The Myth and Reality of Santa Claus

The figure of Santa Claus has been increasingly commercialized in the 20th and 21st centuries. But who was the real Santa Claus? Daniel L. Smith gives his take here.

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

An early 20th century depiction of Santa Claus.

In present day America the day after Thanksgiving is traditionally spent hanging Christmas decorations and various lighting across the house and yard. These fun displays usually fit in the category of snowman, reindeer, or a big jolly old man with a white beard in a bright red suit with white fuzzy trim. We usually see images of this same person in stories or on the television magically hopping down chimneys and delivering gifts to sleeping families worldwide. This image has become something we’ve all been generationally born into, but where did this myth originate from? What is the truth behind this entire story?

The reality and the myth

“The real St. Nicholas lived from 270 to 342 and was known in his lifetime for fighting evil and promoting justice. He was credited with performing many miracles. His body was buried in the church in Myra, but in the 11th century pirates stole the bones and took them to Bari, Italy, where they supposedly are preserved in a Catholic church. About that time Nicholas also became a popular saint in Northern Europe. He was sometimes depicted with a staff, looking more like a Greek bishop.

The legend that has become the basis of the Santa Claus story is as follows.

A poor man had three daughters. Unable to give them dowries, he thought he would have to sell them into prostitution (something the extremely poor were sometimes forced into). Nicholas wanted to help but also keep his charity work secret. He went to their home one night but climbed on the roof when he found all the doors and windows locked. He dropped three bags of gold down the chimney, and the three young women had hung their stockings by the fire to dry. The gifts fell into the socks, and the tradition was off and running.

St. Nicholas Day, Dec. 6, is still celebrated in many countries, and often includes gifts for children and gift exchanges among adults. So, the real person who fought for social justice, elimination of poverty and protection of children has had his image corrupted by a friendly guy in a red suit who brings you generally more than you would ever want.[1]

But in the early days of Christianity, conspicuous consumption was not common among Christians. 

A Material Cause

During the days of Paul the Apostle, greed was an easy reality to observe. The rich get rich and the poor get poorer. Arguably materialism in our times today is the only way to prove any kind of “flaunting success.” Continuing to buy and accumulate “things” has become the way Americans prove our worth to others.[2]

Historian Adam English writes that, “Nearly everyone knows that Santa Claus -- the obese, old gent who squeezes himself down the chimney every Christmas Eve -- is the American alter ego of St. Nicholas. Slimmer and less overtly jolly, St. Nicholas roams about Western Europe showering children with presents on his traditional feast day of Dec. 6. In the Netherlands and parts of Germany, children expect a visit from a white-bearded, ecclesiastically garbed "Sinterklaas" (his Dutch name), who decides whether they have been naughty or nice before handing out treats from his sack.

Dutch and German immigrants brought St. Nicholas to America in the early 19th century, and he began a process of assimilation, trading in his bishop's miter and crosier for a fur-trimmed red suit and cap. The Santa we now know was the creation of poet Clement Clarke Moore (1779-1863), the author of "The Night Before Christmas"; cartoonist Thomas Nast; illustrators like N.C. Wyeth and Norman Rockwell; and the magazine ads for Coca-Cola painted by Haddon Simmons starting in 1931, in which Santa took a break from the arduousness of setting up junior's electric train by pausing to have a coke.”[3]

Christians and Santa Claus

So, here we are in 2020 and most of American society relishes in the contemporary version of St. Nick. One has got to wonder how Christians should feel about the secularized and materialistic view on Christmas Santa Claus?

Ken Ham, Director of the Creation Museum and bearer of 6 honorary university graduate degrees mentions, “The mythical Santa is clearly founded in a man who honored Jesus Christ with his life and his possessions. Nicholas gave freely of his riches to benefit those who were less fortunate than himself. This is clearly a fundamental Christian principle, as we see care for the poor proclaimed throughout Scripture (e.g. James 2:1–17).

Is that the same idea we see in the Santa Claus celebrated today? The popular song extols children to stop shouting, pouting, and crying in order to earn Santa’s favor and his gifts. This is clearly not the attitude that we see in the biblically motivated actions of the original St. Nick—and a far cry from a biblical attitude of raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.”[4]

Hope, Joy, Blessings

Of course discernment is the key here when it comes to a good old-fashioned secularized Christmas. Because even though Christ’s day has been cut down to a materialistic game of possessions, there are still hints scattered throughout the collage of the holidays. Bright stars, Gifts, Blessings of Joy and Hope. These are all principles of the day we know as Christmas. It is a day of blessing others. It is a day of healing and redemption. It is a day to reconnect and start fresh, knowing that there is divine light at the end of a dark road. Christmas is the day that mankind was gifted with the ultimate redemption on life by God Himself.

Other than the divinity of Jesus Christ, humanity has been blessed with the likes of the Apostles, the Christian Church, ministries of giving and selfless service, and much, much, more. Santa Claus, or St. Nick, was a man of Christ. He was known for much more than working with elves, magically transporting down chimneys, and riding a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer across the skyline. He was a man who knew how to live a life for Christ and serve the needs of humankind who ultimately needed it the most.
 

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), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Allen, Martha Sawyer. "What would St. Nick do? : St. Nicholas - the real guy - was known for his battles against evil and for justice and the downtrodden. Somehow over the centuries his image has been corrupted into that of Santa Claus, who has been called the patron saint of greed." Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN] 4 Dec. 1999: 05B. Business Insights: Global. Web. 7 Dec. 2020.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Allen, Charlotte. "The Real Father Christmas." Wall Street Journal, Dec 06, 2012, Eastern edition.

[4] Ham, Ken. "Christians and Santa Claus: A Biblical View." Answers in Genesis. Last modified December 15, 2009. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/birth/wintertime-worship-santa-claus-or-jesus-christ/.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 4 – McKinley’s Character

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 4, we look in depth at McKinley’s character and domestic life.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal, in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans, and in part 3 here he considers McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

A photo of William McKinley.

The word included in the accusations brought against the man: “rape, murder, genocide, savagery” would be a good description of a serial killer or monstrous dictator like Hitler. But they are wildly inconsistent with the known character of William McKinley. The testimony of those who knew the man are universal in their admiration of his personal habits. In 1896 when a McKinley run for president became likely, the opposition mudslinging kicked into high gear. The problem was, they could find nothing to attack him on. His life was free from scandal, he was a hard worker.  He had not used his office to enrich himself. The opposition then resorted to digging up falsehoods.

In fact, the general respect with which this man had garnered from public opinion is well illustrated from an incident occurring in 1893. In that year of financial panic, McKinley, through no fault of his own, faced bankruptcy. His debts far exceeded his ability to repay and so he considered quitting politics and returning to practice law. When his desperate straits became public knowledge, a great outpouring of public sympathy arose. As many as five thousand donations, many from Democrats, poured into the Governor's office. The reason? His reputation for kindness and as an honest public servant who never used his office for public gain. The Democrat Brooklyn Eagle described the entire affair, both the bankruptcy and the generosity of friends in coming to McKinley’s assistance as “a matter of hearthstone pleasure around the land.”

Honest politician

To those who say an honest politician doesn’t exist, I say, meet William McKinley. Even in that era when people took religion seriously, he stood out as an example of a complete Christian gentleman. He is, in fact, considered to be one of the most devout men to ever occupy the White House. He was a lifelong and pious member of the Methodist Church. As a holder of public office, he would often pray before making important political decisions. His soul-searching about what to do with the Philippines is not atypical. On that subject he said to a group of visitors: “I walked the floor of the White House night after night, until midnight. And I am not ashamed to tell you gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night.” He disapproved of off-color jokes or stories in his presence. As president of the local Y.M.C.A. he mentored young men to take their devotion to spiritual and moral standards seriously and led them in street-witnessing outings. McKinley characteristically proclaimed his spiritual convictions publicly, “Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial, and who will not forsake us so long as we obey His commandments and walk humbly in his footsteps.” I believe the record of his life, as witnessed partially in this article, provides abundant examples of the fact that his life and actions as a political leader were amply informed by his religious convictions. 

Broad-minded

Next, evidence is abundant of his basic broad-mindedness. In the words of one biographer, “McKinley was devoid of bigotry…” For instance, although a dedicated member of the Methodist Church all his life, his creed based itself on the love and kindness of God, not doctrinal bickering. In contrast to a rising tide of anti-Catholicism, he consistently embraced into his circle of friends and into his administration followers of all creeds, including Catholic. His choice as Commissioner-General of Immigration was an Irish Catholic labor leader named Terence Vincent Powderly, founder of the Knights of Labor. At the presentation of the sword to Admiral Dewey on October 3, 1899, McKinley took the unprecedented step of having a Roman Catholic prelate, Cardinal Gibbons, pronounce the benediction. Despite his strict Methodism, he made many friends among the Catholic community of Canton. 

Kindred to this, his attitude toward labor further underlined his humanity. Although a Republican and decidedly pro-business, he managed at the same time to be a friend of labor. This was no easy feat during the ‘Gilded Age’. Conflict between labor and the corporate interests was so intense at this time that some were afraid it would lead to a new civil war. Despite this, McKinley managed to win the support and respect of both sides. He understood the importance of a healthy business environment while at the same time sympathizing with the grievances of labor. His popularity with labor dates from an early court case in which he defended some miners who had been involved in a riot. He managed to get all but one acquitted. When the strikers scraped up money to reimburse him, McKinley refused to accept payment from the struggling miners. Numerous measures passed for the protection of workers during his tenure as governor of Ohio show his influence. He often took it upon himself to arbitrate labor disputes, attempting to win settlements favorable to both sides. When he did so, he insisted that his involvement be kept private.  

Dedicated public servant

By all accounts McKinley was a dedicated public servant. As president, he rarely took vacations. In 1898, a very taxing year involving major foreign policy crises, he took one holiday lasting one week. Part of it was spent visiting a military hospital to check on conditions and encourage the sick and wounded. Intense pressure brought on by the Spanish-American War and scandals over the War Department would have driven a lesser man to frequent vacations - not the sober McKinley. Contrast this with the frequent vacations taken by recent presidents. During that war, which McKinley had done everything he could to avoid, he was governed by the rule he articulated to his Secretary of War, Russell Alger. The Secretary was eager to deflect negative publicity and cater to growing demands from militiamen who feared the war would end before they had a chance to see action. To accomplish these ends he proposed to the president an immediate attack on Puerto Rico. McKinley answered with his usual terse practicality and high standards, “Mr Secretary what do you think the people will say if they believe we unnecessarily and at great expense send these boys out of the country? Is it either necessary or expedient?” 

Eyewitnesses also reported that the Major was devoid of pretense or self-importance no matter how high he rose in the public service. Both in speech and appearance he “showed no sign of self-importance or affectation” in Leech’s words, and was always accessible to the general public. He often insisted that his participation in certain accomplishments be kept out of the paper for he had “no desire to indulge in any pyrotechnics.” His attitude toward public service can be summed up in the following statements taken down by his secretary George Cortelyou, “when the time comes the question of my acquiescence (to re-nomination in 1900) will be based absolutely upon whether the call of duty appears to me clear and well defined.” Since McKinley was not known for empty platitudes, we can take these statements at face value.

Domestic life

In domestic virtues McKinley developed a reputation which approached the legendary. He married Ida Saxton on January 25, 1871. The marriage was sadly destined to have its share of tragedies. Two daughters were born to the couple, both of whom died in early childhood. The sad little graves of Katie and Ida McKinley can be seen in the McKinley Memorial in Canton, Ohio. McKinley’s wife never quite recovered from this double blow and was a semi-recluse for the rest of the couples’ marriage. As author Margaret Leech put it “The pretty, pleasure-seeking young woman McKinley had married had changed to a feeble, self-centered nervous invalid.” Much of the Major’s time was spent tending to his wife during her frequent bouts of illness and seeking respite by sending her to various cures. Ida could also be rather demanding. Many official meetings were interrupted by her insisting her husband leave the meeting immediately and tender his views on some domestic matter. Common themes were his opinion on which fabric to use in creation of some item of clothing or decor. The disgruntled participants of the meeting were surprised to see McKinley immediately leap up to go to his wife at these summonses. To many his wife’s solicitations seemed trivial, but McKinley invariably gave her his full and careful attention. Unlike many men in his circumstances, the Major never gave in to complaint or the seeking out of other female companionship. Instead, many observed him change to accommodate his wife. He was observed tirelessly ministering to her needs and attentive to her comfort. His tone of voice became soft and careful, he developed skill in diverting Ida, he endured close, stuffy environments because she avoided fresh air, he adjusted his gait to suit her hesitant pace. He became expert at diagnosing the degree of severity of her attacks and treating them. His example of domestic constancy was one factor in winning the support of women, who, although they lacked the suffrage at this time, were playing an increasingly important role in social and political issues. After decades of marriage he continued to sign his letters to her “your faithful husband and always your lover.” During the White House years, so devoted was the president to the First Lady that Senator Mark Hanna remarked that McKinley's dedication to her was “making it awfully hard on all the other husbands around here.”

Quotes on McKinley

But instead of relying on our distant voices alone, let us allow those who knew him to speak. The following are a series of quotes.

He was “a mediaeval knight in the dusty arena of Ohio politics” - Bellamy Storer.

“He never had a harsh word, but rather a kindly appeal: ‘Come now, let us put the personal element aside and consider the principle involved.’ “ - Robert La Follette.

“That never failing remedy of yours.” -- Mark Hanna on McKinley’s famous tact.

"In a few minutes word came from Mr. McKinley that he would see me. How any man can see so many people ... and still keep himself calm, patient, and fresh for each visitor in the way that President McKinley does, I cannot understand. - Booker T. Washington

McKinley Quotes:

“This seems to be right and fair and just. I think so don’t you?” (To Mark Hanna)

“There are some things … I would not do and cannot do, even to become President of the United States.”

“War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed; peace is preferable to war in almost every contingency.” 

This brings us back to the accusations. Bearing in mind that this article is by no means an exhaustive description of the admirable character of our 25th president, ask yourself, does William McKinley sound like someone who would be guilty of “racism, murder and slaughter” or willing to tolerate the enslavement and abuse of anyone? Or has he been most grievously misrepresented? 

Having read the series, what do you think of William McKinley? Let us know below.

Now, if you want to learn about Tudor England, you can read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

References

The Booker T. Washington Papers, Vol. 5: 1899-1900, University of Illinois Press, 1976.

“Conflict Among the Tribes and Settlers.” Nebraska Studies.org

Gould, Lewis L. The Presidency of William McKinley, Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1980.

Gould, Lewis. “William McKinley Domestic Affairs.” 2019, miller center.org, accessed October, 2020.

Harpine, William D.  “African American Rhetoric of Greeting During McKinley’s 1896 Front Porch Campaign.” University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Communication Department 2010.

Leech, Margaret, In the Days of McKinley, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959

McKinley, William, First Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1897.

McKinley, William, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1897.

McKinley, William. “Veto Message to Congress.” May 03, 1900.

“William McKinley and Civil Rights” Presidential History Geeks, Oct. 13th, 2011, potus-geeks.livejournal.com, accessed October, 2020.

Marshall, Everett, Complete Life of William McKinley and Story of His Assassination An Authentic and Official Memorial Edition, Containing Every Incident in the Career of the Immortal Statesman, Soldier, Orator and Patriot, Originally published by Donahue, 1901

Morgan, H. Wayne,  “The View from the Front Porch: William McKinley and the Campaign of 1896" presented to the 12th Hayes Lecture on the Presidency, February 18, 2001, in the Hayes Museum auditorium.

“Patterns of White Settlement in Oklahoma” Region 3 Oklahoma Historic Preservation Survey, Oklahoma State University, 1986. 

Washington, Booker T. Up From Slavery, An Autobiography, New York: Doubleday, 1901.

Growing up in Post-World War Two Liverpool

World War Two had great impacts on so many people, but what were the impacts and memories of people after the war? In this memoir-based article, Alice Cullinane explains the experiences of her grandfather who grew up in Liverpool, England in the years after World War Two.

The impact of the Liverpool Blitz.

John Rooney was in his 50’s when he discovered his father’s codebreaking history at Bletchley Park, the famed code-breaking site in England. He was born just after the war in Liverpool - the “heaviest bombed area of the country” outside of London, which killed nearly 3,000 people. (1) From wearing gas masks that contained a ‘magic mineral’, to watching the Luftwaffe bomb the Liverpool docks, John has experienced life severely troubled by war. 

“We lived in big Victorian houses…quite run-down, but not derelict.” John was 1 of 12 children in his considerably large family, with siblings contributing towards the ‘Baby Boom’ era. In post-war Britain, the government built new schools and introduced other measures such as free school milk and child benefits to cater for the boomer generation. (2) Bombings destroyed thousands of homes, with Britain facing its worst housing shortage of the 20th century. Around 750,000 new homes were required in England and Wales in 1945 to provide all families with accommodation. (4) “Where we lived, there had only been a small number of bombings." However, on John's road, the bombings destroyed one house, leaving just "a heap of debris" with "no doors or windows." He remembers "my elder brother and I finding a lot of ruined houses…going in one once to be chased out by a family who lived in this ruined house."

Although the war ended before John’s life, it is undeniable that remnants lingered. He recalls having "two gas masks in the house, which we actually needed because my elder brother set the house on fire." His brother caused the house fire by "playing with matches", which he recalls finding very "exciting."

In 1939, the government issued 38 million gas masks to the public, with strict instructions - carry at all times. (5) However, by the beginning of 1940, almost no one bothered to take their gas mask with them; the government announced monthly gas mask inspections as a result. Fear hung around the use of gas, but the Germans never used it against the British in World War Two.  Local doctors noticed factory workers employed in making the masks were showing abnormally high numbers of deaths from cancer; they later discovered the gas mask filters contained Asbestos, consequently seen as the ‘magic’ mineral during much of the 20th century. (6)

Rationing, the Luftwaffe and Bletchley Park

"We found it (the war) all very exciting. There was rationing…I remember my mum tearing out the coupon."  The equality of rationing appealed to many. There was a sense that everyone was doing their bit to fight the war from home. Rationing also helped a black market to thrive; ‘Spivs’ offered extra food and rare luxuries to those who could afford them. (7) "We were told by my mum…to walk down the middle of the road when it was windy" as "the slates would come sailing off the roofs and smash in the road." Housing shortages and little money meant that many didn't repair their homes. There was a neglect of numerous homes which were due for demolition under slum clearance plans before the war. (8) John recalls "areas of a huge amount of damage…everything was damaged and broken. They began clearing that in the 1950s."

“I remember somebody the same age as me saying…he used to watch the Luftwaffe come over and bomb." In the early 1940s, the Liverpool docks were a significant target for the Luftwaffe (9); however they had supply problems and a lack of aircraft reserves throughout the battle. There was a proposal for the Luftwaffe to take on a kamikaze unit, although no suicide missions took place. (10) John's dad, was "originally in Palestine, in the intelligence branch of the Royal Signals." He "was then moved to Bletchley Park, where he was one of the code breakers there." All staff signed the Official Secrets Act in 1939, and even within Bletchley Park discretion was highlighted in 1942: "Do not talk at meals. Do not talk in the transport. Do not talk travelling. Do not talk in the billet.” (11) "He wasn't allowed to talk about it…but we did notice…there were things like we had German bits in the house and codebooks."

In the 1990s, John discovered his dad's exciting history, finding great joy in seeing his name on the computers in Bletchley Park. "My mum, she worked in the censorship." Local officials used censorship and propaganda to maintain the morale of citizens during the war, helping prevent defeat. Specific details which might have caused people to lose hope were kept secret, for the spirit of the country. (12) “She used to do fire duty, watching for buildings going on fire.” The Luftwaffe dropping incendiary bombs worried the British government in particular, so they recruited 6,000 people for the Auxiliary Fire Service, and they went on duty after working their regular jobs. The establishment of temporary fire stations occurred in schools and church halls. (13) John’s mother "would walk along the main road, and the buildings would be burning either side of her."

When John visited France in the 1960s, he felt "it was as if the war had only just happened…20 years later." For many, including John, it's clear that the war had lasting effects on society and the economy, taking decades to return to a new normal.

What do you think of life in post World War Two Liverpool? Let us know below.

References

(1)   Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Blitz

(2) Yesterday: https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/history/article/baby-boom/

3) Historic Liverpool: https://historic-liverpool.co.uk/liverpool-in-the-1950s/

(4) History of Housing UK: http://www.bushywood.com/building/History_House_Building_UK_WWI_WWII_Shortages.htm#:~:text=As%20with%20WW1%2C%20there%20was,had%20been%20destroyed%20by%20bombing.&text=The%20birth%20rate%20climbed%20after,shortage%20of%20the%2020th%20century

(5) Find my Past: https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register/why-britain-issued-gas-masks-ww2

(6) Spartacus Education: https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL124.htm

(7) Find my Past: https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register/rationing-in-britain-ww2

(8) The History of Council Housing: https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm

9) WW2 People’s War-https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/15/a3237815.shtml

(10) Facts about the German Luftwaffe- https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-the-german-luftwaffe/

(11) Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park#:~:text=All%20staff%20signed%20the%20Official,not%20talk%20in%20the%20billet.

(12) My Learning- https://www.mylearning.org/stories/censorship-and-propaganda-in-ww2/483?#:~:text=World%20War%20Two%20affected%20the,in%20Britain%20in%20many%20ways.&text=For%20this%20reason%2C%20local%20officials,the%20morale%20of%20the%20country

(13) Spartacus Education- https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWincendiary.htm

What do Niccolò Machiavelli, the Decapitation of King Charles I and Income Inequality have in common?

What do Niccolò Machiavelli, the decapitation of King Charles I of England, and income inequality have in common? Here, Phillip Min Kong argues that it is the 1642-1651 English Civil War that binds the three together.

King Charles I of England in three positions. Painting by Sir Anthony Van Dyck.

The English Civil War is one of the most notable civil wars in history, but what caused this huge war to happen, and what were its effects not only in history but also in modern society?

The English Civil War is one of the most significant civil wars in history because of the heroic acts of Parliament that changed England during the 1600s in ways that endure to today. By expanding democratic institutions, Parliament evened the gap between England’s rulers and its citizens and ushered in the start of a better monarchy and a more equal society. Why then did Charles I need to lose his head?

Background

The English Civil War started in 1642 and continued until 1651; the main issue between King Charles I and Parliament was the role of monarchy. Charles I was a strong believer of the divine rights of kings, a concept supported by Jacques Bossuet that stated the full authority of the monarchy and the right to rule came directly from God. Parliamentary forces disagreed, but though they sought increased power, they also had no intention of deposing Charles I. When the “long Parliament,” so named for their extended dismissal, was summoned by Charles I to pass financial legislation, events did not unfold as planned. Not only did Parliament ultimately win, but also the conflict led to Charles I being executed and replaced by Oliver Cromwell, who eliminated anti-Parliament forces and ensured no monarch could again rule without Parliament's power. However, in an uncanny echoing of Charles I, Cromwell soon began to dangerously take on the trappings of the monarchy, declaring himself Lord Protector of England, and even having his son installed in that position after his death. This attempt was soon thwarted by the restoration of the Long Parliament in 1659, and the restoration of King Charles II under a constitutional monarchy in 1660.

Niccolò Machiavelli

In 1513, the Italian Diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli published his book The Prince, in which he asserted that it is better to rule unscrupulously. More than one hundred years later, his theories would play out far from his home country. As history proceeded from the English Civil War, the new constitutional monarchy represented a step towards democracy when compared to the rules of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. When Charles I was executed and the new republic of the Commonwealth of England was created, the notion that the divine rights of kings gave the monarch's full authority was directly turned on its head. Yet, a monarchy continues to this day in the United Kingdom. This relates to how the Parliament requested more power, not complete elimination of a king. The monarchy today in the United Kingdom is called a constitutional monarchy. Just as Parliament sought in the 1600s, the making and passing of legislation became strictly dependent on elected representatives. The sovereign head of state, the king or queen, could no longer make, change, and delete laws at their whim. The English king Charles I - and later Cromwell - attempted Machiavellian rule in some ways, but each was too corrupt to think of English citizens over himself; consequently, income inequality combined with social divisions, unscrupulously (or not) caused Charles to lose his head and the monarchy to lose its power.

Income inequality

However, this did not solve one of the root problems that not only contributed to the English Civil War, but also lasts to this day in modern society: income inequality. One of the main reasons for the English Civil War breaking out was England’s debt. Before King Charles’ reign, his father, James I was wasting resources for his own benefit; Charles was no different. Parliament’s consent was needed to raise taxes to pay off these debts; however, Parliament refused. Charles dismissed Parliament once again and unsuccessfully sought alternative income sources, earning only the hatred of the English people. Combined with another disagreement in the form of religious differences - the Protestant Parliament greatly disapproved of Charles’s marriage to a Catholic queen, and was worried about a potential Catholic heir to the throne - the threat to Charles was amplified and civil war ensued. While the English Civil War’s effects directly addressed some causes of the civil war, other problems, like income inequality, persisted because even though the leadership of the country started to come from Parliament, Parliament was still largely full of nobles. Since the nobles were happy with their income and life, even after the civil war, there was no need to change what was already pleasing to them.

Modern context

Therefore, there are still lessons that can be learned from the English Civil War, especially considering the current climate of income inequality and increasing political polarization in the world today. When we take into account widespread economic inequality, coupled with a president in the US who has threatened not to leave office, many of the same issues that caused the English Civil War are still prevalent in the world today. The current income inequality in the United Kingdom is growing. English democracy separates the power in a way that is healthy for the country, but must soon deal with rising economic populism, or even another kind of government system that may soon appear. The rise of economic populist political forces like Donald Trump and the UK’s Brexit vote bear resemblance to the same forces that produced political change in the English Civil War. However, thanks to democracy, while the continuing political conflict and social divisions seem likely to cause some politicians to lose power, they can thank the English Civil War that they will keep their heads.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Britain’s Relationship with the European Dictators in the Interwar Years

In the decades between the two world wars, Europe was very unstable, and many countries saw dictators come to power. Here, Stephen Prout considers how democratic Britain engaged with the dictators in Italy, Spain, and Germany over the period

Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler meeting in 1938. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-063-32 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Britain’s relationships with the main West European dictatorships, Italy, Spain and Germany, during the interwar period were often of a cordial and accommodating manner. The view Britain stood alone in defying the dictatorships was not necessarily true in this period.

The treaties established after the Great War did not address all the old grievances. New ones arose. The USA almost immediately distanced itself from the League of Nations and Europe, leaving the victors to preside over matters with their old imperial ways. Democracies largely failed and a precarious economic outlook helped both right- and left-wing extremism flourish. Communism was often the specter most reviled by the democracies and the dictators, ironically bringing unintended consensus between them.

Britain and Italy

Mussolini is remembered as being part of the Axis Powers, but Italy was very much regarded as an asset and the relationship followed a friendlier dynamic and path right up to the war.

During the Great War the British government maintained Italian participation and Mussolini himself was supported financially by British Intelligence payroll to promote pro-war feeling in his journalistic capacity. This cordial relationship continued after fascism installed itself.

Fascist atrocities and violence did little to deter the British from continuing this friendly relationship with Mussolini. They would adopt a partially sighted attitude to many of Mussolini’s actions such as his march on Rome to seize power, the murder of his political rival Giacomo Matteotti, and the removal of opposition figures that followed were simply dismissed with the thought that ‘Italy is not England’.

The condoning was publicly evident. The Times of London proclaimed that British and Italian empires were in perfect harmony. Up to the beginning of the 1930s Italian policy was given full approval by the British press and statesmen, such as Sir Austen Chamberlain. Clearly, Britain would not be shaken when British interests were unmolested.

In 1923 for a few short months Italy invaded the island of Corfu and demanded substantial reparations from Greece.  A short military offensive ensued described by Baldwin as “violent and excusable” for demands that Lord Curzon termed as “extravagant”.  Britain did little to protest; instead Curzon believed that referring the matter to the League of Nations would cause Italy to leave the League, so he bypassed protocol.

Curzon believed the League would have been ineffective as sanctions would have been vetoed by France and the USA, not being a member, would still trade with Italy. The outcome would have isolated a friendly power, which was not expedient to British interests.  In fact, Lord Curzon dealt with the matter by dispensing with all Foreign Office formalities and involving the League little, a behavior or disregard that was no better than those displayed Mussolini.  However aggressive military actions by the British in Iraq around the time were little different, so they had no moral high ground themselves.

Strained relations

Curzon showed limited disapproval of Mussolini’s actions, but Britain needed an ally.  Apart from the Corfu incident there were divisions with France over the 1922 Treaty of Lausanne. Reliance on France was in question after France, with Soviet Russia and Italy, set up formal agreements with Turkey.  His efforts to maintain a relationship with Poincare, the French Premier, were strained and by 1922 Britain saw herself isolated and weakened in the Middle Eastern diplomatic world. Britain and France were on the brink of a European ‘divorce’ from their old alliance. Italy could fill that void or balance out French power and influence. Indeed, Italy appeared to be the one to rival or at least be used in leverage against French ambitions to support British interests. 

More approval came when the Ambassador to Rome Howard Kennel commented “that the Fascist Regime was the thing saving Italy from Communism”.  The anti-communist stance would be of equal importance in influencing Britain’s dealings with the dictators alongside her own financial interests. Much could be tolerated if her own interests were not affected.

This attitude can be found in the circles of the Cliveden set in Britain. This group was an elite networking group of the political and establishment influencers.  Neville Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, and Lord Halifax were known in these circles. They had admiration for fascism and sympathies for German grievances. The Times of London in August 1922 saw fascism as “a necessary subversive force” to counter the perceived menace of Bolshevism.  

Winston Churchill himself was not shy of praising Mussolini and other dictators. In 1927 he quoted from Creeds of The Devil “If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have whole been whole heartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”  He would also later say: “I would not pretend that if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism that I would choose Communism”. 

Churchill often changed his attitudes and allegiances, but interestingly before the Second World War he courted the dictators from Italy, Spain, and Portugal before his overtures to Stalin. Expediency allows many things to be forgotten and overlooked.

The relationship with Italy was further ratified and strengthened in 1925 by King George’s visit to Italy, which “added a glint of respectability to the fascist regime.” Meanwhile establishment circles and media were sharing similarly favorable sentiments.

Another view by the Observer was that “Italy should be kept as an ally against France” at a time when the French occupation of the German Ruhr was seen as just as reprehensible as Italian actions in Corfu by some.

Italy’s later invasion of Abyssinia did little to change British diplomacy.  The reluctance to deal with Italian aggression in 1935-36, which sprang not from timidity of the fascist but of “conservative ideological sympathy with the Fascist regime” (AJP Taylor).

Franco and the Spanish Civil War

Franco’s Spain also enjoyed cordial treatment from the British government.  Spain between 1936 and 1939 was undergoing a Civil War. All the main European Powers played a part. Italy and Germany were actively supporting Franco. Soviet Russia, Franco’s opponents.  The British followed a policy of non-intervention along with France, which did as much to aid Franco as military support from the Axis Powers. 

AJP Taylor also says that timidity was the primary influence behind the British political stance on Spain, Pro-Fascism second and then a significant financial interest.  It has been argued had it been the Communists who had the upper hand then perhaps actual intervention would have been applied.  Churchill, he argues, was also pro-Franco during the civil war.  

Westminster also echoed anti-communist and pro-Franco sentiments as British economic interests were at stake, with Spain accounting for many British imports and exports and with the strategic importance of Gibraltar.

Diplomats such as George Ogilvie-Forbes reported in 1936 to the Foreign Office that “word was needed in the press or parliament that the rebels were guilty of wanton cruelty especially to children” however the response was muted.  These reports detailed regular atrocities, yet Britain maintained her distance. At the end of the war in 1939, Franco quickly gained recognition from Britain.

Eastern Europe and the united front

Trouble in Czechoslovakia and Poland gathered momentum in the late 1930s. Although Britain always kept a distance from Eastern Europe, she took a lead in the 1938 Sudeten Crisis.  The likes of Neville Chamberlain, William Strang, Nevile Henderson, and Lord Halifax did not favor the Czechoslovaks but instead tolerated Hitler’s demands, putting pressure on the Czechs to concede.  Henderson regarded the Czechoslovak leader Benes as “pig-headed” over his refusals.  Strang from the British Foreign Office recommended the surrender of Czechoslovakia, making her a German satellite.

Poland suffered equally dismal treatment.  Lord Halifax said on the very day of his pledge “we do not think this guarantee will be binding”. Alexander Cadogan, another unsympathetic diplomat, remarked that “Poland was not worth the bones of a single Grenadier”. 

While the Czech crisis was in full swing an Anglo-Italian agreement was concluded fresh from the international illegalities of Abyssinian affair. Britain was still prepared to sign agreements with the dictators.

In Britain’s defense the horrors that the Nazi regime committed were not yet known and they perhaps felt no obligation to fully understand what the regime would do. Most countries that were in the center of the disputes were not democracies and some, like Poland and the Soviet Union, had their own virulent anti-Semitic ways.  There was genuine sympathy for German claims after he Great War, a menacing Soviet Union in the background, and few allies to rely on. 

What do you think of Britain and the Great Dictators? Let us know below.

References

AJP Taylor “Origins of the Second War ”

R J B Bosworth “The British Press, The Conservatives ad Mussolini, 1920-34” Sage Publications

Creeds of the Devil Churchill Between the Two Totalitarianisms 1917-45 – Antoine Capet Universite De Rouen

Enrique Moradiellos – British Strategy in the Face of Military Rising in Spain P 123-157 – Contemporary European History – Cambridge University Press

C E Peden – Economic Background to British Foreign Policy 1937-39 – Wiley

C A Macdonald – Economic Appeasement and the German Moderates Introductory Essay – Past and Present P 105-135 – Oxford University Press.

The 1897 Greco-Turkish War: A Minor War with Major Consequences

The 1897 Greco-Turkish War took place over 32 days from April to May 1897. Greece and the Turkish Ottoman Empire fought, primarily over the question of the status of Crete. However, the war had lasting consequences. Rama Narendra explains.

The Battle of Domeke in the 1897 Greco-Turkish War. Painting by Fausto Zonaro.

The 1897 Greco-Turkish War is a war few remember or even know about outside of the countries involved. The war was relatively short, involved two relatively minor players in the European Concert, and is completely overshadowed by wars and crises happening shortly after it like the Agadir Crisis, the Italo-Turkish War, The Balkan Wars, and World War I. However, the war still had major, but subtle consequences for both countries which, like dominoes, led to the Balkan Wars in the 20thcentury.

Background

Just like other Empires at the time, the Ottoman Empire was troubled with nationalist revolts in the 19th century. One particular hotbed for nationalist fervor was Crete, with its Greek-speaking majority demanding autonomy or even self-rule. To escalate the situation, King George of Greece was of one mind with Greek nationalists in wishing to annex the island, and frequently sent arms and men to support Cretan nationalists. 1897, however, would prove to be a fateful year as the over-confident Greek leadership saw the chance to annex Crete or even expanding on the mainland further north. This overconfidence was fueled by the humiliation of the Ottoman armed forces back in the 1877 Russo-Turkish War, and an exaggerated view of the internal problems of the Ottomans, especially regarding the Armenian rebellions.

The Ottoman military, though, was far from what the Greek leadership had imagined. Sultan Abdülhamid II has been working closely with German advisors to reform and improve the Ottoman army. The mission led by Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz in 1886 had particularly lasting effects on Ottoman leadership and planning. He not only drastically improved the Ottoman education and training system, but also changed the overall status of the general staff officer corps within the army. Close cooperation with German firms also ensured that the Ottomans were armed with modern bolt-action rifles.

Escalating Tensions

On February 15, 1897 two regular Greek battalions, joined by local rebels landed on the shores of Crete. Within two weeks, Greek semi-official gangs, called the Ethnike Hetairia, reinforced with regular officers and soldiers, began to launch raids into Ottoman Thessaly. On April 9 Greek raiders, with some Italian volunteers, attacked Ottoman border towers and defeated a border company in Kranya. They were repulsed by Ottoman border guards the next day, and even though the Ottoman government were reluctant to enter a full-blown war, intense public pressure eventually pushed the Ottomans to declare war on Greece on April 17.

The war was fought in two separate theaters: Alasonya-Thessaly and Yanya-Epirus. However, most of the fighting was done in the Thessaly Front. During the war, the Ottomans used plans devised by none other than Von der Goltz himself. The plan was to force the Greeks to overstretch their defensive lines, which were very near to the border. The main body of the Ottoman Army at Alasonya would then try to encircle the Greeks before they were able to retreat back to the Yenisehir line. Von der Goltz expected that the Great Powers would not let the Greeks be beaten and would intervene in the conflict in less than 15 days. So the Greek army had to be crushed in less than two weeks.

The War

The first stage of the war (April 16–22) was marked by border clashes and the occupation of mountain passes. This stage also shows that despite the reforms the Ottoman army still had glaring shortcomings. Officers and soldiers sometimes ran towards the enemy as if in a race without paying attention to combat tactics and techniques, and as a result officers suffered abnormally high casualty levels. Instead of conducting the encirclement maneuver as planned, most units simply tried to push the Greek defenders back by frontal assaults. Confusion, delay, and lack of coordination and communication were the norms until the Ottoman forward units reached weakly defended Yenisehir two days after the Greeks withdrew from the town.

The second stage (April 23–May 4) was marked by the battle of Mati-Deliler and the occupation of Tırnova and Yenisehir. The second stage proceeded almost the same way as the first stage, with Ottoman units pushing the Greek defenders back without attempting encirclement maneuvers, and the Greeks safely evacuated their defenses and retreated to their last defensive line.

The third and last stage (May 5–17) was marked by the decisive battles of Velestin, Catalca, and Domeke, in front of the last Greek defensive line. The first battle of Velestin was a disaster for the Ottomans. In this encounter, a forced reconnaissance turned into a futile and bloody assault, and the Greek lines held firm against Ottoman cavalry and infantry charges. However, the Ottomans eventually pushed through Greek lines in the second battle. The Ottoman army finally decisively beat the Greeks at the battles of Catalca and Domeke. The Greek defenders were thoroughly beaten and the road to Athens was opened.

Conclusion and Consequences

However, as Von der Goltz had predicted, the Great Powers intervened and Greece was saved from further humiliation. Even though the Ottomans militarily won the war, they did not gain much from the victory. The Great Powers forced the Ottomans to give Crete autonomy and refused an Ottoman plea to obtain the region of Thessaly, previously lost in the aftermath of the 1877 Russo-Turkish War. Greece, however, was required to pay a heavy war indemnity to compensate the Ottomans for the territory won by them in Thessaly and returned under the terms of the peace. The victorious Ottoman troops retreated as if defeated, and Abdülhamid spent several tense months trying to explain to the public why the war had been won in the battlefield but lost at the diplomatic table.

So what were the consequences of this short war? As it turned out, they were big. In the Ottoman Empire, despite the disappointing result, the victory gave the Ottomans a public morale boost and confidence after being humiliated by the European powers for decades. This confidence is what eventually drove an overwhelmingly pro-war public opinion on the eve of the 1912-13 Balkan Wars. If their armed forces had beaten Greece in 1897, what prevented them from doing it again? Yaşasın harb! (Long live War!), cried the pro-war demonstrators in 1912.

In Greece, the defeat was seen as disgraceful and humiliating, mostly due to the rapid and unexpected advance of the Ottoman army. This defeat though, fueled the country’s irredentist policy of the Megali Idea (Greater Greece) and led Greece to reform its politics and economy, redefine its international alliances, and prepare the military and naval forces that helped Greece double its territory over the next 20 years.

If you enjoyed this article, you can read about the Megali Idea and how it shaped the modern Greek state here.

References

Ginio, E. (2016). The Ottoman Culture of Defeat: The Balkan Wars and Their Aftermath. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katsikas, S., & Krinaki, A. (2020). Reflections on an" Ignominious Defeat": Reappraising the Effects of the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897 on Greek Politics. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 38(1), 109-130.

Uyar, M., & Erickson, E. J. (2009). A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Ataturk: From Osman to Ataturk. ABC-CLIO.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 3 – McKinley and African Americans

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 3, we look in depth at McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal and in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans.

Booker T. Washington, an educator, orator, and advisor to US presidents. Washington met with William McKinley.

The protestors in Arcata, California accused the 25th president of supporting “racism and murder.” How does this charge stand up? From his youth McKinley shared the strong anti-slavery and pro-union views of his family. Not long after the fall of Fort Sumter, the young McKinley answered his country’s call and volunteered for service. He served bravely throughout the conflict, rising to the rank of major. He, in fact, liked to be referred to as “The Major” for the rest of his life. As such he played his part, along with millions of others, in re-uniting the nation and freeing the slaves. During his political life he remained steadfastly dedicated to the party of Lincoln and full civil rights for the ex-slaves. His first political speech took place in 1867. His theme? Give African Americans the vote. He spent a good amount of that year continuing to work for this cause. 

His campaign for African American suffrage and equal rights for African Americans did not end in 1867. After election to congress in 1876 he continued to advocate for disenfranchised African Americans. On April 28, 1880 at the Republican State Convention in Columbus, Ohio he attacked the Democratic suppression of African American voting rights. He described the Democratic effort to establish one-party rule in the South and the almost complete suppression of opposition political activity. Using the example of a largely African American district he denounced the fact that the population had “been disenfranchised by the use of the shotgun and the bludgeon.” He then challenged his audience with a burning question:

“Are free thought and free political action to be crushed out in one section of the country? I answer No, no! But that the whole power of the Federal Government must be exhausted in securing every citizen, black or white, rich or poor, everywhere within the limits of the Union, every right, civil and political, guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws.”

1880s and African American votes

McKinley continued hammering at this theme throughout the 1880s, referring to “Southern outrages” and reminding his fellow congressmen that the small number of African American representatives was proof that African Americans were being denied the vote in the South. He continued to uphold the Old Guard Republican ideal long after many had given up on Reconstruction. One such speech appealed to the desperate need to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments:

“...the consciences of the American people will not be permitted to slumber until the great constitutional right, the equality of the suffrage, equality of opportunity, freedom of political action and political thought, shall not be the mere cold formalities of constitutional enactment as now, but a living birthright which the poorest and humblest, white or black, native born or naturalized citizen, may confidently enjoy, and which the richest and most powerful dare not deny.”

McKinley and the 1896 election

Throughout his career McKinley sought African American support. While in Congress he supported Reconstruction and opposed the white-supremacist policies of the Democrats. He received African American delegations both in Georgia while staying with friend and supporter Mark Hanna, and at his home in Ohio during the run for the White House. During this stay in Georgia, which was essentially a campaign trip, he became the first presidential hopeful-nominee in American history to address an African American audience. On this occasion he spoke at an African American church. When it came time to officially run for the nation’s highest office, McKinley conducted his run entirely from his front porch. During the presidential election campaign of 1896, hundreds of delegations made their way to Canton, Ohio to show support or hear from the candidate. Included among these visitors were several African American delegations that made the journey to the candidate’s front porch to show their support. African Americans as a whole supported McKinley because, during this time of the rise Jim Crow, they knew he did not support increasing discrimination. Bishop B. W. Arnett, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, stressed to McKinley that: “We come to assure you that we will never cease our efforts on your behalf until we have achieved such a victory in November as was won by our fathers in their early struggles for liberty… you represent the cardinal principles of the Republican Party which have so benefited our race—the principles for which you and your comrades struggled from 1861 to 1865.” Another African American delegation, this one from McKinley’s own Stark County, had first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s character and policies. On July 3, 1896 this local organization came to see their candidate. William Bell of Massillon, Ohio delivered a brief message of support as follows:

“You have always treated us, just as you do everybody else . . . with great consideration and kindness, and on every occasion have been our friend, champion and protector. We come to congratulate you and assure you of our earnest support until you are triumphantly elected next November.”

The front porch candidate’s own remarks to African American groups included the following statements: “It is a matchless civilization in which we live; a civilization that recognizes the common and universal brotherhood of man.”

McKinley as president

As governor and president McKinley condemned lynching - a quarter of a century before Congress finally found within itself the conviction to pass anti-lynching legislation. Let’s look at McKinley’s statement in context:

“These guarantees (basic freedoms such as speech) must be sacredly preserved and wisely strengthened. The constituted authorities must be cheerfully and vigorously upheld. Lynchings must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon which our Government securely rests.” 

Despite the pressures of changing times, McKinley never wavered from adherence to the tenets of the party of Lincoln. He maintained and extended the traditional Republican inclusion of African Americans in government and expressed support for their cause. He spoke against having the nominating convention to be held in St. Louis for fear that African American delegates would not be able to get a hotel room. He once refused to stay at a hotel that would not serve African Americans. He included two African Americans on his inauguration committee. He appointed several African Americans to government positions. He was the first U.S. president to visit the Tuskegee Institute (established in 1881). He went 140 miles out of his way to do so. This act was of signal importance in bringing attention and support to this educational institution which was doing so much to help African Americans improve their conditions of life. When the Spanish-American War broke out, McKinley was diligent to make sure that African American soldiers served, even reversing orders attempting to prevent the recruitment of African American soldiers. Military service was an important part of the on-going process of African Americans gaining respect from white society as they performed valuable service and demonstrated their valor.

The Major also met with African American leaders such as Ida Wells and Booker T. Washington at the White House more than once. This event took place years before Theodore Roosevelt's famous White House meeting with Washington. The great educator recorded his impressions of McKinley and their meeting on his second visit to see McKinley. At this time a number of race riots had recently taken place in the south.  Washington noted that the president seemed “greatly burdened by reason of these disturbances.” Despite a long line of people waiting to see the president, McKinley detained Washington for some time to discuss the current condition of African Americans. He remarked repeatedly to Washington that he was “determined to show his interest and faith in the race, not merely in words, but by acts." The fruit of this meeting was the first visit to Tuskegee by a sitting president of the United States. 

Conclusion

Could he have done more? Certainly. Beyond the measures discussed here he was not notably pro-active in improving the situation regarding civil rights. What he did was to maintain the Republican tradition followed by his predecessors and sympathize with the plight of African Americans. However, in the words of a McKinley historian, “given the political climate in the South, there was little McKinley could have done to improve race relations, and he did better than later presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, who doubted racial equality and Wilson who supported segregation.” He did not share the radical Reconstructionist vengeful attitude toward the defeated South but rather all his life advocated reconciliation between the two sections. It must be understood that at the time the memories of the Civil War were still fresh and the need to strengthen the bonds of union still dominated the American consciousness. One of McKinley's key objectives was to continue healing the wounds of the old separation and to do everything he could to build unity between the sections. Pushing too hard on civil rights would have destroyed that effort. He may not have been a strong civil-rights advocate, but he did accomplish several ‘firsts’. In the last analysis, his actions and policies were certainly a far cry from “racism and murder.”

 

Now in part 4 here, the final part in the series, you can read about McKinley’s character.

Tommy Douglas: The Greatest Canadian

Scottish-born Tommy Douglas (1904-1986) was an influential Canadian politician over decades. He led the province of Saskatchewan for nearly two decades and after that was leader of one of Canadian’s main parties, the New Democratic Party. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about the life of Tommy Douglas.

Tommy Douglas later in his career. Source: Themightyquill, available here.

The date is October 17, 2004.  The clock reads 7PM, central time.  Canadians across the land are fixated on their television sets.  This night they will choose a winner. The result of the second part of a two part voting system that involved the entire country was about to be revealed. Three months earlier the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had polled thousands of citizens to discover whom they considered to be the “Greatest Canadian”.  Any Canadian was allowed one vote per their choice.  Votes could be cast by fax, by letter, or on-line.  Viewers were presented with the 50 semi-finalists but in random order. From this jumble votes were again registered, and the field was narrowed to a final top ten.

The final ten included the following luminaries:  9th – Alexander Graham Bell, 8th – Sir John A. Macdonald, 6th – Lester B. Pearson – 4th – Dr. Frederick Banting – 3rd - Pierre Elliot Trudeau, 2nd – Terry Fox.  And from this formidable group the clear winner was one Tommy Douglas. So how did this diminutive Scottish-Canadian come to rise above them all and what had he done to attain this honor? The answers are “grit” to the first query and “much” to the second. The Tommy Douglas story begins in a midsized Scottish town located halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh named Falkirk.

Tommy Douglas’ origins

Tommy Douglas was born to a working-class family in a working-class town of the Scottish central lowlands. His paternal grandfather was known to kith and kin as Mr. Douglas and his father was known as Tom Douglas. But the youngster would be known to the world for the rest of his life as “Tommy.” The elders had toiled for generations working in one of several sooty foundries of Falkirk.  It was in one of the humble dwellings that scarred the town’s landscape that an event would take place that would change young Tommy’s life profoundly.

While skipping home from school one day and splashing through every mud puddle he could find, 10 year-old Tommy went sprawling through the gravel and managed to scrape and perforate his left leg quite badly. Tommy was carried home by neighbors and laid unceremoniously on the kitchen table. A local doctor was summoned who had no surgical skills and who applied a suspect liquid to Tommy’s lips and proceeded to scrape to no good result.  The leg never healed properly and would bother him greatly into adulthood and beyond. And yet, as we shall see, this unfortunate event would years later benefit millions.  But first the Douglas family had some serious travelling to do. Tommy would live in Scotland from birth to age seven, then ship to the Canadian province of Manitoba from age seven to eleven, back to Scotland from 11-15, and finally to Canada again – this time to stay. The specific destination was Winnipeg and events here too would affect Tommy’s worldview forever.

From Winnipeg to Weyburn

Winnipeg is centered on the confluence of the Assiniboine River and the Red River. The year 1921 was a seminal one in Winnipeg. It was the site of the infamous Winnipeg general strike. Thousands of workers in various basic trades assembled in downtown Winnipeg. They were angry and carried billboards that demanded a decent work place and an income that would promise more than bread and potatoes.  The dim-witted mayor of Winnipeg sent in hundreds of police units – with guns – and a protester was shot and killed. The strike would last several days and leave at least one onlooker who experienced it with a profound response. Tommy Douglas was still a teenager when he, and a friend, scaled one of the downtown buildings and witnessed the havoc. Tommy would leave Manitoba for another Canadian province, and one that would become his forever home – Saskatchewan. Weyburn, Saskatchewan to be precise.

For the next few years Tommy would enroll at the University of Brandon while simultaneously completing the requirements that would allow him to teach the gospel of the Baptist Church.  During this time he would also take his lifetime mate in matrimony, Irma, and together they would purchase a bungalow in Weyburn, which they never left.  So much for the wide belief that fat cat politicians all munch at the public trough. And it was during these early years that the folks of Weyburn discovered what sort of a neighbor they had in this friendly Scot.

Doing good to others

Tommy Douglas had asked himself a basic life question years earlier that he answered with a resounding “YES”.  Yes, he was his brother’s keeper. It was a creed he lived by and one that he had formed long ago.  Need a hand threshing wheat? Call Tommy. Need help fixing that leaky roof? Call Tommy. A family is desperate to put food on the table. Call Tommy for a loan and don’t worry when or whether you can pay it back.  If assistance of any sort was needed Tommy was there too.  It was simply in his nature to see hurt and to provide healing hands.

All of this time and much later Tommy Douglas had not the slightest intention or thoughts about running for political office. His sermons at Weyburn Baptist Church were drawing more and more worshippers and Tommy found not a minute to spare. And soon he was pressed to take on another project – one that would tax even the all-round abilities of a fiery and popular preacher. He was asked to cope with eight local mini burglars from the high school who were stealing from the local general store. He agreed to see what he could do and began meeting with them two evenings a week. He taught all sorts of things  - things that a multi-talented man can do. The favorite activity turned out to be boxing. Tommy had learned something of “The Sweet Science” during his own school days.  In fact, while attending the University of Brandon he fought and won the lightweight championship of Manitoba two years running. This would surprise those who later could not picture the peaceful and non-threatening Douglas as a pugilist. When this view was pressed on him Douglas would only say, ‘’Well, I was fast and could hit harder than they were expecting”. The 8 boys soon learned to respect the slim Scot and all 8 boys matured into good members of society – two of them became teachers and one a sergeant major in the military.

Politics

1935 was a federal election year. To his utter surprise a group of citizens from the local federal district came calling representing the left-wing Cooperative Commonwealth party (CCF).  To the outside world, “Tommy Who” won the seat and left the security of pastor of a Church where he was known and loved. Over time Tommy gradually morphed from a situation where he commanded a flock to one where he was but one more anonymous backbencher. But he listened and learned and his reputation in the House became that of an honest broker. 

Douglas was soon wooed by the top brass of the New Democratic Party to enter the provincial race as the party’s leader in Saskatchewan in 1944.  He accepted both the offer and the challenge. The New Democrats was merely the new name for the CCF. The difference being that the new party was now the party of labor interests as well as the farmers of Saskatchewan; Election Day was a rout. The New Democrats, led by Douglas, won 47 out of 52 seats in Saskatchewan.  And now all of Canada knew who Tommy Douglas was. This remarkable performance was due partly to his sunny personality and his honest ways – and he would go on to lead the province for 17 years. But Tommy had another gift too.

Orator

Tommy was a superb orator. The captive cadence of his rhetoric was magic, the way he punctured a hole in the sky with a pointed index finger – and his strong and commanding presence held you in thrall.  Opponents steered clear of taking him on, but he never took advantage of his superior language skills. In truth, Tommy could be considered a latter day Cicero. If you met him you soon learned why.

Ken Lee, a friend and prominent resident of British Columbia, remembers Douglas vividly:

“In 1965 I was Principle of Central Manitoulin High School. One evening I heard a knock on the door and was astonished to find Tommy Douglas there. I had never met Tommy before but with a twinkle in his eye and his charming Scottish way he explained that a 1965 Federal Election had been called and they were searching for the riding of Algoma East. He explained that the incumbent MP was Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. I was deeply impressed that he had found the time to come to my door. This was a moment I will never forget. This incredibly erudite, courageous man, a lifetime inspirational role model had found the time and energy to visit my campaign and wish me well.”

For all his peaceful ways Tommy was adamant that he was no pacifist. Pushed to the extreme Tommy would defend what was his.  This attitude came to the fore in 1936 when he visited Germany. After witnessing a Nazi rally and a tantrum and diatribe from their leader, Tommy described Hitler as a lunatic.

Back home Tommy was building roads, pushing through legislation that guaranteed two weeks’ paid vacation for all Saskatchewan workers, and introducing family allowance and the old age pension. However, he is best remembered for universal Medicare.  It was a long hard battle, and the doctors felt threatened, as the government would take control of how they were paid. The doctors went on strike for nine days and one young boy’s life was lost before eventually Medicare came into being. Along with Medicare came dental care, eye care, and basic prescription coverage. 

His childhood injury never completely left him though, and was a constant reminder of the need for medical care.  On July 1, 1962 a total Medicare package came into being.  This was Tommy’s greatest achievement.

Sense of humor

And last, but not least, a tip of the cap to Tommy’s sense of humor.

Tommy Douglas and Joey Smallwood, by way of their Premierships, were invited to London to attend the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.  So Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and Premier Joey Smallwood of Newfoundland soon found themselves, on the day, standing five and a half hours – consecutively – with no chance to heed the call of nature. When finally released they scooted out of the Abbey to a nearby building – desperate already, they find the line-up is 60 men deep. This facility carries an overhead sign that says – “Gentlemen”. There is another convenience marked “Peers”. There is no line-up at all.

In a flash Tommy runs over to this one – He hears Joey admonish him  - Tommy, you are not a lord. And you cannot go there.

Tommy hollers back, Wrong Joey - I may not be a Lord but I am definitely a Peer!

Tommy honored both the Saltire and the Maple Leaf.  So do we all.

What do you think of Tommy Douglas? Let us know below. 

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here, the American heroine Abigail Adams here, and one of the 20th century’s greatest writers, George Orwell, here.

The Philippines in the Korean War – The Battle of Yultong

The Korean War (1950-53) saw UN forces, led by the South Koreans and US, fight against communist backed forces, led by North Korea and China. Here, Denise Emille Duque explains the story of one of the countries that formed part of the UN force – the Philippines. In particular he looks at the feats of the Filipino forces against Chinese troops in the 1951 Battle of Yultong.

Filipino soldiers preparing their munitions and weapons for the Battle of Yultong. Source: JamesKillsFour, available here.

"Give me 10,000 Filipinos and I will conquer the world." – General Douglas MacArthur

Artillery shells rained down upon the UN forces occupying the hills of Yultong. It was the opening salvos of the Chinese Spring offensive. The 10th BCT of the Philippine Expeditionary Force sent to Korea braced itself for what seemed to be an incessant typhoon of death and destruction. This is the story of 900 Filipino Soldiers who defeated 40,000 Chinese and North Korean forces on the hills of Yultong.

To understand our story let's travel back to how this war started. On 25th June 1950, 75,000 North Korean troops with Soviet and Chinese support invaded South Korea to capture its capital city, Seoul. In response, the newly established United Nations passed UN Security Council Resolution 83 to urge the UN member states to restore peace and order to the Korean Peninsula through the repulsion of Communist forces by military action.

The Philippines in Korea

One of the UN member states that heeded the call to arms was the Republic of the Philippines, which at the time was still recovering from the scars brought by the Imperial Japanese forces during the Second World War. Philippine President Elpidio Quirino urged Congress to approve the Republic Act 573 to deploy 7,420 Filipino troops to the Korean Peninsula. The President saw this as a commitment to help a friend and as a part of a larger battle to defeat communism. He gave these words when he addressed the PEFTOK soldiers: "Poor as we are, this country is making a great sacrifice in sending you there, but every peso invested in you is a sound investment for the perpetuation of our liberty and freedom."

First to dock in Pusan, South Korea was the 10th Battalion Combat Team of the Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea (PEFTOK) on September 19, 1950, shortly after General MacArthur's successful Incheon Landing. The men of the 10th BCT, the heroes of our tale, were made up of 64 Officers and 1,303 Enlisted men led by Lt. Col. Dionisio S. Ojeda. They were supposed to be a motorized unit operating tanks, but none arrived with them, so they were turned into a heavy weapons unit. 

Images of ruined cities, refugees, and famine welcomed the battalion. All these were familiar and bitterly nostalgic to the Filipino troops. After all, those were the same sights they saw in their home countries a few years back. Korean refugees quickly ran to them upon sight to beg for food, and the battalion obliged.

Initial fighting

After the melancholic welcome, the Filipino force was assigned to join the Turkish Brigade and the US/Puerto Rican 65th Infantry Regiment into the 3rd Infantry Division.  Soon after, the 3rd Infantry Division faced the Communist North Koreans at the Battle of Miudong, which resulted in their victory. That was the first battle won by Filipinos in a foreign land.

In the spring of 1951, the 3rd infantry division was deployed along the area of the Imjin River. The 3rd and 2nd Battalions of the US 65th Infantry Regiment positioned facing west along the river, with the Turkish Brigade occupying the east flank, and the 10th BCT was at the center. Unbeknown to these men, a storm was brewing under their noses in the form of the Chinese Spring Offensive. 

40,000 Communist Chinese troops of the 44th Division of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army under Commander Peng Dehuai planned to attack and surround the 3rd Infantry Division. He deployed the 15th Army in a narrow zone between the Imjin River and Route 33. The 12th and 60th Armies were deployed to attack the positions held by the 10th BCT and the Turkish Brigade through the Pogae-san ridges.

Chinese Spring Offensive

20:00, 22/04/1951 – Artillery shells, mortar fire, machine gun, and small arms fire greeted the Turks at the start of the battle. At 23:00, waves of Chinese soldiers assaulted the 10th BCT positions and engaged in a series of close-quarter confrontations.

Continuous artillery bombardment and some friendly fire cut the communications between troops in the 3rd Infantry Division. Fortunately, communications returned at 00:30, and the Turkish Brigade received an order to retreat to a position on the line south of Hantan River. Intensifying Chinese assaults forced the 65th Infantry Regiment to retreat several hundred yards to regroup and reorganize. The 10th BCT was surrounded and left alone to brave the ocean of Communist Chinese forces.

The 10th BCT non-combatants such as the chaplain, clerks, medics, cooks, and drivers threw themselves into the fray to bolster the strength of their outnumbered battalion. Men of the 10th fought dispersed and confused because of the lack of communication between the hills. The fighting went on and on where some men were wounded, killed, or captured. Among the captured was Lt. Tomas G. Batilo of the Able Company of the 10th.

Then Lt. Jose Artiaga Jr. led the Baker (B) Company to defend the strategic hill of Yultong but they were pushed back by the unrelenting Chinese forces. At 03:00, enemy forces penetrated deep into the formation and reached the position of the Charlie Company in the reserves. Unfortunately, the company suffered heavy losses including Lt. Artiaga. 

While all this was happening, Lt. Col. Dionisio S. Ojeda received an order to withdraw and all units complied except Captain Conrado Yap's Heavy Weapons Company. Captain Yap led his men to counterattack to rescue the wounded and to retrieve the dead. He opened the hatch of his tank and shot at the Chinese with the mounted machine gun with his gun crew firing as fast as they could. Chinese soldiers fell one by one at the rate of 17 to 1 in favor of the 10th. The Heavy Weapons Company succeeded but at the price of Captain Yap's life.

The 12th President of the Philippines Fidel Ramos, who was also a PEFTOK soldier for the 20th BCT, commented about Captain Yap's actions in his speech during the 42nd Anniversary of the Battle of Yultong: "Captain Yap—his mission accomplished—now ordered a withdrawal. While making a headcount of his boys and directing the withdrawal, he was hit by machinegun fire."

The 10th held their ground until dawn and by this time the Chinese attack slowed down and this allowed the 3rd Infantry Division to retreat. Then the C Company of the 10th, supported by two M24 Chaffee light tanks of the Recon Company and allied artillery, led a counterattack to restore the lost area of B Company. The Filipinos fought until midday when General Robert Soule fell back to Line Kansas, to a position in Anhung-ri.

Aftermath

The battle ended with over 500 dead Chinese soldiers lying dead on the battlefield and 2 of them were captured. On the other hand, the 10th BCT lost only 12 people with 38 wounded and 6 missing. It was a victory for the ‘Fighting Filipinos’.

For the act of valiance performed by Captain Conrado Yap, he was posthumously awarded the Philippine Medal of Valor, the US Distinguished Service Cross, and was awarded the First Taeguk Cordon of the Order of the Military Merit on the 65th Anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement on July 27, 2018. Lieutenant Jose Artiaga Jr. was posthumously awarded the Philippine Distinguished Service Cross. 

This battle, which saved the 3rd Infantry Division, ultimately helped in turning the war in favor of the United Nations. After the war ended in July of 1953, the Philippines and South Korea cemented a great friendship that even stands to this day. UN forces were so impressed with the 10th BCT's valiance that they were nicknamed "The Fighting Filipinos".

To this day the story of the Fighting Filipinos is a source of national pride among Filipinos because they showed that despite poverty, the Filipino people could rise.

What do you think of the Philippines’ role in the Korean War? Let us know below.

Note: General Douglas MacArthur quote at the start of the article also here: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/the-fighting-filipinos.html

Fascism in 1930s America: The Silver Shirts

The Silver Shirts, or Silver Legion of America, were a fascist political movement in America from 1933 to 1941. Founded by William Dudley Pelley, a screenwriter, the group had some notoriety and wealthy supporters. James Zills explains.

A Wanted poster for William Dudley Pelley, founder of the Silver Shirts.

The end of World War One saw the reshaping of boundaries in Europe, insurmountable war debt, the collapse of the German economy, and a growing distrust in democracy. This gave rise to the age of dictators, who through the help of their paramilitary forces grew to power – with their success being most notable in Germany and Italy. A key element in the militias utilized to gain control was the differentiating of the colors worn by these organizations. The Germans sported the Brown Shirts, Italian Black Shirts, and Spain with Blue Shirts. History barely recognizes similar movements in other countries with their own fashionable shirts. Bulgaria with red, Brazil green, Mexico with opposing gold and red, and finally the United States of America and the fashionable Silver Shirts. With the exception of the red shirts who leaned toward communism in Mexico, all were similar in the fact that they shared a distrust and hatred for Jews.

The Silver Shirts, like many novel ideas in America, had their roots in Hollywood. William Dudley Pelley, a screenwriter in the great intellectual desert, formed the Silver Legion (Silver Shirts) in January 1933 shortly after Hitler seized power in Germany. Pelley, an ardent admirer of Hitler believed that he could achieve similar success, openly declaring: “the time has come for an American Hitler” (Murphy 2018). Like most screenwriters in ‘Hollyweird’, originality was not his strong suit. Once the movement began to pick-up momentum, Pelly moved his operation to Asheville, North Carolina. His move to North Carolina was motivated by the need for funding and he found that piggy bank from a wealthy individual in Ashville. With funding established it was time to establish goals - any organization worth its weight in silver has to have goals.

Goals of a Presidential Hopeful

The overarching goal of the Silver Shirts was to bring religion back to the forefront of American Society. The legion also aspired to revert private owned lands back to the state, re-institute slavery for African Americans, and begin the deportation of Jews. Those who were loyal to the cause would enjoy the bounty of sharing the properties seized by the legion. Lifting a move from Joseph Smith, Pelley claimed to have been visited by none other than Jesus himself. In this celestial vision, Pelley claimed that Jesus gave him the stamp of approval for his quest.

Knowing that the Silver Shirts lacked the membership numbers for a hostile takeover, Pelley did the next best thing. Founding the Christian Party in 1935, he used it as a means to run as a third party candidate in the 1936 presidential election. “For Christ and the Constitution” (Finklestein 1938) was the rallying call for the party, but it would do little to gain the necessary momentum. Pelley was only able to get on the ballot in Washington State and solely running his candidacy from Ashville presented problems with persuading voters. The newly formed Christian Party and its leader failed at the long-shot presidential run, garnering just 1,598 votes. To put it into perspective, almost 700,000 people voted in the presidential election in Washington State in 1936.

As for the legion itself, its membership peaked at 15,000. Interestingly, there seemed to be no attempt to use its membership numbers for voter fraud in Washington, especially with most of its members residing on the West Coast. The most the Silver Shirts amounted to was the ability to secure a cache of weapons and ammunition and be mildly intimidating. These achievements would gain the attention of the FBI and after the attack on Pearl Harbor there was probable cause to put an end to the Silver Shirts. The Dies Committee started paying closer attention to the organization as well as the extra-curricular activities of its leader.

Pelley needed funds to support his lifestyle and, like many heads of organizations or cults, he skimmed off the top; in Pelley’s case, he defrauded shareholders (Daly 2018). The ever-watchful eye of big brother, and his run-ins with the authorities forced Pelley into hiding. He spent some time hiding out with likeminded folks, such as the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, before ultimately disbanding the Silver Shirts after the attack on Pearl Harbor to alleviate the pressure put on him by the FBI. Pelley would eventually spend some time in prison for securities fraud and the publication of treasonable material. After serving his time, he kept up with all things silver and began a fascination with aliens.

The Casting Couch

Aside from the man-crush he had on Hitler, Pelley acquired some interesting reasons for his dislike of Jewish people. His mistrust for Jewish people began in Hollywood. His experience in Hollywood led him to believe that Jews controlled the movie industry, which impeded his creativity. He constantly complained that Jewish directors routinely made changes to his writing that were adapted for film. Furthermore, Pelley mentions the infamous casting couch as another reason for his contempt of Jews in movie city. In Arthuriana Vol. 26 No. 2 Pelley, is quoted as saying

Do you think of me unduly incensed about them? I’ve seen too many Gentile Women ravished and been unable to do anything about it. They have a concupiscent slogan in screendom. Don’t hire till you see the whites of their thighs! (68)

On the surface the Silver Legion, headed by the ambitious Pelley, was just a small blip on the government radar. While they failed to mass number like the American Bund Movement, they gained a wealthy following that allowed a flow of funds to the actual Nazi Party. The brainchild of a Hollywood insider failed to gain enough traction to bring Nazi policy to America and like so many other pro-Nazi organizations, folded under pressure when World War Two began.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Now you can read how Hitler’s Nazis tried to gain influence in New York City in the 1930s here.

Bibliography

Daley, Jason. "The Screenwriting Mystic Who Wanted to Be the American Führer." Smithsonian Magazine. Last modified October 3, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/meet-screenwriting-mystic-who-wanted-be-american-fuhrer-180970449/.

Finklestein, Sarah. "Candidate." Our Campaigns. Accessed November 17, 2020. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=4576.

Harty, Kevin J. "William Dudley Pelley, An American Nazi in King Arthur’s Court." Arthuriana 26, no. 2 (2016), 64-85. doi:10.1353/art.2016.0034.

Moncure, Billy. "The Silver Legion: The Nazi Sympathisers of America." War history online. Last modified September 27, 2019. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-silver-legionthe-nazi.html.