Hypnotic Animals - or maybe not? How Animal Mesmerism grew across Britain and Europe

Here Kate Tyte gives us a fascinating overview of Mesmerism, a popular hypnotic process that united all classes and many people believed in through the 18th and 19th centuries.

“There is only one illness,” pronounced Franz Anton Mesmer, “and only one cure.” This cure was animal magnetism, a practice that united eighteenth century society in debate. From royalty to peasants, politicians to revolutionaries, scientists to Freemasons: everyone had an opinion on magnetism. 

Franz Anton Mesmer was born in Germany in 1734. He studied medicine in Vienna, married a wealthy widow and became a fashionable doctor. Not bad for the son of a game keeper. 

In 1774, Mesmer was introduced to patient Francisca Oesterlin. She suffered from ‘constant vomiting, inflammation of the bowels, stoppage of urine, excruciating toothache, earache, melancholy, depression, delirium, fits of frenzy, catalepsy, fainting fits, blindness, breathlessness, and lameness.’ Mesmer tried a novel cure. He gave her a medicine containing iron and applied magnets over her body to create an ‘artificial tide.’ Oesterlin was cured. In fact, she was so well she soon married Mesmer’s step-son. Mesmer now theorized that the whole universe was held together by magnetic fluid, and that disease was caused by blockages in free-flow of this fluid through the body. Animal magnetism was born.

Mesmer developed his cure. He would stare into his patient’s eyes and massage their body, wave a wand at them, or have them put their feet in magnetic water, until they had a ‘crisis’ or a fit and were cured. He was soon hounded out of Vienna as a charlatan and moved to Paris. Once again the medical and scientific authorities were skeptical, but the public loved magnetism so much he had to introduce group cures. His patients would hold onto a tub of magnetized water, a magnetized tree, or simply hold hands.

The authorities felt threatened by Mesmer’s miracle cures and were determined to stamp out animal magnetism. In 1784 the King appointed a Royal Commission of eminent scientists, led by Benjamin Franklin, to investigate. It was rather awkward as they were all members of a masonic lodge that was very keen on magnetism. But their scientific self-interest won the day. They reported that ‘magnetic fluid’ was humbug and that Mesmer’s cures were either fake or a product of the imagination. Mesmer was a staunch materialist and strongly denied that his cures were produced by the mind.

The commission finished Mesmer’s career. He left Paris and drifted around Europe. He was later imprisoned in Vienna as a suspected revolutionary, and died in Germany in 1815.

Magnetism lives on!

Meanwhile, animal magnetism continued to march through Europe and remained as popular as ever. This was hardly surprising. In the late eighteenth century all the medical establishment could offer was blood-letting, vomits and purges. Given the choice between a cure that was painful, dangerous and useless, or one that was pleasant, safe and useless, I would pick the latter option every time.

In 1784, the same year as the Royal Commission, Armand Marie Jacques Chastenet, Marquis of Puysegur, took magnetism in a new direction. He discovered he could induce a new state of consciousness, called ‘artificial somnambulism’ or ‘magnetic sleep.’ This sometimes gave patients occult powers such as clairvoyance and extra-sensory perception. Puysegur’s ‘spiritual’ or psychological version of animal magnetism, became known as ‘mesmerism’, and ensured the continued popularity of the practice.

The British

Mesmerism spread to Britain in the 1780s. The establishment was skeptical. They saw mesmerism as unscientific, and worse, un-English. The Frogs and the Krauts might go in for such effeminate mumbo-jumbo, but John Bull was not going to fall for such nonsense. Despite this, the political classes got quite hysterical about it during the revolutionary wars. They worried that the French were using ‘magnetic spies’ to pry into the minds of the British.

Mesmerism was re-born in Britain during the 1830s and 1840s when several popular books on the subject started a craze dubbed ‘mesmeric mania’. The salons of high society delighted in mesmerism and even Charles Dickens had a dabble. Many people think of mesmerism as an eccentric pursuit by the fringes of Victorian society, but for about 20 years it was all-pervasive and inescapable in every aspect of British life.

The working classes were just as fascinated by mesmerism as the wealthy. Mesmeric showmen toured the country giving demonstrations. Mesmerism’s appeal was obvious. It was exciting, mysterious and wonderfully meritocratic. Anyone could mesmerize. There was no need for expensive training or membership of exclusive professional bodies. Mesmerism was used as a cheap form of medicine for the poor and also a way to explore paranormal phenomena, such as clairvoyance. It could also be deliciously subversive. Men who dropped their aitches could mesmerize duchesses, throwing the whole social order into glorious disarray. And some Socialist groups actually promoted mesmerism as part of a radical political agenda.

The medical profession, though, remained vehemently opposed to mesmerism. John Ellitson, senior physician at University College Hospital and respected medical author, was eager to experiment. He found mesmerism helped many of his patients so he began lecturing on it. This caused a mighty row with the hospital authorities and ended his career. The hospital didn’t care whether mesmerism worked or not. They simply felt that it was disreputable and a threat to their status. Thomas Wakley, editor of The Lancet, said that mesmerists ought to be shunned “more than lepers, or the uncleanest of the unclean.” Wakley had no such qualms about the ludicrous pseudo-science of phrenology.

The medical profession even dismissed mesmerism’s use for surgical anesthesia. Hundreds of operations were carried out using mesmeric pain relief in the 1830s and 40s. At one colonial hospital in India, mesmeric anesthesia caused the death-rate to plummet by 50%. The medical establishment simply ignored this evidence and claimed that all the patients had been faking it! Ellitson asked in despair, “How long will you refuse to spare a single wretched patient the pain of your instruments?”

As it turned out, not long. Mesmerism made the infliction of pain surgery seem like an avoidable trauma, rather than a simple fact of life. Mesmerism inspired surgeons to experiment and by the 1850s ether and chloroform were being used widely. 

The mesmeric craze died out in the 1850s. Chemical anesthesia rendered it redundant in operations and the public had moved on to a new craze for séances, ouija boards and spiritualism. It took many years for mesmerism, or hypnosis as it was later called, to be taken seriously and recognized as tool with great potential for psychological healing. In the meantime the mesmerism craze was practically written out of history as a silly and embarrassing episode. This was unfair, as mesmerism had in fact spared many patients from pain and suffering.

By Kate Tyte. Kate is an archivist, history writer and blogger.  You can follow her on twitter at @KateTyte and find her blog at katetyte.com.

You can also find out more about Mesmerism in Robin Waterfield’s Hidden Depths – The Story of Hypnosis. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Face Value: How World War II stereotypes of the Japanese linger on to this day

In this article Manfred Gabriel argues that as a result of World War II propaganda, some people in the West expect Japanese people to ‘appear’ a certain way…

I was watching the Japanese Anime film, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, the other night, when a question popped into my head that American and European fans of the genre have been asking for decades. Why do Japanese animators make their characters look Caucasian? Why the light skin, the round eyes, the light colored hair?

Academic papers have even been written on the subject and what it says about Japanese culture. Some have posited that the reason is the influence of Disney Movies on early anime artists. Others have claimed it is to do with an envy the Japanese have for all things Western.

The answer, however, can be summed up simply - they aren’t Caucasian at all.

Now, let’s get one thing straight. Not all Japanese look alike, no more than all South Africans, Mexicans or Canadians look alike. While there may be some shared characteristics due to genetic factors, there is no one particular look for any one people. I myself can trace my German heritage back four hundred years on both sides of my family, yet among my two brothers and three sisters, there isn’t one blond haired, blue eyed person.

That said, look at the photo to the right of a real life Japanese girl and an anime character. Once you account for the lighting, the resemblance is uncanny.

And how about the image to the left of the Japanese fashion model Sosaki Nozomi? 

World War II propaganda

The job of the soldier is to kill the enemy. But killing someone is no easy task. Those who train snipers will tell you that they can teach almost anyone to shoot another person through the head at five hundred yards. The hard part is finding people with the proper temperament to pull the trigger. One of the reasons for Nazi death camps, besides them being the most efficient means for mass slaughter, was that many of the men ordered to shoot the Jews (the method used before gassing) were having mental and emotional difficulties from shooting others.

The solution is to dehumanize the enemy. Turn them into monsters. You aren’t killing a person, you are killing an animal. And this is exactly what the US propaganda machine set out to do.

On June 13, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of War Information (OWI). Headed by the popular CBS radio newscaster Elmer Davis, it was created by combining several separate government departments into one. Its 3,000 employees were charged with controlling all news about the war and motivating Americans both at home and abroad.

World War II was total war, and everyone was expected to do his or her part to ensure victory. The OWI used short films, newspaper articles, newsreels, radio broadcasts and especially posters to encourage people to recycle, conserve fuel, maximize factory production, buy war bonds and write to troops. It promoted enlistment and continued to remind the troops on the front why they were stuck in muddy fox holes or storming some remote Pacific island.

All information regarding the war that came to the public had to go through the OWI. Among its output was 100,000 cable wireless words a day, 350 daily radio programs and 50 movie shorts per year. Over its three year history, it became the largest pamphlet and magazine publisher in the world.

The poster encourages employees not to call in sick to work.

Not many people complained about the OWI’s control over media. In fact, many in the military self-censored, seeing it as their patriotic duty to show America, and its armed forces, in the best possible light.

The OWI’s message was simple – this was a fight of good versus evil. Nothing was shown or communicated that could undermine this message. Maimed soldiers were never depicted, the dead only shown towards the end of the war. The enemy was always shown in a negative light. The OWI enlisted film-makers from Hollywood and advertisers from Madison Avenue to help hone this message. And to reinforce this message, they made the enemy look as evil as possible.

The inherent idea was this: the Japanese aren’t human. You can shoot them, bayonet them, even drop an atomic bomb on them with a clear conscience.

An actual photo of two young Japanese soldiers.

Remove the uniforms and swords (you can just see the hilts at the bottom of the photo) and what you have are a couple of good looking young men, who could be your neighbor, your co-worker, the clerk at the corner grocery. Certainly no one who deserves death.  

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that Imperial Japan didn’t deserve to be defeated in World War II. I’m also not saying that US Propaganda was unique in this tactic. The Nazis, for example, were excellent at depicting Jews as ugly, rat-like creatures, helping them to justify mass extermination. But the OWI did use some methods that leave a sour taste in the mouth.

The OWI was dissolved with the war’s end in 1945, with most of its duties going to the State Department. All these decades later, its depictions of enemies who are now our friends still linger on.

By Manfred Gabriel

Enjoy this article? Well, another article from Manfred is here. It is about the story of how a car defined a nation.

The mystery of San Agustin, Colombia – Image of the week

A mysterious ancient site in Colombia, the Archaeological Park of San Agustin, is our image of the week.

Following our look at the Mogao Caves last week, this week we are going way back into the past again.

This time our image dips into the pre-Hispanic past and takes us to the Archaeological Park in San Agustin, Huila, Colombia. The site features many fantastic stone-carved statues of varying sizes and styles – a fascinating place to explore.

The stones themselves are the subject of much debate. They are known to be ancient, but their exact purpose is a matter of debate. What do you think?

Our image features a main stone with a man with prominent teeth and what appears to be a chain with a skull face at the end of it. The leader of this group, surely? Either side of the stone are figures, who, to my mind, are protecting the main statue. Two of the figures have what appear to be some sort of clubs. Unless… Could they be related to a religious practice?

The mystery continues…

Want to write for us? Well, we are looking for regular contributors to our blog currently… Email us by clicking here or Click here for more information!

George Levrier-Jones

The Battle of Bosworth Field and the end of The Wars of the Roses

Our final installment in The Wars of the Roses series looks at the intrigues that led Richard and Henry to face each other and bring the wars to an end. 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, the Kingmaker, and Prince George’s treachery. Then came part 1 and part 2 of a love story. Finally, our previous article looked at how a baby ended The Wars of the Roses.

Is it possible for a man to be an uncouth barbarian but manage to be a devoted father, husband and an excellent King? Henry Tudor forces this question on us.

The young Lancastrian had a barely existent claim to the throne. He was the last in a line of bastard descendants who were legally not allowed to inherit the crown of England. This didn’t worry Henry too much. His mother, Margaret Beaufort had paved the way for his attack a full year before he made it. Margaret’s husband, Lord Stanley, was one of those men whom history calls a coward. He famously only joined sides once he knew who the victor would be. He was always neutral in politics and never took part in revolts. This has earned him the title of traitor. I think that to be an unfair analysis. From one perspective, Lord Stanley was a dangerous man. No one knew where his alliances lay. From a soldier’s point of view, he was the best commander they could have. He only joined battles at the end and only on the side of the victor. That meant his soldiers were almost guaranteed to walk away the winners, and this made Stanley a very popular lord to fight for. After all, England was built on the backs of peasants and not by the swords of their masters. Being popular with peasants was a better option than being a favorite soldier of Kings. And so, when Lady Margaret began her campaign against Richard III, Lord Stanley stayed out of it.

King Richard III at The Battle of Bosworth Field. By James Doyle.

Margaret summoned rebel armies to revolt against Richard’s followers in 1483. Her plan was to overwhelm Richard with attacks while her son, Henry, snuck in through Wales. It probably would have worked, but the weather in England had never favored the Lancastrians. Once again, the River Severn flooded, preventing Henry from entering England and stopping the rebels from carrying out their revolution. Richard’s reign had been in no real danger, and because he was not allowed to punish a woman, nor would he ever have done, he simply issued a warning to Lord Stanley to better control his wife.

Whispers

Apparently Lord Stanley didn’t listen as Margaret then attempted another plot. And this time she did it as all women who had come before her had done – quietly. She simply spread enough rumors about Richard to tarnish his pristine reputation. By this point, the princes in the tower had not been seen for months. Margaret herself claimed to have staged a rescue, but had no princes to show for it. Could that “rescue” have been murder? Despite Richard’s claims to the contrary, he was blamed for the boys’ murder. Was Margaret behind it all? Well, we do know that Richard’s popularity began to dip after this point. He was no longer the beautiful King of England.

More misfortune struck Richard in 1484 when his only son and heir died. Both Richard and his wife, Anne, moved into a dark place where happiness no longer existed. Anne never came back out, and she died in March 1485. Richard was a broken man. To make matters worse, a rumor spread across England that Richard had killed his wife in order to marry Edward’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. The princess would then be heir to the throne and very important. Richard denied this many times, and history backs him up. There is documented evidence that Richard was in the process of organizing a Portuguese prince for Elizabeth when Anne died, and there is no historical evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that Richard wanted to marry Princess Elizabeth. It was just another rumor. Started perhaps by Lady Margaret?

Henry Tudor, on the other hand, wanted Elizabeth. With no substantial claim to the throne, marriage to the new heir would make him the unquestioned King. History tells us that Henry was no soldier. He knew nothing about battlefields or war and even less about the country he was trying to claim. Henry did have an area of expertise though - he was extremely intelligent. He knew that it was better to make friends in high places and to let experienced soldiers call the shots. This was a trait he would pass down to his granddaughter, the later Queen Elizabeth I, who is known for just that and whose time in power was a “Golden Age.” Like Elizabeth, Henry was a great leader and wise beyond his years.

A broken man

Meanwhile, Richard was struggling. Having lost his wife, his son, his reputation, the love of his people, and his allies, he marched to intercept Henry’s newly assembled army on August 22nd, 1485.

Although Richard was emotionally beaten, the old soldier in him had not died. He was, afrer all, trained by the Kingmaker. The Yorkist troops positioned themselves atop Ambion Hill and used their advantage to tire the Lancastrians at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Henry’s troops were waning; fighting uphill was no easy task. Richard and his army were set to win. But Lord Stanley had other ideas. He and his troops had entered the battle on the side of the Yorkists, and when Richard called for reinforcements to finish the battle, Lord Stanley’s men ran downhill and attacked Richard’s army. The last words the great King ever uttered were, “treachery, treachery, treachery.” King Richard III, the last King of England to die fighting on the battlefield, was slaughtered as he fought to keep England under the protection of the House of York. He was then stripped naked, and his lifeless body abused, molested and throne in a shallow grave that would not be found for half a millennium.

It is said that Henry Tudor lifted Richard’s crown from the rose bush and crowned himself King Henry VII on the battlefield. Another one of Shakespeare’s lies. Henry, or one of his men, had actually stolen the crown from Richard’s cart before the battle. For all we know, he had fought with the stolen crown on his head.

Henry was no fool however, and he was aware that England would not take kindly to this French-speaking, Welshman who had just won the crown by conquest. So he decided to re-write history and declared that he was crowned King on August 21st – the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field. That meant that legally Richard was not defending his crown, but fighting Henry for it. This made Richard and his followers the true traitors. This also meant that Henry was legally King and did not need Princess Elizabeth. He most certainly did not mention marriage again. But Elizabeth, like her mother Elizabeth Woodville, was not someone to take lightly. Despite no repeat mention of wishing to marry her, Henry seemed to quickly change his mind and the two were hastily married in a quiet ceremony very unbefitting for a King. Eight months later, their first son and heir was born. Premature babies rarely survived in the Middle Ages, yet this child – born at only eight months – easily made it. Why is that? Could it be that Elizabeth had realized she was no longer needed and had quickly trapped Henry? Had she seduced him, become pregnant and demanded to be made Queen?

History’s lips are once again sealed.

With the marriage of Henry to Elizabeth, the two warring houses were now joined. The red Lancaster rose and the white York rose were now drawn together and called the Tudor rose. Most historians believe that the Wars of the Roses ended with the Battle of Bosworth Field, but I believe it ended with the marriage of the Lancastrian King to his Yorkist Queen and the birth of their Tudor son.

And so began the next dynasty.

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

We would like to send a special message of thanks to M.L King for her excellent Wars of the Roses series of articles. I hope you have all enjoyed it too!

Want to read more? Go to the blog now and see what else we have for you. Click here!

References

• British History by Miles Kelly
• Measly Middle Ages by Terry Derry
• www.english-heritage.org.uk
• www.battlefieldstrust.com
• www.learningsite.co.uk

The Chinese Silk Road stop with some amazing caves – Image of the week

The incredible treasure trove of Buddhist art at the Mogao Caves in China is this week’s image of the week.

I had the opportunity to visit the Mogao Caves last year, and I can tell you that they are a sight to behold. These caves are fascinating for anybody with any kind of interest in religious art in general. But what are they?

The Mogao Caves or Mogao Grottoes, also known as the Caves of the Thousand Buddhas, form a system of 492 temples, near the town of Dunhuang in Central China. The caves were constructed from as early as the 4th century, and contain some of the finest examples of Buddhist art spanning a period of 1,000 years. And the settlement itself is an oasis strategically located at a religious and cultural crossroads on the Silk Road.

Our image of the week is a modern image taken inside one of the caves. In it we can see terra cotta statues bathed in daylight. The statues, now starting to degrade in age, are in front of resplendent colors. Blues and purples and creams.

The image is from Rajesh Dogra.

Want to find out about what’s happening with us this year? Click here to join us and find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Nazis, Saboteurs or Heroes? History is Now – Issue 3

Were the 1920s German paramilitaries known as the Freikorps Nazis, saboteurs or liberators?

Our cover story in the latest edition of History is Now magazine considers the fascinating tale of the Freikorps in the years after World War I and how they went on to influence the Nazis.

To find out more, take up a free trial of the magazine for up to 2 months and download your copy of our interactive digital magazine for the iPad and iPhone today!

Click here for more information!

Members of the Hitler Youth (Hitler Jugend) in 1933. Those in the photo were too young to have been in the Freikorps in the years immediately after World War I, but the Hitler Youth organization was influenced by the Freikorps.

What else can you expect from this issue of the magazine? Here are our editor’s words…

Three months since the launch of History is Now magazine, issue 3 is here for you! We’ve been working to refine the layout and content of the magazine over November and December and hope that you like the finished product.

This month’s cover story is on the Freikorps, the German paramilitaries that appeared following the end of World War I. They played an important role in the aftermath of the war, and would later influence the Nazis. Then we’ve got our podcast on the Korean War for you, and this month we’re doing things differently. To go alongside the podcast, we have an article on the little-known role of French troops in the Korean War. And we also go way back into East Asian history. As you may well know, we try to keep our magazine concentrated on topics from the 18th century onwards, but Alex Hawkins produced a fascinating article on the late 16th century Imjin War for us. The war was one of the great wars of its age, and one in which Korea was pivotal.

We shall also be looking at the life of James Forten, an African-American who succeeded against all odds in an age of prejudice. He fought against the British in the American Revolutionary War and was involved in the abolitionist movement. We’ve also got an article on the first and last Queen of Hawaii, a tale that is both sad and inspiring. Our other major piece this month is a very original and very opinionated piece on the 1830s Texas Revolution – among other topics. Let us know what you think of it!

Click here for more information and to take up your free trial

With all that and more, come and join us inside for a free trial of up to 2 months…

Just click here for more information! Alternatively search for History is Now on the app store.

George Levrier-Jones

The World War I battle you probably haven’t heard of

As we enter the 100th anniversary of the year that World War I began, Frank Pleszak has shared with us an overview video of a World War I battle that you probably won’t have heard of, the Battle of Lake Narocz (or the Battle of Lake Naroch).

The video below shares the story of the Battle of Lake Narocz, a battle in which a large Russian force faced a much smaller German-force in present-day Belarus. The video shares the story and outcome of this huge battle. And the video is even silent – so you can choose the music to go over the top of it from your personal collection!

An overview of the little known Russian offensive in which the Russians outnumbered their German opponents 4 to 1. But in diabolical conditions and with inept leadership and poor planning, did the unthinkable happen?

Frank Pleszak is the author of Two Years in a Gulag, available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can read Frank’s article on the amazing Polish 2nd Corps and their exploits in World War II by clicking here.

Out from Slavery: Heroes for all Americans and the Lessons from Slavery

Following the release of the film 12 Years a Slave, Jason McKenney reflects on the lessons that the whole of America can learn from slavery. He also argues that from the time of American independence, slavery was in demise in the USA and considers the importance of slavery in US history.

This article is provided by Jason McKenney from http://time-trip.blogspot.com

Simply a Shame?

With the recent release of the film 12 Years a Slave, there has been a gale of new commentary on slavery in the United States. The film is based on the autobiographical account of Solomon Northrup, a black man born free in New York State before being kidnapped and sold down the river where he was to live the life of enforced bondage in Louisiana until his escape.

Most of the reviews of the film are as much about slavery as they are about the movie itself. Based on several reviews posted at RottenTomatoes.com, slavery was a “tragedy of countless thousands of souls beaten down,” an “unrelenting horror” and “our national shame.” Thoughts like this aren’t a surprise when dealing with such an emotional and gut-wrenching subject. No sane person would disagree with these statements, but it almost feels like we’re tilling the same ground over and over here without planting any new seeds. Could there be a more positive lesson to pull out of the awe-inspiring struggle so many black slaves endured to make progress towards freedom? Is there a lesson that keeps the evil aspects of slavery in perspective while also giving us a better understanding why it was so important that black liberation succeeded?

A Ride for Liberty - The Fugitive Slaves. Eastman Johnson, 1862.

Slavery and its relation to the black experience in the United States are frequently thought of in just those terms: the black experience. There are not many lessons that the white population currently take from the long struggle for emancipation beyond the fact that slavery was America’s so-called “national shame” and that whites should treat blacks as equals. Other groups such as Latinos and Asians may feel even further removed from this chapter in US national history. However, there is much more for all Americans to learn from the liberation of black slaves than it simply being the right thing to do.

Fueling the Fire of Liberation

The demise of slavery in the United States began almost the moment the nation declared its independence from Britain.

“But how can that be?” you ask. “Slavery still had decades of massive growth ahead of it after 1776.”

I will concede that point if you also concede that the broader principles, arguments and justifications for ending slavery were making unprecedented leaps and bounds in the 18th century. The philosophical movement known as “The Enlightenment” produced writers and thinkers who argued against slavery on humanitarian grounds because the treatment of slaves was growing more brutal by the moment. While valid in tone, the weakness to this argument is that it makes slavery more acceptable as long as the slave isn’t treated poorly. More complete arguments against human slavery claimed that it violated basic natural rights, including the right to liberty of person. These were ideas that had been virtually unheard of prior to The Enlightenment, and with the US Declaration of Independence, the birth of the first nation founded principally on Enlightenment Ideals was underway.

“But the Constitution made indirect allowances for slavery when it was first ratified!” you say.

“And many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves!” you say.

As the 18th century English writer Samuel Johnson put it, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” True and true, but as most writers will also say, perfection rarely arrives in the first couple of drafts. It can take years of delicate crafting to go from a small kernel of truth and stretch it out to a full-fledged cultural paradigm. In other words, who cares if Thomas Jefferson owned slaves? The principles of individual rights, human liberty and religious freedom which the agrarian redhead supported helped fertilize the soil out of which the fight for abolition grew.  This was because, at their heart, many of the Founding Fathers knew their ideal of personal freedom from tyranny was incompatible with chattel slavery. They believed it would only be a matter of time before the peculiar institution either phased itself out or resulted in a climactic and violent civil war.

During the eighty-nine years between the Declaration of Independence and the Surrender at Appomattox, many African-Americans, both free and slave, fought with as much heart, courage and fearlessness to free their people as any lieutenant in General Washington’s army. The fight took many forms. Frederick Douglass and William Still gave us words, stories and history. Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey gave us conspiracy and execution of violent slave revolts in the antebellum countryside. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth showed us that even caught in the brambles of soul-crushing bondage, a woman’s spirit could rise above the situation and show others that a better life was possible.

Each of these people and thousands of others just like them, whether they knew it or not, were acting out natural human impulses codified in America’s Founding Documents. America was built on liberty and independence because the Founding Fathers believed that was the natural state of humankind; to be free and self-governing and not tied down to another power whether it be an English despot or some Southern plantation owner.

An Inspiration for Others

I think that too often, the black struggle for liberation is viewed as an ancillary offshoot of American history and not part of the main course. Most Americans think of US history between the 1770s and the 1860s as basically the Revolution, maybe the War of 1812, the growth of slavery, westward expansion, and then the Civil War where the slaves were freed (with a Second Great Awakening mixed in for good measure). When attention is paid to events like the Underground Railroad, Douglass’ North Star and the early 19th century slave rebellions, they are sometimes viewed as isolated or even minor events that played third fiddle to the larger strains of the American narrative. They will also tend to be viewed as sources of pride exclusively for the African-American population and less so for other ethnicities who claim this nation as home. Instead, these events should be viewed as a vindication of the ideals of the Enlightenment, justification in the founding of the United States and proof that the struggle for the abolishment of black slavery was a more tangible representation of the abstract models fought for by the Founding Fathers.

The examples given by people like Tubman, Still and Northrup to modern Americans of every stripe and color are just as powerful and just as meaningful to the blended DNA of freedom that underlies the United States as any treatise by Jefferson, maneuvers led by Washington or speeches given by Lincoln. These men and women of color fighting for their independence and inspired by the spirit of our Constitution serve as great examples of what it means to be American. Their actions will naturally carry deeper meaning for other African-Americans, but Americans of every ethnic background should take pride in living in a country that has produced such amazing leaders as these.

Jason McKenney was born and raised in Lexington, Kentucky, and now lives in the suburbs of Los Angeles. His education background is in technology and business, but he has a passion for history. His adventure series Time Trip is his attempt to introduce young adult readers to famous historical events in a new and exciting way.

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/timetrip101
• Twitter: @jason_mckenney
• Site: http://time-trip.blogspot.com

Want to find out more about slavery in America? Download issue 2 of our digital magazine History is Now. Click here!

The amazing historical town of Ilha de Mocambique – Image of the week

An image from the fascinating former Portuguese colonial capital in Mozambique is this week’s image of the week.

As you approach Ilha de Mocambique (Island of Mozambique) across a causeway, you are struck by the difference between this small former capital city and the surrounding towns. The town was the capital of Portuguese East Africa for many years, but the capital’s location then changed and the town slowly fell into some sort of decay.

In the image we can see the Misericordia Church bathed in sunlight, a girl walking by the steps of the church, and some ladies washing in the shade. A beautiful scene.

The image comes from Stig Nygaard in 2007 and is available here.

Want to find out about what’s happening with us this year? Click here to join us and find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Lyndon B Johnson – The CIA and the Vietnam War

This is the fourth in a series of articles that explore the iconic CIA and its use as a tactical weapon by the US presidents of the Cold War (1947-1991). Here we look at Lyndon Johnson and his decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam. The Central Intelligence Agency – In the Beginning, The Central Intelligence Agency – Eisenhower and Asia’s Back Door, and Kennedy’s Central Intelligence Agency are the preceding posts.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President of the United States, was not an easy man.  Bill, a colleague with whom I worked on Johnston Atoll in the 1980s, was on the Johnsons’ security detail during their Texas visits.  He spoke of loud, embarrassing, drunken fights between the Johnsons and crude behavior like throwing dishes of jelly beans and popcorn and expecting the security detail to pick it all up immediately.  Ronald Kessler’s book, In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect, confirms much of what Bill told me then.  Regardless of his personal behavior, Johnson was a political sophisticate who understood power at a fundamental level.  By all accounts, Johnson’s rise to power was steady and ruthless.

President Lyndon B Johnson greets troops in Vietnam. December 1967.

The dichotomy among historians becomes apparent once Johnson assumes the presidency following President Kennedy’s assassination.  The gulf widens through the nine years of the Johnson presidency.  Was Johnson a model for business executives and a great progressive leader as portrayed by historian Robert A. Caro, who has studied Johnson for the better part of three decades?[1]  Or, at the other end of the spectrum, was Johnson a dangerous, paranoid individual?  According to former Kennedy speech writer and author Richard N. Goodwin in his 1988 book Remembering America: A Voice From the Sixties, Johnson’s behavior drove two presidential assistants to separately seek opinions on Johnson’s mental stability from psychiatrists.[2]

What can be said with certainty is that, as president, Johnson drove social engineering to new heights with his ‘War on Poverty’ and ‘Great Society’, which included legislation for public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and aid to education.  Johnson did not confine his activity to just the home front, though.  He was busy with the CIA, too; the US Dominican Republic intervention in 1965, the Vietnam War, the Six-Day Arab-Israeli War in 1967, and efforts to reduce tension with the Soviet Union.

The DCI

It took three tries to land a Director of Central Intelligence, DCI, he wanted, but Johnson finally got the job done.  Johnson inherited DCI John A. McCone from Kennedy.  Kennedy asked McCone to head up the CIA following Kennedy’s termination of Allen W. Dulles, a remnant of Wild Bill Donovan’s OSS, after the Bay of Pigs disaster.  McCone was reputed to be an excellent manager and returned balance to an agency enamored of covert activities and nation-building.  Under McCone, the CIA redistributed its organizational energy between analysis and science and technology in addition to its well-known covert actions.  Not everyone in the CIA was a happy camper with this intelligence outsider, but McCone earned his spurs during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Johnson and DCI McCone parted ways in 1965 over disagreements about the Vietnam build-up.

President Johnson, a former naval officer, replaced McCone with DCI William A. Raborn, a career naval officer whose claim to fame was managing the Polaris Missile program (submarine launched missiles).  Other than brushes with Naval Intelligence, Raborn had no directly related experience.  It appears that Johnson selected Raborn to keep the DCI seat warm while Richard M. Helms matured his administrative skills as Deputy DCI.  Raborn, according to prevailing wisdom, never really adjusted to being the DCI and offered his resignation sixteen months after assuming the role.  Without ado, Johnson quickly accepted Raborn’s offer to resign.

Richard M. Helms, the heir apparent and another of Wild Bill Donovan’s OSS operatives, became DCI in June 1966.  Helms reveled in espionage.  Between the OSS and the CIA, Helms was a very active operator.  During WWII, Helms worked out of London and shared a flat with William J. Casey, the charismatic Irish lawyer who would head the CIA under Reagan.  Together, Helms and Casey were up to their proverbial ears in WWII cat and mouse spy games. During the Cold War, Helms kept both his espionage and operational skills sharp.  He had his fingers in the Iran pot, the Soviet forgeries, Operation Mongoose, and the Diem regime in Vietnam.  Although Helms preferred espionage and stated that assassinations rarely worked in the US’s favor, he was nothing if not a company man and certainly was party to many.

Johnson was not overly impressed with the CIA and, initially, did not see much value in intelligence.  Then, too, DCIs McCone and Raborn had each bucked Johnson on ramping up American involvement in Vietnam on more than one occasion.  Johnson’s lack of respect for the CIA was reflected in the number and type of meetings to which the CIA was not invited.  In Helms, Johnson found a DCI that, if not a kindred spirit, was at least a more accommodating one.  The CIA, however, still did not come up on Johnson’s radar until the Six-Day Arab-Israeli War in 1967.  The accuracy of CIA intelligence estimates, timing, and outcome of the 1967 Six-Day War earned Helms his DCI service stripes and a seat at Johnson’s regular Tuesday lunch meetings with his advisors to discuss foreign policy.

Vietnam

What was it about Vietnam that propelled Johnson so hard that he eventually broke up on its shoals?  Vietnam drove Johnson’s relationship with the CIA, his advisors, and congress.  For example, Senator Mike Mansfield (D-Mt), Senate Majority Leader during the Johnson administration championed Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programs and legislation but fought bitterly with Johnson against the Vietnam War.  The frying pan that was the Vietnam War got so hot that in July 1968 Johnson flew to Central America to meet with the presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and El Salvador.[3]   According to an interview I taped with Raul Castro in 2003, on short notice Johnson’s staff requested that Castro pull together the meetings because he needed a break from the pressures of Vietnam.  The staffers wanted adoring crowds, good press and a rest for the embattled president.  Raul Castro was appointed US Ambassador to El Salvador by President Johnson in 1964.   All three staff objectives were met.

Until recently I subscribed to the traditional perspective that Johnson knew exactly what he was doing as he amped up the Vietnam War.  In 1965, it appeared that Johnson was resolute in his decision to support the American configured South Vietnamese government against the threat of Communist takeover.  Johnson used the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident to garner the congressional ‘blank check’ from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to do what he wanted. By February 1965, the US military’s Operation Rolling Thunder was bombing North Vietnamese targets and the Ho Chi Minh trail and Agent Orange along with napalm was defoliating the jungle.  In March 1965, General Westmoreland asked for more troops.  About 189,000 American troops were stationed in Vietnam in 1965. The following year, the number doubled and casualties escalated at an alarming rate.  And, the Vietnam War got much worse.  I expected to find old familiar friends in the defense contractor community at the root of the escalation but I was wrong.

Anything but linear

Mark Lawrence makes a case that Johnson’s Vietnam decisions were anything but linear.  Lawrence states, “Where scholars once saw certainty and confidence, they now see indecision and anxiety.” In his article LBJ and Vietnam: A Conversation, Lawrence cites a May 1964 telephone conversation between Lyndon Johnson and McGeorge Bundy[4],[5] that illustrates the level of Johnson’s ambivalence:

“…In his conversation with Bundy, LBJ expresses deep anxiety about what would happen if the United States failed to defend South Vietnam from communist takeover – evidence that bolsters the older, conventional view of U.S. motives for escalation. Fearing what historians would later dub the “domino effect,” Johnson suggests that the communist powers – the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – would be emboldened by a communist victory in South Vietnam and might make trouble elsewhere. The communists, in fact, “may just chase you right into your own kitchen,” the president says in his typical down-home manner. LBJ also provides evidence for the older interpretation by breezily dismissing other powerful Americans who urged him to negotiate a settlement and withdraw U.S. power from South Vietnam. He shows special contempt for Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, charging that the Montana Democrat, a strong advocate of winding down the U.S. role in South Vietnam, had “no spine at all” and took a position that was “just milquetoast as it can be.”

In other parts of the conversation, however, LBJ heaps doubt on the idea that defending South Vietnam was crucial to US security. “What in the hell is Vietnam worth to me?” he asks Bundy. “What is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country?” Most chillingly, Johnson shows keen awareness that victory in Vietnam was anything but a sure thing. He worries that full-fledged US intervention in Vietnam would trigger corresponding escalation by Communist China, raising the horrifying specter of a direct superpower confrontation, as in Korea a few years earlier, between Chinese and US forces. “I don’t think we can fight them 10,000 miles away from home and ever get anywhere in that area,” LBJ asserts. Moreover, the United States, once committed to a war, might find it impossible to get out. “It’s damn easy to get into a war, but … it’s going to be awful hard to ever extricate yourself if you get in,” LBJ asserts with remarkable prescience….”[6]

Johnson, as I said in the beginning, was not an easy man. It took him more than three of his six years in office to find a DCI he respected and would back him on Vietnam.  Even after Johnson warmed up to the CIA, his use of the agency was as enigmatic as his leadership style.  In many ways, Johnson’s choice of Helms to lead the CIA was a reflection of the contradictions exhibited by Johnson himself. Helms was smooth and adept at politics but beneath his ‘James Bond’ coolness, Helms was a ‘company man’.  He liked the freewheeling CIA style that the ‘plausible deniability’ cloak offered.  Helms became the first and only DCI to be convicted of lying to the US Congress in 1977 regarding the ousting of the elected President of Chile and the installation of the dictator Salvador Allende.[7] Note: Helms was the only DCI convicted of lying to congress.  Many of his predecessors and successors lied to Congress as the need, in their individual opinion, arose.[8]

Johnson and his relationship with the CIA really goes to the question of who Johnson was.  Was he the headstrong leader portrayed by Caro or a leader that became unbalanced, afraid, and insecure that Goodwin paints?  Probably, he was both.  We will need much more data to determine which LBJ occupied the White House for nine years.

This article is provided by Barbara Johnson from www.coldwarwarrior.com.

Want to find out more about another US President from the 1960s? Click here for our podcast on Richard Nixon.

References

[1] The Harvard Business Review; April 2006; A Conversation with Historian Robert A. Caro by Diane Coutu; Lessons in Power: Lyndon Johnson Revealed; http://hbr.org/2006/04/lessons-in-power-lyndon-johnson-revealed/ar/1

[2] Los Angeles Times; September 14, 1988; ELIZABETH MEHREN; Richard Goodwin’s Account of a ‘Paranoid’ L.B.J. Riles Some Ex-Colleagues; http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-14/news/vw-1970_1_richard-goodwin

[3] Lewiston Evening Journal; Frank Cormier; July 5, 1968; http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19680703&id=KrcgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1096,396753

[4] Listen to the Johnson-Bundy conversation; (Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam Anguish, May 27, 1964: Conversation with national security advisor McGeorge Bundy. 27 May 1964. History and Politics Out Loud. Ed. Jerry Goldman. 30 Sept. 1999. Northwestern University.) http://web2.millercenter.org/lbj/audiovisual/whrecordings/telephone/conversations/1964/lbj_wh6405_10_3522.wav

[5] Transcript of the conversation (Telephone Conversation Between President Johnson and the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) Washington, May 27, 1964, 11:24 a.m.. Source: U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-68, Volume XXVII, Mainland Southeast Asia: Regional Affairs, Washington, DC, Document Number 53. Original Source: Johnson Library, Recordings and Transcripts, Recording of a telephone conversation between the President and McGeorge Bundy, Tape 64.28 PNO 111. No classification marking. This transcript was prepared by the Office of the Historian specifically for this volume.); https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/lbjbundy.htm

[6] Not Even Past; Mark Atwood Lawrence; LBJ and Vietnam: A Conversation; http://www.notevenpast.org/listen/lbj-and-vietnam-conversation

[7] George Washington University National Security Archives; September 11, 2013;  Peter Kornbluh; National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 437; http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/

[8] The American Prospect; Adam Serwer; May 15, 2009; THE CIA LIE TO CONGRESS? IT’S HAPPENED BEFORE; http://prospect.org/article/cia-lie-congress-its-happened