Consensus Historiography in 20th Century America: A Celebration of the Nation

Historiography is composed of the principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation. Here, James Zills looks at the consensus school in mid-20th century American historiography. He also considers the differences between the consensus and progressive schools of thought.

Daniel J. Boorstin, one of the leading figures in Consensus historiography.

The 20th century saw four schools of historical thought that impacted historiography, with some giving conflicting viewpoints and a desire to achieve opposing goals. In the United States, similar to some other countries, those opposing viewpoints come in the form of the New Left historians (progressive) and traditional viewpoints. Focusing on what has gone right as a viewpoint in historical writing serves to instill national pride, lifts a country up as one people, and unifies citizens to progress as a whole. The consensus school of history from the 1940s through the mid-1970s stressed that the shared ideas of Americans far outweighed the internal discourse of Americans. Consensus history made an impact on American values in the 20th century and played a crucial role in the developmental success of the nation, celebrating America’s rise as a national power, and advocated for the continuation of success. 

By the end of 1945, the United States had cemented its status as a superpower by defeating the Axis Powers in World War II. With American servicemen on their way home, national pride was high, and the country was well on its way to an economic boom. Nationalism as a school of thought is not a new concept, as it existed in the works of Europeans historians of the 19thcentury. Prior to the consensus school of thought, American historians established the nation’s identity through national pride.[1] American nationhood was alive and well at the beginning of the 20th century when historians were celebrating national pride through the success of American expansionism. The assertion of power through the acquisition of Hawaii, establishing dominance over the Spanish Empire, and control of the Panama Canal renewed enthusiasm for Manifest Destiny.[2]

UNITY OF VALUES

Despite the many accomplishments Americans enjoyed as a whole, Progressive historians would dominate the first half of the 20th century. Their focus on class and sectional conflict brought about divisiveness in America through racial and social class ideologies. Instead of riding the achievements of America as one people, the Progressive historians broke the population down into categories of race, gender, class, and what they perceived as privileges from certain members of society. Progressives borrowed from the fields of sociology, economics, and psychology to interpret their version of history and advocate for reform. The resurgence of traditional history is credited to Richard Hofstadter and, with the joining of other prominent historians of the time, the consensus school of history brought with it a renewed sense of populism.[3]

The impact of historical research presented to the public plays a pivotal role in the way the population views itself, much like any other field of study. Consensus historians believed that the social progress of subjects was of far greater value than the internal conflicts of America.[4] This school of history brought about nearly two decades of uncomplicated patriotism and gave Americans a sense of pride, and political figures they could look up to. Racism, corruption, sexism, and America’s other internal problems, while not addressed, were not ignored as if they didn’t exist. People lived those experiences on a daily basis in the two decades of consensus history. The population needed something uplifting, something to give them a sense of pride, and something to work for. The constant reminder delivered by Progressives only served to drive the nation further apart, by destroying the one thing that could unite America - the country itself.

The absence of social problems brought strong criticism to consensus history from progressives. The disdain progressives have for consensus history can best be summed up by Ribuffo, where in his journal article “What is still living in “consensus” history and pluralist social theory, he says, “…the ghostly echoes are nearly drowned out by louder sounds in contemporary intellectual life.”[5] In this particular article the author questions what is dead and what aspects of consensus history still survive. Ribuffo, in his celebration of the death of consensus history, he asserts that this type of history is “extreme” as well as deluded and dangerous.[6] The approach Ribuffo takes to express disdain for consensus history was by making his criticism a personal attack, an all too familiar theme with progressive viewpoints. It was never the intent of consensus history to solve the social issues of the country, but only to bring us together under nationhood.

Consensus historiography aided in educating two generations of patriotic citizens who were proud Americans - and to some extent united. The school of consensus history was inclusive with historians holding both liberal and conservative political ideologies. Consensus historians describe the world as an operative whole with its shaping credited to the ideals and shared life experiences of its peoples.[7] According to the viewpoint of consensus history every individual within the confines of the borders of the United States plays a unique role in the shaping and the history regardless of their social classification. The contrasting differences in consensus and progressive history are astounding. Consensus history, with its sense of national purpose, showed the uniqueness of the country and its differences with Europe.[8] While consensus history faded away in the mid-1970s, it left a lasting effect, and a large portion of the population still subscribe to the notion of nationalism, thanks to consensus history.           

STILL RELEVANT

Consensus history still resonates with historians and citizens today. A perfect example of the impact consensus had on America is the story about the aftermath of a series of violent storms that killed seventy-seven people and caused $300 million in damage to the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. At the time of the floods Johnstown was no longer the steel-town it once was, with steel workers who once filled the restaurants on Main Street being replaced by bankers, nurses, and retail workers.[9]  Long gone were the days when big steel companies like Bethlehem Steel invested in the town. There was an overbearing sense of nostalgia, a longing for the past where people knew one another and cared. The citizens knew that the key to survival was image, one that would give us an image of the past with a view of the future.[10] By celebrating their past through museums, refusing to be a town of shuttered factories, and sharing a unity for pride in their city, the people of Jonestown were able to hold onto their past while attracting future economic opportunities.

Consensus history as a school of thought and viewpoint on what was relevant made a major impact on society in America in the 1940s to the mid-1970s. It was a revival of 19th century institutional history through national pride. Consensus (traditional) history and historiography’s impact on American values in the 20th century played a crucial role in the developmental success of America, celebrating America’s rise as a national power, and advocated for the continuation of success. Without nationhood there would be no motivation to better ourselves as a society. Dismissing the great achievements made by the people as a whole in the country and saying that all is wrong serves to divide the nation and poses a threat to the positive progress and survivability as a nation.

What do you think of 20th century American historiography? Let us know below.

Now you can read James’ article on Ancient Greek historiography here.

[1] Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 3rd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 309.

[2] Ibid, 310.

[3] Robert D. Johnston, "The Age of Reform: A Defense of Richard Hofstadter Fifty Years On." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6, no. 2, (April 2007), 129. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144472.

[4] Michael Bentley, Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998, 100.

[5] Leo P. Ribuffo, "What Is Still Living In "Consensus" History and Pluralist Social Theory." American Studies International 38, no. 1 (February 2000), 42.Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279737.

[6] Ibid, 43.

[7] Breisach, Historiography, 385.

[8] Ibid, 389.

[9] Don Mitchell, "Heritage, Landscape, and the Production of Community: Consensus History and Its Alternatives in Johnstown, Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 59, no. 3 (July 1992), 200. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27773545.

[10]Ibid

Bibliography

Bentley, Michael. Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998.

Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval & Modern. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994

Johnston, Robert D. ""The Age of Reform": A Defense of Richard Hofstadter Fifty Years On." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6, no. 2 (2007): 127-37. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144472.

Mitchell, Don. "Heritage, Landscape, and the Production of Community: Consensus History and Its 

Alternatives in Johnstown, Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 59, no. 3 (1992): 198-226. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27773545.

Ribuffo, Leo P. "What Is Still Living In "Consensus" History and Pluralist Social Theory." American Studies International 38, no. 1 (2000): 42-60. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279737.

19th Century Chinese-American Exclusion

The Chinese-American population started to grow significantly in the western United States from the mid-19th century following the California gold rush. However, over time this led to a backlash against Chinese-Americans, especially when the economic situation worsened. James Hernandez explains.

An image depicting Chinese gold miners in California.

The 1840s fostered a promising era of growth both in population and economic success as the American west began to rapidly develop and become a destination for those seeking new ventures in agriculture and industry. By 1849, San Francisco had established itself as a prime economic center and as a main port of entry for Chinese immigrants seeking to escape instability in China. Rather than being composed of families, the wave of Chinese immigrants mostly consisted of men seeking jobs and a chance to strike gold in the California hinterlands following the Sierra County gold strike in 1848. Chinese style restaurants, small businesses, apartments, and other services soon became a part of western urban identity as “Chinatowns” were founded in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. By 1852 San Francisco’s Chinese community had rapidly grown; approximately 20,000 immigrants resided in the area in comparison to only about 450 in 1850. The unprecedented growth in population reflected a stark shift in the area’s demography but also the beginning of resistance towards Chinese influence on western America.

Board of Health investigations

San Francisco public officials and health inspectors began to fear the obscene living conditions found in the Chinese community as they worried white citizens would become victims of the alleged health hazards within the area. A report conducted by the San Francisco Board of Health described the community with, “Each cellar [was] ankle-deep with loathsome slush, with ceilings dripping with percolations of other nastiness above, [and] with walls slimy with the clamminess of Asiatic diseases.” Crime also became a rampant issue within the community as the area became densely populated and poverty ran deep. The San Francisco Real Estate Circular documented that, “Their women are all suffering slaves and prostitutes, for which possession murderous feuds and high-handed cruelty are constantly occurring. To compare the Chinese with even the lowest white laborers is, therefore, absurd.”

Five government-sponsored health investigations led by the Board of Health took place between 1854 and 1885. These investigations were viewed as solutions to improve the “nuisance” illustrated as Chinatown; but each report depicted a “dense” and “enclosed” living environment and continued to fuel the popular rumor of a potential epidemic. Due to the inadequate living conditions found in the community, San Francisco Public Health Officials later attributed the smallpox breakouts between 1868 and 1887 to Chinese immigrants. The harsh accusations against Chinese communities in San Francisco essentially depicted a larger conflict within the context of nativism that lead to the isolation and racial discrimination of the Chinese population.

Many Chinese workers began to seek other employment opportunities as the California Gold Rush came to an end but were limited to harsh labor as Chinese immigrants were excluded from San Francisco public schools in 1859. Laborers soon found refuge working for railroad companies, most notably the First Transcontinental Railroad, but were faced with unfair working conditions and were forced to pay for food, tools, and other accommodations while white workers were fully supplied without further compensation. In an attempt to further discourage immigration and to lower job competition, the Chinese Police Tax of 1862 was passed in California and placed a $2.50 tax on every documented Chinese immigrant living in the state. AlthoughLin Sing V. Washburn soon overturned the tax as it was found “unconstitutional”, this wasn’t the first time Chinese immigrants were subject to unreasonable taxation as they previously faced a capitation tax of $50 for every Chinese immigrant in California in 1855 (overturned in 1857) and other licensing fees and taxes to work in the mining industry that weren’t abolished until 1870.

Violence

The Panic of 1873 circumstantially led to the formation of anti-Chinese groups in California as the nation faced its first “Great Depression”. The crisis was believed to be caused by a crash in major railroad companies-who happened to be major employers of Chinese immigrants. The San Francisco Workingmen’s Party, fronted by Irish immigrant Denis Kearney, began to lead many violent protests and riots aimed towards harming Chinese communities. Kearney began the party’s “Chinese must go!” campaign and threatened the city to implement job systems that would blatantly exclude Chinese workers from employment with the promise of further violence if demands were not met. On July 24, 1877, over 20 Chinese laundries, a plumbing business, and a Chinese Methodist Mission, were destroyed as hundreds flooded the streets of San Francisco to participate in the brutal riot inspired by Kearny’s Workingmen’s Party. Over $100,000 was tolled in property damage to the Chinese community, and four lives were lost. 

As Anti-Chinese sentiment rapidly grew during the late 1870s, President Rutherford B. Hayes called for a revision of the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which formerly recognized diplomatic and trade relations between China and the US and eased immigration regulations. The revision, the Angell Treaty of 1880, acknowledged and protected US power to restrict Chinese immigration of laborers while allowing Chinese professionals to still settle in the country. Despite the new revision’s attempt to also provide security to Chinese-American rights, the changes were subsequently reversed as the treaty shed light on America’s struggle to control immigration; resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and even more scrutiny against the population. 

Introduced by California representative Horace Page, who previously introduced the Page Act of 1875 which barred the entry of Chinese women in an effort to end Chinese prostitution, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only law in the United States that completely prohibited immigration of a specific nationality. The new law halted all Chinese labor immigration for 10 years, formed new restrictions and requirements such as certifications to re-enter the US, and denied naturalization. The law was later renewed by the Geary Act of 1892 and was finally made permanent in 1902 until finally being abolished in 1943.

Chinese exclusion in context

While 19th century Chinese Exclusion laid the foundation for heavier immigration laws during and after World War I, it is no secret that the United States has since struggled to unite the country under a cohesive immigration policy that provides a secure path to naturalization for immigrants in congruency with citizens who express concern for the nation’s security and economic well-being. The continuity of the issue ultimately gives notion to the idea that the US has never been able to formulate a successful immigration policy. So does this mean the nation is hopeless in its current struggle with immigration? Possibly, but if there is anything to be learned from Chinese Exclusion, it is that the clash between nativism and egalitarianism will unfortunately prevail past any form of federal immigration policy and is a problem that seeps farther than the issue of immigration. One thing for certain is that a majority of Americans will never fully comprehend the nation’s long and unsparing history with failed immigration policies and in this case in particular, the perseverance of Chinese-Americans.

Now you can read James’ article on the importance of the 1957 Civil Rights Act here.

The Final Meeting of Sir Winston Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King

Below is an excerpt from the book "The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII” by Neville Thompson. The excerpt focuses on the last meeting between Sir Winston Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King.

The book is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Quebec Conference, 1943. In the back row are Mackenzie King and Sir Winston Churchill. In the front sit US President Roosevelt and the Earl of Athlone, Governor General of Canada.

In late 1948, three years after the end of the war and close to half a century after their first encounter, Mackenzie King and Winston Churchill met for the last time. King was no longer the leader of the Liberal party, having care­fully engineered Louis St. Laurent into that position at the convention to choose a successor in August 1948. But he remained as prime minister in order to rep­resent Canada at a Commonwealth prime ministers conference in October. King looked forward to his farewell appearance after quarter of a century of being the crucial figure at such events. He was unquestionably the senior figure in the British dominions.

On his way to London, King stopped in Paris for a session of the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt was there as a member of the US delegation and Chair of the Commission on Human Rights which produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in December. She was stay­ing in the same hotel, in a room close to King’s. They did not spend much time together, but they did reminisce about the past and Eleanor repeated her husband’s affection for King and the many confidences he had shared. At a dinner of dominion representatives, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ernest Bevin gave a toast to King on his retirement. Not having been forewarned, King had no reply prepared but he spontaneously pronounced a benediction on the Commonwealth. During his long years as prime minister, he said that he had tried to keep before him:

The best traditions of British public life. That I realized what the nations of the Commonwealth had derived in that way. Real bonds between nations of the Commonwealth were love of freedom, of liberty which had been inherited from the struggles of Britain, and the example of public men.

In Paris, King had been far more tired than usual, unable to breathe or sleep easily, and perspiring freely, all of which suggests blocked arteries. Shortly after his arrival in London, he felt too unwell to leave the Dorchester Hotel. Lord Moran, Churchill’s personal doctor, diag­nosed heart strain for which he prescribed digitalis, sleeping pills, and morphine, and arranged for a night nurse. He went with King to a heart specialist, Sir John Parkinson, who took an x-ray and a cardiograph and detected edema (swelling) in one leg owing to poor circulation. Moran banned salt and recommended bed rest for two weeks. In fact, King remained there for three. Moran came practi­cally every day, although there was nothing further he could provide other than encouragement. He did not charge for his services but a few months later King sent him £150.8. King was characteristically proud that his illness, indeed his whole stay in London, cost Canadian taxpayers nothing since the expense of the conference was covered by the British government. Since he could not attend the sessions, St. Laurent came by air to represent Canada after all.

Lord Moran’s concern in attending King was not his fee but his literary ambi­tion. He was a prominent practitioner and medical politician (as president of the Royal College of Physicians he was known to general practitioners as “Corkscrew Charlie” for concentrating on the interests of specialists in negotiations over the National Health Scheme) who knew that his real fame depended on producing an account of his association with Churchill. He was reviewing and reworking his diaries to present an attention-catching account to be published after his great patient’s death, which he had no reason to think would be long delayed. King’s confinement was a heaven-sent opportunity to sharpen and increase his knowledge by adding the experience of someone who had been, as Moran had not, at many private meetings and informal discussions with Churchill and also Roosevelt.

On the very first day, they talked about Churchill for over an hour and found themselves in substantial agreement. Moran observed, and King did not dissent, that Churchill had achieved great things despite his faults. He was very strong willed, thought in big terms, and his knowledge of military history was so exten­sive that he could dominate any situation and not leave others much chance to say anything. Churchill recognized the value of experts but did not allow them to control. King was not so indiscreet as to tell Moran that Field Marshall Montgomery had said that he did not want Churchill around during the fighting, and that Field Marshall Harold Alexander (now governor general of Canada) had said that he had to stand up to prevent Churchill’s interference. But King did confirm that Churchill did most of the talking in cabinet and was inconsiderate of others: even Labour’s Attlee and the Liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, members of the War Cabinet, were treated almost with contempt, and most col­leagues feared to say anything. To get his way, Churchill would work himself into an emotional state.

On the other hand, King attested that Churchill was loyal to his friends, stuck to his word in getting things done, and had great courage, “no fear in the world. In that way gave a powerful example to others.” King also pointed out that many were attracted by the desire to associate with such a towering figure. He claimed not to have liked what Churchill told him about the effectiveness of flattery, although King was both susceptible and not sparing in his own use of it. While no one could say if the war would have been won if anything had hap­pened to Churchill and Roosevelt, King considered that a change of leadership might have shortened the European conflict since the Germans were terrified of Churchill. Both he and Moran considered that unconditional surrender (which was Roosevelt’s and not Churchill’s insistence) had been a mistake since it had closed every door and made the fighting more intense.

Moran also wanted to discuss relations between Churchill and Roosevelt, about which King knew a great deal. He said that Churchill had repeatedly insisted that they must meet the president in every way possible and never forget that he was Britain’s greatest friend. On the difference between them over sharing research on the atomic bomb with the Soviets, King, whose opinion had changed with the Cold War, now thought Churchill had been right that it should be with­held. A couple of days later, Moran told King that he had noticed that Roosevelt was failing at the 1944 Quebec conference and by Yalta was completely used up. This was not surprising for a detached physician and was no revelation to King, but it would have been to the public if it had been publicized on such authority, just three and a half years after Roosevelt’s death.

In addition to Moran, Mackenzie King received a stream of other visitors at his bedside: Louis St. Laurent, of course, Attlee, Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of India, Ernest Bevin and future British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who wanted to inquire about King’s memoirs which it was assumed the Macmillan company, his family firm, would publish. It must have been a great encouragement that Bevin, who managed to carry on in one of the most demanding jobs in the government, said that his symptoms were exactly like King’s; and more people that Moran implied Bevin’s condition was the result of excessive drinking. This held out the expectation that King’s abste­mious lifestyle would speed his recovery. King George VI paid his Canadian prime minister the great compliment of going to see him at the hotel. So did his uncle, Lord Athlone, who came as chancellor of the University of London with an academic delegation and an honorary degree, for which King got out of bed and dressed. There were also personal friends, notably the social reformer Violet Markham, and three sessions with spiritualists, one of whom contacted Franklin Roosevelt as well as Lord Tweedsmuir. But the highlight, on the second to last day, was Winston Churchill, still leader of the British Conservative Party, whom King would have been sorry to miss.

Churchill arrived with a copy of the British edition of The Gathering Storm. He was sorry to find his old friend in such poor condition but not greatly concerned since he had recovered from worse himself (the next summer he would quickly recuperate from a stroke). King was amazed at how well his contemporary looked—“quite young and strong”—and the quantity of work he was able to do. Churchill said that he relaxed a lot, sometimes painting for three hours a day. He was also buoyed by having just denounced the Labour government’s handling of world affairs in parliament in the same hard terms that he had used at the Conservative annual conference a couple of weeks earlier.  (Prime Minister Attlee, who arrived later, told King that he had been hurt by the accusations of timidity towards the Soviet Union, responsibility for the slaughter following Indian independence, the chaos in Palestine, and the charge that his government would force Northern Ireland into joining Eire which was becoming an independent republic with no ties to the United Kingdom.)

King agreed with Attlee that Churchill’s speech was extreme, even alarming in his claim that Conservative governments would come to power in Britain and all the old dominions and take proper command of the Commonwealth. Many British Conservatives were offended by their leader’s belligerence but kept their heads down and deferred to the international hero who they hoped would carry them back to office in the election that was sched­uled for 1950. This mutinous feeling was expressed to King three months later by the still exasperated Anthony Eden, Churchill’s former deputy, who said that while the great man was mellowing, he still refused to surrender the party leadership.

In their bedside conversation at the Dorchester, King and Churchill did not touch on contemporary controversies but stuck to the tranquilizing triumphs of the past. Churchill declared, although it is not clear how he could have known, that King had been much missed at the Commonwealth conference. He also cheered the invalid by assuring him again of his great services during the war: “You have never failed. You were helpful always. There was nothing that you did not do, that could be done.” He mentioned, in particular, the Commonwealth air training plan and King’s refusal to support Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies’ desire for the dominions to play a larger part in the direction of the war in order to undermine Churchill. He reiterated that King had been a bridge between Britain and the United States, specifying his help in the possible move of the Royal Navy to the United States. He recalled King’s encouraging telephone call after Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech two years earlier, and could not resist adding that every point in the address had since been borne out. The two parted with emotion, Churchill’s eyes filling with tears, yet King was annoyed that on his way out he asked the high commissioner (Norman Robertson) to ensure that the press was informed of his visit.

There was no sense that this was their last meeting. Once he recovered his health, King expected to continue visiting Britain, as he had when out of office in the early 1930s. Churchill hoped to go to Toronto in the spring to receive an honorary degree and wanted King to attend. King in turn invited Churchill to Ottawa. But King would not recover, and they would never meet again.

You can buy The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

About the Author 

Neville Thompson is a professor emeritus of history at the University of Western Ontario, where he taught modern British and European history. He is the author of The Anti-Appeasers: Opposition to Appeasement in the 1930s, Wellington After Waterloo, and Canada and the End of the Imperial Dream. His latest book The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII is released in hardcover in February 2021 with Sutherland House Books. He lives in Ottawa.

Copyright line

From "THE THIRD MAN: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII" by Neville Thompson. Copyright © 2021 by Neville Thompson. Reprinted by permission of Sutherland House Books.

The Legendary African-American World War II Pilots: The Tuskegee Airmen

The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of primarily African-American pilots who fought in World War II, with their exploits during the war becoming legendary. The origins and founding of the group came from a response to segregation in both the military and general society. The group’s pilots who fought in Europe and North Africa achieved an impressive combat record, while several myths surroundings the Tuskegee Airmen will be explored here.

Daniel Boustead explains.

Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.

The beginnings of the Tuskegee Airmen came as a direct response from a 1925 study conducted by the American Military which concluded that “Blacks didn’t have the intelligence, ability, or coordination to fly airplanes”([1]). In 1939, Congress ordered the Army Air Corp to accept Blacks into the Civilian Pilot Training Program to provide a cadre of trained pilots should the country be plunged into war ([2]). In 1939 this Civilian Pilot Training Program was granted to the Black segregated college of Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) ([3]). In the years from 1939 to 1940 almost 100 Black pilots completed the training of the Civilian Pilot Training Program, but the Army Air Corps refused to let them in (2). In September 1940, when President Franklin Roosevelt announced that the Army Air Corps would soon begin training Black pilots ([4]), the War Department choose the Tuskegee Army Airfield as a training site (4).  F.D.R was persuaded by his decision by the N.A.A.C.P and by Black newspapers like the Pittsburgh Courier and the Chicago Defender  (4). In 1940 Black pilot Charles Alfred Anderson came to head up the training program at Tuskegee (2). On January 16, 1941 the War Department announced that a Black flying unit would be formed within the Army Air Corps (9). In March 1941, (as a result of Anderson’s flight with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt), she gave a $175,000.00 loan to build Moton Field, where the men could take their initial training (2). Moton Field was located at Tuskegee Institute (9). 

In March 1941 the U.S. War Department created the 99th Pursuit Squadron, which was the first unit made up of Black pilots and would become in time a famous Tuskegee Airmen unit (2). This unit soon became the 99th Fighter Squadron (1). By 1943 the 99th had become a combat unit ([5]). The other famous Tuskegee Airmen units were formed in the period from 1942 to 1943: the 100th Squadron, 301st Squadron, and the 302nd Squadron with the 332nd Fighter Group (5). 

In conflict

The Tuskegee Airmen units fought in the North African Theatre of war as well as Europe during the conflict. The 99th Fighter Squadron left Tuskegee and arrived in Morocco on April 2, 1943 under the command of African American officer Lt. Colonel Benjamin O. Davis Jr. (5). The 99th Squadron’s initial combat debut in North Africa resulted in heavy losses against the German Luftwaffe (5). This Squadron redeemed itself in May 1943 when they attacked the Italian Island of Pantelleria in preparation for the invasion of Sicily, which resulted in the entire Island garrison of 11,000 Italians troops surrendering (5). This was very first time in history that an entire Island had surrendered by air attack alone (5). This earned the 99th Fighter Squadron a Distinguished Unit Citation for this effort (5).

In February 1944 a new Black unit called the 332nd Fighter Group left Tuskegee, which consisted of the 100th Squadron, the 301st Squadron, and the 302nd Squadron (5). The 332nd Fighter Group went to Italy where they joined the 99th Fighter Squadron, which was operating at Ramitelli Airfield on the Adriatic Sea (4). The 332nd Fighter Group began operations on February 14, 1944 and they began patrolling the area from Naples Harbor to the Isle of Capri, as well as doing costal patrols (5). The 332nd Fighter Group moved to a new air base at Capodichino, Italy on March 4, 1944 (5). The 99th Fighter Squadron earned a Second Distinguished Unit Citation for their efforts during the Battle of Monte Cassino in May 1944 (5). On May 23, 1944 the 332nd Fighter Group was assigned bomber escort duty for the 15th Army Air Force, making sure the bombers made it safely from Ramitelli to their targets in southeastern Europe and southern Germany (5). The 99th Fighter Squadron won a Third Distinguished Unit Citation for protecting the bombers of the 15th Army Air Force during a bombing mission on March 24, 1945 ([6]). The 332nd was subsequently awarded this Distinguished Unit Citation for the March 24, 1945 mission (7). The 332nd Fighter Group flew its last mission on April 26, 1945 (4).  In the period from 1941 to 1946, 992 Black pilots were trained at Tuskegee, of which 355 pilots flew in combat over the skies of Southern Europe (7). The Tuskegee Airmen flew 1,578 combat missions, 1,267 for the Twelfth Army Air Force, and 311 for the Fifteenth Army Air Force, destroyed 262 enemy aircraft (112 in the air, 150 on the ground), 950 rail cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles, and 40 boats and barges (7). The 99thFighter Squadron even set an Army Air Corps record for shooting down five German planes in less than four minutes (6). 

Myths

There were various myths written about the Tuskegee Airmen that increased the group’s “God-Like” standing in the annals of Military History. The first big myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber. This myth existed for many years after the war and was even mentioned on a Family Matters TV episode in 1992 when Estelle Winslow talked about the Tuskegee Airmen (8). In the period of June 9, 1944 to March 24, 1945, 27 Heavy Bombers from the 15th Army Air Force were shot down while under escort from the 332nd Fighter Group (9). In contrast the 15th Army Air Force lost an average of 46 Heavy Bombers when being escorted by other fighter groups (9). During the period from June 1944 to May 1945 the 15th Army Air Force lost a total of 303 Heavy Bombers that were shot down by enemy aircraft (9) over 7 escort periods. 

Another important myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen were the first to implement a “Stick to the Bomber” policy.  The “Stick to the Bomber” policy had been instituted by Major General Ira Eaker while he was commander of the Eighth Army Air Force, long before the Tuskegee Airmen ever escorted a bomber (9). In January 1944, General Eaker moved to the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations to serve as commander of Mediterranean Allied Air Forces and he took his “Stick to the Bomber” policy with him(9). Eaker’s “Stick to the Bomber” policy found a home in the 15th Army Air Force where they were followed by the 332nd Fighter Group (9). 

A further myth about the Tuskegee Airmen was that they were the first to bring down the legendary ME-262 Jet. The first German ME-262 Jet Fighter was actually shot down by five Royal Canadian Air Force Fighter pilots belonging to Squadron 401 on October 5, 1944 (10).  The Tuskegee Airmen did shoot down at least 3 Me-262 Jets on March 24, 1945 while escorting the 15th Army Air Force bombing mission to Berlin, Germany (9). The three aircraft destroyed on this mission were attributed to Tuskegee Airmen 1st Lieutenant Roscoe Brown, 1st Lieutenant Earl R. Lane, and 2nd Lieutenant Charles V. Brantley (9).

Another myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen units were all Black men. The misconception is that the Tuskegee Airmen were virtually all Black by the time they deployed overseas and remained Black until the Air Force was desegregated in 1949 (9). The reality is that the first three commanders of the 99th Fighter Squadron (originally called the 99th Pursuit Squadron) were White men (9), and that the first two commanders of the 332nd Fighter Group where White men (9). The vast majority of Tuskegee Airmen were Black though (9). The Tuskegee Airmen also had some Haitian Airmen (11).  However, Eugene Smith, a member of the Tuskegee Airmen was of a mixture of European and Native American Ancestry, yet he was listed as “colored” on his birth certificate (9). The Army Air Forces would only accept Eugene Smith if he went to Tuskegee and so he did (9).

The final myth was that the outstanding Tuskegee Airmen’s war record was alone responsible for President Harry S. Truman efforts to desegregate the military. The Tuskegee Airmen’s record played a small pat in this (9). The combination of Truman wanting to appeal to Black voters in the 1948 Presidential Election and the June 28, 1948 threat by A. Philip Randolph’s “League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience against Military Segregation” for Blacks to resist the draft, also had a huge impact on President Truman’s decision to desegregate the military in 1948 (9). The President’s Civil Rights report of October 29, 1947 called “To Secure These Rights” had African American leaders telling Secretary of Defense Forrestal to desegregate the military, also played a part in President’s Truman’s decision (9). It was these factors that caused President Truman to sign Executive Order 9981 to desegregate the military on July 26, 1948 (9).

Conclusion

The Tuskegee Airmen’s prowess became the stuff of legend. The group compiled an excellent combat record which helped quell prejudice against Black people. Many myths exist about the Tuskegee Airmen, but several have been exposed and negated here. However, the Tuskegee Airmen hold an important and much revered place in the annals of Military History. 

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, and “The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?” here.

[1] Rivers, Charles Editors. “Far-Reaching Changes- A Portrait of a McGee as a Tuskegee airmen”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020, Ch.2. 

[2] River, Charles Editors. “Air Corps Policy Remained as Before”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020, Ch.1. 

[3] “Training, CAF Rise Above”.  Accessed on January 18th, 2021. https://cafrisebove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/training . 

[4] Tuskegee Airmen”. HistoryChannel.com . Last Updated January 16th, 2020. Accessed on December 13th, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/tuskgee-airmen.

[5] River, Charles Editors. “Combat-Ready Status”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II”. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.4. 

[6] River, Charles Editors. “More Time to Prove Itself”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.5. 

7 River, Charles Editors. “Unique Military Record”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.7. 

8 “Family Matters-Brown Bombshell  (TV Episode 1992)”. IMDB. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0577080/

9 Haulman, Daniel L. “Tuskegee Airmen Myths and Realities”. Air Force Historical Research Agency.( 17th, March, 2014). https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141119-026.pdf

10 Montgomery, Marc. “History Canada: Oct. 5, 1944-RCAF down the first German Jet”. Last Updated October 9th, 2018. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/10/05/history-canada-oct-5-1944-rcaf-downs-the-first-german-jet/

11 “Haitian Tuskegee Airmen, CAF RISE Above”. Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/haitian-tuskgee-airmen/

References

“Family Matters-Brown Bombshell”. (TV Episode 1992)”. IMDB.  Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0577080/

“Haitian Tuskegee Airmen, CAF RISE Above”.  Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskegee-airmen-history/haitian-tuskgee-airmen/

Haulman, Daniel L. “Tuskegee Airmen Myths and Realities”. Air Force Historical Research Agency. (17, March, 2014). https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141119-026.pdf

Montgomery, Marc. “History Canada: Oct. 5, 1944-RCAF down the first German Jet”. Last Updated October 9th, 2018. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/10/05/history-canada-oct-5-1944-rcaf-downs-the-first-german-jet/

River, Charles Editors. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II.  Edited by Charles Rivers Editors, 2020.

“Training, CAF Rise Above” Accessed on January 18th, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/training. 

“Tuskegee Airmen”.HistoryChannel.com.Last Updated January 16th, 2020. Accessed on December 13th, 2020.https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/tuskegee-airmen

A History of the Media and the American Presidency: Part 2 - President John Adams’ Battles with the Media

When looking back at the history of the media’s role in the American Presidency, it is easy to see many comparisons to today.  President Donald Trump’s dilemma with the media is not much different than that two of his predecessors faced, John Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Both men lived in a time that saw vicious attacks on their character by the media.  President Adams was seen as a monarchist despite the role he played in America’s independence. President Jackson was referred to as “King Andrew I” because he utilized the full power of the presidency, something that his predecessors had failed to do. 

In a three-part series, this work will look at how the media played a role in characterizing both Adams (as vice president during his first term and as president) and Jackson (as president) while also looking at how both men battled against their relentless attacks.

In part 2, Ian Craig looks at what happened during John Adams’ presidency from 1797 to 1801, including the Alien and Sedition Acts and his interaction with France during the French Revolution.

If you missed it, part 1 on John Adams’ and the media when he was Vice President is here.

A British political cartoon of Franco-American relations after the XYZ Affair in 1798. 5 Frenchmen plunder female "America", while six figures representing other European countries look on. The British John Bull sits laughing on "Shakespeare's Cliff."

The President by Three Votes

On March 4, 1797 John Adams became president promising to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” As the nation’s second president, Adams would find himself having to protect the young nation from foreign influences while battling the American media.  President Adams did not come to the presidency by a sweeping margin. By 1796, although the founding fathers had not intended for it to happen, political parties arose in the nation. Adams, a Federalist and supporter of a strong federal government, found himself up against Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican and a supporter of giving more rights to the states (there are more differences between the two parties which will be explained later). Adams won the election by just three votes in the Electoral College. Adams’ received 71 votes to Jefferson’s 68 and just over 53 percent of the national popular vote to Jefferson’s 47 percent. Due to this, Adams was often called the “president by three votes” by the media.[1] This originated from the Philadelphia based newspaper the Aurora which would give Adams much grief during his presidency. Adams did not buy into the scrutiny of the Philadelphia paper - after all, he had won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. 

However, Adams had to work with a vice president who disagreed with him on almost every matter. Because Jefferson had placed second, he became vice president. This meant that both the president and vice president were from two different political parties. This was not intended when the Constitution was written. By 1800, the selection of the president and vice president would ensure that both came from the same political party; however, the rise of political parties meant that Adams had to endure the onslaught of those in the press who supported the Democratic-Republicans.

Foreign Influences

A key issue that Adams had in assuming office was the French Revolution. France had been in a revolution since 1789 and had sought support from President Washington. Washington did not want the young United States to enter a war so early after its own independence. This angered the French and those in America who supported them. Their argument was that France had come to the aid of America during its own revolution and that it was time to return the favor. Then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson supported the French and their cause, as did many in America. However, Washington would not commit to supporting the French Revolution and remained neutral. 

John Adams wished to continue the same policy that his predecessor had committed to. Adams felt that the United States could not engage in a full-scale war, as it was not prepared. Nor did he believe it was the right decision for the young nation. This was when Adams would face the onslaught of negative coverage by the Democratic-Republican allied press. The root of the rift between the Adams’ Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republicans was a matter of a difference in opinion. In 1794, Washington had sent Chief Justice John Jay to make a final peace with Britain and to settle some remaining “bad blood” between the two nations. This became known as Jay’s Treaty. This upset the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson who denounced British involvement in the French Revolution. They viewed the treaty as America taking sides in the war. This also angered the French, who began to seize American ships.

Before going forward, it is important to state the difference between the political ideologies of the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists, who supported Adams, wanted an economy based on that of Britain with the wealthier controlling such areas as manufacturing. They also believed in a strong central or federal government (hence the name “federalists”). The Democratic-Republicans supported more power for the states and less power for central government. They also supported an economy based on the working and agricultural classes, similar to France. It is for these reasons that both sides supported either Britain or France.

Relations worsen

Early in the Adams presidency, what became known as the XYZ affair occurred. In order to stop the French from seizing American ships, Adams sent an envoy to France in order to settle the matter. What became of the matter upset many Americans, including the President. The French under Foreign Minister Talleyrand sent three officials to discuss terms with the Americans. However, they would not talk to them unless a sum of money was given to each man plus a loan to France. The American diplomats refused to pay and once the news got to Adams he was outraged. He refused to call the three French diplomats by their names and referred to them as “XYZ.” This caused tensions to rise between the United States and France. The Democratic-Republican press called the president “unhinged by the delirium of vanity”[2] over his supposed “insult of the French” by refusing to pay their demands.[3]

Adams wanted nothing more than peace with France and worked to establish that outcome. However, he also looked to build up the American military, with heavy emphasis on the navy.[4] Adams believed that the navy was important to securing American sovereignty along its shores and overseas. He pushed for the building of several frigates; one such ship was the U.S.S. Constitution. It is for this reason that he is often referred to as the “father of the U.S. navy.”

                  This caused tensions with the Democratic-Republicans and Jefferson, who did not like the idea of America having a standing army that was under the control of the federal government. The Federalists on the other hand supported it for many reasons. The key issue that came to dominate Adams’ presidency was how foreigners were influencing Americans to support the French Revolution. This was the Federalists greatest fear, an attempt to force the American government to side with the French.  This would cause instability within the government. Federalists believed that those from Ireland, England, and Scotland, many of whom worked in the printing press, would “spread fears or lies to the public in order to upset the stability of the union and government.”[5]

                  It is for this reason that the Federalist began to push Adams to support the Alien and Sedition Acts. These two Acts would become a controversy in America. The Alien Act was designed to “deport non-citizens who were a threat to the nation’s security.”[6] The Federalists and many other Americans believed that these foreigners would influence insurrection and rebellion in the nation. This would then lead to the instability of the United States. The Act was designed to protect national security by all means. The Sedition Act drew more scrutiny, as it appeared to violate the First Amendment. It stated that “people who spoke out against the government or harmed its position could be imprisoned.”[7] This in-turn, focused on those of the press who disagreed with the president and other government officials. 

Media debates

The Democratic-Republican press saw both acts as limiting the “rights of foreigners who were more likely to vote for them.”[8]They believed that the Federalists were attempting to silence the opposition by passing both laws. The Federalist press disagreed and saw them as “protecting the union from internal instability and treats.”[9] That it “gave juries the right to decide what printed material was hurtful or not.”[10] Adams himself never pursued the Alien and Sedition Acts.[11] He did not sign them into law without careful consideration, he did so having felt support for them by the American people.  This however, would come back to hurt him. Members of the press like Benjamin Franklin Bach wrote in his newspaper that the President had used an “unconstitutional exercise of power”[12] and was charged for insulting the president.  At the same time Thomas Cooper of the Pennsylvania Gazette and David Frothingham of the New York Argus were both convicted of speaking against the government and imprisoned.[13]

Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans would campaign in 1800 against these acts of what they saw as abuse by the federal government. During the election of 1800, the Federalist Party had fractured over disagreements between Adams and its leader Alexander Hamilton. Adams’ dismissal of the standing army, which he believed was no longer needed, angered Hamilton and others. Adams had also refused to take a strong federal stance during Fries Rebellion against Hamilton’s wishes.[14] The result was that Adams lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. Adams refused to attend Jefferson’s inauguration, being the first of four presidents to do so. Adams’ legacy is often seen as negative because of the Alien and Sedition Acts and his refusal to support France. However, he followed the stance of George Washington by keeping the United States neutral. The media hated him for this and called him every name imaginable. However, during the early days of the republic, Adams worked to preserve the nation and to make sure that it would be given a chance to survive and prosper as the founding fathers had wished. It is hard to say what would have happened if he had done the opposite and supported the French. The United States would have found itself in another war not so long after another. It was still new and fragile, Adams knew this and worked to pursue peace by a show of force in order to give the United States a fighting chance. 

What do you think of John Adams’ battles with the media? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Ian’s previous article on possibly the most important reason for the American Revolution here.

[1] David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 485. 

[2] Ibid, 498.

[3] Ibid, 498.

[4] Ibid, 485.

[5] Jackie Mansky, “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News’: It’s been part of the conversation as far back as the birth of the free press,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/age-old-problem-fake-news-180968945/ [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[6] “The Presidency of John Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts,” Khan Academy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/creating-a-nation/a/presidency-of-john-adams [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[7] Ibid, “The Alien and Sedition Acts.”

[8] Mansky, “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News.”

[9] Ibid. 

[10] Ibid. 

[11] C. James Taylor, “John Adams: Impact and Legacy,” The Miller Center, http://millercenter.org/president/adams/impact-and-legacy [assessed January 12, 2021]. 

[12] Eric P. Robinson, “Another President Who Took On ‘Fake News,’” South Carolina Press, https://scpress.org/another-president-who-took-on-fake-news/ [assessed January 12, 2021].

[13] Ibid. 

[14] C. James Taylor, “John Adams: Impact and Legacy.”

Michelangelo and the Statue of David

The Italian sculptor, painter, architect, and poet Michelangelo was born in Caprese, a hill town not far from Florence, in 1474. The town was located only six miles away from a marble quarry that provided local sculptors with their life blood for many years. It was to flow through Michelangelo’s veins stronger than any other. One particular chunk of marble, though destined for greatness, began its journey in 1463 when Agostino di Duccio was commissioned to create a sculpture of the Biblical David.

Douglas Reid explains.

A 19th century photo of Michelangelo’s state of David. This was when the statue was still outside the Palazzo Vecchio. Taken by John Brampton Philpot.

Marble was provided from the famous quarry in Carrara, a marble mine close to Caprese. The combination of marble and Agostino soon waned. The sculptor abandoned the commission and the statue three years later in 1466. In three years all he had achieved was beginning to shape the legs. It was time to try again. Enter one Antonio Rossollino. His stewardship was to be even shorter. This time the block of marble was to lie unattended for 26 years. During this dry time the marble was so neglected the outline of an Apollo was pressed, in ignoble fashion, face down to the ground. It looked much the same as a contemporary hockey goaltender face down, scrambling to find the puck. An expensive hunk of marble had lain fallow too long.    

Michelangelo is chosen

The Operai were determined to find an artist who could take this large piece of marble and transform it into a finished piece of art. They ordered the block of stone, which they called the giant, raised to its feet. Leonardo, among others, was consulted, and it was Michelangelo who convinced the Operai that he deserved the commission. Michelangelo began carving the statue early in the morning of September 13, 1501. He would work on it between 1501 and 1504.

David was installed close to the Palazzo Vecchio. It took four days to move the statue half a mile from Michelangelo’s workshop to the Piazza della Signoria. Later that summer a sling and tree stump support were gilded, and the figure was given a gilded loin-garland.

In 1873, the statue of David was removed from the piazza, to protect it from damage, and displayed in the Accademia Gallery, Florence. More recent times have brought grief. In 1991, Piero Cannata, an artist who the police described as unwell, attacked the statue with a hammer he had concealed in his jacket. He later claimed that a 16th century Venetian painter’s model had ordered him to do so. Later testing confirmed that Piero had mental health issues. The height of Michelangelo’s masterpiece is 16 feet and it checks in at 16 tons. Still, many tourists believe they have spotted a flaw in assessing David’s hands. They do look too large, and in fact they are too large – at ground level but original plans called for David to be lifted to the Church’s roof line and hands are foreshortened at height. 

Where David looks

In fact, where a Renaissance sculpture is placed is revealing. For that matter, so is the Medici family. And you will notice a steady orange glare emanates from David. It is like the steady fire from the eye of a tiger. The spectator feels as much as he feels the tension of the moment. This is because wherever the statue is placed, whether indoors or outdoors, it is always facing south. This is because Rome is south, as is the Medici family. Each of which is south of Florence. David is staring down the Romans.

 To understand this you have to understand the history of the Italian peninsula. Tuscany is an important province in the North and blonde Tuscans are not rare. Southern Italians are generally of darker complexions. Italy was poorer in the South and consequently the great majority of Italian migrants to North America are from the southern parts of Italy. Ergo, the rest of us believe all Italians have dark hair and olive skin. This rivalry can be seen on the soccer pitch. If, for example, a foreign team is playing against a team from say, Naples, you can count on the Tuscan fans to be cheering for the foreign team. And that is why David’s brilliant eyes are focused as they are. It is time we look at David’s creator.

Michelangelo tales

Michelangelo is probably not who you think he is either. In street language Michelangelo was a surly slob. As a youngster he avoided normal schooling and spent virtually all his free time helping older established artists with their painting and their sculpture. His fights with others were numerous. But he clearly showed uncommon ability in both painting and sculpture. He was also an accomplished poet. It seems as though the Deity gave so much to Michelangelo in these that he harbored no other gifts for him. For openers Michelangelo Buonarotti was ugly. His face was gathered round a flattened pug nose. His body was misshapen and ungainly. His clothes were always crinkled – probably because he often slept in them. He routinely scuffled around both artists and art works in a pair of unlaced muddy boots. Not surprising then, to learn that he never married. Like we said he was also surly. 

There is a Michelangelo story that has been handed down which, if not true, should be.  It seems that our hero was walking down a Florence street when he spotted his great rival, Leonardo, walking with friends on the other side. Michelangelo threw some taunts at him. The upshot was one of Leonardo’s friends crossed the street for the purpose of further re-arranging that famous nose. Why do I have the feeling I am writing West Side Story?

Conclusion

Some final thoughts on the Michelangelo who matters – that sublime artist who created David. Why do I rate his David over the Pope’s ceiling? The latter is not cut from whole cloth. It is really 12 or so Bible stories sharing the same space. David, by contrast, presents a unified whole. What about Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa? Here the key comparison is one of scope. The Mona Lisa is relatively small. Michelangelo is of Olympian scope. What is more, while the painting took hours to create the sculpture required years.  

A final tale to tell. Here I was standing in a two-hour line-up to see David for the first time when a conversation was commenced with a young lady who was next in line. The conversation went something like this:

 - Have you seen David before?

 - Oh yes.

 - And you are back again?

 - The first time I was here I was over whelmed. At the time I was an economics major. After my visit here I returned home, sold my economic texts and registered in an arts program.

I rest my case.

What do you think of the author’s view on Michelangelo and the statue of David? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more from Douglas here, with an article on the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution.

The Tower of Babel and Modern World History

The links between modern world history and Biblical times have been considered in many ways over the centuries. And here, Daniel L. Smith looks at how history could be taught with reference to the Bible, suggesting the evidence for links to the Tower of Babel and long-standing human practices.

Illustration of the Tower of Babel, published in Turris Babel by Athanasius Kircher.

The history of original indigenous contact with Europeans should be taught differently, considering the absence of written documentation. It should be done with logic, reasoning, and science of course. The way American society has been taught the history of the world has changed since the start of the 1900s. Creation is what America was originally taught about human beginnings prior to this. So, here is a theory for how the origins of North America could be considered if we were to return to that way of thinking.

“It begins when the Flood subsides. Noah plants a vineyard, makes wine, and falls into a stupor in his tent. Ham . . . sees his father's nakedness and tells his two brothers what has happened.... When Noah wakes up and learns what has happened, he lays a curse not upon Ham but upon Ham's son: 'Accursed be Canaan. He shall be his brothers' meanest slave.' . . . Whizzing forward to the medieval versions we learn more about the nature of Ham's misdeeds. He mocked Noah's nakedness, and invited his brothers to do the same (which they refused). What is more, this is not the first of Ham's transgressions. When they had all been on the Ark together, Noah had insisted that everyone be sexually continent, but Ham, by the aid of a magic demon, slept with his wife…” [1] And the Curse of Ham was in effect.

The Tower of Babel in Mesopotamia was the next “Fall of Man.” The world was a wicked place in the days of Noah. Compared to most European lifestyles they were observed as disgraceful, disgusting, violent, immoral, and unethical societies and in those days, it was something horrific. Dr. David Leston wrote that “archaeologists have unearthed bodies of people who lived in Mesopotamia, they have found evidence that cannibalism was practiced. In short, this was a very brutal era, in which humanity showed little to no regard for one another.” [2]

He goes on to mention that in “January 1996 National Geographic did a comparison between rodeo riders and their injuries, and skeletons uncovered from the time of Noah. They found striking similarities between the injuries of the two groups, suggesting that this was a very violent society. When people reject God and the boundaries and purposes that He has created for them, they become a law unto themselves, and society becomes weaker and more dangerous.” [3] The net results are often the same - anarchy and a violent world. So, God flooded the world and spared the only honest and Godly man alive at the time. It was Noah who God gave the task of rebuilding civilization.

After the flood

It was right after the Flood that people would repopulate the Fertile Crescent (the Middle East). This was a very fertile and agriculturally productive area which was developed quickly and fought over heavily. One of humankind’s early technological developments was the ability to design, manipulate materials and make structures such as buildings. It was mankind’s obligation from God to subdue the earth. He ultimately gave mankind all the faculties necessary to create great constructions. However, in man’s rebellion against God, this gift was used in ways to honor men and not Him—such as The Tower of Babel. This attempt at building a ziggurat mega-structure was humankind's next attempt at playing God. 

Above all else

In Genesis 11, the tower planners said: “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” The planners of course were referring to making a name for mankind above God’s name. God saw this ability of men to centralize power effectively for the purposes of glorifying themselves. He then—in an instant—created world languages to confuse the masses and dispersed them globally. This is where dispersion across the globe took effect.

The evidence offered by National Geographic parallels ancient cannibalism to what we see in Native North America (and globally). It makes sense that at dispersion why humankind had kept their basic tribal customs alive. Cannibalism was a custom and ritual that was carried on and practiced by indigenous peoples since the beginnings… hence, the “Curse of Ham.” [4] Marshall Sahlins, an anthropologist, viewed cannibalism as a variety of symbolism, cosmology, rituals, and traditions. [5]

In this way, the theory that the Portuguese in North Africa in the early 15th century had cannibalistic tendencies makes sense. Consider the technological example of human civilization and human capital. In all, there was no major advancement of “civilization” until the mid-15th century - the time after the printing press was invented by Gutenberg. Europe was still shut into Medieval thinking. It was still the Dark Ages.

There has been scientific evidence, as suggested earlier, that makes cannibalism very widespread and indeed an ancient tribal global human practice. This would make sense considering the religious and socio-political foundations at that time. [8] It was part of the animistic tribal lifestyle that was inherited by the first generation of those original peoples dispersed at the Tower of Babel. [9] This has been carried well into modern times.

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

References

1. Braude, Benjamin. "The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographical Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods." The William and Mary Quarterly 54, no. 1 (1997), 103. doi:10.2307/2953314.

2. Dr. Leston, Stephen, and Christopher D. Hudson. "From Creation to the Tower of Babel | The Age of Noah." In The Bible in World History: How History and Scripture Intersect, 31. Uhrichsville: Barbour Pub, 2011.

3. Ibid. p. 32.

4. "DNA and Native Americans." Book of Mormon Evidence. Last modified October 16, 2019. https://bookofmormonevidence.org/dna-and-native-americans/.

5. Harris, Marvin. "‘Cannibals and Kings’: An Exchange." The New York Review of Books. Last modified November 21, 2015. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1979/06/28/cannibals-and-kings-an-exchange/.

6. Freud, Sigmund. "Totem and Taboo; Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics." Internet Archive. Accessed December 14, 2020. https://archive.org/stream/totemtabooresemb00freu.

7. Allina, Eric. "The Zimba, the Portuguese, and Other Cannibals in Late Sixteenth-century Southeast Africa." Journal of Southern African Studies 37, no. 2 (2011), 211-227. doi:10.1080/03057070.2011.579433.

8. Helmenstine, Ph.D, Anne M. "What You Need to Know About Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy." ThoughtCo. Accessed December 14, 2020. https://www.thoughtco.com/mad-cow-disease-overview-602185.

9. Genesis 6:5 & 6:6, The Holy Bible.

The Second Indian Mughal Emperor: Humayun, The Underdog Prince

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.

In part 2, we look at the second Mughal Emperor, Humayun. He reigned from 1530-1540 and again from 1555-1556. He led a constant battle to maintain his father’s empire, in part due to a request from his father. Khadija Tauseef explains.

If you missed it you can read part one in the series on the first Mughal Emperor Babur here.

The second Mughal emperor, Humayun. This a detail of a miniature from the Baburnama, 1590s.

Humayun was the most beloved son of the Emperor Babur and his favorite wife Maham Begum, born to them on March 6, 1508. The prince was his father’s favorite. When Humayun fell gravely ill, and many believed that only God could save him, an Amir suggested offering something of value in exchange for the prince’s health. It was at this moment that Babur offered his own life in exchange for his son’s. And so, the story goes that Babur’s condition began to worsen while Humayun started to get better. Ultimately in 1530, Babur passed away and left the throne to Humayun. However, there was one piece of advice that Babur gave to Humayun before his death that would cause many problems in Humayun’s reign.

Humayun Rule

Babur wanted to conquer new territory; thus, he paved the way for the creation of the Mughal Empire. During his conquests Babur would conquer territory and, in order to sustain control, he would leave his heir in charge. From the beginning Babur had decided that Humayun would be the one who would succeed to the throne after Babur’s death. Unfortunately, Humayun did not have his father’s spirit and he failed to keep the empire intact for long. A key reason for this was that Babur had asked Humayun to do nothing that would harm his brothers. 

Thus, in order to ensure that his brothers would be happy, he decided to assign territories to them as Zeenut Zaid explains:

“Under the tradition of appanage rule, Humayun conceded control of Badakhshan to Sulaiman, of Kabul to Kamran, and gave large districts in India to two of his other brothers to administer”

Shortly after Humayun had bestowed them the territories, Kamran rose and asserted full independent control over Kabul and Punjab. Humayun, bound by his father’s command, could do nothing to stop his brothers. So, weakened by sibling rivalries, the difficult task of defending and consolidating his father’s conquests in the north of India fell to him. The biggest threat came in the shape of powerful Afghan warriors.

Mughal Rule hanging by a thread

Humayun attempted to conquer the Sultanate of Gujarat in a five-year campaign, it was here that he first came up against Sher Khan Sur; an Afghan commander who had been rapidly consolidating his power and eventually became the leader of the Afghans. Humayun fought two battles against Sher Khan but lost both. Humayun fled from his adversaries to Sindh, where for seven months he laid siege to Sehwan, without success. It was at this time that Humayun’s allies began abandoning him. 

It was in Sindh that he met Hamida, a fourteen-year old girl of Persian descent. It was from this union that his son Akbar was born. Unable to make progress in India, Humayun fled to Iran with his new wife by his side. It was in Iran that Humayun met Shah Tahmasp, a man who would provide the Mughal king with support to recapture his kingdom. While Humayun had been wandering he had also been reacquainted with Bayram Khan, one of his Babur soldiers. With the help of his new allies, Humayun marched on India determined to take back his father’s empire. This time his brothers would not be spared; their territories would be reclaimed for the Mughal Empire. 

Kamran was the only sibling who continued to create problems for Humayun. Therefore, although he couldn’t bring himself to kill his brother, he did have him blinded. Humayun had regained the Mughal Empire that his father had conquered, but unfortunately before he could consolidate his rule, he died. A year after seizing back control, Humayun had been in his study and it was here that he slipped and fell from the stairs, resulting in his untimely death. Humayun left behind his 12 year old son, Akbar, who inherited the turbulent and uncertain empire of the Mughals.

Humayun the Astrologer

Unlike most rulers, Humayun arranged his entire life according to the astrological signs, something which was most unusual for the time. Even though many other Mughals also believed in the power of the stars, Humayun took his obsession to the next level. As Michael H. Fisher explains:

“He identified each weekday with an astral body, himself wearing self-designed robes of the conforming color while conducting the corresponding imperial functions. For instance, on Tuesday, identified with the astrological planet Mars, Humayun wore red garments, sat ‘on the throne of wrath and vengeance,’ and directed the sentencing of each criminal and war-captive to imaginative punishments, guided by Humayun’s own inspired insight into the otherwise hidden essence of the prisoner and his alleged deeds. Humayun ordered his tents to be symbolically made in twelve sections, each representing a zodiac sign.” 

Humayun’s reliance upon the zodiac signs can even be seen in the way that he arranged his government. Fisher explains:

“In another scheme, he divided the branches of his administration according to the prime natural elements: fire (the military), air (his household), water (irrigation) and earth (buildings and lands). Each branch’s officials were to wear robes of the corresponding color.”

The courtiers would be sorted into these administrative divisions according to their zodiac sign and its corresponding element. However, this system may have been the reason why Humayun suffered greatly in his life. Relying upon the zodiac, many people who may not have been fit for a certain role may have been assigned tasks that didn’t suit them. Humayun’s brothers were aware of this weakness and that’s partly why they choose to take advantage of this and rebel against their brother. At the same time Humayun was faced with the Afghan threat led by Sher Khan, who would later take the title of Sher Shah Suri.

What do you think of Humayun’s life? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Khadija’s article on “The Fascinating History of Lahore Fort in Pakistan” here.

The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?

The Navajo Code, which was used during the Second World War, has become one of the most famous military codes of all time. The code was developed in 1942 for use by the United States Marine Corps. This code was complex and sophisticated which made it perfect for military use. The Navajo Code’s complexity made it different from other Native American military codes used at the time or in World War I. The code was never broken but there was a close call during World War II. It achieved some important successes during the conflict, and became invaluable to the U.S. Marines and helped baffle the Japanese military.

Daniel Boustead explains.

Navajo code talkers. Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, June 1944.

The Japanese Military had cracked every code the United States had used through 1942(1). The Marines in charge of communications were getting skittish([1]).  There was an imminent need for an unbreakable code!  Civil Engineer Philip Johnston, who had spent time on the Navajo Reservation came up with the idea of using the Navajo language (which was unwritten and understood only by those who lived with the Navajos) as the basis for an unbreakable code([2]).  Philip Johnston presented the idea to the U.S. Marine Corps ‘top brass’ and they decided to implement the idea right away(2). Communications officer Major James E. Jones, Major General Clayton B. Vogel (commander of Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet), and Commandant Thomas Holcomb were responsible for launching and recruiting the men who became code talkers(3). These men agreed on the need for the maximum secrecy of the program([3]). 

In February, 1942 at Camp Elliot, Vogel and Jones witnessed and ran a test experiment with Navajo men(3). This test experiment involved the Navajo men giving Navajo words to military terms in the period of an hour(3). Jones and Vogel also witnessed Navajo and Marine communications men transmitting several messages resembling in style and content the military messages that would be used in battle(3). At the time the standard used code was the “Shackle” code, which was written in English, encoded via a coding machine, and sent(3). Then the receiving end decoded the message, again via machine, and wrote it out English(3). It took an hour to transmit and receive the test messages using the “Shackle Code”(3). In contrast, when the same messages were transmitted and received in Navajo - with the Navajo men acting as human coding machines - it took only forty seconds for the information to be transmitted accurately(3). The test experiment was a success and Vogel agreed to launch a pilot, but due to the secrecy of the program it was decided to limit the trial program to 29 Navajo men(3). From  July 1942 to September 1942, 29 Navajo men from Platoon 382 helped invent and develop the Navajo Code([4]). The 29 Navajo men of Platoon 382 asked three Navajo speaking military men named Felix Yazzie, Ross Haskie, and Wilson Price to help them work on the Navajo Code([5]).  Navajo Code Talker Chester Nez said of the addition of  these three men “I don’t know why historians insist on separating them from the original twenty-nine. For me, it was the original thirty-two. They deserved credit for the code just as much as any of us did”(5). 

A unique code

The Navajo Code differed from other Native American Codes used in the past, in that the Navajo resisted adopting English words and folding them into the Navajo language like telephone and radio([6]).  The Navajo instead made up their own words for such inventions such as telephone and radio and thus keeping their language free from outside influence([7]). A person who is not Navajo finds it difficult to hear Navajo words properly, virtually impossible for him to reproduce the words, and nearly impossible to even pronounce even one word of Navajo if they are not used to hearing the sounds(6). Furthermore, as future Navajo Code Talker Sam Tso said “My language, my Navajo language, does not have an alphabet. we cannot write down our language, and we cannot read it. So, when they invented this code they used the English alphabet and they gave a certain word, to the ABC’s there and then as I looked at it and found out they have divided all those ABC’s according to the animals that lived in the water, travel on the water, that flew in the air, and those animals that live on the land. So, they divided into three parts”([8]). 

There were two types of Navajo code developed by the original Navajo Code Talkers(9). The first was the Type 1 code, which consisted of 26 Navajo terms that stood for individual English letters that could be used to spell out a word(9). For instance, the Navajo word for “ant”, in Navajo wo-la-chee, was used to represent the letter “a” in English([9].) Also, the original Navajo Code Talkers developed the Type 2 Navajo Code which contained words that could be translated from English into Navajo and included a dictionary (9).  For example, in the Type 2 Navajo Code there was no existing word for “submarine”, so the Navajo Code Talkers agreed to use the term besh-lo, which translates to “iron fish”(9).

In contrast, during World War I, Choctaw and Comanche soldiers transmitted messages in their complex language to stymie the Germans, which was by no means a code (6).The Choctaw and Comanche were used on a limited basis during World War I(6).  It was after World War I had ended that the Germans discovered which native languages had been employed by sending “tourists”, “scholars”, and “anthropologists” to learn the languages of various Native American tribes (6). Fortunately, the Navajo were not visited by these Germans spies(6). This prevented the secrets of the Navajo language from being passed on to Nazi Germany’s ally, Imperial Japan. This allowed the then secret language of Navajo to be used in developing an unbreakable code(6). Also, the Navajo Code contained 642 words or terms in their dictionary([10].)  By comparison the World War II-era Comanche Code Talkers only had 250 terms or 250 words and the primitive World War I era- Choctaw speaking experiment had only 20 terms or 20 words([11] ).  The Comanche Code Talkers served in Europe against the Third Reich ([12]).

Japanese code cracking efforts

A Japanese interrogator named Goon, interrogated a captured Navajo prisoner named Joe Kieyoomia (who had the survived the 1942 Bataan Death March) and came to the conclusion that the Code had something to do with the Navajo language([13]). Joe Kieyoomia, despite being brutally abused by his Japanese captors, never gave away any of the Navajo Code secrets(13). The Japanese Chief of Intelligence. Lieutenant General Seizo Arisue, said that while he was able to decipher the code used by the U.S. Army and the U.S.  Army Air Corps, he was never able to crack the Navajo Code ([14]). In the aftermath of World War II, the  Fuji Evening, a Tokyo newspaper, stated “If the Japanese Imperial Intelligence Team could have decoded the Navajo messages.. the history of the Pacific War might have turned out completely different”([15]). This shows the effectiveness in secrecy  surrounding the Navajo Code. 

The Navajo Code also had some important successes on the battlefields of the Pacific during World War II. During the Guadalcanal campaign, Navajo Code Talker Chester Nez and his friend Roy destroyed a Japanese machine gun position using the power of the Navajo Code to order an artillery strike to destroy it([16]). In the Battle of Iwo Jima, from February 1945 to March 1945, signal officer Major Howard Connor of the 5th Marine Division, said “Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima”(14). Signal officer Howard Conner had six Navajo Code Talkers with him and during the first two days of the battle of Iwo Jima from February 1945 they sent over 800 messages, all without error(14).  One of the final transmissions of World War II were American scientists’ observations of the August 9, 1945 atomic bombing of Nagasaki and it was sent back via the Navajo Code(15).

In retrospect

The Navajo Code had everlasting fame as a military code. This code that was developed for the Marine Corps served with success from 1942 to 1945.  The complex and thoroughly detailed nature of the Navajo Code made it perfect for military use and was different from other Native American codes. Except for a close call, the Code was never broken. The Navajo Code was truly unbreakable!

Now, read Daniel’s article on “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here.

[1] Avila, Judith and Nez, Chester. Foreword by Bingaman, Jeff United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one  of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII.  New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 93. 

[2] Avila, Judith and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII.  New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 90. 

[3] Avila, Judith and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff United Sates Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The First and only memoir by one of the  original Navajo code talkers of WWII.  New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 92. 

[4] Avila, Judith and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 101-102. 

[5] Avila, Judith and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII.  New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 109.

[6] Avila, Judith and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The First and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber.  2011. 91. 

[7] Avila, Judith  Schiess and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011.  91-92. 

[8] Navajo code talkers of World War II: Journey of Remembrance. Dreamscape-Contemporary Learning Systems. Starbright Media Corporation production. 2018. 

[9] “American Indian  Code Talkers, The National WWII Museum-New Orleans”.  December 12th, 2020. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-indian-code-talkers . 

[10] Avila, Judith Schiess and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff, United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and  only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 273-291. 

[11] Greenspan, Jesse. “How Native American Code Talkers Pioneered a  Type of Military Intelligence”. Updated:  November 11th, 2020. History Channel.  Accessed January 1st, 2021. https://www.history/com/news/world-war-is-native-american-code-talkers . 

[12] McIntyre, Cindy. “Comanche language helped win World War II”. Last Modified November 14th, 2017. United States Army. Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://www.army.mil/article/178195/comanche_language_helped_win_world_war_ii . 

[13] Avila, Judith Schiess and Nez, Chester.  Forward by Bingaman, Jeff, United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers.  New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 207-208. 

[14] “Navajo Code Talkers-World War II Fact Sheet, Naval History and Heritage Command”.  December  7th, 2020. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/code-talkers.html . 

[15] Avila, Judith Schiess and Nez, Chester. Foreword by Bingaman, Jeff, United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the of the original code talkers. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 215. 

[16] Avila, Judith Schiess, and Nez, Chester. Forward by Bingaman, Jeff, United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The first and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 133. 

References

“American Indian Code Talkers, The National WWII Museum-New Orleans” December 12th, 2020. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-indian-code-talkers.

Avila, Judith, and Nez, Chester. Foreword by Bingaman, Jeff, United States Senator from New Mexico. Code Talker: The First and only memoir by one of the original Navajo code talkers of WWII. New York: New York. Dutton Caliber. 2011. 

Greenspan, Jesse. “How Native American Code Talkers Pioneered a New Type of Military Intelligence”. History Channel.  Updated: November 11th, 2020. Accessed on January 1st, 2021. https://www.history/com/news/world-war-is-native-american-code-talkers.

McIntyre, Cindy. “Comanche language helped win World War II”. Last Modified November 14th, 2017. United States Army.Accessed January 3rd, 2021. https://www/army.mil/article/178195/comache_language_helped_win_world_war_ii

Navajo Code talkers of World War II: Journey of Remembrance. Dreamscape-Contemporary Learning Systems. Starbright Media Corporation. 2018.

“Navajo Code Talkers-World War II Fact Sheet, Naval History and Heritage Command”.  December 7th, 2020. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/code-talkers.html

The 1665 Great Plague of London: Part 2 – Was Home Quarantine Worth it?

In 2020 and now 2021, a large number of citizens found themselves homebound. While the stay-at-home orders were a novel experience for most people, the isolation of individuals with a contagious disease has a long history. While it is true that many suffered inconvenience and the disruption of normal routines, the modern home is so well equipped we weren't lacking for much in the way of necessities and comforts. Additionally, those quarantined at home were able to venture outside to replenish supplies or through delivery is needed. It has not always been so easy. The worst outbreak of bubonic plague in early modern England took place in London in 1665. Considering this experience can give us pause to give thanks that we live in the early twenty-first century.

In part 2, Victor Gamma looks at the Great Plague of 1665 in London, how people often lived in cramped conditions in Plague houses, and whether in perspective home quarantine was worth it.

Two men discovering a dead woman in the street during the Great Plague of London, 1665. Wood engraving by J. Jellicoe. Source: Wellcome Trust, available here.

What were conditions like in plague houses? Typical plague homes ranged from modest to ramshackle. Those subject to home quarantine were middle class or poor because those with the means had fled the city before the worst of the outbreak. Middle class Londoners could afford a house on a major street. Under quarantine, the poor suffered greater tribulation because their houses were rather sparsely furnished and lacking in much that might make the quarantine tolerable. The parishes supported those in financial distress in time of quarantine. Households were listed as “chargeable” if they were dependent on the parish for support during the plague. This meant they could not afford the 4 pence that the parish charged per quarantined person per day. In one instance, the records of St. Martin’s show that 84% of individuals in infected houses were “chargeable.” Additionally, the plague increased the number of those financially dependent on parish assistance due to loss of income. 

Although the practice of shutting up houses helped stop the spread of disease, the environment inside these plague houses undermined the health of those confined. To compound their suffering, homes at that time had no bathrooms as we know them today. Even the homes of the very wealthy lacked a lavatory. The good health of the inhabitants would normally not last long. After so many weeks of being cooped up, depression and mental lethargy took hold. Fever would often follow, leading to full-on sickness. Although the flight of many doctors earlier in 1665 year made the pitifully weak health system even more ineffective, the Lord Mayor did direct a number of physicians to treat the poor.

Sometimes the supply of food in shut up homes began to dwindle. Lacking preservatives, the food they had left began to rot. Its odor would permeate the air, along with the smell of putrefying water. Conditions were mostly cramped. Unlike the wealthy, the typical quarantined family lacked the space to segregate themselves. The air in that hot, humid summer of 1665, would be stifling in the shuttered, darkened structure. Without light and air, some began losing their grip on reality. In many plague houses one or more people were dead or dying. The mental state of everyone in the home ranged from mild fear to pathological terror. Those still alive knew what awaited them if they became infected: headaches, fever, vomiting, painful swellings on the neck, armpits and groin (buboes), blisters and bruises, coughing up blood and likely death. The atmosphere was rank with the odor emanating from one or more plague-ridden corpses. Even when they had been removed the smell of death and decay would linger. With each fresh outbreak of the epidemic the twenty-day quarantines were extended. Since this was a regular occurrence, the quarantine could go on indefinitely or until the entire household was dead. 

Some families held desperate councils and took matters into their own hands. Many an imprisoned person crept up into the second story or attic, waited until the guard was not looking, carefully lowered a rope around the watchman's neck and pulled. They would demand he open the door - or else. If the guard proved stubborn they might keep pulling until he either changed his mind or lost consciousness. Those that lacked the nerve for such drastic measures tried hacking a hole in the back of the house. They were, after all, made only of plaster and narrow strips of wood. Some escaped through the neighbor’s yard using this method. Others threw messages tied to a block of wood or tile to a friend in the street, pleading with them to drug the guard. Those that lacked the wherewithal for any of these actions were often condemned to watch as their loved ones died, one by one. 

Pushback

Protests against the practice did occur. The level of distress of those home-quarantined is indicated by the number of violations recorded in court sessions. Offenses included illegally allowing inhabitants to leave their house or continuing to carry on business despite being quarantined. The government narrative held that its pandemic-control measures were necessary for the safety of the entire community. Parallel to this ran a largely popular counter-narrative that saw the home quarantines as a heartless punishment forced upon the poor that did little to stop the disease from spreading. For one thing, government policies strictly forbade the visiting of the sick by anyone other than plague officials. This severely disrupted the normal ties and customs of kinship and charity. Poet George Wither wrote of this:

That man was banished from the public sight Imprisoned in his house both day and night. As one that meant the Citie to betray And (to compel that his unwelcome guest Should keep within) his dore was crost and blest And for that purpose, at the door did stand An armed watchman, strengthened by command.

Partly to blame was the flight of the well-to-do, which took place that spring. The unintended consequence was that the overwhelming majority of victims were the poor and middle class, making it appear that government disease-control policies were aimed at the lower classes. An anonymous pamphlet called Plague Houses blasted the practice of home quarantine as "this dismal likeness of Hell, contrived by the College of Physicians." Even some doctors condemned the practice. It was, declared one physician, "Abhorrent to Religion and Humanity even in the Opinion of a Mohometan." Many argued that science simply did not back up the practice. One physician noted that "the tedious confinement of sick and well together" merely made the healthy "an easier prey to the devouring Enemy." Some sensible souls dared suggest that it would be more effective to separate the healthy from the infected. These voices of reason were drowned out by a chorus of fear. In 1604 Thomas Dekker wrote “Whole households and whole streets are strickent/the sick do die, the sound do sicken.”

A return to normality

The unpopular orders sometimes led to violence. For example, in 1637 a shoemaker named John Clarke refused to obey an order toleave his house and go to a “pestfield.” The justice of the peace sent bearers (those who carried corpses to burial) and other plague workers to his house in order to tell Clarke and his household to vacate their home. They had orders to force the family out if they persisted in their noncompliance. Riots even took place against shutting up the sick. In April 1665, as the shutting up of infected houses was just beginning, a report was given to the authorities of a case alarming enough to warrant a hearing and discussion in the presence of King Charles II. The report stated that infected houses at St. Giles were subject to a “ryot” in which the Cross and paper affixed to the door were taken off.  The door was opened “in a riotous manner.” The inhabitants were let and “permitted to goe abroad into the street promiscuously.” The Lord Chief Justice was ordered to investigate and prosecute the offenders severely for committing a crime “of soe dangerous a consequence.” The “ryot” proved to be an exception, though, for as the plague spread, fear of infection accomplished what the authorities could not and most people avoided the sick. Nonetheless, such incidents reinforced the popular perception of home quarantine as a punitive measure.

Fortunately, after the fading of summer’s heat, the crisis subsided. With the cooler weather of autumn the first ray of hope appeared. The Mortality Bills for September registered the first significant decline in fatalities. With some fluctuation the decline continued into the winter. By October the diarist Pepys could write; “... there are great hopes of a great decrease this week; God send it!” Pepys’ optimism was soon realized. By the end of November London began its painful return to normal conditions.

Quarantine in perspective

Was the home-quarantine worth the cost? The consensus is that the home quarantines may have helped to stop the spread of plague to an extent. According to Daniel Defoe in his Journal of the Plague Year, wherever the practice was instituted “it was with good success; for in several streets where the plague visited broke out, upon strict guarding the houses that were infected, and taking care to bury those that died immediately after they were known to be dead, the plague ceased in those streets.” Although Defoe based his Journal on the recollections of survivors, many contemporaries disagreed, blaming the high mortality rate and personal suffering on the practice of home quarantine. One problem was the social nature of households. As mentioned already, the members of a quarantined home of middle or poor social class lacked the space to avoid congregating together throughout the day. This insured the spread of infection. The strict approach of the government also unwittingly spread infections. One order made it illegal to so much as sit at the door of a quarantined house. The punishment was that they “be shutt up with ye rest of ye infected persons.” In this way, many healthy individuals fell victim to the plague. 

Conversely, under the restrictions, ordinary life and commerce suffered devastating effects. Almost any street one walked down was eerily silent. Trade declined so dramatically that thievery and begging ran rampant. On average one to three people died in infected homes. All too often entire households perished, rising to a peak in the summer. By the time the plague had run its course as many as 100,000 had died in London, representing at least 15% of the population.

The current Covid-19 stay at home orders have been credited with helping stop the spread of the virus. As in 1665, it has triggered a recession and caused considerable suffering for those who lost jobs or endured financial loss. Despite this, most home-quarantined people in 2020 did not complain of anything approaching the hellish experience of 1665. However restrictive we have found our current on-going quarantine, a look back at times past can be a cause to give thanks. 

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

Anonymous The Shutting Up of Infected Houses (pamphlet), 1665. 

Antiquarian Repertory. London, Printed and published for E. Jeffery, 1807-09.

Defoe, Daniel Journal of the Plague Year, first published March, 1722. 

Gregory, Charles William, Public Opinion and Records, Published: The Author, 1856. Digitized: July 4, 2006.

Leaser, James, Plague and Fire. New York: McGraw Hill, 1961.

The National Archives Education Service: The Great Plague 1665 -1666 How did London respond to it? (Educational Material) 

Newman, Kira L. S. Dolby. “Shutt Up: Bubonic Plague and Quarantine in Early Modern England.” Journal of Social History Vol. 45, No.3. (Spring 2012), pp. 809-834. 

Pepys, Samuel, Diary.

Certaine necessary directions, as well for the cure of the plague, as for preventing the infection: with many easie medicines of small charge, very profitable to his Majesties subjects. London: Robert Barder and John Bill (By the Royal College of Physicians, London, 1636.