact on the war in Russia. Whilst some inconvenience may have been caused to the Germans, their air power would have been more than enough to suppress the forces there, at least until the arrival of the Americans the following year. However, the main difference may lie in one of the most unknown operations in the Second World War – Operation Tidal Wave.

In June 1942 and August 1943, American bombers were sent from Egypt and Libya respectively to bomb the oil refineries at Ploiesti in Romania. One of the largest producers of crude oil in Europe, Ploiesti is estimated to have supplied 35% of the Axis oil supplied in 1943 and the Americans wanted it destroyed. However, the mission itself was a failure. The initial attack in 1942 did little damage to the refineries and only alerted the Germans to the vulnerability of the area. During Operation Tidal Wave, the following year, the Germans had drastically improved their air defenses, an improvement that led to the loss of 55 American bombers.

One cannot help but wonder that, had the bombers been able to launch from Crete, and had been escorted part of the way by fighters that could be launched from there as well, the result might have been quite different. If this attack had happened in the summer of 1942, and had resulted in fewer losses, the Allies might have been able to completely obliterate the Axis’ primary source of crude oil. At a time when the defense of the Soviet Union hung in the balance, this would have come as a tremendous blow to the German military machine and may well have caused it to come grinding to a halt.

As well as that, with the Allies achieving victory in North Africa, the Germans would have been forced to consider the idea of an Allied invasion of Europe through Greece and would have had to prepare defenses accordingly. This would have inevitably taken a huge amount of pressure off the Russians in the east and the D-Day landings in the west. It may have even ended the war that much sooner.

In the end, we will never know what would have happened had the Allies held on to Crete. But it is always important to remember that Crete was only a sideshow for the main event that was the invasion of Russia. Crete was the battle that Hitler was prepared to lose. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

You can also read Nick’s previous articles on what if D-Day did not happen in 1944 here and what if Hitler had been assassinated in July 1944 here.

A Rocky Relationship - Eleanor Roosevelt and Senator John F. Kennedy

The Kennedys and the Roosevelts are two great American political dynasties. But in spite of both being Democrats, they have not always got on well. In this article, Christopher Benedict explores the often difficult relationship in the 1950s between John F. Kennedy and the wife of former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

JFK and Eleanor Roosevelt together in New York in October 1960.

Family Ties, Twisted Knots

The original Adams family - John, Abigail, John Quincy, Charles Francis, and Henry - were among the first American clans to project a far-reaching political and historical sphere of influence. The many intertwining branches of the Lee and Harrison family trees likewise extended well beyond the eighteenth century and the same goes, more recently and to a lesser degree, for the Bushes and Clintons.

The two names, however, most synonymous with almost mythological levels of intrigue and adoration, or else abominable degrees of bitterness and contempt, would inarguably be Roosevelt and Kennedy.

Before embarking on a political career which many thought would culminate at the White House, patriarch Joseph Kennedy, during the early stages of the “Happy Days are Here Again” presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, founded the scotch and gin distribution company Somerset Importers with FDR’s eldest son James. Joe was rewarded for his loyalty and shrewd business sense with the appointment as the first Secretary of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and, subsequently, Ambassador to the UK. His tenure, and with it any hope for future political aspirations, ended with his opposition to US intervention and acceptance of Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement.

Given this discourteous fall from grace, it is quite understandable how reticent Eleanor Roosevelt was to pass the proverbial torch to John F. Kennedy without her feeling as though he would wield it recklessly enough to risk burning the nation down.

1956 Democratic Convention

Never unafraid of voicing her opinions on weighty matters in the face of equally considerable opposition, Eleanor re-entered politics in 1956 by making known her displeasure with the lack of progress made by Dwight Eisenhower’s so-called Modern Republicanism and giving her endorsement to Adlai Stevenson for the Democratic presidential nomination, earning the ire of Harry Truman who was avidly backing New York Governor Averell Harriman. Her approval was sought as well by both serious contenders for the Vice Presidency, Senators Estes Kefauver and John Kennedy.

“I did not feel I could support him because he had avoided taking a position during the controversy over Senator Joseph McCarthy’s methods of investigation,” Eleanor explained to the unnamed Kennedy associate who had approached her at the convention. Kennedy proved unable himself, in the course of a face to face meeting in Chicago, to sway her with the assurance that his absence during those hearings was due only to his recuperation from back surgery, or by his buoyant argument that the episode was “so long ago” and “did not enter into the current situation”. Needless to say, this letdown ruffled the feathers of Kennedy supporters sufficiently for his counselor and speechwriter Ted Sorensen to gripe that Mrs. Roosevelt “used the occasion to chastise the Senator in a roomful of people for being insufficiently anti-McCarthy.”

With “a sense of great relief at leaving politics behind”, however short-lived it would prove to be, Eleanor boarded a New York-bound plane prior to the balloting. Jack Kennedy was left in the dust to deliver Stevenson’s nominating speech, stew over his bitter loss to Kefauver, and choke on the aftertaste of sour grapes at how Eleanor “hated my father and can’t stand it that his children turned out so much better than hers.”  

My Dear Boy

Following Jack’s 1958 re-election to the Massachusetts Senate with the assumption that it was a likely foothold propping open the door to the 1960 presidential nomination, Eleanor commented on the ABC Sunday afternoon program College News Conference that she had learned from her sources that “Senator Kennedy's father has been spending oodles of money all over the country and probably has a paid representative in every state by now”. This sent shockwaves throughout the Democratic Party and initiated a two-month exchange of correspondence beginning with Kennedy’s open challenge for her, as a “victim of misinformation”, to demand of his slanderers ”concrete evidence” of their “gossip and speculation”. Though her first retort ended with an admonition that “building and organization is permissible but giving too lavishly may seem to indicate a desire to influence through money”, Eleanor offered to give voice to Kennedy’s rebuttal, which she did in the January 6, 1959 edition of her syndicated column My Day.

Kennedy was grateful but pressed the advantage. At the risk of seeming “overly sensitive”, he wondered whether “the fairest course of action would be for you to state that you had been unable to find evidence to justify the rumors.” He dismissed her proposal of a follow-up article and hoped that they might get together in person to hash out their differences and make amends.

Eleanor got the last word on the matter by way of a haughty Western Union Telegram which said “My dear boy, I only say these things for your own good. I have found, in a lifetime of adversity, that when blows are rained on one, it is advisable to turn the other profile.” Her intentional wording of the concluding adage is an obvious reference to Kennedy’s book Profiles in Courage.

1960 Election

Knowing all too well that devotion dies hard, Eleanor remained steadfast in her fidelity to Adlai Stevenson, the two-time loser who most party faithful conceded was the best candidate but simply unelectable. “For my part,” Eleanor recalled, “I believed the best ticket would be Stevenson and Kennedy, with the strong chance that the latter would become president at a later time.”                                                      Despite the concerns of Eleanor’s associates that Kennedy was “making a political football of your husband’s noble experiment”, to say nothing of the tragic death of her twelve year-old granddaughter Sally following a horse-riding accident two days prior, Eleanor agreed to meet with the Senator at her home in Val-Kill before his visit to the Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York that August to commemorate the 25th anniversary of FDR’s Social Security Act. As the personal and philosophical breach between the two narrowed enough for a mutually navigable bridge to be erected over the remaining chasm, Eleanor confided to a friend that she now found Kennedy to be “so little cock-sure” and possessed of a “mind that is open to new ideas”. Civil rights, which was a cause near and dear to her heart and on which she had seen her own husband flounder so feebly in spite of her aggressive efforts, was one of the discussion’s central topics. Her final analysis (to borrow from Kennedy terminology) was that “here is a man who wants to leave a record (perhaps for ambitious personal reasons) but I rather think because he is really interested in helping the people of his own country and mankind in general.”

The eager candidate drafted a letter only two weeks later to Eleanor who was in Warsaw, Poland on behalf of the United Nations Association. In it, he regrets the failure of the Senate to pass the proposed medical care, minimum wage, and housing legislations but promises to “take this fight to the people during this campaign” and that, if elected, he will “make the most of those first 100 days to bring about these and other measures which the country needs so badly.” Kennedy also made sure to extend his gratitude to Eleanor and Franklin’s grandson Curtis Roosevelt, acting Vice Chairman of the Democratic Advisory Council whose “reform clubs are beginning to galvanize into action”, he assured the presidential candidate.

In response to Kennedy’s October 21 statement in the New York Times amenable to pledging financial and military aid to “non-Batista forces in exile and in Cuba itself, who offer eventual hope of overthrowing Castro”, Eleanor took it upon herself to chastise the president-to-be less than a fortnight preceding the election. “I thought I understood you to say during the last debate that you did not intend to act unilaterally but with the other American states,” she wrote in a letter drafted three days after Kennedy's piece in the Times. “I think it would be unwise for people to have the impression that you did expect separately to interfere in the internal affairs of Cuba.”

“Things at present look as though they are going pretty well,” Eleanor ends cheerily, albeit offset by an added sense of disquiet regarding his opponent. “I cannot, of course, ever feel safe till the last week is over because with Mr. Nixon I always have the feeling that he will pull some trick at the last minute.”

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

You can also read earlier articles by Chris on the visits of Elvis (link here) and Johnny Cash (link here) to Richard Nixon’s White House. 

Sources

• The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt (1961, Harper and Bros.).
• Kennedy and Roosevelt: An Uneasy Alliance by Michael Beschloss (1980, WW Norton & Co.).
• Kennedy by Theodore Sorensen (1965, Harper & Row).
• Papers of John F. Kennedy (with relation to Eleanor Roosevelt) from the Archives of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.

Theodore Roosevelt - The controversial first American Nobel Peace Prize winner

War broke out between Russia and Japan in 1904. With the war still continuing in 1905, US President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to broker a deal between the two powers to bring about peace. An end result was that Roosevelt controversially became the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Steve Strathmann explains.

You can read an article on Theodore Roosevelt and the American conservation movement here.

Postcard showing locations of Portsmouth Peace Talks (Library of Congress).

In 2009, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He proved to be a controversial choice. The president had been in office for less than a year and the nominations deadline was only eleven days after his inauguration. The prize committee stated that its reason for giving Obama the award was to support the president in his efforts to solve global issues.

Since the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901, there have periodically been recipients that have had their qualifications questioned. While President Obama was one of the most recent, an early controversial choice was also an American president: Theodore Roosevelt.

The Russo-Japanese War

Russia and Japan went to war in February of 1904. The two empires had been trying to increase their spheres of influence throughout the Far East and wanted some of the same territory. The Russians occupied Port Arthur (today’s Lüshunkou District, People’s Republic of China), which gave them an ice-free naval base on the Pacific Ocean. The Japanese had once held the port and felt it was unfairly taken from them. Meanwhile, the Japanese were gaining influence in nearby Korea. The Russians looked at this as a threat to Manchuria, which had been under their control since 1900.

The conflict began with a surprise attack on Port Arthur, which eventually settled into a long siege. The war continued to spread into Korea and the Sea of Japan. The Japanese armed forces, whose officers were trained by the British and Germans, were victorious more often than not, but the wins were costly in men and material. The Russians, who believed that the upstart Japanese could not defeat a Western power, continued to throw more of their forces into a losing cause. The most costly decision they made was to send their Baltic Fleet halfway around the world, only to have it destroyed in the Battle of Tsushima on May 27-28, 1905.

At this point in the war, the Japanese secretly approached the United States about helping broker a peace treaty with Russia. They knew that despite having the upper hand, they would soon run out of money if the war continued. Theodore Roosevelt was hoping to maintain a balance of power in the Pacific Ocean, which he felt would favor American trade. Through Secretary of War William Howard Taft, the president said he would assist in the peace process if the Japanese agreed to maintain the Open Door Policy in Manchuria. The Japanese said they would, so Roosevelt approached the Russians.

The Russians proved difficult to bring to the peace table. Tsar Nicholas II still believed that his forces would defeat the Japanese, despite the fact that two of his three fleets had already been destroyed and his army was unable to produce any significant progress. This was par for the course with the tsar, who refused to accept that his empire was teetering on the edge of revolution.

Roosevelt sent George Meyer, the new U.S. ambassador to Russia, to deliver an extremely blunt message to the tsar. Roosevelt told Nicholas II that it was “the judgement of all outsiders, including all of Russia’s most ardent friends, that the present contest is absolutely hopeless and that to continue it would only result in the loss of all of Russia’s possessions in East Asia.” After an hour-long discussion, the Russian leader agreed to send a delegation to peace talks.

Postcard showing Russian and Japanese peace envoys in session (Library of Congress).

The Portsmouth Peace Talks

The two nations agreed that their negotiations should take place in the United States, but left the final decision up to the Americans. Seeing as the talks would begin in early August, swamp-like Washington, DC, was not an option. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, ended up being Roosevelt’s choice. The small town on the Maine/New Hampshire border was cool during the summer, had ample hotel space, and a naval base with the security and communications facilities needed for such an important event.

Peace envoys from both nations met privately with the president at his summer home in Oyster Bay, New York, before the official start of the talks. The Japanese arrived first with a list of territorial claims that they were going to present to the Russians, along with a demand for an indemnity payment. Roosevelt told them that they should ask for less territory and change their demand for an indemnity payment to a request for reparations. Afterwards, the Russians called on the president at his home. They said that they might negotiate over the territory conquered by the Japanese, but would absolutely refuse to pay any indemnity. The mood was bleak going into the Portsmouth talks.

On August 5, the Russian and Japanese negotiators met with Roosevelt on the USS Mayflower for a welcome luncheon, and were then transported by two American naval vessels to Portsmouth to begin their discussions. Roosevelt remained in Oyster Bay, but was in constant contact with Portsmouth by telegraph.

The negotiations were in a deadlock by August 18. The Tsar’s stance had hardened again and he told his agents not to surrender any territory or agree to any indemnity. Roosevelt chose this moment to step in and called for the Russian ambassador to see him in Oyster Bay. He told him the points on which Russia may find common ground with the Japanese, and suggested that these be discussed in Portsmouth. He also suggested that the Russians offer to pay Japan for the northern half of Sakhalin Island (which Japan had occupied during the war) in place of an indemnity. He also had George Meyer deliver another blunt letter to Nicholas II.

In addition to dealing with the Russians, Roosevelt sent messages around the globe to try and pressure the two sides into a settlement. The German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was asked to put pressure on his cousin Nicholas II to come to terms with Japan. The British and French also were enlisted to help bring about an agreement. Tokyo received a cable from Roosevelt warning the Japanese that they were looking greedy and needed to settle with Russia to show their ethical leadership to the rest of the world.

At first, these efforts seemed to have little effect and many felt that the Portsmouth talks would end in failure. Then, on August 29, the Russians made their final offer. They would give up the southern half of Sakhalin Island, but make no payments to Japan. The Japanese envoys accepted, stating that Tokyo wanted to end the negotiations and restore peace. The Russo-Japanese War was over, and the treaty was signed on September 5, 1905.

Portraits of Russian peace envoys, Japanese peace envoys and President Theodore Roosevelt (Library of Congress).

The 1906 Nobel Peace Prize

Theodore Roosevelt stated the treaty was “a mighty good thing” for Russia and Japan, as well as for himself. In 1906, he became the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He was awarded the prize for his work on the Treaty of Portsmouth and for his handling of a dispute with Mexico. Several groups came out against his selection. Some felt that his imperialist actions in the Philippines made him a bad choice for the prize. Swedish newspapers also accused the Norwegian selection committee of using the selection to win allies after Norway’s disunion with Sweden in 1905.

Even if his qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize were questioned, no one could take away Theodore Roosevelt’s accomplishments during the summer of 1905. He brought Russia, a faltering European empire, and Japan, an emerging world power, to the negotiation table and guided them toward a settlement. In addition to this, he helped raise the status of the United States in the world of international diplomacy. Portsmouth would mark the first of many times that the United States made its presence felt in world affairs during the twentieth century.

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

And remember… You can read an article on Theodore Roosevelt and the American conservation movement here.

Sources

• Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex. New York: Modern Library, 2001.
• "The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 2 Dec 2014. <http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/speedread.html>
• "The Russo-Japanese War Research Society". Russojapanesewar.com. The Russo-Japanese War Research Society 2002. Web. 6 Dec 2014. <http://www.russojapanesewar.com/intro.html>
• "Theodore Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War". Russojapanesewar.com. James M. Gallen 2009. Web. 6 Dec 2014. <http://www.russojapanesewar.com/TR.html>
• "Theodore Roosevelt - Facts”. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 2 Dec 2014. <http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1906/roosevelt-facts.html>
• "The Treaty of Portsmouth and the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905 - 1899-1913 - Milestones - Office of the Historian". History.state.gov. Untied States Department of State. Web. 3 Dec 2014. <https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/portsmouth-treaty>

Images

• Postcard showing locations of Portsmouth Peace Talks (Library of Congress): http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/08100/08184r.jpg. (Picture information at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005680006/)
• Postcard showing Russian and Japanese peace envoys in session (Library of Congress): http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/08100/08196r.jpg. (Picture information at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005680017/)
• Portraits of Russian peace envoys, Japanese peace envoys and President Theodore Roosevelt (Library of Congress): http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/08100/08185r.jpg. (Picture information at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005680007/)

Five of the best articles in 2014

Over the course of 2014 we have had a great variety of fascinating blog articles on the site. Below are 5 of our favorites...

George Washington on his Deathbed by Junius Brutus Stearns. 1851.

1. In this sadly fascinating article, Robert Walsh considers an American battle that took place on the last day of World War I – and the absurd and terrible reason behind it. Article here.
2. Nick Tingley writes here on a fascinating topic. He postulates on what could have happened had the 1944 Normandy Landings against Nazi Germany taken place in 1943. As we shall see, things may well have not turned out as well as they did… Article here.
   
3. In this extended article, Rebecca Fachner looks at the story of King Henry VIII’s seventh wife – the one that got away. We venture in to the tale of Catherine Willoughby, one of the most enchanting women of her age and Henry VIII’s would-be wife.
   
4. 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. Article here.
   
5. William Bodkin tells us the fascinating story of William Thornton, the man who wanted to resurrect George Washington after his death. Article here.
   

We hope you find those articles fascinating! And because we really like you, here is one more:

Tanks have been integral to armies since World War One. But over the years a number of prototype designs have been made that never quite worked. Here, Adrian Burrows tells us about the most bizarre tank designs… Article here.

If you enjoyed any of these articles, please do tell others by sharing, liking or tweeting about this article. Simply click one of the buttons below!

George Levrier-Jones

Andrew Jackson and the Birth of Modern Presidential Campaigns

Andrew Jackson was in many ways the first ‘self-made’ president of the USA. Not a member of any of the traditional ‘elites’, Jackson fought his way up to the top. And after being robbed of victory in the 1824 presidential election, he created an innovative way to win in 1828. William Bodkin explains.

A colored image of Andre Jackson, US President 1829-1837.

Andrew Jackson was different from the presidents who preceded him.  Neither a Founding Father nor a Founding Son, he was not a prosperous Virginia landowner and was not a member of one of Massachusetts’ preeminent families.  Perhaps as a result, after having had the presidency essentially stolen from him in 1824 despite winning the popular vote, Jackson and his supporters felt he needed something extra to put him over the top.

In 1828, something happened that provided the template for nearly every later presidential campaign.

Becoming Old Hickory

But what made Jackson a presidential contender? Jackson was, in many ways, the first presidential candidate from the “up-by-your-bootstraps” American tradition.  Born in the backwoods of North Carolina in 1767, Jackson first distinguished himself as a teenage soldier in the Revolutionary War fighting with an American irregular unit.  But the war was cruel to Jackson’s family.  One brother died in combat, and Jackson’s mother and other brother died of smallpox immediately after the war in 1781.  Jackson, then aged fifteen, was a battle-hardened veteran, alone and adrift in the world.

The law provided solace and eventually the path to accomplishment.  Jackson read law for two years in North Carolina, and then took the opportunity to become a public prosecutor in Nashville.  His career took off in the then frontier town: lawyer, delegate to Tennessee’s Constitutional Convention, the State’s first Congressman, a Senator, and then a return home to be a Superior Court judge.  It was while judge that Jackson, in 1802, challenged the state’s governor in an election to be major general of the Tennessee militia. Jackson won handily.  Further military exploits would prove elusive, though, until the War of 1812.

During the winter of 1812-1813, the call came for the Tennessee state militia to defend New Orleans.  Jackson mustered 2,000 men, and, in January 1813, marched them as far as Natchez, Mississippi.  For reasons that were unclear at the time and remain so to this day, the Secretary of War ordered Jackson to disband his men and head back to Nashville.  But neither provisions nor pay were provided for the march home.  Jackson thundered that he and his men had been abandoned in a strange country, but he vowed that he would never leave his men and would make every sacrifice to ensure his army’s safe return to Nashville.  Jackson ordered his officers off their horses, and he gave up his own horses so volunteers who were sick or injured could ride back.  Jackson, on foot, led the march back to Nashville.  By the end of the journey, his men were calling him “Old Hickory” in tribute to his steadfastness and courage.  Heroism, and an all-out rout of the British at New Orleans, came later.

Pursuing the Presidency

How was the 1824 election stolen from Old Hickory? Jackson was one of four presidential candidates that year, alongside John Quincy Adams, who had most recently served as James Monroe’s Secretary of State, William Crawford, who had most recently served as Monroe’s Secretary of the Treasury, and Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House of Representatives.   Jackson won the popular vote, but no candidate won a majority of the Electoral College vote, sending the election to the House of Representatives.  Clay, who had led some of the campaign’s sharpest attacks on Jackson, simply could not stand to see the presidency go to a man he thoroughly despised.  Instead, Clay cut a deal with the supporters of John Quincy Adams to give his support to him in exchange for being nominated Secretary of State.  Adams agreed, and what would go down in history as the “Corrupt Bargain” was sealed.

Following this defeat, on his return to Nashville from Washington, Jackson was greeted at every stop by supporters who expressed their fury.  There was a will to overturn the Corrupt Bargain; all that was needed was the way.  Into this breach stepped the United States Senator from New York, Martin Van Buren.  Van Buren was the head of the “Albany Regency”, which was the first political machine in the United States.  Through a shrewd combination of strict enforcement of party loyalty and strategic rewards via patronage appointments, Van Buren had gained control of New York State, and was eventually sent to represent it in the Senate while his loyalists maintained their grip at home.

Van Buren, perhaps a pure political pragmatist, chose as his first task the co-opting of John Quincy Adams’ Vice President, South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun.  Van Buren sought to bring about an alliance of the plantation owners of the South and the Republicans of the North to deny Adams a second term.  Calhoun, who had become completely alienated by John Quincy Adams, agreed to run as Jackson’s Vice-President.  However, even as Van Buren courted various political leaders on Jackson’s behalf, he did not lose sight of the opportunity to court the popular vote.  In doing so, Van Buren drew a sharp contrast between his war hero candidate and the notoriously aloof Adams, who, concerning his reelection, had observed that if the nation wanted his continued services as president, it must ask for them.  Van Buren and his associates hatched a plan that revolved around Jackson’s rough-hewn image, embodied by his “Old Hickory” nickname.

Selling Old Hickory

“Old Hickory” became the first brand name in presidential politics.  Local political organizations supporting Jackson became “Hickory Clubs,” raising “Hickory poles” and planting hickory trees at barbecues and rallies.  Drawings of hickory branches and leaves, along with likeness of Jackson adorned campaign paraphernalia, from badges to plates and pitchers, even snuffboxes and ladies’ combs.  The Jackson campaign became a popular juggernaut the likes of which the new nation had never seen before, and that the Adams forces were powerless to stop.

Not that they didn’t try.  Jackson was roundly pilloried for his marriage to his beloved wife, Rachel, whom he had the misfortune to meet while she was married to another man.  They were smitten with each other nonetheless, and lived together as man and wife for years in the early 1800s before she received her divorce.  The Jackson forces explained the oversight by stating that the couple thought Rachel had received her divorce, and quickly remedied it when they learned she had not.  Jackson’s mother was not even spared the vitriol.  One newspaper editor questioned Jackson’s parentage, printing that Old Hickory’s mother was a prostitute who had been brought to America by British soldiers, and who afterward married a mulatto with whom she had several children, Jackson being one.

These attacks, though, were of no avail.  Jackson captured 56% of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote over Adams 178-83.  The campaign masterminded by Van Buren expertly exploited the growth in importance of the popular vote in American politics, as the nation drifted away from the Founders and began to carve out a separate, more democratic, identity.  Politics, in many ways, became a form of entertainment and sport for the people, with the “Old Hickory” collectibles and Jackson’s mass appeal forming a common bond among the common man, whether he lived in New York State, Tennessee, or Florida.  So next time election season rolls around, and your neighborhood is once again awash in buntings, yard signs, pins, bumper stickers and coffee mugs promoting the candidates, give thanks to Andrew Jackson, and really Martin Van Buren. And remember that in America, campaign marketing and merchandise, in its own way, helped forge the many states into one Union.

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

William's previous pieces have been on George Washington (link here), John Adams (link here), Thomas Jefferson (link here), James Madison (link here), James Monroe (link here), and John Quincy Adams (link here).

Sources

• Jules Witcover, Party of the People, a History of the Democrats, Chapter 7, “Jacksonian Democracy” (Random House, 2003).
• Jon Meacham, “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.” (Random House, 2008).
• Miller Center of the University of Virginia (www.millercenter.org); American President Andrew Jackson (http://millercenter.org/president/jackson).
• “The 1824 Election and the Corrupt Bargain” (http://www.ushistory.org/us/23d.asp).
• Public Relations Society of America, “Andrew Jackson—Founding Father of Politics As Usual” (http://www.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7630/105/Bonus_online_article_Andrew_Jackson_founding_fathe#.VIUW5ofq2EQ).
• John C. Calhoun, 7th Vice President (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Calhoun.htm).

Walt Whitman and the American Civil War

Walt Whitman was a famed and much liked nineteenth century poet. Even so, during the American Civil War, he had a number of issues to contend with, most notably when he thought that his brother appeared on the casualty list. Here, C.A. Newberry shares Walt’s Civil War story.

Walt Whitman by George Collins Cox in 1887.

The Battle of Fredericksburg set off a chain of events that provided a defining period in the life of famed poet, Walt Whitman. What may be surprising is that he wasn’t anywhere near the battle site when this sequence was set in motion.

This prominent battle took place in December of 1862. Historians have recorded this battle as one of the most monumental events of the Civil War. There were some 172,000 troops and 18,000 casualties. It was also significant due to the fact it was probably the greatest victory for the Confederate Army.

Family History

Long before the Civil War began, Walt Whitman Sr. married Louisa Van Velsor. They raised their family in and around Brooklyn, New York. Walt Whitman Jr. was the second of nine children. Three of his brothers were named after great American leaders: Andrew Jackson Whitman, George Washington Whitman, and Thomas Jefferson Whitman.

George Washington Whitman, who was ten years younger than brother Walt, lived up to his namesake when he answered the call to enlist just after the rebel attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. In the fall of that year George enlisted with the fifty-first New York Volunteers to serve for three years. George was actively involved in the Battle of Fredericksburg on those fateful days in December.

A Disturbing Entry

Back at home the Whitman family checked the daily newspapers and poured over the lists of wounded. One day the name “G.W. Whitmore” appeared on the casualty register. The family was apprehensive, fearing this was just a muddled version of George’s name. So, straight away, Walt set out on a quest to find his sibling in Virginia.

The Search for George

His journey to find his brother was fraught with challenges. At one point, while changing trains, he was pick-pocketed. He forged ahead penniless, until he was fortunate enough to run into a fellow writer who was able to loan him the funds to continue. When he arrived in Washington he spent his time searching through nearly forty hospitals. This search proved futile.

Desperate to continue the search, Walt was able to arrange transportation with both a government boat and an army-controlled train that delivered him straight to the battlefield at Fredericksburg. His hope was to discover his brother there. To his relief he was able to locate George’s unit and discovered that George had indeed been injured but with only a superficial facial wound.

After his arrival to the battlefield he began visits to the makeshift hospitals, which were mostly made up of deserted army barracks. It is well documented that Walt was greatly impacted after seeing a heap of amputated body parts lying outside. Walt then made the decision to stay with George at the Fredericksburg camp for almost two weeks. He spent his time logging entries in his personal journal and visiting wounded soldiers, both on the battlefield and the makeshift hospitals.

At the end of his visit Walt was asked to assist in relocating wounded soldiers to other Washington hospitals. On arriving in Washington he began to visit the soldiers that he had accompanied from Virginia, extending his rounds to include other wounded soldiers who were staying in the hospitals. His visits became routine, with his days spent tending to the wounded, reading aloud, helping soldiers to write letters to home, and distributing gifts.

Extensive Time in Washington

Walt’s stay in Washington lasted for eleven years. In this period he held varying jobs, including a clerk’s position at the Department of the Interior. But when James Harlan, who was the Secretary of the Interior, discovered that Walt was actually the author of Leaves of Grass, he was immediately released from this position. Secretary Harlan found the publication offensive and did not feel Walt should have a position in the department.

Nevertheless, he succeeded in the considerable task of supporting himself. He held jobs, received modest royalties, and was sent money by writer friends. The majority of his income was dedicated to buying nursing supplies and gifts for the wounded who he spent time tending. 

A Changed Man

At this point in time nursing was unorganized and haphazard. There was a lack of training and definition. Walt’s time as a nurse would probably be categorized as volunteering in later years. However, Walt took a great deal of pride in his status as a volunteer nurse and a ‘consultant’ to the wounded. And he even received an appointment from the Christian Commission, a branch of the YMCA.

Walt considered this glimpse into the military hospital world a cherished time. He would later share that this time period served as “the very center, circumference, umbilicus, of my whole career”.

To witness those effects one only has to read one of his pieces, Drum Taps:

Aroused and angry,

I thought to beat the alarum, and urge relentless war;

But soon my fingers fail’d me, my face droop’d, and I resign'd myself,

To sit by the wounded and soothe them, or silently watch the dead.

Walt Whitman was forever altered by this point in time. Historians recorded that war affected his well-being, both physically and mentally. This also led to a change in his writing, becoming more focused on recording his observations from the war and his hundreds of hospital visits. For us, he provided an invaluable glimpse into this significant point in history and will forever continue to speak to us through his poetry and beautifully written words.

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

Sources

The Walt Whitman Archive, edited by Ed Folsom and Kenneth M. Price, Published by the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (The Walt Whitman Archive is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which allows others to distribute and adapt our work, so long as they credit the Whitman Archive, make their work available non-commercially, and distribute their work under the same terms) (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

“Fredericksburg”, maintained by the Civil War Trust Staff & Board, www.civilwar.org. (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

History’s Favorite Nurses, Maryville University (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

Walt Whitman, American Writer and Civil War Nurse, by Elizabeth Hanink, RN, BSN, PHN, posted on Working Nurse (Accessed: 12/08/2014).

Rockin’ In The Nixon White House: Tricky Dick, Elvis, and The Man In Black – Johnny Cash

Legendary country music star Johnny Cash visited Richard Nixon’s White House in April 1970. His appearance there has been the subject of much myth and intrigue. Did the songs he played support or insult President Nixon? In the second of a two part series on celebrity visits to the Nixon White House, Christopher Benedict explains the truth behind the meeting – as well as the enduring legacy of both Johnny Cash and Elvis Presley.

You can read the first article in this series on Elvis Presley here.

Johnny Cash and President Richard Nixon together in July 1972.

Part Two: Hello, I’m Johnny Cash

Johnny Cash performed onstage at a countless number of revered venues over the course of his half-century long recording career, some more unorthodox than others. He played for fans at the Grand Ole Opry and Madison Square Garden, inmates of Folsom and San Quentin Prison, soldiers in Vietnam, and members of the Sioux Indian tribe on their reservation at Wounded Knee.

Eight months prior to the impromptu and bewildering war-on-drugs summit between President Nixon and Elvis Presley, the Man in Black accepted an invitation to put on a concert at the White House’s East Room on April 17, 1970. The original introduction was made through Reverend Billy Graham, the evangelical Christian fundamentalist and mutual friend of Cash and Nixon. A staffer from the East Wing’s social office forwarded to Johnny Cash’s representatives, on behalf of the President, a request to play three specific songs during his set. “A Boy Named Sue”, said to be Nixon’s personal favorite, as well as Merle Haggard’s “Okie From Muskogee” and “Welfare Cadillac” by Guy Drake. 

It is here that the tale of Cash Meets Nixon takes a hard left turn into the intangible realm of wishful thinking and urban legend.

But which songs did he play?

To begin to pick through the twisted bits of fact and fiction that clear a path to the truth and remake reality, we must first turn the pages of the calendar, and forward two years from where we currently are. On July 26, 1972, Johnny Cash appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the Federal Prison Reorganization Act to advocate for more suitable conditions for, and humane treatment of, those incarcerated throughout the nation’s penitentiaries. No doubt he had in mind during his testimony the faces and stories of the convicts he had had a chance to interact with before and after his live shows at San Quentin and Folsom prisons. Afterwards, Cash revisited the Oval Office where he met with Richard Nixon to further drive home his passion for prison reform in a personal appeal to the man who would be the ultimate decision-maker on the matter.

The story goes, as it has been misappropriated by certain left-leaning and well-meaning but misguided liberals, that it is now when Nixon makes a spontaneous face to face plea for Johnny to play the three aforementioned songs for his private amusement. Because “Welfare Cadillac” paints those living in poverty in disparagingly broad brush strokes as scheming, grumbling opportunists living high off of handouts from a government they detest, and “Okie From Muskogee” speaks from a clearly conservative point of view in mocking the nation’s counterculture and Vietnam War protestors (which would have won favor with Elvis), Cash indignantly refused. Instead, he reached for his acoustic guitar and unleashed a defiant musical repudiation of Nixon’s far-right agenda consisting of “What Is Truth?”, “Man In Black”, and “The Ballad of Ira Hayes”, an anthem from his Bitter Tears album shining a light on the dark misdeeds done to Native Americans, in this specific case the heroic World War II Marine who was one of the six Iwo Jima flag raisers and died at the age of 32 on his Arizona Pima reservation, losing his post-war struggles with poverty, alcohol, survivor’s guilt, and unwanted fame.

So what songs did Cash play?

Which would have been great. Had it happened. The facts, as they sometimes tend to do, have become muddled and juxtaposed into a sort of speculative jigsaw puzzle with universally corresponding pieces that can be conveniently arranged into a pictorial (or political, as it may be) rendition of your own choosing.

Johnny Cash did, for the most part, rebuff Nixon’s playlist in a manner that was disagreeable enough to earn the attention of the press and President alike back in 1970, where we return for the duration. Nixon, in his humorously understated onstage introduction of Cash, admitted to being no expert at Cash’s music. “I found that out when I began to tell him what to sing,” joked the President, playing off a tense situation for laughs. Whether his initial irritation had to do with the subject matter of the requested tunes or simply the fact that he did not like being told what to do or what songs to play and when, the actual reason for his not doing “Welfare Cadillac” or “Okie From Muskogee” seems to be that, to allow Cash himself to set the record straight, “the request had come in too late. If it hadn’t,” he continues, “then the issue might have become the messages, but fortunately I didn’t have to deal with that.”

He did, however, start his set on a conciliatory note with “A Boy Named Sue”, unfortunately eschewing his customary greeting “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” and even going so far as to self-censor the line where Sue’s father gets to tell his side of the story, by screeching unintelligibly over the word “sonofabitch”. He also altered the list of names which Sue vows to give his own son by concluding, “I’ll name him...John Carter Cash” in a loving tribute to his six week-old infant. Backed up at alternating points by June Carter and her family band, the Statler Brothers, and Carl Perkins, Johnny and the Tennessee Three blasted their way through thirteen more songs before ending on a medley of “Folsom Prison Blues”, “I Walk the Line”, and “Ring of Fire”, followed by a full-cast finale of the traditional spiritual “Suppertime”.                                                                                                                Nixon was seen squirming in his seat during the anti-war “What Is Truth?”, probably most noticeably during the last verse which goes, “the ones that you’re calling wild/are gonna be the leaders in a little while/this old world’s waking to a newborn day/and I solemnly swear that it’ll be their way.” Ouch. That had to hurt the leader of the free world who represented his so-called ‘silent majority’ of war supporters and was at that very time attempting to suppress mainstream news reportage of the My Lai massacre while accelerating the carpet bombings of Laos and Cambodia.

Politics on the tour?

Absent from the set list, however, was “The Ballad of Ira Hayes” which is a shame, not only for the rebellious element its inclusion would have satisfied in leftists and peaceniks then and now, but for the serendipitous coincidence that Apollo 13 had reentered Earth’s atmosphere and splashed down safely in the South Pacific Ocean that very morning. There, the craft and its grateful crew were recovered by and taken aboard the USS Iwo Jima.

Johnny fondly recalls the two-hour post-concert White House tour he and June were given personally by the President and First Lady Pat in his memoirs, describing the normally socially uneasy Nixon as “kind and charming”, adding that “he seemed to be honestly enjoying himself.” “The President even had me lie down and stretch out on the Lincoln bed,” Cash wrote, “and didn’t charge me, either.”

Adding to the dark cloud hanging over the preliminaries to the event was a White House memorandum issued to H. R. Haldeman by Nixon adviser Murray Choitner which worried over the fact that Cash might wield his influence with voters in promoting former country music star Tex Ritter in the upcoming Tennessee GOP Senatorial primaries over the administration’s stated favorite, Congressman Bill Brock. Choitner suggests to Haldeman that “it will be most helpful if privately the President can neutralize Johnny Cash so that he does not campaign for Ritter.” But this storm too passed. For, no matter the nature of whatever conversation did take place behind closed Lincoln bedroom doors regarding Cash’s civic duties, Ritter (who attended Cash’s concert that night) lost by an overwhelming margin to Brock, who went on to unseat the incumbent, Al Gore Sr.

Furthermore, if Ritter was apprised of the intended chicanery, it goes without saying that he bore no grudge. In 1973, he would present to an increasingly unpredictable and unpopular Nixon one of only two copies (the other going directly into the collection of the Country Music Association Hall of Fame) of an album titled Thank You Mr. President, which spliced together contemporary country hits with excerpts from Nixon’s speeches, narrated by Tex himself.

Cash’s legacy

Johnny Cash, who once said that “I thank God for all the freedoms we’ve got in this country...even the rights to burn the flag...we also got the right to bear arms, and if you burn my flag, I’ll shoot you”, was a complex and sometimes contradictory individual. The fact that he remained consistent in his noncompliance with being branded by an opportune label or fitting comfortably within the margins of a clearly defined interpretation makes his insubordinate thought process, and the thousands of songs it manifested, all the more intriguing and enduring.

Just ask country performer John Rich who blundered during a 2008 Florida rally for Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain by claiming that “Somebody’s got to walk the line in the country. And I’m sure Johnny Cash would have been a John McCain supporter.” Johnny’s daughter Roseanne took exception to this assertion by issuing a rebuttal saying, “It is appalling to me that people still want to invoke my father’s name, five years after his death, to ascribe beliefs, ideals, values, and loyalties to him that cannot possibly be determined, and try to further their own agendas by doing so.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner likewise felt the wrath of the offspring of the Man in Black during the 2010 mid-term elections by reminiscing about the glory days of the Reagan administration (think here of Ronnie’s hilarious misuse of Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” as a theme song during his own 1984 re-election bid). “We had Bob Hope. We had Johnny Cash,” Boehner was fond of repeating during stump speeches. “Think about where we are today. We have got President Obama. But we have no hope and we have no cash.”

Roseanne’s retort this time was more terse and to the point. She tweeted “John Boehner: Stop using my dad’s name as a punch line, you asshat.” 

Cash and Elvis

Johnny Cash and Elvis Presley are both unique in a myriad of ways. That they were many things to many people is not one of them. Among the various shapes into which they shifted, or have been twisted, were walk-on roles in the theatre of the absurd that the Richard Nixon presidency would be. The administration’s disgraceful last act featured a cast of characters such as John Mitchell, Howard Hunt, Charles Colson and their fellow CREEPs (Committee to Re-Elect the President), Daniel Ellsberg whose dissemination of the Pentagon Papers was a leak that G. Gordon Liddy and his “plumbers” could not stop, and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reporting for Katharine Graham’s Washington Post on “deep background” tips from the shadowy Deep Throat (revealed in 2005 to be former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt), championed by Executive Editor Ben Bradlee.

While deputizing Elvis in the oval office, Nixon stressed to him the importance of the King’s capacity for using his talent and public profile to “reach young people” and “retain his credibility”. Ironically, it was Tricky Dick’s inability to accomplish either of these objectives that would facilitate his own demise.

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

And remember, part one in this series on the day that Nixon and Elvis met is here.

Sources

• Man in Black by Johnny Cash (1975 Zondervan)
• Cash: The Autobiography by Johnny Cash with Patrick Carr (2003 Harper One)
• Johnny Cash Bootleg Volume 3: Live Around the World (2011 Sony Legacy)
• Johnny Cash & Richard Nixon by Les Marcott (Scene4 Magazine, January 2014)
• 17 April 1970: RN Welcomes The Man in Black to the White House (Richard Nixon Presidential Library archives)
• White House Memorandum from Murray Choitner to H. R. Haldeman (April 2, 1970)
• The Bitter Tears of Johnny Cash by Antonino D’Ambrosio (Salon.com, November 8, 2009)
• The Republicans Play Dirty by Caspar Llewellyn Smith (The Guardian, September 13, 2008)
• My Cowboy Suffers No Longer by Sherry Mowery (SodaHead, November 2, 2010)