The modern-day US Republican Party has a number of groups who are supporting the Democrat’s Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election - but this would not be the first time in history such opposition has emerged. Here, Daniel L. Smith considers the ‘Radical Republicans’ who opposed President Abraham Lincoln during the US Civil War.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Henry Winter Davis, one of the authors of the Wade-Davis bill that opposed Lincoln’s reconstruction plans.

Henry Winter Davis, one of the authors of the Wade-Davis bill that opposed Lincoln’s reconstruction plans.

Not all Republicans agree with Republicans, and not all Democrats agree with Democrats.
This is not just a fair estimation, but also a genuine understanding that most of us can agree with.

In August, a national news outlet released an article that mentioned that The Lincoln Project is working to de-rail the Christian political narrative. They represent a non-profit “political action committee that is composed of Republicans and ex-Republicans that seek to prevent Trump from winning re-election.” They are running hard on all cylinders.

POLITICO maintains that the groups “officially formed a partnership on Wednesday as a means to capitalize on religious voters who dislike Trump or are unhappy with his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the black lives matter protests.”[1]

“If there was ever a time when Republicans, especially people of faith can be moved, it’s probably now,” said Sarah Lenti, executive director at the Lincoln Project. “This is about doing the right thing for our country and that goes back to embracing Biblical principles, such as loving and caring for each other.”

Throughout Trump’s first term, many white evangelicals have expressed unwavering support for the president; however, more recently many of Trump’s more liberal Protestant and Catholic advocates are turning away from the president due in part to his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Vote for Common Good (VCG) and The Lincoln Project are seeking to push Joe Biden, a professing Roman Catholic, as a religious alternative for evangelical voters, many of whom are slated to vote for President Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential election.”[2]

 

Radical Republicans

Going back to history, we can see another example of Republicans who opposed their leader – the Radical Republicans, a group who wanted the eradication of slavery straight away and without negotiation.

The Radical Republicans were unmistakably fighting for greater things within the Union. Just like their more moderate peers they wanted emancipation and the removal of the racist KKK; however, it was the underhand attack on Lincoln’s principles that made this political group come to deliberately smear and attack the fair-minded President’s good name.

At the end of 1863, Lincoln executed an order to “Reconstruct,” or rebuild the South at the end of the Civil War. It was under the President’s order that if 10% of the population in a state took an oath of loyalty to the federal government, the state would be allowed to declare a new state government recognized by the United States.

The Radical Republicans (congressmen) in office were angered by Lincoln’s mild-mannered approach to what they viewed as almost treason—given his forgiving and light attitude towards the rebellious states that were (at the time) waging war against the Union. The Congressional bill that aimed to address this was titled “Wade-Davis”, named after two members of Congress.

Ultimately, this bill said that if a majority of white citizens of a state had openly rebelled against the federal government, it would be required to swear loyalty to the Union to be readmitted. Congress went on to approve the Wade-Davis Bill, and President Lincoln (in mid-1864) refused to sign the bill, thus letting the bill die at his desk.

The response to all of this was a group of Congressional Republicans responding by attacking Lincoln and his administration. The Radical Republicans even urged other Republicans to run against Lincoln in that same year’s presidential election. By doing this, these Radical Congressmen became extremists to some degree and purposely alienated many other traditional Republicans.[3]

It is crucial, if not critical, to be aware of the political and cultural interests in your own side, as well as those in the opposition. Opportunity is ripe for those people with evil intentions looking to destroy your good works. However, this will only become a guarantee if you are politically and socially unaware.

 

 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Sources

[1] "'Never Trump' Republicans Team with Progressives to Convert the President's Religious Base." POLITICO. Last modified August 4, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/lincoln-project-gop-religious-base-joe-biden-391427

[2] "Anti-Trump Republican Group Teams Up with Progressives to Draw Faith Votes Away from President Trump." ChristianHeadlines.com. Last modified August 6, 2020. https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/milton-quintanilla/anti-trump-republican-group-teams-up-with-progressives-to-draw-faith-voters-away-from-president-trump.html

[3] Myers, Peter C. 2016. “Statesmanship and Reconstruction: Moderate versus Radical Republicans on Restoring the Union after the Civil War.” American Political Thought 5 (1): 160–62

The Princess Alice was a ship that crashed while returning to a dock in London in September 1878, causing the death of some 650 people. Tom Daly explains how this largely forgotten incident occurred and considers why it is not better remembered.

A depiction of the collision between the Princess Alice and Bywell Castle in 1878..

A depiction of the collision between the Princess Alice and Bywell Castle in 1878..

On Wednesday September 4, 1878, boatmen fished around the filthy River Thames in London, pulling dead bodies from the putrid waters. There was a stench of sewage and death, only made worse by the late summer heat, as the workers hauled the bloated corpses of men, women and children onto their small crafts and returned them to the docks in east London for identification. Less than 24 hours previously, these corpses had been full of life, enjoying a summer’s day by the coast with their friends and families before boarding a small steamship, the Princess Alice, to take them back down the river to London. They were not to know that the steamer was doomed to be sliced in half by a coal ship three times her size, and that over 650 of them would be dragged underwater with her to their deaths. 

What makes this story even more tragic is the fact that it has been largely forgotten. Think of British maritime disasters and your mind may go to the early 20th century; to the Titanic, which famously hit an iceberg on her maiden voyage and was claimed by the North Atlantic, or the Lusitania, a passenger liner sunk by a German torpedo in 1915 within sight of the south-west coast of Ireland. You may even think of war ships, such as HMS Hood which was sunk in 1941 at the cost of over 1,400 British lives. Yet the Princess Alice disaster, which saw the largest ever loss of life on a British waterway, has faded significantly from the national memory. It did not serve a propaganda purpose as the Lusitania did during the First World War, nor did its victims of modest means have the fame and glamour of some of the Titanic victims. Their story is not taught in schools, nor dramatized in film. Despite a media frenzy in the immediate aftermath of the disaster and some modest reforms which came as a result of it, by the turn of the century the all-conquering British empire had moved on as if over 650 people had not drowned one evening within a stone’s throw from its capital.

 

Background

The Princess Alice was originally named The Bute and was launched in 1865 in Greenock, on the west coast of Scotland, to be used as a ferry. It was in 1867 that she travelled south and was re-named, and was again used for ferry service. Tuesday, 3rdSeptember 1878 was no different for Princess Alice than any other day over the previous decade, as she made a routine trip from near London Bridge to Sheerness and Gravesend in Kent. As described by Alice Evans’ article for BBC News, it was an inexpensive trip – about two shillings for a ticket – and most of the passengers on board were working or lower-middle class families from the east end of London, keen to enjoy a day out by the coast before the summer ended. The other people on board included crew, cooks and a band who played jovial music during the journey. The majority of the passengers were headed to the Rosherville Pleasure Gardens in Gravesend, a theme park with attractions including a mini-zoo, while others would have been headed for the promenade on the beach at Sheerness. This was to be a welcome day of relaxation for the many on board who would have rarely had a day off work, and for whom the ability to go for a leisurely day-trip to the seaside was a relatively new and luxurious one.

 

The Incident

By 7:40pm, Princess Alice was well into her return journey and approaching Tripcock point, near the north Woolwich pier where many of the passengers were set to disembark. The steamer had well over 700 passengers on board, meaning she was stiflingly overcrowded and there would have been standing room only on her decks. It was standard practice for smaller crafts to hug the southern shoreline at Tripcock point while larger boats stayed at the north side, but unfortunately for Princess Alice the tide had dragged her away from the southern side and into the middle of the river. Tragically, this happened just as a large coal ship (collier) named Bywell Castle, about three times the size of the ferrywas passing by. Although the crews of both ships could see each other in the fading sunlight, there was no way to avoid the collision. 

As crew members on both vessels were frantically trying to avoid each other, the impending disaster was not noticed by the majority on board Princess Alice. While the music from the merry band was still distracting those on deck, food was being served in the saloons and cabins beneath deck to the families who had taken their tired children indoors after a long day of playing in the sun. Most of these passengers were seconds away from death. 

Again, we turn to Alice Evans for a description of what happened next. Alfred Merryman, a 30-year-old chef from London’s east end, had stepped out on deck to take a break from his cooking duties. It had been a long and tiring day, but he was glad he had earned the extra money to help support his wife and four children, who he was looking forward to seeing soon. As he leaned against the saloon door, he noticed with horror the collier bearing down on the steamer. The Bywell Castle careered straight into the Princess Alice’s starboard side, which made a sickening sound as she was sliced into two pieces instantly, dragging anyone unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity down into the polluted water. Merryman later described what followed: 

‘The panic on board was terrible, the women and children were screaming and rushing to the bridge for safety. I rushed to the Captain and asked what was to be done and he exclaimed: ‘We are sinking fast, do your best.’ Those were the last words he said. At that moment, down she went.’

 

As the middle of the ship started sinking, the two ends shot up into the evening sky, sending terrified men, women and children hurtling down towards almost certain death. Meanwhile, those beneath deck and in the saloons stood next to no chance of escaping the doomed steamer as she rapidly took on water. The whole ship had disappeared below the surface within four minutes of the impact, leaving hundreds of people desperately thrashing about in the dangerously polluted water – as it happened, the point of the collision was right next to a sewage pipe, and people were swallowing toxic waste as they screamed for help. 

As the sinking had happened too suddenly for the ferry’s two lifeboats to be launched (two lifeboats would have been grossly inadequate in any case), the rescue efforts were led by the crew of the Bywell Castle who threw rope, wood and even chicken coups down into the water for people to cling on to. Around 130 lucky survivors, including the chef Merryman, were hauled onto the Bywell Castle by the rope, but most people were unable to swim to the makeshift life rafts that had been thrown over - if the currents did not drag them under the water, their heavy Victorian clothing did. More small boats approached the scene and the Bywell launched its lifeboats, but the rescue effort soon became a recovery mission as the screams for help were replaced by a deathly silence. Over the coming days more bodies were recovered and taken to docks in east London, where thousands of people waited anxiously for news about their missing loved ones. For weeks, bodies continued to wash up on the banks of the river and the final death toll is understood to be over 650. However, the actual number will never be known because there was no record of how many people had been on board the doomed vessel.

 

Aftermath and Legacy

The Princess Alice disaster may have faded from British national memory but this was not because of any explicit effort to sweep it under the rug. The incident was widely reported in the weeks that followed it and an inquest was ordered immediately.  A jury of 19 men was convened and inspected the site of the crash and the wreckage of the Princess Alice, which had been raised from the riverbed and beached nearby. By November, the inquest ended with the a few main conclusions:

·       The Princess Alice had been seaworthy at the time of the crash, but she had been dangerously overcrowded and carrying an insufficient number of lifeboats

·       The Princess Alice should not have drifted so far into the middle of the river

·       The Bywell Castle should have stopped and engaged its reversing engines earlier

·       All vessels navigating the River Thames would be better protected from such collisions if more stringent navigation regulations were enforced

 

There were reports in the Times newspaper at the time that a number of men on the jury wanted to bring manslaughter charges against the Captain and senior crew of the Bywell Castle, but not enough for the majority needed.

For years, concerns were raised in Parliament about the need for there to be a positive outcome from the tragedy, and to an extent this was achieved. As a direct result of the incident there were improvements made to the sewage system, rules enacted which made all British ships install emergency signaling lights, and the creation of the Royal Albert Dock which kept small and large vessels separate in the Thames. However, despite the huge loss of life and the furor it caused at the time, the accident was largely forgotten by the turn of the century.

Given the speed with which Princess Alice sank, a lack of lifeboats was not the main reason for the large loss of life that September evening in 1878. However, the concerns expressed during the inquest about the insufficient number of lifeboats arguably should have led to stricter rules in this sense, which would have undoubtedly saved many of the over 1,500 people who went down with Titanic 34 years later. As it was, it is perhaps because of later disasters such as Titanic that the Princess Alice has been forgotten. She carried working-class Londoners rather than business tycoons or aristocrats. She was never labeled ‘unsinkable’, and sank in the putrid waters of the River Thames rather than the icy North Atlantic. There is no glamour in her story or the story of her passengers, and there are no films made about them. The only memorials to them are a plaque in Woolwich cemetery, where her unidentified victims were laid to rest, and a graffiti-marked information sign across the water from London City Airport. 

 

Why do you think the Princess Alice disaster is little remembered? Let us know below.

Now, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

Anti-Semitism has sadly been a problem for Jewish communities for millennia. Here, Ophir Barak explains this in its historical context and asks whether and how anti-Semitism is often overlooked today when compared with other types of racism.

A Sovier Jewish prisoner of war with a gold star in August 1941, during World War Two. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-267-0111-36A / Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

A Sovier Jewish prisoner of war with a gold star in August 1941, during World War Two. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-267-0111-36A / Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

“There are two sets of people who nobody has really wanted to challenge; Jewish and KKK but being in business for 20 years you start to understand why”.

This was one of the many of anti-Semitic tweets that British rapper Wiley took to social media with in the summer.

Such words, though only expressed in this very recent incident, epitomize the anti-Semitism that Jews have faced throughout history.

Indeed, anti-Semitism is just one of the many forms of discrimination and bigotry that have existed for centuries and unfortunately, continue to persist today. But in a clear discordance with other forms of discrimination, an end to anti-Semitism only seems to be truly sought after and pushed for by the Jewish communities around the globe that bear the brunt of its bigotry. 

Today we seem to be in an era of heightened discrimination, where many people who aren’t part of the targeted minorities proclaim their support on social media for those minorities. This is especially the case with the Black Lives Matter Movement; as soon as news broke about the horrific murder of George Floyd, millions of people took to social media to proclaim their support for the movement. However, I’ve seen only very few non-Jewish people post or share anything on social media recently, that highlight their support for the Jewish communities, following Wiley’s tweets. It seems strange that people who aren’t part of targeted minorities and who have publicly claimed to be against prejudice of any kind have been silent following Wiley’s tweets.

And whilst this infuriates me, unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me, as this has been the case for centuries. Throughout history, there have been very few non-Jewish people who have fought alongside Jews to alleviate anti-Semitism.

 

Anti-Semitism in history

Anti-Jewish sentiment can be seen going back to the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, where priests and historians would write scathing and nasty comments about the Alexandrian Jewish Community, regarding them as barbarians. This eventually sparked an attack on the Jews in Alexandria, where thousands were killed. These verbal and physical attacks mainly led to an outcry of protests and revolts from Jewish people, specifically the Maccabees, whom in 170-160 BCE initiated a revolt in Judea.

And of course, it wouldn’t be an article on anti-Semitism, if I didn’t mention the case of Nazi Germany. This political movement arose following WWI and incorporated anti-Semitic ideologies, expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. These anti-Semitic ideologies spawned out of Hitler’s belief that the Jews were the reason for Germany’s defeat in WWI. Hitler’s first five years in power saw the implementation of mass violence against Jews, as well as the laws that dehumanized them. These brutal treatments culminated in the Holocaust, where between 1941-1945, Hitler and the Nazi regime systematically murdered six million Jews, through mass murders in concentration camps and gas chambers. 

Whilst conducting research for this piece, I noticed a lot of resistance movements against the Nazis’ anti-Semitic ideas, were founded by and largely consisted of Jewish civilians. There were many fewer non-Jewish people who participated in rescuing Holocaust victims. According to Yad Vashem of Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Centre, just over 27,000 non-Jewish people participated in rescuing Jewish Holocaust victims, compared to over 70,000 Jewish rescuers. However, it is also important to bear in mind that rescuing Jewish people was extremely difficult due to the potential ramifications of siding with Jewish communities and the potential outcomes for any supporters of the Jewish cause.

 

A lack of support

These two historical cases of anti-Semitism along with Wiley’s tweets, illustrate a common theme that clearly seems to have existed throughout history - not enough non-Jewish people are talking about anti-Semitism or taking action against it. And for years I’ve been trying to understand why anti-Semitism seems to be among the forms of prejudice and discrimination that are less spoken of. To be honest even today I still don’t understand why. 

So please, if you are someone who is Jewish or not and is part of a targeted minority and claim to be against prejudice and discrimination of any kind, then I encourage you to show your love and support for the Jewish community, especially in the wake of Wiley’s tweets. History and the present day have shown us that to truly inspire change, societies need to come together to push through reform. It can’t only be the targeted groups fighting for their own causes, rights and equalities. Wiley’s anti-Semitic comments serve as one the many discriminatory incidents that have sparked an outcry of messages and petitions from the public all over social media and if we’re to truly inspire change, Jewish people should not and cannot be an exception to the rule that systemic racism needs to be stamped out of our societies.

What do you think of the writer’s arguments? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Ophir’s article on the culture wars in Britain here.

Writer’s note: This is in no way my attempt at stating that Jews deserve more support from people than other targeted communities, or that Jewish communities have it worse than other targeted communities. I’m aware that Jews do have some privileges that other targeted communities may not have, but I am writing this out of a belief that people who aren’t part of Jewish communities can do a lot more in terms of supporting them.

Sources

https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/26/what-did-wiley-say-tweets-investigated-alleged-antisemitism-13039775/

https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/statistics.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200949503000104?journalCode=jcha

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/477384-as-non-jews-its-our-job-to-combat-anti-semitism

Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 394

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
2 CommentsPost a comment

The Comet tank was a British tank that was involved towards the end of World War Two. It was made due to the need to have an improved tank to battle Nazi Germany’s forces, but what was its impact on the war? Daniel Smith explains.

Comet tanks of the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division, crossing the Weser at Petershagen, Germany. April 7, 1945.

Comet tanks of the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division, crossing the Weser at Petershagen, Germany. April 7, 1945.

The Comet (or the Comet I A34) was a British tank introduced towards the end of the Second World War, which took part in the invasion of Germany. It is regarded as one of the best British tanks of the war, continuing in service until the 1950s and it played a key role in the development of the later Centurion tank[1]. The Comet is held in such high regard for its cost effectiveness, speed, and low profile compared to other models at the time. However, its most important feature was the ability to take on German Panther and Tiger tanks, which had previously been too heavily armored to be penetrated by the majority of Allied tanks.

To the reader, it probably sounds like the Comet changed the course of the war by finally giving the British tank divisions a means of standing up to the powerful German armor. But did they really make a difference on the battlefield? Or did the Comet come too late to make any impact in the war? 

 

Development up to the Comet

To understand the significance of the Comet, we have to look at its development based on the downfalls of its predecessors. 

During the interwar years, the British army began to separate their tanks into 2 sections; cruisers (fast tanks for swarming the enemy) and infantry support (heavily armored vehicles whose purpose is clear from the name). However, it became clear in the early years of the Second World War that British tanks were vastly outmatched by their German counterparts.[2] 

Learning from the shortcomings of British tanks in the North Africa campaign, a request for a new heavy cruiser was made in 1941, which resulted in the MKVII Cromwell entering the battlefield in 1944.[3]

Despite it being an upgrade compared to previous models, there were still issues with the Cromwell. The foremost issue was that the main armament, the main gun, was not powerful enough to take on the heavily armored Panther and Tiger. 

Attempts were made to supply the British army with a tank capable of providing the firepower needed, resulting in the unsuccessful Challenger and the more successful Sherman Firefly. The Challenger was an attempt to add a larger gun to the body of a Cromwell; this resulted in an oversized tank that was unsuitable on the battlefield. The Firefly was created by attaching a larger turret and gun on top of the hull of the iconic Sherman tank. This fulfilled the army’s need initially, where the Fireflies could provide support to Cromwell armed formations for the upcoming D-Day landings. Complications arose in France largely due to the maintenance requirements of units equipped with two different tank models needing twice the amount of parts, ammunition and supplies.[4] Once again the request was made for a new tank model. 

 


The benefits of the Comet

At this point, in steps the Comet. Learning the lessons from previous tank designs, the Comet used parts from the Cromwell to maximize cost and production efficiency, but also added numerous improvements. The armor was increased and the profile was lowered making it harder to hit and penetrate. It also utilized an electrical traversing turret meaning the main gun could turn more smoothly and even had a telephone headset mounted on the side enabling infantry to talk to the crew.

But the most important improvement by far was the main armament. It had heavier firepower than both the Cromwell and the Firefly as it was fitted with a 17-pounder High Velocity gun, which fired 3-inch shells. The ammunition had also been developed to pack the same punch while being smaller in size, allowing the crew to carry more rounds and load them more easily. When firing anti-tank rounds, the Comet could even outclass the German Panther in terms of penetration. With this firepower, it could even take out Tiger tanks.[5]

Production started in late 1944 after being delayed in favor of increased Cromwell production.[6] The first batch was due to be delivered to the front in December of the same year, as a replacement for the 11th Armoured Division’s Shermans. This was then delayed to January due to the German offensive in the Ardennes forest, that later became known as the Battle of the Bulge. Once the division had been refitted with their new vehicles they went on to take part in the crossing of the River Rhine into Germany. However, few Comets saw the chance to face off against their German counterparts due to the scarcity of operational German tanks on the Western front in 1945. Reportedly, a Comet faced against a Tiger in April, in which the Comet won this encounter but this may be the only such example.[7]

 

Impact on the war

So how big was the impact of the Comet on the battlefield during the Second World War? Was the Comet in fact too little, too late?

Too little? Around 1,200 Comets were produced by the end of the war but only the 11th Armoured Division received enough to completely replace their older models. It could be argued this was a production issue, as for the majority of the war, the British Army relied largely on American made tanks.[8] It is important to note that the 11th Armoured favored their Comets, with the tanks proving popular with the division’s crews.[9] Nevertheless, the argument can still be made that there were enough to make a difference to the war. Too late? Undoubtedly so. If the Comet had been ready to join the D-Day landing forces, it could have provided the edge needed in destroying German armor and may even have resulted in a quicker Allied offensive through France and Germany. That is not to say that the Comet was entirely wasted; soldiers who got the chance to drive them certainly enjoyed their top speeds of 32mph on the Autobahns.

Several Comets can be seen today in various places in the UK and around the world. There are examples in the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK as well as the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts, USA to name a few.

 


What do you think the impact of the Comet tank was on World War Two? Let us know below.


[1] Steven Zaloga, Armoured Champion: The top tanks of World War II (Stackpole Books, 2015), 226. 

[2] David Fletcher, Sherman Firefly (Bloomsbury, 2012), 10.

[3] Benjamin Coombs, British Tank Production and the War Economy 1939-1945 (C Black, 2013), 65.

[4] Zaloga, Armoured Champion, 244.

[5] David Fletcher and Richard C. Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50 (Bloomsbury, 2012), 40.

[6] Coombs, British Tank Production, 105.

[7] Zaloga, Armoured Champion, 226.

[8] John Stone, The Tank debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military Tradition (Routledge, 2018), 67.

[9] Fletcher and Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank, 40.

Bibliography

Benjamin Coombs, British Tank Production and the War Economy 1939-1945, C Black, 2013.

David Fletcher, Sherman Firefly, Bloomsbury, 2012.

David Fletcher and Richard C. Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50, Bloomsbury, 2012.

John Stone, The Tank debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military Tradition, Routledge, 2018.

Steven Zaloga, Armoured Champion: The top tanks of World War II, Stackpole Books, 2015.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The Mughals have left an undeniable imprint upon the Indian landscape; their legacy is seen in the form of culture, architecture and art. Their rule lasted for more than 300 years, from 1526 to 1857. There have been a whole brood of Mughal emperors, but none stood out as much as the first six, the creators of the Mughal legacy. Many of their descendants would take advantage of the riches and power that they had inherited. However, infighting among them paved the way for other princes and ultimately the British to take control.

The one who started it all was a warlord with some Mongol ancestry, Babur. Throughout his life, he faced constant threats from all around him. It was his past experience that helped him achieve victory in future battles and seize the land of Hindustan (India). In the first of a series on the early Mughal emperors, Khadija Tauseef explains.

You can also read Khadija’s first article for the site on Lahore Fort here.

A 17th century depiction of Babur.

A 17th century depiction of Babur.

Royal Beginnings

Babur was born in 1483, and his father, Umar Shaykh, was a direct descendant of Timur, and his mother was the daughter of Yunus Khan, a descendant of Chingiz Khan. So, from the start one could say that he had warrior’s blood flowing through his veins. At the tender age twelve, Babur’s father passed away. Thus, in June 1494, Babur inherited the province of Ferghana, a small but fertile province around modern-day Uzbekistan. Soon a threat emerged for control of Ferghana, not by outsiders but by his own Timurid-Mongol uncles who wished to seize power from their young nephew. For ten years Babur was consumed by constant warfare. His was a turbulent life, never knowing if he would live to see the next day. At the age of 19 he wrote:

“…I endured such hardship and misery. I had no realm—and no hope of any realm…I had had all I could take of homelessness and alienation. ‘With such difficulties,’ I said to myself, ‘it would be better to go off on my own so long as I am alive, and with such deprivation and wretchedness [wander] wherever my, feet will carry me, even to the ends of the earth.’” (Fisher, 2015)

 

In the end, Babur lost his throne and travelled to Kabul, where he seized control, and it became his stronghold. Then in 1505, Babur journeyed into India, for the first time; traversing through Kohat and Bannu. Accompanying Babur was a small force, who aided him in fighting against the Afghans; Babur later wrote that the Afghans surrendered to him ‘with grass between their teeth’. Babur seemed to have inherited certain traits from his Mongolian ancestors. “Babur upheld Timur’s tradition of constructing towers with the skulls of vanquished enemies on these occasions” (Schimmel, 2004).

After returning from India, Babur decided to visit his distant uncle, Husayn Bayqara, in Herat for the first time in 1506. For the next few years, Babur spent time preparing an army to march on India. Initially the campaigns into India were primarily pillaging raids; however, this changed in 1519, after the birth of his son Hindal, a name that means ‘Take India’. Babur saw this as a good omen and his excursions into India intensified. At the time of Babur’s conquest, India was a divided country; various princes were vying for control, so they were weak against an outside invader.

 

India

Babur’s advance into India increased gradually. Until in 1526, Babur faced off against the army of Ibrahim Lodhi, at the battlefield of Panipat. An army of 1,500 well-trained soldiers faced of against the massive forces of the Lodhi prince. Despite the odds against him, Babur remained undaunted, because he had something that his adversary lacked - firearms. Babur’s men were equipped with matchlocks and field artillery firearms, which easily broke though the cavalry charges of the Lodhi Army. After a fierce battle Babur’s forces emerged victorious, and the death of Ibrahim Lodhi and many of his important nobles allowed Babur to take over Delhi unchallenged. Seizing the royal palaces and treasury, the riches were used to fund further expeditions and keep his soldiers happy.

Once the battle was over, Babur travelled to Delhi in order to visit the mausoleums of two holy men; the Chishti master Nizamuddin Auliya (died in 1325) and his predecessor, Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki (died 1235). After paying his respects Babur turned his focus to improving his newly acquired territory. He ordered the construction of gardens that included cascading fountains and a hamam (a public Islamic bath) – even though Babur and his soldiers were not great admirers of the hot Indian weather and craved the cool land of Kabul. 

However, Babur’s control of India was filled with problems. Rana Sangha enthroned another Lodhi prince in order to seize back Delhi. They went up against Babur at Khanwa in 1527, where Babur won another decisive victory. He was able to defeat the most powerful Hindu prince of the region and thus adopted the title of Ghazi—fighter for the faith. He travelled to Agra where he established his base, leaving Delhi behind. It is also said that while Babur had been visiting Gwalior, the sight of the naked Jain Holy men, greatly disturbed him. 

Babur also ordered the construction of a route from Agra to Kabul that included markings along the route; this may have been done as a sign to show his possession of India.

 

Gone too soon

Once Babur had assumed control of India, he devoted most of his time to his family, but this peaceful time was short lived. Soon, his favorite son, Humayun, fell gravely ill and everyone feared that he would not be able to survive. It was then that Babur performed a ritual in which he prayed while circling his bed seven times. He prayed that his son be cured, and the illness possess him instead. His wish was granted as Humayun got better and Babur’s condition worsened - the father gave his life so that his son could live.  

On the December 26, 1530, Babur died aged forty-six. Although most of his life had been consumed with fighting, there was more to him than just being a warrior; he was also a scholar and a man of letters. Much of our knowledge regarding his reign comes from his own memoirs, the Baburnama.

“For Babur was also a man of letters, whose works on the metre of Persian poetry, on Hanafi law and other themes are important works of Chaghatay-Turkish. He even invented his own form of writing, the khatt-i baburi” (Schimmel, 2004).

Many are left wondering how much more he could have achieved had he lived, but more than an emperor or conqueror, he was a father. In the end he selflessly gave his life so that his son, Humayun, would carry forward his legacy and built an empire he never could.

 

What do you think of Babur? Let us know below.

Bibliography

Schimmel, Annemarie. The Empire of the Great Mughals. Reaktion Books: London, 2004.

Ziad, Zeenut. The Magnificent Mughals. Oxford University Press: USA, 2002.

Balabanlilar, Lisa. Imperial Identity in the Mughal Empire. Bloomsbury Publishing: London, 2012.

Fisher, Michael. A Short History of the Mughal Empire. Bloomsbury Academic: London, 2015.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Unites States remains the largest and most successful country economically in the world today. But how did it become so successful? Here, Daniel L. Smith argues that an economy underpinned on Christian values that led to the success of America – and that religion is a key factor in economic success more broadly.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

The first American macadam road, Boonsborough Turnpike Road, between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland, 1823. Picture by Carl Rakeman.

The first American macadam road, Boonsborough Turnpike Road, between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland, 1823. Picture by Carl Rakeman.

Two words. We can either call it the old-fashioned “Protestant ethic.” Or, what’s better known today as “work ethic.”[1]

Believe it or not, an economy underpinned by Christian values fueled the growth and success America has been known for all over the world. I have heard the argument, “Why are other countries so broke and poor, while we are so spoiled rich?” This comment may be generalized, but it gives a great idea into a typical daily dinner-table conversation. Let’s clarify this.

Nations grow with time - economically, politically, and socially. You can look at a nation from it’s beginnings through to its ending, and its represented by what could resemble a tree that continues to branch outward. Laws are the basis for any civilization and start in a more basic fashion. Over time, laws will continually be added too and expanded upon, so helping to form a culture.

Since law and culture is created out of religion and religious function, there is only one logical conclusion: A nation’s government, which is based in laws rooted in religion, is the key primary source to any nation’s ultimate success.

While America has recently abandoned some of the traditional principles that have produced its prosperity, the country is still the most prosperous and successful nation in the world. Historian David Wolfe writes that “the best way to compare the real wealth of the people of one country with the wealth of the people of another is how many hours of work it takes a factory worker to earn the money needed to buy the same basic commodities in retail stores in that country.”[2]

To buy a kilogram of bread, for example, a factory worker must work 18 minutes in Moscow (Russia), 12 minutes in London (UK), and 8 minutes in Washington (USA). To buy a car (Volga, Ford), that work time is 35 months in Moscow, 8.5 months in London, and 4.1 months in Washington.[3]

 

Work and Necessity

Let’s say that you take a trip to the Philippines. You will find that clothes are around one-third to one-quarter the price of those in the United States. This might be great to the typical American traveler, but it is driven by lower salaries in the Philippines. An average American worker’s salary is ten times the pay that the average worker in the Philippines.

Ultimately, the average Filipino spends more of his paycheck on food and clothes than the average American—even though these necessities cost much less in the Philippines than in the USA. A key reason why Filipinos spend more of their money on other items is because appliances, cars, electronics, and other merchandise that is not made in their own country, often cost more than they do in the United States.[4]

It is this economic reality that applies to every single nation around the entire globe. Those societies that are built on Christian principles have a proper foundational view of natural resources, and will also carry the character to exert human energy, and be given access to the creativity of God leading to better tools, all of which cause man’s material assets to increase.

While any nation adhering to this truth will see their material welfare increase, most people and nations are quite poor. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell of Providence Foundation mentions that, “46% of the world lives in poverty today.” [5] While we can debate the exact percentage of people in poverty, we should still ask why are some countries so much poorer than others? Some claim lack of natural resources, yet some nations, like Japan, with very few natural resources are actually really prosperous. There are also many nations with abundant natural resources that are much less successful than countries with few natural resources.

And while we can consider factors other than natural resources as being important to economic success, I think my argument is important - and often overlooked: While not often considered by economists, ultimately I would argue that the religious basis of countries is a key factor in determining how many countries became wealthy and why they are wealthy today.

 

What do you think of the author’s argument that religion is a key factor in an economy’s success?

 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
3 CommentsPost a comment

Everyone has heard of the atrocities associated with the Holocaust that killed countless people of Jewish ancestry and wreaked havoc upon the populations of Europe during World War II. However few people have heard of the genocide that occurred over 1914 to 1923, the Armenian Genocide. There are multiple reasons that the Armenian Genocide is not widely studied or spoken of as its historical context continues to affect modern geopolitics. Regardless of the sensitive nature of current geopolitical relations, the truth of the countless lives lost must be examined before a larger audience to allow their memory to not be forgotten. Roy Williams explains.

Armenian people are marched to a nearby prison in Mezireh by armed Ottoman soldiers. Kharpert, Ottoman Empire, April 1915. Source: here.

Armenian people are marched to a nearby prison in Mezireh by armed Ottoman soldiers. Kharpert, Ottoman Empire, April 1915. Source: here.

The Armenian Genocide occurred from 1914 to 1923 coinciding with the events of World War I. The ethnic Armenians of the eastern regions of the Turkish Ottoman Empire had long been treated as a scapegoat for issues that plagued the Ottoman Empire. With the rapid decline of Ottoman Turkish authority, power was consolidated in the Triumvirate of power that included a man known as Talat Pasha who had disdain for the Armenian people. To stop the decline of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey began implementing nationalist measures to ensure that Turkey and all its lands were for the Turkish rather than ethnic or religious minorities. The Christian Armenians became the target of intense scorn and soon would be cleansed from the Ottoman territory to ensure Turkish dominance. From 1914 to 1923, over 1.5 million Armenians were systematically slaughtered in the first modern genocide of the 20th century. Methods of genocide included marching people through the desert without food and water to await their deaths, as well as firing squad executions and burying the dead in mass graves. These mass graves can still be seen throughout this region of Anatolia as a grim reminder to the dark past that the Turkish authorities refuse to acknowledge. Many people in Europe and the United States condemned these atrocities and asked for the governments of the free world to assist in stopping them. Sadly, no unified effort presented itself in stopping the atrocities of the Armenian Genocide. Later with the rise of the Nazis in Germany, Hitler infamously mentioned in his Obersalzberg Speech, speaking proudly of his plans to cleanse Poland, ”Who, after all, speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?” (Adolf Hitler, 1939) This leads to the direct conclusion that Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany realized they could theoretically commit genocide without any repercussions. 20

Multiple primary source accounts exist from individuals who witnessed the massacre or saw the Turkish government plans to exterminate the Armenians. These accounts range from Armenian victims to government officials who admitted to the slaughter in one form or another. The Ambassador for England, Henry Morgenthau, recorded his encounters with Talat and his dealings with the Armenian people, describing the obvious and overbearing nature of the Turkish animosity towards the Armenian people. On July 16, 1915, Henry Morgenthau in his ‘Report That Ottoman Turkey Is Seeking to Exterminate the Armenian Nation’ detailed the mass deportations and the use of racial extermination. “Have you received my 841? Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitness it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.”

 

Little remembered

The question remains, why is the Armenian Genocide a forgotten part of the history of the West? Why would something so traumatic and historically significant be brushed to the side as an insignificant part of the tragedy of World War I? The reasons for this forgotten part of history are largely intentional. The current government of Turkey outwardly denies the atrocity that occurred in the Armenian Genocide. Turkey holds that the casualties of the Armenian Genocide were not an act of intentional genocide but casualties of World War I that were largely the fault of Armenians who allied themselves with Russia. The geopolitical balance of the Middle East currently relies heavily upon the countries of Turkey and Israel as two of the nations who largely have favorable relations with Europe and the United States. Turkey refuses to accept responsibility for the events of the Armenian Genocide and in this regard does not like the United States from criticizing them for their historical atrocity. Many nations do not recognize the Armenian Genocide as genocide. The US only recognized the Armenian Genocide in late 2019, while Israel still does not recognize it. Israel’s refusal to acknowledge the mass suffering of the Armenian genocide is perplexing as the Armenian Genocide parallels the Holocaust in many significant ways. The United States’ only very recent of the Armenian Genocide stems from a careful balance of keeping Turkey as a tentative ally. 

The Armenian Genocide was one of the darkest moments of the 20th century. Countless lives were lost in the Turkish purge that was based on keeping Turkey Turkish. In some ways, the genocide may have also influenced the way that Adolf Hitler went about orchestrating the Holocaust. Though the modern day government of Turkey does not wish to accept responsibility for this heinous atrocity, it is the responsibility for the free people of the world to recognize genocide and condemn anyone who attempts to deny the memory of the countless souls that were lost. As the adage goes, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (commonly attributed to Edmund Burke, see here).

 

Editor’s note: The quote from Hitler referenced in the article is disputed – see here. In addition, the exact number of deaths in the genocide remains disputed – see here.

 

Why do you think the Armenian Genocide is not better remembered? Let us know below.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Nearly exhaustive research has been done on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) four national campaigns, his controversial Presidency, and his leadership in WWII. Surprisingly little, however, has focused on his New York State gubernatorial campaign in 1928. This was the campaign and position in which FDR would prove his fitness for the presidency of the Unites States, a position he held from 1933 to 1945.

In part 4, K.R.T. Quirion explains how Roosevelt closed his campaign with a focus on the justice system, the close election results, and the longer-term consequences of Roosevelt’s victory.

You can read part 1 on how Roosevelt overcame a serious illness, polio, to be able to take part in the 1928 campaign here, part 2 on how Roosevelt accepted the nominarion here, and part 3 on Roosevelt’s opponent and how Roosevelt performed on the campaign trail here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1930, while Governor of New York.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1930, while Governor of New York.

Back to New York City

After completing his up-State tour, FDR returned to the Democratic bastion in New York City and its boroughs for the final week of the campaign. There, he continued to develop and expand his platform of populist programs aimed at winning the support of the common man. In Queens, he addressed the problem of urban congestion. According to Roosevelt, a major contributor to overcrowding was the abandonment of farmland by rural populations. To combat this, he promised to actively pursue ways of retaining rural populations.[1] It was in the interest of urban and rural citizens alike that farms be adequately maintained. 

However, as rural populations moved to town, city people moved out. Roosevelt believed that two factors were contributing to suburbanization, the growth of popular sports and the democratization of the automobile.[2] New York’s highway program had aided the latter. As to the former, Roosevelt told the audience of Governor Smith’s long legal struggle to acquire for the “great rank file” of New York’s citizenry, adequate parks facilities.[3] He explained how entrenched interests attempted to subject the former Governor to “political embarrassment,” but that Smith fought for what “was approved by the people of the State” and won.[4] In closing, Roosevelt assured the assembled voters that the Democratic Party “will keep on winning as long as it goes ahead with a program of progress.”[5]

 

The justice system

During the campaign, FDR developed three of the four issues he had outlined in his acceptance speech. On October 30th in the Bronx, he finally addressed the fourth; a Roosevelt administration would be committed to the reforming of New York’s justice system. He considered the administration of justice to be foundational to effective governance.[6] On that account, New Yorkers had much to be proud of in their jurisprudential tradition. However, he believed that reform was necessary to ensure that the State could “keep pace with the fundamental changes in…social conditions.”[7] He warned that a number of factors—such as an increase in population, the growth of cities, and the growth of business—were coalescing resulting in dramatic consequences to the justice system. Specifically, he stated that “these increased complexities of our social relations have added to the difficulties of assuring fundamental justice to the individual man and women.”[8]

First and foremost, Roosevelt advocated for the use of targeted efforts to provide “more modern, more American methods” to address the causes of crime.[9] He hoped to reduce not only the slowness and costliness of litigation but also the volume. Regarding the recent proliferation of civil suits, Roosevelt retorted, “You know, we Americans just love to go to court.”[10]Affirmative steps were needed to reigning in the number of cases being brought to trial. As governor he intended to launch a fact-finding mission to determine “what cases cause the delay and the expense; what kinds of cases take up the time of the courts; what courts are most crowded; and, finally, what cases ought never have come to court at all.”[11]

He discussed other reforms that he would pursue if elected as well. On the civil side, he promised to work for a reduction in the number of jury trials, eliminate perjury, hold members of the bar to a stricter ethical standard, eliminate ambulance chasing and dilatory motions, and finally, to devise new administrative tribunals tasked with freeing the court system of certain kinds of cases. 

According to Roosevelt, the criminal justice system needed reform as well. If elected, he proposed twelve steps for study in the coming years. These included a complete overhaul of New York’s prison labor system, the establishment of state detectives to assist District Attorney’s and a revision of the Penal Code.[12] He also suggested the creation of a court system focused on minor crimes. Finally, he declared his intention to revise the firearms law. 

Roosevelt lamented that there was often “talk of one law for the rich and another law for the poor.”[13] Looking at the States justice system as a whole, he believed that reform was necessary, and that the people of New York did as well. In closing, he told the voters that “what we need is action, and I propose to do all in my power to see that it is brought about.”[14]

Roosevelt’s whirlwind campaign ended on the 5th of November in Poughkeepsie. There he was greeted by tens of thousands of supporters parading in his honor. Over the course of nineteen days, he had traveled 1,300 miles and had given almost 50 separate speeches. The next morning, he cast his vote at the Hyde Park Town Hall and then retired to his campaign headquarters in the Biltmore Hotel to await the returns.      

 

VICTORY

Up-State Republican leaders had early on declared that they were “nevermore confident in victory” and prophesied a “big increase in the vote” from their districts.[15] At first, the election returns seemed to verify their confidence. Nationally, Hoover had defeated Smith in a landslide that seemed to be taking Roosevelt down with it. By midnight Election Day, votes for Ottinger coming in from up-State had more than offset the Democratic powerhouse of NYC. The papers began calling the race for Ottinger on the morning of the 7th. For Roosevelt, however, it was still too close to concede. 

Late night on the 7th, Roosevelt, Flynn, and others in the campaign took notice of the “slowness of the returns from certain upstate counties” where they were confident that Roosevelt had strong support.[16] They suspected that entrenched officials in those districts were up to something. Flynn then issued a statement indicating that key figures of the Democratic State Committee—accompanied by a staff of 100 lawyers—would be heading up-State to investigate suspected voter fraud. Soon thereafter, “many thousands of normally Republican votes” that Roosevelt won began trickling out of the up-State precincts.[17]

As the race began to shift in Roosevelt’s favor, Ottinger released a statement saying that he was ready to “concede nothing.”[18] Republicans were holding out for a few favorable up-State districts as well as about 20,000 absentee ballots. By this time, Roosevelt had returned to his beloved Warm Springs where he was recuperating from the campaign and awaiting its final verdict. On the 18th of November, Ottinger telegrammed Roosevelt his concession stating that “Undoubtedly the final count…will declare your election…You have my heartiest good wishes for a successful administration.”[19]

The election ended with 2,142,975 votes going to Roosevelt and 2,117,411 to Ottinger. Roosevelt was victorious by a razor-thin margin of a mere 25,564 votes. [20] New York State Democrat’s had paid dearly for these votes with campaign funds listed at $5,028,706.02 and expenses of $4,845,774.78. The Republicans, on the other hand, reported astonishingly small receipts of $867,874.25 and expenditures of $832,225.62.[21] Each vote cost the Democratic State Committee $2.26. This was astoundingly expensive when compared to the $0.39 per vote spent by Republicans. [22] In economic terms, the Roosevelt campaign was a disaster. Even in the overall vote, Roosevelt was not very successful, winning only by a plurality of 0.6 percent.[23] Nor had he delivered New York to Smith in the national election as originally hoped. Nonetheless, Roosevelt had fought hard and won.

 

A personal success

Despite his bitter-sweet victory, the gubernatorial campaign was a fantastic personal success for Roosevelt on several fronts. Given that his previous eight years had been spent living on the periphery of New York politics, his ability to carry the state despite only three weeks of campaigning was a testament to his continued political renown. It was a testament to Howe and Eleanor’s feverish work behind the scenes over those eight years as Roosevelt’s eyes and ears. And, it was a testament to the lasting impact of his “Happy Warrior” speech in 1924. 

This combination of factors boosted Roosevelt’s campaign on to an equal footing with Ottinger’s from the start. If he had dropped out of the public eye after contracting polio in 1921, he would have been unlikely to have been considered for the Governorship at all. Assuming he was considered, he would have been at a great disadvantage compared to his highly prominent and active political opponent. 

Even though challenges to his health would re-surface, the 1928 gubernatorial race presented Roosevelt with an opportunity to implement strategies to deal with this critical issue. He presented himself as a physically strong candidate that appeared in excellent condition. By appearing indefatigable, despite the breakneck speed of his campaign, voter concerns about his health were assuaged. In face-to-face meetings, New Yorkers were continually surprised “by his vigor.”[24] In the eyes of the electorate, Roosevelt appeared more than capable of handling matters of State despite his physical ailment. In future campaigns, he would repeat these strategies with great success. 

The gubernatorial campaign also affirmed Roosevelt’s new Democratic coalition strategy. The pattern of Democratic voter distribution in the 1928 result among cities, towns, and villages as well as between industrial and agricultural areas “indicated a trend” that confirmed the validity of forging a new coalition between labor, agriculture, minority, and urban voters.[25]During the next four years he would cultivate and mold this coalition into the base of the new Democratic Party. He accomplished this in part by working to establish a “permanent national organization, which would ‘extend its…help to…campaigns in between elections and…serve to constantly educate the public.”[26]    

Finally, the 1928 campaign elevated Roosevelt as the “heir apparent to the leadership of the Democratic Party.”[27] Following the election, he commissioned a national survey of the Democratic leadership designed to look at several important party matters. Out of the 979 responses from forty-five states “approximately 40% said that they were for Roosevelt or were leaning in his direction…” and “…15 percent specifically declared that he should be the party's next presidential nominee.”[28] From his position as the de facto leader of the Party, Roosevelt was able to further strengthen his new Democratic coalition. 

The leadership Roosevelt displayed during the campaign and his first term in office not only secured him a second term as governor but also secured his place at the helm of the Democratic Party. Over the next four years as governor, he developed the policies and strategies that he would later employ as the nation’s chief executive. His response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the following years of economic depression highlighted his ability to cope with a crisis. By 1932, he was once again poised to rendezvous with destiny.

 

Now, you can read K.R.T Quirion’s recently published series on telegraphy in the US Civil War here, or the secret US Cold War facility in Greenland here.



[1] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Queens, N.Y. October 29, 1928,” 55.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 56.

[4] Ibid. 

[5] Ibid., 59.

[6] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Bronx, N.Y. October 30, 1928,” 62

[7] Ibid., 63.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 63-4.

[10] Ibid,64.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 66.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 18, 1928), “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry,” New York Times (1923-Current file), 1.

[16] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 45.

[17] Ibid.

[18] “Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat,” (Nov 08, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[19] “Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory,” 1.

[20] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1938-1932, 47.

[21] Special to The New York Times, (Nov 27, 1928), “Democrats List Funds at Albany,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[22] See Table 1. 

 

[23] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1938-1932, 47.

[24] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 22, 1928), “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[25] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 47.

[26] Earland I. Carlson, “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964), 300.

[27] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Nov 11, 1928), “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[28] Carlson, “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election,” 307.

 Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State.” (Oct 12, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104441542?accountid=12085.

“F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today.” (Oct 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104448848?accountid=12085.

F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State. (Oct 04, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104470038?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308830?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 3, 1928). “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104425583?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 18, 1928). “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104438214?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 20, 1928). “Roosevelt Begins Work on Message.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104443997?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 24, 1928). “Roosevelt Confers on Labor Program.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104398916?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 11, 1928). “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932.”New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104416279?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 19, 1928). “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104437219?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 22, 1928). “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104310663?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308778?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue.” (Oct 16, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File).  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104430730?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory.” (Nov 19, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104439338?accountid=12085. 

“Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat.” (Nov 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104415539?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104460248?accountid=12085.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.” June 27, 1936. The American Presidency Project. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15314.

“Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover.” (Nov 02, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104414619?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State.” (Oct 10, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104321497?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power.” (Oct 17, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104423627?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law.” (Oct 09, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104367563?accountid=12085. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932. New York, NY: Random House. 1938.

“Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433007?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (1928, Oct 07). “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104469322?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Nov 27, 1928). “Democrats List Funds at Albany.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104304172?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326803?accountid=12085. 

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326338?accountid=12085. 

Woolf., S.J. (1928, Oct 07). “The Two Candidates for the Governorship.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433929?accountid=12085.

 

Secondary Sources

Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928. New York, NY: Random House. 1972.

__________. FDR: The New York Years 1928-1933. New York, NY: Random House. 1985.

Goldberg, Richard Thayer. The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 1971.

Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History. New York, NY: Harper. 1950.

Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012.

 

Journal Articles           

Carlson, Earland I. “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964): pp. 298-308.

Goldman, Armond S., Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr. “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography. (11, 2003): pp. 232–240.

 Kiewe, Amos. “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship.” The Southern Communication Journal. (Winter, 1999): pp. 154-167.

American history has had many violent protests, and these often went on for significant periods of time. Here, Theresa Capra starts a series looking at the 2020 protests in America from an historical perspective.

In this article, she considers why people often destroy parts of their own neighborhoods, and moves on to compare the 2020 protests to some in early American history: the Bacon’s, Shays’, and Whiskey Rebellions.

George Washington and his troops near Fort Cumberland, Maryland, before their march to suppress the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania

George Washington and his troops near Fort Cumberland, Maryland, before their march to suppress the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania

Sometimes history delivers a one-two punch: a landmark event enveloped in a historical year.  Times of war come to mind: August 6, 1945 - the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, an earth-shattering day smack in the middle of a record-breaking year as World War II came to a climatic end.

The year 2020 is progressing in a similar pattern, even if we are not in the grips of a world war. During one of the worst pandemics in world history, lies May 26: the day George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin while spectators captured the agonizing 7:46 minutes. Appropriately, it all went viral setting off violent protests unseen in decades.

“But why are they burning and destroying their own neighborhoods?”

 

It’s a question I’ve heard a million times from well-intentioned folks who champion racial equality but struggle to make sense of fiery protests. Historians have weighed in on the ‘why’, noting that in low-income areas, African-Americans do not own a lot of property and small shops charge unfair rates for inferior products, thus commercial destruction can be seen as a revolt against economic oppression. As for the psychology of rage, that too is misunderstood. Protests, including violent ones, are politically motivated, coordinated attacks on the status quo. Labeling Black Lives Matter as an angry mob bent on destruction is a political tactic bent on marginalization.

In the face of tumult, eyewitnesses search for understanding, but often history is overlooked. Violence is upsetting in any form, especially now that it’s crowd surfed on social media, but a quick scan of American history can demonstrate to neutral observers that violent tactics are as American as apple pie.

 

Bacon’s Rebellion

Life during colonial America was inconceivably harsh compared to our comfortable times. However, there are familiar parallels such as oppression, disease and riots. In 1676, Smallpox was ravaging indigenous people on the present-day American continent at warp speed.  Simultaneously, the expansion of white government was paving the way for violent uprisings and racial tension.

In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon, a plantation owner in Virginia, mounted a rebellion against the governor, William Berkeley, for assorted reasons ranging from personal snubs, to Berkeley’s refusal to grant freeholders such as Bacon carte blanche to kill Native Americans.

Although Bacon was from an affluent family, he was able to galvanize the obvious social and economic disparities that pervaded the region. He recruited a makeshift army that included poor farmers, slaves, and black and white indentured servants, marginalized groups who were oppressed by the wealthy and had axes to grind.

Bacon’s protesters were not peaceful. They instigated violence, pillaged farms, looted, and most notably burned the capital city of Jamestown to the ground - their own community. History books have never relegated that act to rage, instead it is clearly understood as a calculated anti-establishment move that diminished Berkeley’s power. The exact strategy was employed by protestors who set the Minneapolis police department ablaze, yet many commentators, including the President of the United States, have reduced their actions to that of an “angry mob.”

Bacon died of dysentery before he could see his rebellion through, but the wealthy plantation owners got the big take-away: the lower classes need further oppression to maintain the status quo, and enforcement of strict racial codes would be necessary to prevent poor whites, poor Blacks, and enslaved persons from joining forces in the future.

 

Shays’ Rebellion

The cherished American Revolution was, in itself, a violent protest against perceived tyranny from a legitimate government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson harkened back to Bacon as the first patriot fighting British oppression because it fit their rebellious narrative, despite the truth that Bacon’s rebellion was a power struggle between two stubborn men. But even after the procurement of liberty and establishment of democracy, violent uprising was inevitable.

After the Revolutionary War, many veterans who returned to their farms found themselves struggling to make ends meet. These poor farmers were often cash-strapped, so their local economies moved on the exchange of goods and services rather than paper currency. In western Massachusetts, wealthy coastal merchants began to insist on hard cash for goods while declining lines of credit. The lack of paper money made it impossible for the farmers to pay their debts because besides their farms, all they had was the shirts on their backs. They petitioned the government to print more money to level the field--they sought relief through the courts but the government, dominated by the wealthy, ignored their plight, and the bureaucratic scales never tipped in their favor.

In the face of economic oppression, what did these early Americans do? Rebel, of course. Protestors destroyed government property, assaulted tax collectors, and shut down the courthouse - the physical emblem of injustice.

The summer of 2020 is a mirror’s reflection in many ways. For example, in Portland, protestors drew strong federal responses when they occupied a courthouse, while protestors in Denver targeted the state Supreme Court. In Sacramento, peaceful demonstrations turned violent when citizens vandalized government property and occupied a park.

There is a major difference: the absence of Daniel Shays to coordinate a coup. Daniel Shays, a veteran and farmer directly affected, organized protesters into a full-scale insurgency that sought to topple the government from 1786 to 1787. Eventually the militants were quelled, and Daniel Shays escaped and lived the remainder of his days in poverty. But the violence of Shays' Rebellion resonated with the status quo leading to a stronger federal government that could squash violent rebellions that challenged the establishment. It even made its way into the preamble of the Constitution - ”insure domestic Tranquility.”

 

The Whiskey Rebellion

In 1791, the congressional branch of the newly formed United States of America decided to flex its muscle by imposing a tax on distilled beverages to pay down debt amassed during the Revolution. Since whisky had become the most popular drink, the controversial excise became known as the whisky tax. Whisky was a form of currency on the western frontier for poor farmers, especially in Pennsylvania, so to them it was really an income tax rather than an excise on domestic commerce. Farmers refused to comply - they viewed it as a tool of oppression from wealthy, eastern landowners.

Resistance quickly snowballed into violent insurrection - homes were burned down, property destroyed, and statues set ablaze in effigy. Unfortunately, violent unrest always claims innocent victims and tax collectors became casualties of war. There was Robert Johnson who was attacked by a mob of men disguised as women while he was traversing through his collection route. He was tarred and feathered and left for dead in the woods. John Connor, who attempted to arrest the perpetrators, met the same fate.

Similar events have unfolded today. In Oakland, a federal contract security officer, hired to protect federal courthouses, was shot and killed during a demonstration that turned violent. David Dorn, a retired police captain, was shot and killed by looters in a pawn shop.

Generally, it has been the Black community caught in the crossfire. First, Covid-19 hit African-Americans hard, resulting in higher mortality rates. Simultaneously, Black-owned businesses that were shut received limited government assistance compared to white communities. Then the protests erupted and the Black-owned businesses that were destroyed  may never recover.

History has been kind to the Whiskey Rebellion, which ran from 1791 to 1794. For starters, it’s not labeled as a riot, rather it’s a rebellion that embodies rugged individualism. This is in stark contrast to how the record treats the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, which are labeled as race riots. Although the media has avoided labeling the George Floyd protests as riots, it’s inescapable when the President of the United States does so repeatedly from the Rose Garden.

How does this compare with the federal tenor during the Whiskey Rebellion? George Washington did prefer a diplomatic resolution but ultimately he is credited with using federal force to suppress the insurrections after years of climatic standoffs. A lingering lesson is that wealthy interests would always prevail.

But race was not involved so how do we celebrate the historical destruction of property and violence today? With a festival, of course!

 

What do you think of the comparisions between past protests and those of 2020? Let us know below.

History is increasingly becoming a part of the ongoing ‘culture wars’ in some Western countries. One of the main ways this is seen is through statue topplings. Here, Ophir Barak gives a British perspective, arguing that toppling statues will not necessarily help resolve issues in the way some people think they will - and that many people are confused between history and memory.

A portrait of Edward Colston, whose statue was toppled in Bristol, England in June 2020.

A portrait of Edward Colston, whose statue was toppled in Bristol, England in June 2020.

“What we remember as a society derives in the end from the kind of society we are and reflects the kind of society we want to be”.

These are the words of eminent historian, Richard Evans, whom in a recent article entitled “The history wars”, discusses the distinction between history and memory and why for centuries, society has struggled to differentiate between these two entities.

Though the message behind Evans’ words date all the way back to the start of modern civilization, the message undoubtedly continues to be relevant in the world we find ourselves in today. 

 

The British perspective

Britain is an ever-more diverse and multicultural nation, shaped by its vast and important history. To preserve and commemorate this history, over the years, public statues, monuments, and memorials have been built. This is done with the hope that they will continuously remind society of the glorious nation Britain once was, how that has shaped the society they live in today, and instill in people a desire to help maintain this status of glory into the nation’s future. This is essentially the phenomenon of cultural memory; it forms links between the past, present and future, through statues, monuments and memorials, to help us understand why our world is the way it is today. 

The most prominent example we see today, is the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, western England. Made in 1895, the statue was built to commemorate the merchant Edward Colston, who made the bulk of his fortune from the slave trade and as the director of the Royal African Company. He used this fortune to support hospitals, schools, and workhouses in England. Up until his statue was very recently toppled due to the supremacist ways in which he made his fortune, Colston was mostly remembered as a philanthropist who helped improve the functioning of English society.

There has also been pressure to take down the statue of Cecil Rhodes, another “philanthropist”, who made his fortune from employing African workers in his diamond mines and claimed that the Anglo-Saxons were the “first and most elite race in the world”. Rhodes used his fortune to set up scholarships to Oxford University for foreign students who were deemed as part of the “elite Anglo-Saxon race”.

 

The impact of toppling statues

I presume that the people who toppled and defaced the Colston statue and those who have been pushing to take down Rhodes’ statue, thought that by doing so, in part it would help erase these histories. And once these statues have been taken down, or once some grand and meaningful actions have taken place, the message of racism they present seem to get left behind, only to be spoken of again when another cycle of racial injustices occur. Unfortunately, it is these thoughts, misconceptions and actions that have had detrimental effects on British society. 

Many people seem to think that through grand actions like taking down statues, you are effectively erasing history. Well that’s where they’re wrong. You’re not erasing the history of these historical figures - you’re erasing the negative memory that today’s society has created for them. 

Contrary to popular belief, statues, monuments and memorial sites aren’t necessarily about the past, but are about the recognizing the values that exist in the world today, through the historical figures that supposedly created and/or embodied them, that are in statues.

 

What history is

History is the study of events, periods, people, and methods of the past. Studying it as an academic discipline involves reading the facts and drawing your own interpretations and conclusions from it. And regardless of how positive or negative a certain historical period, figure or method was, it can never be erased. Memory is a lot more personal - it is about how you choose to view and remember the historical period, figure or method based on the facts that history has supplied you with. 

And this is what many people don’t know, and the very fact that they don’t know this, has led to issues that have had detrimental effects on our society. The ways in which history is sometimes presented and taught in schools is one of those issues. Schools and universities generally present history as a matter of categorizing figures and periods as either angels or demons. And that’s where they fall short and misunderstand the purpose behind teaching about the past. The underlying purpose and aims behind teaching history is to understand how and why certain events happened or how and why people pursued certain actions, and the effects those events and actions had on society at that time and what they mean for the society we find ourselves in today.

So, to those of you who thought that grand actions like toppling statues would erase history, I would encourage you to think again and look into the real purpose behind the study of the past and to really try and understand the distinction between history and memory. Only then will we be able to discover the true meaning and effects of such grand actions and understand that such actions won’t properly help us understand our past or resolve present issues.

 

What do you think of the author’s arguments? Let us know below.