Merry Old Santa Claus from the 19th century. Our image of the week

With Christmas only hours away, today’s image of the week is a classic 19th century image of Santa.

The origins of Christmas go very far back. Santa Claus, or Saint Nicholas, first dates to over 1500 years ago. Indeed, Saint Nicholas is a Greek saint from the fourth-century. Later in this Christmas tradition came Sinterklaas in Holland and Father Christmas in the UK.

But various factors caused Santa to become more well-known and more popular. Many people believe that it was Coca-Cola who invented Santa (in fact, a colleague of mine who used to work at Coca-Cola also claimed that), but that is not quite true. There are various images and references to Santa in both the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Our image of the week shows a drawing of Santa from Harper’s Weekly in 1881 entitled ‘Merry Old Santa Claus.’ It was drawn by Thomas Nast and went a long way to showing the Santa we know and love today. Santa is smoking his pipe, has what appears to be mistletoe in his hair, and has hands overflowing with toys and other gifts.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Did you miss last week’s Christmas image on the World War I miracle? Click here to find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Top Posts of the Year - How can a car define a nation?

We started our blog back in the summer, and as we end the year, we’re sharing some of our best and most popular blog posts this week!

In this post we look at the East German car the Trabant, and how it was symbolic about so much of that hardline Communist country.

The author's cousin's chicken coup Trabant top

My cousin lives about an hour north of Berlin, in a cozy, 400 year farmhouse that leans a bit to one side. He has a couple of horses and keeps chickens for eggs. They roam around the enclosed yard, the cut-off top of his old Trabant their chicken coup.

All the cars are good for anymore, he tells me. Who says Germans have no sense of humor? Yet these noisy, unreliable, pollution spilling relics of the Cold War played both a practical and symbolic role in German reunification.

The first Trabant rolled off the Sachsenring assembly line in 1957, and over the next 34 years, over 3 million were produced. Intended to be the East German equivalent of the West German VW Beetle, a variety of models were produced in the decades that followed, including a station wagon, a hatchback and even a convertible.

In some ways, the first Trabants were ahead of their time. While the Big Three automakers in Detroit were coming out with behemoths of steel and chrome, the Trabant was small and light weight, with front wheel drive and a unified body. It got 34 miles to the gallon on the highway. Yet there, the innovation ended. Its two-stroke engine was loud. It belched more pollutants in three seconds as a Mercedes S class does in 30 miles. Its top speed was 70 miles per hour and it could barely manage 62 miles per hour in 21 seconds. Due to a lack of steel in Soviet Bloc countries, the body was made of a Fiberglas-like substance called Duroplast, which included cotton and other organic materials. Rat poison had to be incorporated into its construction, since the rodents had been known to gnaw at them. Due to shortages and the notorious inefficiency of Communist-run factories, East Germans had to wait more than a decade for their new Trabant to be delivered, and when it finally did arrive, they found that it often broke down.

Yet, because the Trabant was the only choice of car for most East Germans, and because it took so long to get one, the Trabant was often prized by its owners. They affectionately (or mockingly, depending on who you ask) called it the Trabi and took great care in maintaining them. This maintenance was made easy by the simplicity of its engine. Most owners could do their own repairs, and the motor was so light that a single person could lift out the engine single-handedly. As the saying went, Mitt Hammer, Zange und Draht, kommst du bis nach Leningrad. - With hammer, pliers and wire, you can get to Leningrad.

Leafing through my cousin’s photo albums from the DDR era, many of the pictures prominently display his Trabi – going on family picnics or a weekend of camping. Often, everyone is posed around the car, as if it was a member of the family.

      Still, jokes abounded:

      Question:   When does a Trabi reach its top speed?

Answer:     When it is towed away.

Question:   Why do some Trabis have heated rear windows?

Answer:     To keep your hands warm while pushing.

Question:   How do you double the value of your Trabant?

Answer:     Fill up its gas tank.

The Trabant was, in essence, the epitome of East German society – unreliable and inefficient, yet somehow managing to function, even if it was just sputtering along. The butt of jokes, but still cherished, because, after all, it was all they had.

In the fall of 1989, I sat in the living room of my Grandmother in Ravensburg, Federal Republic of Germany, and watched on TV as tens of thousands of East Germans flooded into West Germany from Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Some actually walked across open fields. But many drove across the border in their cherished Trabis, packed with people and luggage, the air thick with blue exhaust as they made their way to freedom. It was the beginning of the end for the DDR. The East German government could not quash this exodus, nor could it stop the protests in the streets calling for Democracy. Weeks later, the Berlin Wall fell.

In the years that followed, many East Germans had trouble adjusting to a reunified Germany based on a free market and democracy. Unprofitable and inefficient Communist run factories were closed down and millions who had once had guaranteed work now found themselves without jobs and without the skills needed to find new ones. Like the factories that built it, the Trabant was also considered obsolete. Many East Germans abandoned them once they crossed into West Germany. They could be seen left to decompose in open fields along the roadsides, grass growing tall around them. Some were even left in what had been the No Man’s land between the two Berlins. Still more were ground up and spread across icy roads to provide traction in place of sand and salt. In 1989, a new engine was developed to try to update the car, but it was not enough. It couldn’t meet the West’s strict environmental and safety standards. Production ceased in 1991.

But just as East Germany has slowly adjusted to being part of a greater Germany, so too has the Trabant. Today, it is valued by collectors. They buy them for less than 50 dollars on internet, and then put thousands of dollars into new engines, custom paint jobs and booming stereo systems. Hundreds of web sites are maintained by its devoted fans. In 2009, a prototype electric version of the Trabi, updated to look similar to a Mini, was unveiled at the Frankfurt Auto Show, but is yet to see mass production.

I don’t think my cousin would be interested. Nowadays, he drives a Renault. More dependable and more luxurious. I doubt it would ever make a decent chicken coup.

What cars have impacted countries? Share your thoughts below..

By Manfred Gabriel

Want to know more about East Germany? Click here for our podcast on ex-East German leader Walter Ulbricht.

Of Sailors and Kings - 19th century tattoos

The Victorian era was a time of great conservatism and when tattoos were more than taboo for most of society; however that didn’t stop some of the most important members of the British Royal Family obtaining tattoos – including future Kings!

A young Prince of Wales - the future King Edward VII. Some years after this portrait, he was to receive a tattoo! Alas pictures of the tattoo are difficult to come by,

You might think tattoos only became popular in the 20th century in the West. Well, that is far from being true. In fact, Tattoos were popular amongst various military personnel as well as the highest of the high…

In 1862 no lesser person than the Prince of Wales received his first tattoo. The Prince was the son of Queen Victoria and the future King Edward VII. His tattoo was a Jerusalem cross by Francois Souwan, obtained while he visited Jerusalem. He was then around 20 years old, and sent to the East by Victoria who seemed to have not been particularly fond of her dandy son.

While most British ports had had professional tattoo artists in residence since the 18th century, Edward’s tattoo started a fad among the aristocracy. In 1882, Edward’s sons, the Duke of Clarence and the Duke of York (the later George V), were tattooed by the Japanese tattooist Hoti Chiyo. The Duke of York received a tattoo of a dragon on his arm. Later, the prince received more tattoos from Tom Riley and Sutherland Macdonald.

He wrote in a letter, “we have been tattooed by the same old man who tattooed papa, and the same thing too, five crosses. You ask Papa to show you his arm,” although that sentence has been the subject of debate.

All the 19th century dictionaries and encyclopedias suggest that among Europeans, tattooing was confined to seamen, and sometimes soldiers. The first permanent tattoo shop in New York City was set up in 1846 and later began a tradition by tattooing military servicemen from both sides of the civil war. Samuel O’Reilly invented the electric tattooing machine in 1891.

However, in 1861 the French naval surgeon Maurice Berchon published a study on the medical complications of tattooing, and after this, the navy and army made efforts to ban tattooing within their services.

Another aspect of 19th century tattooing was people who claimed to have been unwillingly tattooed. For example, John Rutherford arrived on the exhibition scene in 1827 with a full Maori Moko tattoo on his face. He made quite a profit from telling how he was captured and tattooed by force.

Sadly, none of the British princes seems to have been keen on showing off their royal tattoos in public and to this day photos are rather difficult to come by.

Do let us know if you come across any!

This article is provided by Geerte de Jong from http://19thcentury.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the article? Well, why not read about the British royal family’s civil war in a very different age? Click here.

The miracle of World War 1 at Christmas. Our image of the week

This week’s image of the week looks at a fascinating time when troops put war aside and celebrated together during the World War I Christmas Truce…

Christmas can be one of the most difficult times of year in war. Away from family. Freezing temperatures. Armaments going off all around. Well, except during Christmas 1914.

In the photograph we can see troops from Germany and Britain staring in to the camera. One appears to be doing some buttons up, while others seem to be smartly dressed in scarves and long coats to fend off the cold. The photo features German soldiers of the 134th Saxon Regiment with the British Royal Warwickshire Regiment. As many troops did that Christmas, they met in No Man’s Land on the Western Front. The photo is dated December 26, 1914.

Want to know more about the Christmas Truce? Take a look at the interactive essay in the new edition of History is Now digital magazine. Click here to find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Seeking hope in Stalin’s Soviet Union - Communism and Harlem

In this article we preview an article in the current edition of History is Now magazine…

Looking back from today, the Soviet Union in the 1930s may not seem like a promised land, but in Depression-era America many US citizens migrated there. Perhaps the most interesting group who made this journey were African-Americans. In this article we look at the fascinating inter-relationship between Harlem, racial issues, the Great Depression and Communism, and how these factors combined to lead some African-Americans to move to Stalin’s brutal Soviet Union.

A glorified, almost saintly, portrait of Stalin, circa 1937. Alas, behind the surface, Stalin was far from being a saint.

Looking back from today, the Soviet Union in the 1930s may not seem like a promised land, but in Depression-era America many US citizens migrated there. Perhaps the most interesting group who made this journey were African-Americans. In this article we look at the fascinating inter-relationship between Harlem, racial issues, the Great Depression and Communism, and how these factors combined to lead some African-Americans to move to Stalin’s brutal Soviet Union.

In 1917, Russia was a very unstable place. Against the backdrop of the extraordinary suffering that World War I was inflicting on the Russian people, major protests against the government soon produced an earth-shattering change. That change was the Russian Revolution, in which Lenin’s Bolsheviks gained power at the expense of the centuries-old Russian monarchy. After the Revolution, the Russian Civil War broke out, and some Western countries actively supported anti-Bolshevik groups.

One of the reasons for this Western intervention in the Russian Civil War was that the West feared the possibilities for social, economic, political and cultural revolutions that the new Russia brought with it; however, such sentiments were mirrored by the Bolsheviks, who thought that the West might be a territory in which they could expand and grow Communism, although such thoughts did not last.  By the end of the Russian Civil War, the hopes that some Bolsheviks harbored about the potential for exporting revolution across Europe were largely extinguished and the ‘revolutionary moment’ in the aftermath of World War I had expired by the end of 1919. Russia, through the medium of the international Communist group known as the Comintern, found America not to have much revolutionary potential at all, despite its revolutionary tradition.

There was one exception though. Through the filter of Marxist-Leninist discourse, America’s black communities appeared to be fertile ground for the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA). Their experience of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow seemed to present the party and its leader, Earl Browder, with ideal recruits to the cause. This led to an unsuccessful project to develop an all-black Communist movement in America, and after that failed, an inter-racial party initiative to ‘raise the condition of the blacks’ began in the late 1920s. As we shall see, this initiative, as well as others, produced mixed results. This was no truer than in the place that could claim to be the center of African-American culture at the time, Harlem.

Communism in Harlem

The fact that in Harlem, as Mark Naison shows in Harlem Communists during the Depression, the party was largely unsuccessful in flourishing in a majority black neighborhood, would tend to suggest that while the Comintern looked to African-Americans to be their revolutionary vanguard, most African-Americans had at best mixed feelings towards Communism and the Soviet Union. One factor that played a role in reducing the influence of the CPUSA was that it had to compete with pre-existing, exclusively black organizations such as Marcus Garvey’s United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and Thurgood Marshall’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Naison’s history of Harlem Communism sees the party pass through several distinct phases; its inception, in the aftermath of World War One (the 1920s), the depression years (1929-34), the Comintern’s attempts at developing a Popular Front (1934-39), and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact/war years (1939-45). In each phase, Naison shows how African-American Harlemites within and outside of the party transposed their interpretations of the USSR and Soviet Communism on to the challenges facing the black community. Looking internationally for solutions to racism and poverty in America was not a new phenomenon. Marcus Garvey’s UNIA had proposed the resettlement of African-Americans to Africa, after a hypothetical armed uprising had taken place to force out white European colonists. Some African-Americans in the South even looked to Japan to be the world leader of non-white people during the 1930s, given the challenge it presented to the British, French, Dutch and Americans in the Asia-Pacific region. The focus on the USSR as a multi-racial state free of segregation or racial persecution was attractive to a broad range of non-Communist Harlemites, although there is little evidence that the core tenets of Soviet Communism penetrated deeply into the black community.

The CPUSA generated great levels of support in Harlem prior to the Popular Front years when it gained a reputation as being an ally against discrimination. It was helped in this as it championed two high profile cases, the trials of the Scottsboro Boys and of Angelo Herndon. The Scottsboro boys were nine African-American teenagers accused of the rape of two white girls in Alabama on flimsy evidence and sentenced to death. The CPUSA persuaded the families to allow the party, not the NAACP, to represent them. Herndon was an African-American labor organizer sentenced to death in Georgia in 1932 under antiquated laws dating back to the pre-Civil War era that equated such activity with slave insurrection and sedition.

These endeavors from the CPUSA did not automatically translate in to more widespread support for the idea of Communism in African-American communities though.

Cyril Briggs

Naison describes the experience of Cyril Briggs, a West Indian journalist who had been fired from the Harlem Amsterdam News in 1917 for his anti-war stance. Briggs founded the Crusader, a broadly Nationalist magazine espousing ideas that were: “dedicated to a renaissance of Negro power and culture throughout the world.” Briggs was suspicious of Garvey’s dominant Nationalist movement, the UNIA, and despite a strong affinity with Garvey’s emancipatory views, he began to view him with mistrust by 1919 as the anti-Communist crackdown across America gathered pace and Garvey, dismissing key leftists from the UNIA, seemed to be cooperating. His initial Crusader editorials, according to Naison, were ‘strikingly similar’ to Garvey’s views, combining black liberation and Nationalism with anti-capitalism.

Naison identifies Briggs’ initial interest in the Bolshevik Revolution as being based largely on what he saw as the Soviet Union’s ‘anti-imperialist orientation’, which was consistent with his pan-African emancipatory Nationalism; the Soviet Union might not be able to do much to prevent lynchings in the Southern states or the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, but it could potentially challenge European imperial dominance in Africa and Asia. Unfortunately for Briggs, Lenin’s interest in Africa was minimal. Beyond rhetoric and a small number of African students and revolutionary visitors to Moscow, the USSR was no threat to British, Belgian or French colonies in Africa. Briggs eventually joined the CPUSA in 1920, but his drift to the political left had begun as he moved away from the more accepted Black Nationalist positions of mass repatriation to Africa, and began to argue for a multi-racial, egalitarian America, one that could be achieved through revolution.

Want to read on? Check out the latest edition of History is Now Magazine. The magazine is packed with great history articles, videos and audio!

Click here to download the app!

This article is provided by Nick Shepley from www.explaininghistory.com, a site that has a wide array of history ebooks.

The United States and King Leopold II's bloody acquisition of the Congo

The Belgian colonization of the Congo was one of the worst examples of exploitative behavior from a European colonial power. Here we look at Belgian King Leopold II and the USA’s role in his acquisition of the West-Central African territory of the Congo.

The story of King Leopold II of Belgium and his obsessive quest for an African colony is a tale of greed, devastation, and woe. It is a journey into the darkness of humankind, with brutality and hypocrisy the sole victors. King Leopold’s Congolese experiment took several decades to develop and implement as this clever but devious King slowly and carefully maneuvered himself to manipulate many, including the people of the Congo, the international community, and even his own subjects. Motivated by desire, greed, envy, his own ego, and several other interested parties, a colony was established which would have tragic and lasting consequences for the native population. 

A young Leopold in 1853. He would later become an ambitious, greedy King.

Leopold was born in Brussels, Belgium in 1835, and he came to power when he became King in 1865. By the time he became King, two things interested him greatly: territory and money - by which I mean financial gain. The combination of these would prove to be of great significance in his later life, along with that of millions of others. He became very jealous of the Great European Powers around him; of their riches, their power, and most importantly, of their colonies. He was very ambitious but equally frustrated. Belgium was too weak for him and his ambitions. Petit pays, petit gens (small country, small people) goes the phrase; however, the country that Belgium had gained independence from in the 1830s, the Netherlands, had a sizeable empire. He wanted such an empire for himself too. The Congo was one of the areas in Africa that was not recognized by all major powers as belonging to a European Power in the 1870s, and it promised many treasures, such as ivory and rubber, ready to be harvested at the cost of the native people there. Nonetheless, before Leopold could stake his claim on the land, he would have to manipulate several European nations to recognize his claim over it. But he also wanted the support of the United States.

And why the USA? After all, in the 1870s the USA was still quite inward-looking and trying to grow internally. The answer is that even at this time, the United States was fast becoming the most powerful and richest nation on earth, and to have its recognition of Leopold’s claim to the Congo would go a long way to convincing his European rivals. It was in that light that Leopold began his great quest.

One of Leopold’s early moves was to contact the United States’ ambassador to Belgium, one General Henry Shelton Sanford. He commissioned Sanford to acquire the services of the famous British-American explorer Henry Morton Stanley. Stanley, like Leopold, was extremely ambitious, and also had an egotistical and ambitious streak about him. By the time Leopold had secured his service, Stanley had already crossed the Congo, and had famously found the British missionary David Livingstone in 1871. In addition, Stanley had written about his escapades in Africa, presenting himself as something of a 19th century hero and celebrity. Acquiring the services of possibly the best explorer in the world was something of a coup for Leopold.

Ambassador Sanford’s involvement would go much further. It now became his responsibility to convince the President of the United States of Leopold’s claim and plans for the Congo. If the US could recognize this claim, Leopold would be in a very powerful position. But what would the US get in return for this recognition? Leopold promised the US that its citizens would be able to buy land in the Congo, and that US goods there would be free of all customs duties. Furthermore, Stanley had been touting himself as ‘born and bred’ in the United States, meaning that an American had not only played a role in discovering the Congo, but that one would continue to play a role in the territory. This was important to the United States as it was growing in stature and being recognized as a significant power in the international community.

Sanford’s own personal motivation was purely financial as he would stand to gain a great deal from this trade. As such, he lobbied the executive branch for recognition, despite Leopold omitting the fact that he had a monopoly on all trade there – and had no intention of giving it up. Although Sanford’s business affairs in the past bordered on poor to sketchy, and he owed his prominence in large part due to his inheritance, he saw this as too good an opportunity to pass away. He reasoned that any failure as a businessperson would be countered by his success as an accomplice of Leopold’s. He had already succeeded in acquiring Stanley’s services, and his involvement led to the United States recognizing the Congo as a colony of Belgium. Sanford even received royal praise from Leopold for his work, something that he actually valued more than the money itself.

Another key person in lobbying the President in favor of Belgium’s claim was Senator John Tyler Morgan. His wish was for the African-American population to return to Africa after the abolition of slavery in the USA. Morgan was very fearful of an African-American uprising, following demands for equality and liberty. He had also quickly seen an opportunity to send the black population back to Africa to work with the Congolese in enhancing trade, and as a place to sell any surplus cotton.

After the President of the United States agreed to recognize the Congo as being under King Leopold’s rule, it helped Leopold in petitioning European Powers to do the same. 

Leopold offered the French droit de preference, first right of refusal, should Leopold go bankrupt in his efforts to colonize the Congo. The French were extremely concerned about Leopold going bankrupt as they felt the colony would then fall into the hands of the British, their closest rivals, in part due to explorer Stanley’s Welsh origins. Because of this, the French were relatively easy to convince. Leopold also promised them the same trade agreement as the USA, but omitted to tell them of the one he had already agreed with the US. The French then recognized Leopold’s claim.

Leopold’s claim to the Congo was more formally agreed in the 1884 Berlin Conference, and the Congo Free State was declared the following year. Leopold and Belgium now had their part of the wider European Scramble for Africa.

The way for Leopold to go forward and colonize the Congo was clear. With recognition from important international powers, King Leopold II of Belgium had successfully manipulated the international community in to giving him permission to acquire the Congo - and fulfil his greedy ambitions. The effects of this recognition were to prove devastating…

By J Parker

Do you agree that the USA had a key role in allowing King Leopold II to capture the Congo? Thoughts below…

You can read about another European attempt at colonizing Africa in our article on the Italian colonization of Libya in issue 1 of our magazine History is Now. Click here to download the app and to subscribe for free for 2 months to the magazine.

The Duke of Wellington’s victory over Napoleon - funny? Our image of the week

This week’s image of the week features one of the greatest British heroes of them all, Prussian von Bluche, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

The cartoon has leaders of two European armies literally putting the lid on another failed European attempt to dominate that continent. After controlling much of Europe just a few short years before, by 1815 Napoleon’s France had been defeated. This cartoon goes some way to commemorating that.

We see Field Marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher, who led Prussian forces at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, alongside his British counter-part, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington. In the center we see them putting the lid on top of France’s Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon is trying to escape but can’t. His face looks distressed in a comical way. Indeed, Napoleon was exiled to the remote Atlantic island of Saint Helena by the British after the Battle of Waterloo.

There is an article about a very significant battle involving the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon’s France in the new issue of History is Now Magazine. Click here to find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

A Love Story during The Wars of the Roses? – Part 2

We follow-up last week’s post and look at a deadly love story involving George, Elizabeth, Edward and Richard. This article follows our introduction to the Wars of the Roses available here and our article on Edward III’s descendants and the causes of the Wars of the Roses available here. Later were the battles of the war from 1455-1464 and the Kingmaker. The most recent article was on Prince George’s treachery.

George’s fate was finally sealed by the Queen.

18 February 1478 saw the legal execution of a Prince of the realm. This was the first for the Plantagenets who preferred to send their enemies to France (or murder them in the night). Thanks to Shakespeare we now think George was drowned in a barrel of wine as punishment for challenging Queen Elizabeth. On general principle, most historians disagree with anything Shakespeare said, but could there be some truth to this story? Royals in the tower were known to bath in the barrels. Could an executioner have come up behind the Duke mid-bath and drowned him? History tells us nothing.

Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers and William Caxton present the first printed book in English to King Edward IV of England

Richard had seen first-hand what happened to men who tangled with the Queen, so perhaps that was why he spent the remainder of his life distrusting Elizabeth and working to protect himself and England from her.

By the time Elizabeth had given Edward ten children, his mistresses had given him five. That we know of. There were probably many, many more. Edward never let his marriage vows stop him from filling his bed with the pretty maids at court. And there was no end to pretty maids. There was an end to Elizabeth’s youth though. By the time she was middle-aged, something new was happening in England. A new mistress named Elizabeth Shore saw Edward more than the Queen did and the King’s favorite brother, Richard, had won a battle against the Scots making him the most popular man at court. So popular in fact, that Edward seemed to be ignoring Elizabeth and only listening to Richard. Was Elizabeth finally losing control of her husband?

And then Edward died in April 1483.

The official story is that Edward died of either pneumonia or typhoid, although this has been frequently brought into question. Edward had in no way taken care of his health. He had more than let himself go in the peaceful years of his reign. But he was merely unhealthy, not sickly. For him to suddenly take ill and die within days and for his physicians to be utterly clueless as to what was wrong is highly suspicious. Despite what Hollywood would have us believe, the medical professionals of the past weren’t as utterly useless as they are portrayed. Pneumonia and typhoid were known illnesses. Had Edward had one of those, his physicians would have said so. Heart attacks and strokes were also a known affliction. If Edward had had one of those, his physicians would have said so. The fact that his medical records state that he died of a mysterious illness suggests that something was quite wrong. Was he poisoned? And if so, by whom?

We know that Elizabeth is famous for her “quick action” after her husband’s death. This quick action being the arrangements of an army of 2,000 men escorting her son back to London. The sweet, newly widowed Queen should have been in mourning, not organizing an army. How sweet of her to sacrifice. Although one needs to wonder why she was organizing an army to bring the Prince to London. What was she fearing? And how did she rustle up 2,000 soldiers in a matter of days? And why then did she run into hiding when Richard and 200 mourners began their journey south? Could it be that the soldiers were arranged before the King’s death because the King’s death was actually planned? Did the Prince need an army to escort him because Elizabeth feared that the English would rise up against this Prince who would now be King but controlled by the highly unpopular Woodvilles? Did she go into hiding because she feared Richard? Why did she fear Richard? Plantagenet women, even unpopular ones, were never harmed. The worst that would have happened to Elizabeth had she been caught was exile. But people often don’t see things as they truly are. Did Elizabeth run because she assumed that Richard would have killed her, as she would have killed him if roles were reversed? History refuses to tell us what happened to Edward or why Elizabeth ran when Richard posed no obvious threat - we can only speculate and assume.

Officially Edward died of pneumonia or typhoid, but the circumstances are suspicious. Elizabeth’s actions are suspicious. Did the Queen finally lose control of the King and so poisoned him? Did she plan to rule through her son? He was only 12; he needed a protector to rule until he was 16. Edward ordered Richard to be this protector. Why not his wife and her brother? Did he know something we didn’t?

As ever, there are few answers, but many questions. All we know is that 1483 was one frantic year.

By M.L King, a history enthusiast and part-time blogger. You can connect with her on Facebook here.

Click here to read the next in the series - how a baby ended The Wars of the Roses.

Do you want to try your hand at some history writing? If so, click here for more information and then get in touch!

Selected references

• www.thewarsoftheroses.com
• British History by Miles Kelly
• www.britannica.com
• www.battlefieldstrust.com

The release of Nelson Mandela - Our image of the week

A day after his passing, our image of the week commemorates Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela is one of the great leaders. Born in 1918, he went on to play a major role in the anti-apartheid movement within South Africa during the era in which blacks were massively discriminated against by the white minority. Mandela was caught by the authorities in 1962 and would not see freedom again until 1990. 18 of those years were spent in the infamous Robben Island prison.

Nelson was eventually released on February 11, 1990. Our image of the week captures that moment. In the photo he is beaming following his release, as well he might. He is also triumphantly raising his fist with his wife Winnie by his side. One can but imagine his emotions. Decades in prison in exchange for a basic human right. Of course he eventually got what he wanted as blacks were given political equality; he then went on to lead South Africa. And despite the pain he had suffered over his years in jail, he preached forgiveness and brought his country together.

A lesson to us all.

To find out more about the site and to get your hands on some exclusive podcasts, why not join us? Click here.

George Levrier-Jones

What would your last words be if you knew you were about to die? Last Words of the Executed

In the article, we tell you about a very interesting book, Last Words of the Executed. The book documents the final words of people killed in America following crimes they committed. We also pick up some last words and stories from the book.

“I killed the president because he was an enemy of the good people—of the working people. I am not sorry for my crime. I’m awfully sorry I could not see my father.”

Leon Frank Czolgosz (aka Leon Frans Czolgosz), convicted of murder, electrocution, New York, October 29, 1901.

Czolgosz assassinated President William McKinley after waiting in line to shake his hand in Buffalo. Czolgosz’s reasons for doing so were not entirely clear, though he did express grievances against the U.S. and claim that the American dream was a lie. Eight weeks after the murder, Czolgosz was electrocuted and his body was dissolved in acid as it was buried.

Leon Frank Czolgosz, the assassin of President William McKinley, behind bars

This book is a fascinating read that I stumbled upon recently. The Last Words of the Executed by Robert K Elder is a great historical document that pulls together the last words of those people who were killed by the state for their crimes in America from the 17th century onwards. It starts by discussing why we would want to know the last words of those who have committed the most heinous crimes possible in society, and briefly looks at the history of the death penalty. For example:

"The ritual recording of last words exists in a largely Christian framework. In early Christian history, the last words were taken as a show of spiritual mercy, a last chance to repent and save one’s soul. From the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth centuries, speeches from the scaffold were mass-produced in pamphlets and prayer books that served as guides to dignified religious dying. The ritual also performed a legal function. In many countries, a “dying declaration” enjoyed a legal precedent as evidence."

The Noose

The book then moves on to look at each major way that people have been killed in America, and records their final words. First up is the noose. Below are the words and the story of the last words of one person who was hung:

“No, I am ready at any time; but do not keep me needlessly waiting.”

John Brown, convicted of treason, hanging, Virginia, December 2, 1859.

Brown, a controversial figure in American history, has been called both a mass murderer and “the man who killed slavery.” Brown, a stalwart abolitionist, was brought to trial for his raid on Harper’s Ferry, a town in what is now West Virginia, then a federal arsenal. His attack resulted in the deaths of five pro-slavery men.

A popular marching tune of the time was set to lyrics, which included the line “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave. His soul is marching on!” This song became “John Brown’s Body” and was later adapted into the “Glory, glory Hallelujah” of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

Though these are Brown’s last words (another variation is record as: “No, but don’t keep me waiting longer than necessary.”), he is better remembered for his final speech to the court which sentenced him. Though it contradicts Brown’s own tactics and his advocating of violent insurrection to bring an end to slavery, Ralph Waldo Emerson paired it with the Gettysburg Address and named them the two greatest American speeches. Brown said:

“I have, may it please the court, a few words to say.

In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted: of a design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moving through the country, and finally leaving them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection, and that it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved—for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case—had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, whether father, mother, brother, sister, wife or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right. Every man in this Court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This Court acknowledges, too, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even to them. It teaches me, further, to remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done, in behalf of his despised poor, I did no wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.”

The Firing Squad

The second method of execution considered is the firing squad. It has most recently been associated with the state of Utah, but that state too recently ended it. Here are a very few more last words:

“So long, fellows.”

Frank Rose, convicted of murder, firing squad, Utah, April 22, 1904

The bravado of Frank Rose was well documented in Utah publications during his trial. On the day of his execution Rose walked with “almost a swagger to the death chair.” Rose shot his wife on Christmas day and left his 2-year-old son in the room with the dead mother for two days without food or water. Rose refused to enter a plea to the court, and when a “not guilty” plea was entered for him, he refused to offer any evidence on his behalf. In a statement released the day before his death, Rose confessed to many murders and burglaries throughout the West. Officials doubted whether he was speaking truthfully.

Electrocution and the Gas Chamber

After the second method of execution is looked at, electrocution and the gas chamber are considered. There were hopes that both would result in more humane deaths, although neither method is used much anymore. One slightly more comical selection of last words comes from this prisoner:

“You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everyone dances with the Grim Reaper.”

Robert Alton Harris, convicted of murder, gas chamber, California, April 21, 1992.

Harris was the first person to receive the death penalty after the state of California reinstated it in 1976. Harris went to the gas chamber for two 1978 murders when he and his brother abducted two 16-year-old boys from a fast food establishment, drove them to a remote location, shot, and killed them. Harris’ brother testified against him, received a six-year sentence and was discharged in 1983. Harris’ last words are paraphrased from the comedic portrayal of the character Death in the 1991 film Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey.

Lethal Injection

The final method of execution considered is lethal injection, the dominant method of execution today. What is interesting is that over time there have been more calls for those on death row to end the death penalty. The book itself tries to steer away from the politics of the death penalty, but the quotes from prisoners inevitably mean that it is briefly discussed in the book. One notable example is this:

“I have news for you—there is not going to be an execution. This is premeditated murder by the state of Texas. I hope in my death I’m that little bitty snowball that starts to bury the death penalty.

 I have committed lots of sin in my life but I am not guilty of this crime. I would like to tell my son, daughter and wife that I love them—Eden, if they want proof, give it to them. Thanks for being my friend.”

Jesse DeWayne Jacobs, convicted of murder, lethal injection, Texas, January 4, 1995

Jacobs and his sister, Bobbie Jean Hogan, were convicted of the shooting death of Etta Ann Urdiales, ex-wife of Hogan’s boyfriend. Jacobs confessed that his sister offered him $500 and a room if he would kill Urdiales, who allegedly was pestering Hogan’s boyfriend about child support and custody. Jacobs later recanted and said Hogan actually pulled the trigger. Hogan was convicted of manslaughter then released.

In conclusion

Just knowing that you are going to die at an appointed hour, something that the vast majority of us are of course unaware of, must lead you to think about what your final words would be and really reflect on life. And that same logic seems to apply to some terrible criminals too. This book provides an insightful collection of such last words.

George Levrier-Jones

You can buy the Last Words of the Executed by Robert K Elder by clicking here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

If you enjoyed this article, why not take a look at our blog page? Click here.