The Letters of Amerigo Vespucci – And their Centuries Long-impact

Amerigo Vespucci  (1454-1512) was an Italian explorer and the man America is named after. He played a key role in exploring the ‘New World’ of the Americas in the early 1500s. Here, Jorge Jaramillo discusses the importance of Vespucci’s letters and their lasting impact through Thomas More’s book Utopia (Amazon US | Amazon UK) – even having a role in the Soviet Union.

A depiction of Amerigo Vespucci in the Americas. A 1592 engraving by Theodor de Bry.

Context: Vespucci in the discovery of America

America was baptized after the name of Amerigo Vespucci, but there might be some disinformation surrounding this event. As history tells, it was Christopher Columbus —not Vespucci— the first European man to set foot on the continent. That’s why many would think Vespucci was someone who took too much credit for something he didn’t actually do. The thing is that from the 1500s to even today, many historians have insisted on discrediting Vespucci’s name, making people lose sight of the facts. 

It is necessary to clarify the details of what happened, to understand the many achievements of Vespucci. Coming from a context of poetry, arts and knowledge as his native Florence was, he turned out to be quite a brilliant guy. In fact, one of the things that made him go down in history the way he did, was his remarkable capacity to interpret the position of stars. This was the key factor in concluding the lands Columbus discovered were actually a “New World”, against what Columbus thought. Christopher Columbus kept thinking he found a new path to Asia by crossing the Atlantic Ocean, ignoring the possible existence of land in between.

Vespucci’s letters

But the focus of this article is a side story that became an unexpected contribution to history. As a person who enjoyed writing masterful letters, Vespucci had the habit of documenting his sailing adventures in the form of letters that he sent to relatives and friends back in Florence. One of those letters, titled “The New World”, described the reasons why he thought the lands they were going to “opened” the Atlantic Ocean, and were actually a New World. This was the letter that stirred history and resulted in America being named after him.

The total number of trips Vespucci made to the New World is still disputed, but many claim there were three. Two were providing services to Spain and one to Portugal. In the letters he wrote to his relatives in Florence, he described with great poetry the many discoveries he made on these trips. It is said that his descriptions of the New World were more poetic and detailed than the messages Columbus wrote. One could say Columbus’ focus was more on himself and his achievements as a discoverer than on the discoveries themselves.

What is interesting is that Vespucci spent considerable effort in describing his not few encounters with the indigenous communities of the northern and central-east coast of South America (modern-day Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil). As was normal, most of the European sailors felt and acted upon a sense of superiority over the cultures they were unveiling. Maybe because of the apparent contrast in technological development between locals and Europeans, but also because of the Europeans’ desire to colonize. But Vespucci was amazingly distant to that. As a matter of fact, his descriptions of the indigenous communities were, in many cases, flattering of their customs.

Mainly, Vespucci was very impressed with what most of these communities gave value to. Unlike Europeans, the indigenous people gave no importance to gold but instead gave great significance to feathers or rocks, which were absolutely worthless to the visitors. Also, he was interested in the way people shared their belongings because they didn’t believe in private or personal property. This meant that everyone in the community owned everything, and any individual could use or enjoy anything equally. Vespucci’s letters described this type of social setting, highlighting the great harmony and balance these communities enjoyed thanks to those rules.

Unexpected reach

Vespucci’s letters were later translated to several languages in Europe, allowing his findings and descriptions to reach and influence many thinkers of the time. In fact, Utopiaby Thomas More (1516) was one of the literary pieces to be notoriously influenced by Vespucci’s letters. It described a fictional society discovered in an island by Vespucci’s crew in their exploration of South American coasts. Even as a fictional work, Thomas More used many of the indigenous customs Vespucci described, to set up the social structure of this society, baptized by the author as Utopia. The inexistence of money and property, the collective lifestyle in which everyone owned everything, and the irrelevance of gold, were some of the features of Utopiathat were strongly connected to pre-Columbian cultures.

The importance and meaning of Utopia are still debated. Many authors argue that More’s fictional society was a literary reaction to the injustices and perversions he was witnessing in England and Europe. Etymologically, Utopia is a place that doesn’t exist, so in a certain sense this is what More desired but considered unachievable for a society.

Through the following centuries, different thinkers from diverse ideological grounds appropriated the concept of utopia to back up their theories. In fact, in the 19th century, the idea of utopia was adopted by Marx to describe the proletarian revolution in industrialized societies. Therefore Thomas More’s work was one indirect but essential inspiration in the early development of communism. Most importantly, Utopia was in good part inspired by the indigenous cultures of the New World, making their lifestyle and customs an unexpected —and unacknowledged— influence to theories like communism. As many authors say, the society More created on the island of Utopia, which recreated many of the features Vespucci recorded from the indigenous communities, was quite close to communism to contemporary eyes. The link between utopia and communism was even reaffirmed by Lenin, who ordered the inscription of Thomas More’s name in the Obelisk next to the Kremlin. This monument honored thinkers and personalities of the revolution.

Conclusion

There are two significant conclusions that one can take from these events. For the one part, Vespucci’s letters had a fantastic value and reach, influencing many thinkers throughout history. His letters were meant to inform his relatives and friends in Florence of his discoveries but ended up being the base to name the continent after him. His writings later also served to inspire different political theories. The second conclusion is the fact that there were unexpected influences of the pre-Columbian cultures to knowledge in the modern world, even after their almost total extermination. It is quite interesting to see that maybe the remotest origin of contemporary socialism, for example, could be traced back to pre-Columbian times in America - to the tribes and cultures that Spanish and Portuguese sailors were discovering in the 15th and 16th centuries.

What do you think of Amerigo Vespucci’s influence? Let us know below.

References

Arciniegas, G. (2002). América 500 años de un nombre. Vida y época de Amerigo Vespucci(3rd ed.; B. Villegas, ed.). Bogotá D.C., Colombia: Villegas Editores S.A. (Original work published 1954).

Martínez, C. (2017, October). The impact of the New World on the invention of Tomás Moro’s Utopia. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from NÓMADAS website: http://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/index.php/inicio/2369-utopias-entre-lo-posible-y-lo-probable-nomadas-47/3-islas-y-planetas/936-el-impacto-del-nuevo-mundo-en-la-invencion-de-utopia-de-tomas-moro#volver_2

Phélippeau, M.-C. (2017, June 30). La utopía de Tomás Moro: 500 años de enigma. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from Humanitas. Revista de antropología y cultura cristianas. website: http://www.humanitas.cl/filosofia/la-utopia-de-tomas-moro-500-anos-de-enigma

Early Christianity in Britain – And the Role of Alfred the Great

We look at early British history here, including how Christianity arrived in Britain and the battles between King Alfred (Alfred the Great) and the Vikings that consolidated Christianity in the country. Daniel Smith explains.

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

An 18th century painting of Alfred the Great by Samuel Woodforde.

In the 1stcentury, the British Isles was turning over to a new cultural-era of change. Christianity was introduced to Britain, and it is rumored that the catalyst to the Christian hold on the island was attributed to Joseph of Arimathea. Churches were built in villages and towns at random, as the church itself was decentralized. The Catholic and Orthodox Christian sects of religion, which were developed in the Roman and Byzantine Empires, are two examples of centralized religious hierarchy. By A.D. 150, the Pastors of the Celtic Churches preached the common language from interlinear bible translations called “glosses.” The most famous and well known of all the pastors was Patrick. He left England and went on to spread the Gospel to all of Ireland.

Patrick was made to be King Loeghaire’s “Annchara,” or personal counselor, after he was converted. It was here that Biblical law was introduced into the civil realm. Patrick was the author of Liber Ex Lege Moisi(Book of the Law of Moses), which he penned in 432 and that was applied by local chieftains throughout Ireland. The emerald isle was not yet a united political entity, only a Biblical/religious unity that brought the people and government together. It emphasized the rule of law and local self-government. These of course being two fundamental principles of basic Christian government.[1]

Two Anglo-Saxon brothers arrived in Britain around 428 A.D. by the names of Hengist and Horsa. The barbarian brothers had been called upon to help the king of Kent fight off his rivals. In fact, the king of Kent also invited them to bring their relatives as well. After Kent was saved from capture, the barbarians would end up staying and living in Britain. After some time, families grew on the island, eventually taking it over and naming it Anglo-land, or Engel-land (today’s England).

At the very start of emigration into Britain, the Anglo-Saxons turned on the native Celts. They killed countless numbers of them. During one event, they killed 1200 Celtic Pastors in the middle of prayer. In a stroke of Divine Providence however, while the Saxons conquered the Celts militarily, the Celts would conquer the Saxons spiritually. Over time, gradually the Saxons were converted to Celtic Christianity. Catholicism did not actually arrive in Britain until 597 A.D. Celtic influences emphasized the Bible (or Scriptural authority) over Papal authority. This was even after the introduction of Catholicism. A loyal follower of Patrick, named Columba, left his Ireland during this time, and would come to evangelize the king of the Picts (today’s Scotland). Columba also translated Liber Ex Lege Moisi in the Scottish language.[2]

Struggle in Wessex

King Alfred was the first leader revered enough to bring together all of England into one nation. Alfred was known from that time on as Alfred the Great, who ruled from A.D. 871 to 899. Interestingly enough though, just before Alfred was crowned king, most of England had been taken over viciously by the Vikings through a long series of ferocious battles. Wessex, in southern England, was the only area that remained open for Alfred to rule. For years to follow, Alfred would be continually thrown into the thick of battle with the Viking Danes.[3]

Historian David Chilton wrote of this struggle:

“In 876 the Danish chieftain Guthrum attacked Wessex in earnest with a powerful host, aiming to break Alfred’s hold on the country once and for all. The Vikings succeeded: in the winter of early 878 Guthrum pushed Alfred into the marshes, where the king and a small group of loyal followers were forced to hide out on the Isle of Athelney. Historians have called this time of testing Alfred’s “Valley Forge,” where he had to bide his time while virtually all England was overrun with pagan enemies of the faith who sacked churches and monasteries, wiping out the tattered remains of a Christian past. The legends say, however, that the bold and daring Alfred entered the Viking camp disguised as a minstrel and actually performed for Guthrum and his chiefs—getting a chance to listen to their plans and plotting his own strategy. 

When spring came, Alfred rallied the English army for a final push against the invader’s vastly superior forces. This time Alfred was victorious. As the Anglo-Saxon Chronicleputs it, “he fought against the entire host, and put it to flight.” The Vikings agreed never to attack Wessex again, and they submitted to the terms of peace. Alfred did not banish Guthrum and his men. He didn’t have them executed, either. His solution to the problem of the Vikings seems incredible to us, but it worked. The peace treaty he imposed on them included this provision: that Guthrum and “thirty of the most honorable men in the host” become Christians! 

Guthrum accepted the conditions, and he was baptized into the Christian faith, Alfred standing as his godfather. At the conclusion of the ceremony, Alfred embraced his newborn brother in Christ and threw a twelve-day feast for him and his men. And then, as if this weren’t enough already, Alfred made the strangest political move of all. He said to Guthrum, in effect: “My brother, this land is much too big for me to rule all by myself; and the important thing isn’t who’s in charge. The real issue is a Christian England. So don’t go back to Denmark. Stay here and rule this land with me, under the lordship of Jesus Christ.”[4]

Alfred’s Code

King Alfred moved to institute Christian reforms, and with the newfound peace, many areas in Britain included the creation of government that served the people’s needs. He, himself, was taught how to read the Asser (the Celtic Christian scholar), and also studied Patrick’s Liber. His knowledge allowed him to establish the Ten Commandments as the basis of civil law and adopted many other patterns of government from the Hebrew Republic. As far as English politics were concerned, the nation organized itself into units of tens, fifties, hundreds and thousands and elected an assembly called a “Witen.” The representatives of these units had official titles: a tighingman (over 10 families), a vilman (over 50 families), a hundredman (over 100 families), and an earl.

The land that the earl would rule over was called a “shire,” and his direct assistant was called the “shire-reef,” which is where the word Sheriff today comes from. There was also an unelected group made up of nobleman within the Witen; however at this time—the king was an elected position—not a hereditary one. Thus their laws of the land were created by their consent. King Alfred’s civil laws became the root of all English and American common law, trial by jury, and habeas corpus. It was Alfred’s legal code which was derived from Mosaic Law and Jesus’ golden rule.

Thomas Jefferson said about Anglo-Saxon laws:“…the sources of the Common Law…[and] the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the 8th century;…”Thomas Jefferson said that Anglo-Saxon laws should be printed on one side of the American National Seal proposed by him in 1776, saying:“the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by the night.”But, on the other side, Jefferson offered images of “Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs… whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.”[5]Ultimately this is true because of the Germanic Saxons’ contact with the Celtic Christians (or British natives), but the Saxon culture in Germany from which they originated provided no constitutionalism whatsoever to guide their civilization.

In the 9thcentury, the clergy would begin to serve as the judges in England and would build common law based on the Bible, but Anglo-Saxon law was eroding by the time of Norman Conquest in 1066. The Normans, then under William the Conqueror, established a royal dynasty—a system which destroyed the rights of the people, yet increased efficiency by centralization of common law under King Henry II. In the end, the English people would experience a period of over 400 years of civil and religious stagnation until 1215, when King John would reluctantly sign the Magna Carta.[6]

Daniel’s new book, 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can read Daniel’s past articles on California in the US Civil War (here), Medieval Jesters (here), How American Colonial Law Justified the Settlement of Native American Territories (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), and the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here).

[1]Jurasinski, Stefan. 2014. “Noxal Surrender, the Deodand, and the Laws of King Alfred.” Studies in Philology 111 (2): 195–224. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mlf&AN=2014289482&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[2]"Tribal Roots Point to Hebrew Origins." United Israel World Union. Last modified October 16, 2017. https://unitedisrael.org/tribal-roots-point-hebrew-origins/.

[3]DiLascio, Tracey M. 2015. “BYZANTIUM AND WESTERN EUROPE IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES: The Laws of Alfred, Guthrum, and Edward the Elder.” Defining Documents: Middle Ages, July, 19–25. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&AN=118279323&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[4]Chilton, David. "The Origin of Common Law." The ARK Foundation. Accessed August 21, 2019. http://www.arky.org/Constitution/IOTC/W2%20The%20Origin%20of%20Common%20Law.pdf.

[5]"The History of the Seal of the United States." Internet Archive: Digital Library. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://archive.org/stream/historyofsealofu00unit/historyofsealofu00unit_djvu.txt.

[6]Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life. 1989. pp. 39-42.

Bibliography

Mark A. Beliles, and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life. 1989. pp. 39-42.

David Chilton, "The Origin of Common Law." The ARK Foundation. Accessed August 21, 2019. http://www.arky.org/Constitution/IOTC/W2%20The%20Origin%20of%20Common%20Law.pdf.

Tracey M. DiLascio, 2015. “BYZANTIUM AND WESTERN EUROPE IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES: The Laws of Alfred, Guthrum, and Edward the Elder.” Defining Documents: Middle Ages, July, 19–25. 

Stefan Jurasinski,2014. “Noxal Surrender, the Deodand, and the Laws of King Alfred.” Studies in Philology 111.

Jim Keys, "The Coming of the Vikings | Anglo-Saxon (500-1000) | British & Irish History." The History Herald. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://www.thehistoryherald.com/Articles/British-Irish-History/Anglo-Saxon-500-1000/the-coming-of-the-vikings/Page-4.

"The History of the Seal of the United States." Internet Archive: Digital Library. Accessed August 21, 2019. https://archive.org/stream/historyofsealofu00unit/historyofsealofu00unit_djvu.txt.

"Tribal Roots Point to Hebrew Origins." United Israel World Union. Last modified October 16, 2017. https://unitedisrael.org/tribal-roots-point-hebrew-origins/.

World War Two: The Context to Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach

Operation Overlord and the D-Day landings were a huge Allied undertaking in June 1944 during World War Two that opened up the Western European Theater of Operations. Here, Robert Tremblay considers the historical context behind the operation and key considerations for the battle itself.

Robert’s previous article on Operation Overlord and the Differing Allied and Nazi Leaderships is here.

‘Into the Jaws of Death’ - U.S. Troops wading through water and Nazi gunfire on Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944, available here.

Introduction

General (GEN) Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the best description in “At Ease”: “Overlord was at once a singular military expedition and fearsome risk”.[1]The concept of operations for the occupation of Omaha Beach was the decisive reason for the victory of Operation Overlord in Normandy.  Operation Overlord enabled the Allies’ momentum through Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 to the occupation of Berlin.  Operation Overlord was a result of the German aggressive expansionism during WWII. Then, German aggressive expansionism within WWII was the result of factors during the interwar years.  

During the interwar years, America and European countries had the inability to respond to Germany’s aggression; therefore, enabling WWII.  Further analysis shows that these countries did not respond appropriately to Germany’s mature military industrial base and its doctrine through the interwar period and the onset of WWII.  This lack of response facilitated the German aggression. Germany then used this power to be aggressive towards other European military powers. These same European military powers enabled this German aggression by not responding effectively to the earlier warning signs.  Additionally, the United States did not respond effectively either.  

Germany’s mature military industry enabled the aggressive expansionism through its occupation of Austria and Eastern Europe that led to its objective of an increased ideological legitimacy within the European region.  Germany’s military industry had the ability to produce war materials in an effective and efficient matter.  Murray & Millett stated that from a strategic perceptive, while Germany lost the War (World War I), its industrial base stayed undamaged.[2]  In the mid-1930s, Germany was dedicating a large amount of its finances to its industrial base.  Winston Churchill stated in his memoirs, that in 1936, he reported to Parliament that Germany was contributing large amount of its finances for military armaments and materials.[3]  Inability to respond to Germany’s mature military industrial base facilitated aggression from Hitler.

Thirdly, the German military inaugurated a creative combined arms military effort calledBlitzkrieg.  The Germans were able to adapt and improve their Blitzkrieg doctrine through their evolution from WWI and most recently the Polish WWII campaign. German Blitzkrieg took doctrinal lessons from World War I to the Poland invasion.[4]  There was limited response to the Blitzkrieg method from Germany’s adversarial countries. Therefore, this led to Hitler’s strategic gain and confidence, leading to the invasion and occupation of France and Western USSR.

In conclusion, Germany was able to succeed militarily in the beginning of World War II, 1939-1943, based on its mature military industrial base and doctrine during the interwar years.  This German aggressive expansionism led to the Allies needing to conduct a cross-channel invasion (Operation Overlord) in order to liberate Europe and to create an envelopment around Germany. The Battle of Omaha Beach was the main effort for Operation Overlord based on its mission.  There is no way that the Americans could have conducted Operation Overlord without the ability to secure Omaha beach.  There would be a gap between the Gold (British) and Utah (American) beach of 7,000 yards.[5]    

Situation

German Military

The German military had inadequate forces in the Normandy region to defend the Allied operation in Normandy.  Before D-Day, there were sixty divisions throughout Western Europe (France, Belgium, and Holland); however, in the immediate area of Normandy, there were only nine infantry divisions and one panzer division.[6]  The German response to the V Corps invasion was not responsive based on its intense centralized command control.  The lack of responsiveness provided ideal conditions for the German forces being chaotic and inundated during the invasion.

German naval forces were projected to harass the cross-channel invasion. Therefore, the Allied Navy placed sea mines to act as a barrier to which it would secure the approach.[7]  There was limited German air power due to the Allies already having air superiority.

Therefore, the Germans concentrated on defense.  Field Marshal Rommel recognized that the Allies were going to invade Normandy; but, he did not have an accurate time and date.  Consequently, Rommel concentrated German resources to ensure its defense. Mines were established on the Omaha battlefield.  Then, the Germans placed huge iron obstacles at the Omaha beachhead.  Next, there were huge and thick concreated fortifications on the cliffs at the end of beachhead.  In fact, Rommel stated that the defensive works would lead to fortifications and mines going five to six miles inland.[8]  The result was the Allies faced strongly protected and cleverly concealed gun replacements and pill boxes.[9]  Additionally, there were height advantages to the cliffs.  

Concept of Operations for Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach 

Shaping Operations

The shaping operations consisted of Allied naval and aerial bombardment with the intent to destroy the defensive positions and works and to eliminate German forces. Their contributions were the disruption of the fortifications of the defense works.[10]The effect was to give the Germans the inability to have effective defense for their firepower.  Additionally, the bombardments impacted the defense postures beyond the beachhead by destroying mine fields and other defensive fortifications.[11]  During June 5, Allied air forces conducted over 2,200 missions and dropped over 7,600 tons of explosives.[12]  During June 6, the strategic level air forces conducted 5,309 missions to drop 10,396 tons of explosives while the tactical air force conducted another 5,276.[13]  The Naval gunfire and bombardment proved to be effective at destroying the obstacles and other defensive works.[14]

Missions

SHAFE Mission for Operation Overlord

GEN Eisenhower and Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces-Europe (SHAFE)’s mission for Operation Overlord was a multi-divisional invasion front on the territory between Ouistreham and Varreville with an urgent purpose to force project follow-on forces.[15]/[16]  SHAFE knew that the Allies had two areas of operations.  These areas of operations served two purposes for GEN Eisenhower’s strategy for the liberation of Europe.  First, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean served as a secure supply chain for sustainment for their respective fronts while simultaneously exhausting the German’s supply chain at the same time.  Then, Eastern Europe and the Southern Europe area of operations served as a flank that was designed to envelope Nazi Germany for final occupation. Therefore, SHAFE needs to open up another supply chain and force projection from a different European area of operations and flank.  This context led to GEN Eisenhower’s mission for the invasion.  Then, the occupation of Omaha Beach became the vital effort for Operation Overlord’s mission.

V Corps Mission for the Occupation of Omaha Beach

MG Gerow and the V Corp’s mission was to attack, occupy, and secure a 7,000 yard wide Omaha Beach on the northern coast of Calvados near St-Laurent.[17]  As stated before, the secure occupation of Omaha Beach was the main effort for the execution of Operation Overlord.  The other Allied beaches and the American Utah beach provided an advantageous gap (Omaha Beach) for the German defense.  The gap would create a divide in the Allied Forces that were invading Normandy Beach. The separation of Allied Forces would cause disorganized command and control with the divergence of command.  This disorganization and divergence would create conditions for a tactical success for the Germans.  Furthermore, SHAFE considered occupation of Omaha Beach as the main effort based on its impact to the overall Overlord mission and operation. V Corps would invade Omaha Beach with approximately 34,000 men and 3,306 vehicles with follow-on forces consisting of 25,117 men and 4,429 vehicles.[18]  In order to accomplish its objectives, V Corp relied and empowered 1st ID and 29th ID to perform its objectives.

Conclusion

Operation Overlord was a follow-on projection of the Allies’ force in order to finish the theater-wide envelopment of Germany for the European Theater of Operations. The Allies Operation Overlord assault was a tactical surprise to the Germans.[19]  On June 7, 1944, the Allies were 5 to 6 miles inland and on 10 June, the Allies had a sixty by twelve miles lodgment area.[20]

Allies

Operation Overlord’s successes enabled the Allies to have a port of entry through the opening of the western European Theater of Operations.  It took approximately six weeks to establish an intermediate staging base with a line of communication.[21]  This line of communication was critical to the Western European Theater of Operations for the follow-on forces.  It provided the resources needed to sustain the Allies advance to liberate Paris and the rest of France.  Then, this supply chain gave the logistical ability for the Allies to win the Battle of the Bulge and to reach their culminating point in Germany for the Battle of Berlin.  Additionally, it created opportunities of advancement for the Soviets in the Eastern European area of operations and the Allies on the Southern area of operations. 

Finally, psychologically, it created conditions for the Allies to project their forces with speed, surprise and mass through France, Luxemburg, Belgium, and eventually Germany.  Furthermore, it gave the Allies the confidence that a coalition of nations can maneuver, with combined arms, under one commander. This would have a strong impact during the final stages of the war that led to the surrender of Nazi Germany in the Battle of Berlin. Finally, it is stated that Operation Overlord was a domineering accomplishment of the Allies military judgement, technology, industry and ingenuity advanced through the war.[22]   

Germans

The occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord had a huge and adverse impact on the German industrial base.  Operation Overlord provided the final overwhelming impact to Germans lines of communication and industry.  These lines of communication and industry did not have the endurance to support the three areas of operation.  Finally, psychologically speaking, the Germans took a great blow.  In Germany, the population’s morale and confidence went down.  For example, shortly after the success at the occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord, there was a plot to assassinate Hitler.  All of these factors have a strong ripple impact on the Axis during the final stages of the war that would eventually lead to the surrender of Germany.

What do you think of the Battle of Omaha Beach? Let us know below.

[1]Dwight D. Eisenhower. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends(Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company INC, 1967), 273..

[2]         Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War.  (Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000), 16-22.  

[3]Winston Churchill.  The Second World War (Condensed Version).  (London, England: Penguin Books, 1989), 94-97.

[4]Murray and Millett, Second World War, 16-22

[5]         Dwight D. Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946, 6.

[6] Ibid, 17.

[7]  Ibid. 

[8] Erwin Rommel. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart (New York: DaCapo Press, 1988), 455.

[9]             Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944), 4-1.

[10]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 57. 

[11]Ibid, 21, 57.

[12]Ibid, 19

[13]Ibid, 20.

[14]Ibid, 20.

[15]Ibid

[16]John J. Marr. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 (2011): 64.

[17]Ibid. 

[18]Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1945, 9.

[19]Viscount Montgomery. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery(South Yorkshire, England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005), 257-260.

[20]Ibid

[21]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 42.  

[22]Adrian R. Lewis. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss. (University of Chicago, 1995), 442.

Bibliography

1.    Churchill, Winston.  The Second World War (Condensed Version). London, England:   

          Penguin Books, 1989.

2.    Eisenhower, Dwight D. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends. Garden City, NY: Doubleday   

            and Company INC, 1967.  

3.    --. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations 

    in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington  

         D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946. 

4.     Lewis, Adrian R. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss., University of 

     Chicago, 1995.

5.     Marr, John J. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 

          (2011): 62-68.

6.     Montgomery, Viscount. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery.  South Yorkshire, 

         England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005.

7.     Murray, Williamson and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World 

         War. Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University   

          Press, 2000.

8.      Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, 

      first published in 1945, 9.

9.      Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, 

        United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944).

10.   Rommel, Erwin. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart. New York: DaCapo Press, 

         1988.

A Brief History of Impeachment in America: ‘The perpetuation of our political institutions’

Impeachment has been a topical subject in recent months in America. Here, Mac Guffey considers the history of impeachment in American, including how it was designed by America’s Founding Fathers.

The impeachment trial of the 17th President of the USA, Andrew Johnson, in 1868.

Historian David Dewitt wrote this rather vivid description of America’s impeachment process:

The ponderous two-handed engine of impeachment, designed to be kept in cryptic darkness until some crisis of the nation's life cried out for interposition, was being dragged into open day to crush a formidable political antagonist a few months before the appointed time when the people might get rid of him altogether. [1]

It was a passage from his 1903 publication regarding the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson - Abraham Lincoln's successor.

But it's true - "impeachment" is one of those terms in the lexicon of American government and politics that, until some crisis of the nation's life, as Dewitt so dramatically put it, remains in the political closet. 

But the nature of this process, once this ‘engine’ is dragged forth, makes it essential for a free people to understand the process, and most importantly, the potential effect being unleashed. 

It is, and always should be, the people’s weapon of last resort.

Definition

First, the word impeach has two distinct meanings. One sub-definition means “to challenge the integrity of or the validity of”. The other sub-definition refers to a practice that originated in England - “to charge before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office”. [2] 

Alexander Hamilton even defined impeachment as “a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men.” [3]

To be clear, impeachment is not the end result of a Constitutional process as we often erroneously use it. It’s merely the beginning – to challenge the integrity of a public official’s behavior. The rest remains to be determined.

However, this process has a gravely inherent flaw the Founders did NOT expect - politics.

Who and how to impeach - the Constitutional guidelines 

This process of removing an elected or appointed official from office is structured by the Constitution exactly like the trials we see in all the courtroom dramas on T.V.  It begins with a formal investigation to determine if there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to elicit a charge, formal charges, and a trial before a jury. If there is a conviction, the Constitution even provides the penalty guidelines for the judge. Each specific role in this drama is assigned to a particular branch of the government, with the exception of the defense counsel. (The defendant provides his/her own.) 

The Founding Fathers designed and defined this process as a severely restricted power for the Legislative branch to useif and when the actions of an official in the Executive or Judicial branches appear to meet the Founders’ narrow definition. 

Here’s how they structured it.

Who is eligible for this process and on what grounds? (Article 2, Section 4)

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

After the Richard Nixon - Watergate fiasco (1972-1974), the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry in the House of Representatives attempted to add a bit more clarity with this rather relative guideline as to the types of misconduct that may constitute grounds for impeachment.

1.    Improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

2.    Behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

3.    Misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. [4]

It’s still vague, and it’s by no means complete, but it was a start.

Who serves as the Prosecutor and the Grand Jury? (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5)

The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Who acts as the Jury? (Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6)

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments… And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Who sits as the Judge? (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6) Normally, the President of the Senate (Vice-President) or the President Pro-Tempore (Majority Party Leader) serves as the Judge EXCEPT:

When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside;

If there is a conviction, what are the penalty guidelines? (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7)

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: 

The Founders did not want the government to go beyond this two-phase penalty. They felt that removal and banishment accomplished the role that a government of elected representatives should play in judging whether the actions or integrity of another elected official met the narrow limits of ‘treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors’. 

However, they felt that judging ‘criminal intent’ belonged to the people’s court, so they added this caveat to the end of Clause 7: “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.”

There’s always a ‘but’

Thomas Jefferson once said that "... In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution...". [4] However, David Dewitt and Alexander Hamilton were more pragmatic than Jefferson.

Writing about the subject of ‘impeachment’ one hundred and fifteen years apart, both men mentioned the politics of it all. Because this process is set in motion by perceived violation(s) of the public trust due to the misconduct of public officials, the prosecution of these officials, as Hamilton put it, 

…will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other. [3]

But, the greatest danger from this power to impeach, Hamilton noted, is not the potential for chaos and disruption. It’s the danger of this process – which is governed by the comparative political strength of the parties in Congress – being misused as a threat to bully or render the Executive and/or Judicial branches subordinate, rather than coveted as the only Constitutional means to determine official misconduct and remove the offender.

The true Guardians of our power to impeach

Abraham Lincoln once identified the greatest danger to our Republic as a country that elects its own leaders and the greatest bulwark against that danger. 

Invited to give a talk one cold January evening in 1836, Lincoln chose as his topic, The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions. Near the end of his talk, he posed a rhetorical question: “Is it unreasonable then to expect that some man possessed of…ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us?” His answer to the question also contained the solution to this potential threat.

And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.          

We, the People – are both the threat and the answer to the perpetuation of our political institutions. Respect for one another and for our Constitution and laws require a thorough understanding of our impeachment process, and a demand for its judicious use.

We are its true Guardians.

What do you think about the impeachment process? Let us know below.

References

[1] Dewitt, David (1903) "The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson" New York City, NY: Macmillan Company, p. 405.

[2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary @ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

[3] Hamilton, Alexander (1788). The Federalist Papers: No. 65from The Avalon Project, The Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School @ https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

[4] Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. (1950-) The Papers of Thomas Jefferson- 33 vols. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. v.30:pp.529-556.

[4] Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry (1974). Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93rd Conf. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 1974).

[5] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. v.1: pp.109-116.

What is a Museum?

Museums come in all sorts of shapes and sizes – but what is a museum? Here, Shannon Bent returns and considers the ‘new’ definition of a museum from the body responsible for defining it - and one glaring omission from their definition.

This follows Shannon’s articles on Berlin’s Checkpoint Charlie (here) and Topography of Terror (here), as well as the UK’s Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker (here).

The British Museum, London, under construction in the 1820s.

Museums tend to want to do the same things, generally. They do it in different ways, and provide their information in many different manners, but basically most museums are there for the same reasons. If you asked most people, they would probably say that museums are there to educate, give information, and perhaps even preserve historic objects. This is probably a generally agreed remit, and most people would nod along if you were to say it to them. However, when you break it down there are so many elements to museums. Just from my brief time within museums volunteering and working, I’ve learnt that it simply isn’t just about exhibiting objects and writing interpretation panels on them. There’s the learning department, the archives, the preservation of objects, marketing, retail, catering and many more departments that I couldn’t name off the top of my head. Therefore, any definition of a museum must encompass all of these elements to ensure that each department is clear on what is expected of them. 

Of course, there has to be a designated group of people to sort this out and argue about it. It’s like having a board of directors except this is for all museums rather than just one. For this heritage industry, ICOM is this group of people. The International Council of Museums is in charge of overseeing everything to do with museums, holding conferences and workshops all around the world. As a museum you are automatically affiliated with this group, but individuals can join and become members too, for a fee of course. And you have to prove that you are involved in museums in some manner. So really not anyone can join. Anyway, pulling museums together into a common definition is one of their many tasks, and they have recently proposed a new working definition for what museums should be. And it has caused a bit of an argument.

The definition of a museum

There is always going to be someone that isn’t happy with what is said or produced. That’s just the nature of involving so many people, organizations and institutes into one definition. And some of the arguments against this are silly in my opinion. However, I can see where others are coming from. Here’s ICOM’s current proposition:

“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people. 

“Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.” 

Firstly, lets talk about why I like it. Well, from the top, it’s diverse. It directly says it should be ‘democratising, inclusive and polyphonic’, a fancy word for saying including many voices and perspectives. It has many other mentions of diversity too, including ‘safeguard diverse memories’, ‘guarantee equal rights’, and ‘equal access to heritage for all people’. I’m up for anything that actually comments on people from every and all backgrounds actually having access to any heritage they wish to observe and learn about. 

The comment ‘work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, and interpret, exhibit and enhance understanding’ is perhaps the moment of gold here. It hits all those points that people traditionally associate with museums that I mentioned at the top of the article, including preservation, exhibiting and researching. ‘Contributing to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing’ may be very dramatic but it certainly makes the point. It’s nice to see there are other people that believe museums are important to planetary wellbeing… even if it is very theatrical. Perhaps if this perspective is more widely held, all the funding that is being pulled from the heritage sector may slow down and perhaps we can keep these museums and heritage sites afloat. But that’s another argument for another time. 

What’s missing?

So far, it doesn’t seem like this missed anything, right? Seems to hit most important points, seems to be fairly inclusive and understanding. Mostly. But here’s the biggest issue. This working definition misses one very important word: education. Yes, that’s right. Not once does that definition talk about education, passing on knowledge and allowing people to learn from the collections of the museums. Whoops. Yes, ‘enhance understanding of the world’ I guess is a broad way of saying educate, but if there is one thing we know about these kind of definitions, it is all about the ‘buzz words’. If you don’t use the actual word ‘educate’, or ‘learning’ then any learning and education departments in museums are going to immediately struggle to justify their requests for funding because it can be argued that museums are not required to educate. This may seem a little far-fetched but in a sector that is rather tight on money as it is, and yes it all comes down to money, I could image any excuse being used to not grant funding. Anyone in this industry has probably seen this happen. Even I have been told within my roles ‘change the wording of that to this. We’re guaranteed more funding if you say it is for this rather than that’. Appalling, I know, but that’s the way the world works unfortunately.

This has been the biggest issue for most people within ICOM and other organizations. It is a vital word, and when I saw the article headline saying that people were arguing about it, I thought it would be over some silly and insignificant word that really didn’t matter. Upon reflection, this is actually rather important and I find myself completely behind the group of people saying the word ‘education’ or ‘learning’ is needed within this new definition. I have recently started a new job within a museum in which I am an ‘Education Facilitator’, essentially delivering education sessions to visiting school groups. When you break it down and look at the different departments of a museum, as I have mentioned before, the education side of a museum, be it visiting schools or the general public, is one of the most important parts. A lot of large museums’ profit comes from their education departments. They need to be able to justify their existence, and show how important and integral they are into the wider machine of their museum.

Conclusion

As yet there has been no suggestions made for changes. I’m sure they will come soon before it is voted on again. I found it very interesting; when I first saw that people were arguing about it, I rolled my eyes and thought ‘leave it alone, it can’t be that bad’. But upon reflection, and now coming from an education department of a museum myself, I can see why this would be a negative game changer for many museums across the globe. I hope this maybe opens peoples’ eyes to the various elements of museums and how just one word can impact this sector. I hope they can come to a new definition, encompassing all the things I love about it, the inclusivity and diversity, while being aware that every single person and department in a museum is a vital part of the overall apparatus that makes this sector as important as it is. We don’t need a definition that I don’t dispute. Let’s just make it the best we can.

How would you define a museum? Let us know below.

References

https://icom.museum/en/

https://icom.museum/en/news/icom-announces-the-alternative-museum-definition-that-will-be-subject-to-a-vote/

The Horrific Nazi Treatment of the LGBTI Community

The Nazis treated many groups they saw as different terribly – and the LGBTI community was no exception. Here, Kim Barrett starts by considering Dr Magnus Hirschfield, who founded the world’s first gay rights organization in the decades prior to the Nazis taking power in Germany, and then looks at how the Nazis treated the LGBTI community.

Students organized by the Nazi Party parade in front of the Institute for Sexual research in Berlin in 1933.

Beneath the paving stones in Bebelplatz in Berlin is an inaccessible, empty library with enough space on its shelves for 20,000 books. At this site at the start of May 1933, those symbolically missing books were burnt by the Nazis. Among them were books by Jewish people, socialist and communist writings, as well as works advocating for women and disabled rights.

The fire also consumed the entire library and archives of the Institute for Sexual Research (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft): the pinnacle of Magnus Hirschfeld’s life’s work.

 

Dr Magnus Hirschfeld

Dr Magnus Hirschfeld was a prominent gay Jewish man born in Poland in 1868. He founded the world’s first gay rights organization in 1897, the Scientific Humanitarian Committee (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee). He moved to Berlin at the end of the 19th century and, in 1904, he wrote Berlin’s Third Sex (Berlin’s Drittes Geschlecht), a book about LGBTI people. He also co-wrote and appeared in the silent film Different From the Others(Anders als die Andern) released in June 1919. The film was the first to positively portray same-sex relationships but also addresses some of the problems gay men faced: the main character is blackmailed and arrested as a result of his sexuality.

Specific sex acts between men had been illegal since the unification of Germany in 1871, under a provision in the German Criminal Code known as Paragraph 175. Magnus Hirschfeld opposed and campaigned against this law. He believed that same-sex attraction was a natural variation. He considered it a mild form of “sexual intermediary” or “third sex”, which also included cross-dressing, intersex and transgender people. He thought up to 20% of people were “third sex”.

In Weimar-era Berlin, Paragraph 175 was only sporadically enforced and there were bars, clubs and balls where “third sex” people could socialize (mostly) safe from the law. However, the police often arrested people who cross-dressed, although cross-dressing itself was not specifically illegal. Magnus Hirschfeld lobbied the police to stop this practice and, in 1909, “transvestite passes” were created. The police could issue a pass to someone if a doctor believed they would be at risk of harm if they were not allowed to cross-dress.

The Institute for Sexual Research

In July 1919, Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Institute for Sexual Research (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) in Berlin, which researched gender and sexuality. It also provided sexual health clinics and offered marriage and sex counseling. In its heyday, the Institute employed over 40 people, many of them “third sex” themselves.

Magnus Hirschfeld coined the term “transsexualism” to refer to people who would now be called transgender. He provided some primitive hormone therapies, which changed people’s bodies to align with their genders.

The Institute also performed some of the first gender reassignment surgeries. Karl Baer was a women’s rights activist, who was probably born intersex but assigned female at birth. In 1906, he medically transitioned with the help of Magnus Hirschfeld. The following year he received an updated birth certificate that designated him as a man, which allowed him to marry his girlfriend. Lili Elbe was a Danish painter, who Magnus Hirschfeld assisted in the removal of her testes in 1930. She died the following year from complications from a uterine transplant.

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In February 1933, three decrees were enacted forcing most of the LGBT-friendly bars and publications in Germany to close. In March 1933, the first Nazi concentration camp was opened.

Kurt Hiller, a gay socialist writer who worked closely with Magnus Hirschfeld, was arrested in Berlin in April 1933 and later sent to a concentration camp. The Institute for Sexual Research was attacked in May 1933 by a Nazi student group assisted by the SA. Its books, journals, images and museum of sexual artifacts were all destroyed in a ceremonial book burning attended by 40,000 people.

Magnus Hirschfeld was lecturing abroad at the time and never returned to Germany. Two years later he died of a heart attack. His peers continued researching the spectrum of sexuality and gender. The Institute for Sex Research in Indiana, USA was opened in 1947 by Alfred Kinsey, the creator of the Kinsey Scale used to describe sexual orientation.

Under Nazi rule

In 1935, Paragraph 175, the law criminalizing sex between men, was extended to include any action between men intended to “excite sexual desire”. Those convicted were sent to prison or to a concentration camp for up to five years. 

In the concentration camps, a system of symbols was used to identify groups of people. Men who were attracted to men (as well as people who would likely now identify as transwomen) wore a down-facing pink triangle. This symbol has since been reclaimed in its inverted form by gay men. Women who were attracted to women wore a black triangle used to denote asocial (asozial) people, a group that also included prostitutes, pacifists and mentally ill people.

As well as being forced to perform hard labor (known as “extermination through labor”), some LGBTI people were shot as target practice or given dangerous jobs working with explosives. They were also tortured and “experiments” were performed on them, including castration and implanting testosterone devices in their testes.

The Nazis believed that same-sex attraction could be spread to other people, so anyone wearing a pink triangle was kept separate from other prisoners. It was seen as preferable to execute people rather than house them with the gay men in case they also “turned gay”.

Unlike Jewish people or others targeted by the Nazis because of their race, same-sex attraction or cross-dressing was seen by some Nazis as something to be “cured”. Men arrested under Paragraph 175 could sometimes convince their guards to release them by being observed having sex with women prostitutes.

Towards the end of the war, concentration camp detainees wearing a pink triangle were given minimal military training and sent into battle as cannon fodder. An estimated 60% of prisoners wearing a pink triangle died before their release.

Paragraph 175

At the end of the war, some of the LGBTI people who were freed from the concentration camps were sent to prison to complete their sentences, and many were convicted again later under the same law.

In East Germany, the extended version of Paragraph 175 was removed in 1950 and sex between men was decriminalized in 1957. However, in West Germany, the Nazi-era version of Paragraph 175 remained on the books until 1969.

LGBTI people were not officially considered victims of the Nazis until May 2002 when Nazi-era convictions under Paragraph 175 were pardoned and compensation was offered. In June 2017, everyone ever convicted under Paragraph 175 had their convictions annulled.

Everyone who was sent to a concentration camp because of their sexuality is believed to have now died. The last known person was Rudolf Brazda, who died in 2011 aged 98.

Berlin has now reclaimed its title as one of the most LGBTI-friendly cities in Europe, boasting several gay districts. Its annual Pride march, commemorating the Stonewall Riots in New York, USA, is one of the largest in the world. It also houses a memorial to the gay and lesbian victims of the Nazis.

Kim Barrett is a freelance writer – more information is available here.

The Most Important Reason for the American Revolution? How the French and Indian War Gave Birth to America

The French and Indian War (1754-1763) was fought in the modern-day USA between British America, France, and their Native American allies. It was truly a war for control of what was to become America, but its effects were longer lasting. Here, Ian Craig explains the importance of the war for the birth of the American nation.

A depiction of George Washington during the French and Indian War. By Charles Willson Peale.

It is hard to overlook how one war essentially led to the birth of a new nation.  However, the French and Indian War did just that.  Since the founding of the first permanent settlement of Jamestown in 1607, the British colonies in America were left to govern themselves with little interference from the British crown.  This continued even as the Pilgrims landed in New England in 1620.  The Mayflower Compact then symbolized America’s earliest form of democracy.  As more came to America to pursue a new life, the original thirteen colonies began to form stretching along the entire east coast of North America except for Florida and Canada.  For their part, the British government demanded very little from the American Colonies.  They wished only for the resources that America had to offer and spent little time in directly governing the colonies.  This concept has come to be known as salutary neglect.  Because of this, the American Colonies were left to create governments of their own which seemingly allowed for more participation and rights for their citizens.      

Then in 1651, Britain passed the Navigation Acts that forbade the American Colonies from trading with other nations besides Britain.  Goods exported from America were to be on British ships only.  However, the earliest versions of the Acts were not heavily enforced allowing trade to continue as it had for decades. Representing early attempts of Britain to exert its rule over the American Colonies, the Navigation Acts would not be fully enforced until 1750 when it became clear that large-scale smuggling had occurred.  In 1764, the year after the French and Indian War ended, the Navigation Acts were enforced even further.  Revisions of these acts represented early examples of how the British would impose their will on their colonies but demonstrates how this was not enforced until after the French and Indian War came to an end.  What would follow would be a series of tax acts designed to pay off the debt from the war at the expense of the American Colonies.[1]

The French in America

In 1754, when the war began, colonists in America demanded that the British government send troops to protect them. For years, their growth west had interfered with not just the Native Americans, but also the French who had laid claim to most of the interior.  The constant clash between these groups along the frontier led to war, one that would determine control of most of North America.  That same year, the colonial governor of Virginia sent a young George Washington to secure an area on land at the junction of the Ohio River.  His orders were to build a fort that could serve as a deterrent to the French.  However, when Washington arrived, he realized that the French had beat him to it and that he was vastly outnumbered.  Washington then took a calculated risk - although small in number, he attacked the French fort and retreated to build a makeshift fort called Fort Necessity. When the French counterattacked, Washington was forced to surrender but was later released as a warning to the British. This small skirmish made the British government realize the full threat of the French in America.

In 1755, the British sent Major General Edward Braddock to America in an effort to put a stop to French expansion. Braddock was appointed as commander-in-chief of all British forces in America with the sole mission of securing British dominance.  Although supported by the colonists, this action brought a considerable number of British soldiers to America.  This was only the beginning of British military expansion in the American Colonies. Braddock and the British government led by Prime Minister Thomas Pelham-Holles, the Duke of Newcastle, believed that a quick and swift attack on the French holdings along the Ohio Valley would prevent French reinforcements and end any future skirmishes.[2]  But, this would not be the case.  Braddock arrived in Virginia determined to take direct control of operations with the cooperation of the colonial governors.  He called for a meeting of the governors of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.  This was a point in which British dominance began to reign over the American Colonies. Instead of asking for the governors’ cooperation he demanded their assistance and did not take their consul.  Instead, Braddock was infuriated with their continuing to trade with French Canada and their lack of true in interest in the military campaign.  He also opposed a plan by Massachusetts’ governor William Shirley that would have helped his cause greatly.[3]

Ambush

When Braddock left Virginia in the summer that same year, he had some 2,000 British regulars along with provincials from the colonies.[4]  His direct mission was to capture Fort Duquesne which was built on the same spot that George Washington had been the previous year, at the junction of the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers.  In addition, Braddock was to use the same path that Washington used along with Washington himself as his aide-de-camp.  Washington was there to provide guidance, as he knew the land and what to expect from the French and their Native allies.  However, Braddock ignored most of the advice that Washington gave and proceeded through the route cautiously, but also made too much noise.  The falling of trees for bridges and the clearing of forest gave notice to the French.  On the afternoon of July 9, 1755, Braddock’s army fell into an ambush of a combined French, Canadian, and Indian force.[5]  The battle that ensued was almost complete chaos.  Braddock’s troops were not prepared for the guerilla tactics of the French and her native allies.  Troops fired in all directions in an effort to gain control, Braddock himself tried in vain to control the situation, but was fatally shot.  Despite trying to hold their ground, the British troops, although greater in number, were forced to retreat.  General Braddock was buried in an unmarked grave in the mists of the retreat as to not allow the Natives to rob his grave.  The survivors of the battle hurried back towards Fort Cumberland. Some 500 British soldiers were killed while only a small number of the French force was.  Braddock’s defeat left a large stain on Britain’s attempt to eliminate French control in the American frontier.  It also led to a new British policy which would bring further government control to America.[6]   

Realizing that Britain had fallen into an all-out war with France over control of North America, the Duke of Newcastle’s government along with King George II needed time to build up their forces.  Britain underestimated the French resolve and the type of warfare demanded in North America. It wasn’t until 1757 under the direction of a new Prime Minister, William Pitt, did Britain’s strategy in America change.  All the while, under the direction of Lord Loudoun, the new commander in America, troops and supplies were steadily increasing in America.[7]This led to further tensions between the colonies and the British.  For his part, Loudoun established an embargo in trade between the individual colonies. His reasons were to prevent trade with Canada, however it backfired, and he was forced to lift the embargo.  But the damage had already been done as it hurt American commerce.[8]

Lasting Effects

As the war continued despite several setbacks in the British strategy, America felt the power of the British government.  In 1761, the Writs of Assistance case was presented to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. During the 17thcentury, Britain had allowed its courts to issue writs in order to search merchant vessels.  During the height of the war, British officials began to suspect smuggling from many colonial merchants.  With that, under the law, Writs of Assistance could be issued to search a ship’s cargo. This only angered the colonists further as many believed that once the war was over, the British would leave and everything would return to normal.[9]When the war came to an end in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris, Britain was proclaimed the victor gaining much of the land once controlled by the French.  Britain was also the dominant power in all of North America.  Despite the colonists’ wish that the British would leave, troops remained in the major cities and along the frontier.  

After winning such a costly war, Britain wanted to capitalize on its newfound conquest.  It had no intention of letting the colonies be alone again.  Later in 1763, after Pontiac’s War (a skirmish with the Ottawa chief Pontiac which left the British surprised again) King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763.  It barred colonists from moving west across the Appalachian Mountains to end confrontations with the Native Americans.[10]This single act was one of the causes of the American Revolution.  This was because many colonists were upset that they had fought for the right to colonize that land only be told that they could not by their own government.  At the same time, the British government had assumed a considerable debt in protecting the American colonies.  It was decided that the American colonies should help pay for the debt and in 1764, the first tax was passed.  The Sugar Act essentially took away the right of trial by jury if a merchant failed to pay the tax.[11]In addition, the government prevented the colonies from printing or coining their own money.  This was done to standardize the system, but in reality it led to colonial trade becoming stagnant as money was taken out of circulation. These efforts were opposed by the colonies because they believed that the British government did not have the right to tax them without their consent.  Due to the fact that they did not vote for Members of Parliament, it did not have the right to tax them.  This became the standard defense as many saw themselves slaves to the taxes of Parliament.

Revolution

In 1765, when the Stamp Act was passed, the colonists began to see the true intentions of the British government. After protesting the Act which led to riots in August of that year, the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766.[12]  However, in the years that would follow, several other Acts were passed and impressed upon the American Colonies including the Townshend Acts.  By 1776, the American Colonies had had enough of British control and declared independence.  Despite this, without the French and Indian War and its outcome, American independence might not have come.  The increased number of troops and supplies sent to America, along with British generals who refused to collaborate with the colonial assemblies, helped to spark an American hatred for its own government.  When the war ended, Britain severely underestimated America in thinking that it could tax them as it did the other colonies without conflict.  Its policy was no different than what it had done throughout the empire; however, its long absence in American affairs weakened its ability to truly govern the colonies.  So when the war came and ended, America was given a dose of reality to the true nature of the British Crown allowing it to seek independence and to be born as a new nation.

What do you think the most important reason was for the American Revolution? Let us know below.

[1]The American Revolution, “The Navigation Acts.” Our American Revolution, http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/page/view/p0096(accessed Sept. 29, 2019). 

[2]Walter R. Borneman, The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), 40-41. 

[3]Ibid, 47. 

[4]Ibid, 48. 

[5]Ibid, 51. 

[6]Ibid, 55. 

[7]Ibid, 84. 

[8]Ibid, 85.

[9]Robert J. Allison, The American Revolution: A Concise History(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 

[10]Ibid, 5. 

[11]Ibid, 6. 

[12]Ibid 8. 

The Real Reasons for the Salem Witch Hunt: “Under an Evil Hand”

The Salem witch trials are one of the most infamous events of 17th century America, ultimately leading to the death of many women in Salem. But what were the events that caused the trials? Here Kaitlyn Beck explores the history of Salem, and how the quest for power, medicine, and religion all had their influences on the witch-hunt.

An image of the Salem witch trials by Frank O. Small.

In January of 1692, nine-year-old Betty Parris began to exhibit unusual behavior including loud cries and convulsions. By mid-February, her cousin Abigail began to exhibit the same symptoms and Pastor Parris decided to consult with the Dr. William Griggs, the town physician. After weeks of observation, Griggs concluded that “the evil hand is upon them”, known by the people as a diagnosis of witchcraft (Dashiell). This was the beginning of the Salem Witch Trials.

In the midst of political and cultural unrest, Dr. William Griggs’ medical diagnosis of witchcraft became the catalyst that started the Salem Witchcraft trials of 1692. Before the start of these infamous witch trials, Salem was veering away from its ‘City on a Hill’ ideals. With divided loyalties and slow retraction from the Puritan faith that the town was founded upon, prominent members of its society were concerned of what would become of their town.  When young girls began to show signs of unnatural behavior that none could explain, the town was distraught. Such circumstances created a powder keg, needing only an official word to create the explosion that was the Salem Witch trials. 

The 1680s in Salem

During the 1680s, Salem was going through a period of political unrest. Two families were battling for control: the Putnams and the Porters. The Putnams arrived in the early 1640s and were successful in acquiring large amounts of land. However by the late 1680s, their wealth and political influence were on the decline. In contrast, the Porters were, according to the 1680s census, wealthier and more affluent. The two families vied for control and had different plans for Salem’s future. The Putnams wanted to separate the village from the rest of Salem while the Porters wished to keep it unified. Each family had certain factions of control. For the Putnams, they had allies amongst the oldest families who knew them in their more affluent years. The Porters controlled the council and made friends with those who wished for a change in Salem’s priorities. As a result of rising tensions, many (but not all) members of Salem began to align themselves with one of these families. This was certainly the case with Dr. Griggs, who was connected to the Putnams by marriage(Hoffer 39-45). During the trials, Dr. Griggs fervently supported the “afflicted” girls, who included Ann Putnam and his own great-niece Elizabeth Hubbard (Dashiell). Another supporter of the Putnams was Pastor Samuel Parris who was at odds with the town committee, which was controlled by the Porters (Hoffer 53). With such powerful friends vying for control of both town and church, Dr. Griggs certainly felt pressure to make a diagnosis that would be beneficial to the Putnams which, by extension, would benefit him as well. 

The diagnosis of witchcraft would not have been as powerful if not for the influence of medicine in colonial America. When illness arose, women were commonly in charge of caring for the sick except when the illness was long lasting or too intense for basic herbal remedies. The study of formal medical practice had its roots in Europe, in particular the University of Edinburgh (Twiss). Far from Europe and its schools, many colonial doctors were not formally trained (Mann). At best, they worked as apprentices under formally trained doctors from England (Twiss 541). In addition, colonial doctors also battled lack of sanitation laws, shortage of drugs, and outdated medical knowledge (Twiss 541). Of Dr. Griggs, not much is known about his training as a physician. He originally came from Boston and was the first doctor to practice in Salem (Robinson 117). Most likely, he had little to no training in formal medicine (Dashiell). In fact, some historians believe that Dr. Griggs combined his limited medical knowledge with folk magic. In fact, ‘folk’ magic was had its origins in England and was used in the colonies on many occasions. Shortly after Griggs made his diagnosis but before any formal accusations, a form of folk magic, termed ‘white magic’ was attempted to discover the one responsible for the girls’ illness. Titubia and her husband John Indian baked a ‘witch cake’; this was fed to the dog of a suspected witch (a witch’s familiar). If successful, this mixture of ordinary meal and victim’s urine would reveal and hurt the witch (Konig 169). When Dr. Griggs’ diagnosis was known throughout Salem, such practices went under fire as being pure witchcraft. As a result, people looked even more towards medicine and the Puritan faith to guide them.

Religion and Medicine

Colonial Medicine was not only based on pure science; in fact, medicine often intertwined with religion, especially in a town founded on strict Puritanism. As a result, Reverend Parris and Dr. Griggs were two of the most powerful men in Salem (Robinson 136). When Betty first began to exhibit her unusual behavior, Parris and other ministers tried to invoke the power of prayer to heal her. When this failed to work, Parris called in the next highest power, a male physician, to make Betty better (Hoffer 62-63). When Dr. Griggs could find no physical explanations for the girls’ ailments, he put the blame on witchcraft. This was a serious accusation for at the time, English law (as of 1641) stated witchcraft was a capital offense (Krystek). Though serious, witchcraft was a common diagnosis for unexplainable illnesses; it was sometimes believed to be punishment from an angry God (Dashiell). Dr. Griggs’ initial diagnosis would not be the last; in fact records show Dr. Griggs repeating this diagnosis; in May of 1692, he accounted witchcraft as the cause of illness for Daniel Wilkin, Elizabeth Hubbard, Anne Putnam Jr., and Mary Walcott (Robinson 184&190). Though the people of Salem knew of witchcraft, it took an official diagnosis from a doctor for others to take action.  

Change in Salem

Life in Salem had always been difficult. The winters were very cold, the land was rocky and hard to farm, and the threat of disease and illness was constant (Krystek). King Phillip’s War was still fresh in the memories of the town people. They knew about the hundreds of men, women, and children killed in Native American raids. The town was kept in a constant state of fear, frightened by their close proximity to Native American settlements and at the possibilities of renewed attacks (Hoffer 55-56). As the external forces grew more threatening, the internal structure began to crumble. Salem was built on the ideas of harmony and the importance of a cooperative community. Puritanism was the glue that held this community together. The Bible was taken as a guide to life, down to the smallest details. To them, the Word of God was clarity, making a clear division of right and wrong, all in black and white terms (Erikson 47). But in the late 1600s, townspeople were drifting from the original principles of this community. The younger generations were less keen on spiritual matters, resulting in decreased church attendance and membership (Hoffer 53). Others turned their focus from a church centered life to one of worldly pursuits, delving into practices such as mercantilism and fulfilling individualistic needs and wants over those of the group (Hoffer 40). This drive towards mercantilism was propelled by one of the most prominent families in Salem: the Porters. They desired to unify the town not by a common belief but by a common market (Hoffer 45). For the other prominent, male members of the town (especially the Putnams and their supporters, including Dr. Griggs), there was a need for extreme reformation.

Witchcraft to bring Salem together?

The many who were unsatisfied with their way of life, particularly the women, were seen as a threat to their male driven society. This would become a prevalent fact when accusations began; women who did not follow the traditional role were often the first to be accused (Erikson 143). The clearest example was the first three women brought to court (accused of bewitching Betty and Abigail Paris), an action immediately influenced by Dr. Griggs’ diagnosis. Each woman exemplified qualities the leaders of Salem wished to eradicate. Tituba was a woman of color who dabbled in voodoo and was considered an unsavory influence on the younger girls. Sarah Good was an older woman with a sour disposition, creating discord with her neighbors. Sarah Osbourne did not attend church and was the center of a social scandal where it was rumored that she moved in with a man before marriage (Erikson 143). Getting rid of such independent and un-conforming women was made easier by the traditions known of witchcraft, the main one being that, more often than not, witchcraft was practiced primarily by women (Karlsen 39). Once the diagnosis was made public and the young girls began naming witches, women such as these, who did not follow the traditional roles that had been abided by for decades, would be cleansed from Salem.

The diagnosis of witchcraft was the perfect opportunity to bring Salem together. The word of witchcraft quickly spread amongst the small village and people began to come together in order to accuse/bear witness to the ‘witches’ plaguing their town. The hysteria created by these trials did not create total disorder. In fact, witchcraft became so imbedded in their society during this time that it highlighted the significance of the community. For many years prior, people had lost sight of the relevance of Puritanism in an increasingly economic driven world. So when a ‘professional’ medical verdict was announced, citizens responded to the validity but looked back to their Puritan roots. It reminded the Puritans of their participation in the cosmic struggle between good and evil (Demos 309-310). Finally, restoring the community under faith brought the control and conformity back to the church and the men who controlled it.

Conclusion

By the time the witch trials were ended in May of 1693, 141 people had been accused, 19 had been hung as witches, and 4 had died in jail (Krystek). The backdrop for these trials was made years before the first accusations. Struggles for power in the government were reaching their peak and the people were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their life. Worse, people were drifting away from the faith that had kept them together since its founding. Dr. Griggs’ diagnosis of witchcraft was powerful enough to start such a radical movement because of the influence of medicine that was closely intertwined with religion and, in his case, powerful friends. His diagnosis was the real push that Salem needed to begin a Witch Hunt that would shake the town at its core and leave repercussions for years to come.

What do you think caused the Salem witch trials? Let us know below.

References

Dashiell, Beckie. Dr. William Griggs. Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive and Transcription Project. University of Virginia, 2006. Web. 10 February 2014.

Demos, John Putnam. Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.

Erikson, Kai T. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1966. Print. 

Hoffer, Peter Charles. The Devil’s Disciples: Makers of the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1996. Print. 

Karlsen, Carol F. The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987. Print.

Konig, David Thomas. Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts: Essex County 1629-1692. University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Print.

Krystek, Lee. The Witches of Salem: The Events of 1692. The Museum of Unnatural History, 2006. Web. 11 February 2014. 

Mann, Laurie. Changing Medical Practices in Early America. Changing of Mapscape of West Boylston, 2013. Web. 15 March 2014. 

Robinson, Enders A. The Devil Discovered: Salem Witchcraft of 1692. Prospect Heights: Wavelands Press, 1991. Print. 

Twiss, J.R. “Medical Practice in Colonial America”. New York Academy of Medicine(1960) 533-551. Web. 16 March 2014. 

Joseph Plumb Martin and the American Revolution: Yankee Doodle Dandy

In October of 1760, a young King George III of England’s reign began, marking a new birth for England and her colonies. One month later, a more humble figure, Joseph Plumb Martin, was born. Here Elizabeth Jones tells the story of Joseph Plumb Martin, the author of a very famous book about the American Revolution.

Jospeh Martin Plumb and his wife in the 19th century.

“Alexander never could have conquered the world without private soldiers. “ - Joseph Plumb Martin

Joseph Plumb Martin was born on November 21, 1760. He was raised by his grandparents in Connecticut. He lived the complicated life of a boy growing up in the storm brewing in colonial America. And like many other American boys in 1776, he enlisted in the militia following the battles of Lexington and Concord.

What makes Private Joseph Plumb Martin stand out in history?

For well over a hundred years, nothing. But in 1962, an obscure memoir of the experiences of an enlisted soldier in the Revolutionary War was republished as Yankee Doodle Dandy, and the world noticed.

Martin first published his account in 1830, titling it Narrative of Some of the Adventures, Dangers, and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier, Interspersed with Anecdotes of Incidents that Occurred Within His Own Observations. It didn’t sell well. It probably had something to do with the title.

Whatever the case, the rebrand was successful, and history took notice. Martin’s narrative has since taken its place as one of the key primary sources of information about the Revolutionary War.

So what?

Private Martin carried around a quill and journal and, between arduous marches and ear-splitting cannon fire, kept a log of his experiences in Washington’s Continental Army. His memoir provides a unique perspective on the everyday life of an enlisted soldier.

Insights from Yankee Doodle Dandy

But how much insight can the dusty writings of a long-dead, stocking-wearing patriot provide? As it turns out, plenty. Below are some musings of a teenager coming of age during one of the most turbulent periods of history.

 

On martial life:

Enlisting at the start of the war and serving until after the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the war in 1783, Joseph Plumb Martin was a veteran of several major engagements that occurred during the Revolution. He served during battles and sieges, such as the inconclusive Battle of Monmouth and the climactic Siege of Yorktown. He describes his experiences as a Continental soldier in detail.

“As there was no cessation of duty in the army, I must commence another campaign as soon as the succeeding one is ended. There was no going home and spending the winter season among friends, and procuring a new recruit of strength and spirits. No—it was one constant drill, summer and winter, like an old horse in a mill, it was a continual routine.”

 

On Fort Mifflin:

In 1777, Private Joseph Plumb Martin was stationed at Fort Mifflin on the Delaware River just outside of British-occupied Philadelphia. The fort was under intense fire from the guns of massive ships, and Martin describes it in excruciating detail. The uncomfortable intensity with which he describes his experience makes it unflinchingly real.

“I was … sent to reinforce those in the fort [Mifflin], which was then besieged by the British. Here I endured hardships sufficient to kill half a dozen horses. Let the reader only consider for a moment and he will still be satisfied if not sickened. In the cold month of November, without provisions, without clothing, not a scrap of either shoes or stockings to my feet or legs, and in this condition to endure a siege in such a place as that was appalling in the highest degree.”

Martin adds:

“During the whole night, at intervals of a quarter or half an hour, the enemy would let off all their pieces, and although we had sentinels to watch them and at every flash of their guns to cry, "a shot," upon hearing which everyone endeavored to take care of himself, yet they would ever and anon, in spite of all our precaution, cut up some of us.”

 

On Valley Forge:

When Martin initially joined the fight for independence, he enlisted in the Connecticut militia for a short stint.

“I wished only to take a priming before I took upon me the whole coat of paint for a soldier,” Martin wrote prior to his first enlistment.

Martin’s Service

He served in the militia for the better part of a year until his term of service expired and he was discharged on Christmas Day of 1776 - the same day that the Continental Army was preparing to cross the Delaware and surprise the Hessians at Trenton.

But in 1777 he reenlisted, serving as a private in General George Washington’s Continental Army. The conditions were miserable and the pay, if it arrived at all, was laughable. So why did Martin reenlist?

“If I once undertake, thought I, I must stick to it, there will be no receding,” he wrote. Martin marched with Washington’s Army to Valley Forge, where they encamped for the winter of 1777-78.

 At times and in places in his memoirs he is dark about the war, its leaders, and the overall cause, but he stays true and is insightful when he talks about how important he feels that the war is:

"Our prospect was indeed dreary. In our miserable condition, to go into the wild woods and build us habitations to stay (not to live) in, in such a weak, starved and naked condition, was appalling in the highest degree. But dispersion, I believe, was not thought of, at least, I did not think of it. We had engaged in the defense of our injured country and were willing, nay, we were determined to persevere as long as such hardships were not altogether intolerable."

 

Conclusion

Joseph Plumb Martin’s account of his time in the Revolutionary Army has helped historians gain a clearer picture of the everyday drudgeries of a Continental Soldier, bringing to light details that had long been lost to history. The importance of Martin’s impact on the study of the American Revolution for both the professional and hobby historian cannot be overstated.

Find out more about Elizabeth and her work at https://elizabethmjoneswrites.com.

References

1776by David McCullough

The Adventures of a Revolutionary Soldier by Joseph Plumb Martin

http://www.ushistory.org/march/phila/mifflin.htm

How the Source of the River Nile was Found: Solving "The Problem of the Ages"

The source of the world’s longest river, the River Nile, had intrigued people for millennia. From the Egyptians onwards, the source remained a mystery, leading to be called “the problem of the ages”. In fact, it wasn’t until the nineteenth century when some extraordinary explorers found the great river’s source. Victor Gamma explains.

A portrait of John Hanning Speke, the man who played such a key role in the discovery of the source of the River Nile.

John Hanning Speke stared at the foamy torrents pouring out of the lake he had just named Victoria after his beloved queen. Speke smiled in triumph, and no wonder, the date was July, 28, 1862 and Speke, along with his companion James Augustus Grant was about to solve a riddle that had bedeviled the world for 2,000 years; the source of the world's greatest river, the Nile: "Here at last I stood on the brink of the Nile!", he later wrote in his journal. 

It might seem strange that finding the place where a river begins would be that hard, but it was not called 'The Problem of the Ages' for nothing!  In fact, the headwaters of the Nile River system have such a complicated geology that even today geographers and other scientists continue to study its labyrinth-like network of physical features and debate its source. Technically, that prize goes to a tiny spring in the hills of Burundi. This spring is amongst the headwaters that nourish Lake Victoria. 

If complex geography weren't enough of a problem, think of how challenging it would be to explore that same system without the sophisticated technology and transportation that today's explorers enjoy. Traveling in that part of Africa in the mid-nineteenth century was not easy; fever, attacks by hostile locals, and desertions were only some of the problems encountered. When you realize that almost every rugged, hot, wet, scratchy, insect-infested mile was a struggle, you will understand why the discovery took so long. 

Why was it so important to discover the source of the Nile anyway? The Nile River has always held a special place in humankind's imagination. To the Egyptians it was the divine basis of life itself, for without it, life was unthinkable. To them, its beginnings were lost in mystery, flowing from a land far beyond where they dared to venture, and they simply worshiped it as a god. Many later civilizations held the beautiful and marvelous culture of Egypt in wonder and could point to the Egyptians as the originators of civilized life. It is not hard to see then why, starting with the ever-curious Greeks, a quest for the source of the fabled Nile became an on-going obsession. 

From Myth to Science

By the time Richard Burton and his partner Speke began their quest, two thousand years of failed attempts stretched before them. Both the Greeks and the Romans, unable to penetrate to the upper reaches of the Nile, fell back on speculation or hearsay as to the great river's ultimate origin. Puzzled Romans represented the Nile as a male god with his face and head obscured by drapery. To be fair, though, the Greek merchant Diogenes and the mathematician Eratosthenes both correctly identified lakes inland from the east coast of Africa as the Nile's source. This knowledge was noted by the great Ptolemy. But to make mention of something is one thing, to see it for oneself is quite another! For centuries after Ptolemy, the question was relegated to the realm of fable and speculation. These included the myth of Prester John and the idea that a branch of the Nile flowed into the Atlantic. 

The mists of speculation began to clear up as the light of modern science and discovery shone on the question. By the mid-18th century the connection of the Blue and White Nile had been identified as well as a river meandering into Lake Tana, which we now know is the source of the Blue Nile. But it was to the Victorians that the honor of settling the "Great Question" was to be given; specifically Burton, Speke and Grant. 

It would take a determined fellow to solve a 2,000-year-old riddle and these three men certainly fit the description. Speke was an officer in the Indian Army. After strenuous months of training and fighting Speke spent his furloughs not in relaxation but exploring the Himalayas and Tibet. Burton was already famous as a traveler, linguist and, shall we say, "eccentric?" Unlike the disciplined and well-mannered Speke, Burton was known to be irascible and difficult to deal with. Burton was one of those men who placed obedience to his own convictions above societal convention. His method of travel was to meld with the local population so as to be indistinguishable from them. His facility with five languages was another unusual distinction. What these two men shared, though, was an obsession for exploration and their combined talents attained one the great feats in the history of discovery.

It was Burton who invited Speke to join him in exploring east Africa. That was in 1854. Two years later, sponsored by the Royal Geographical Society, an expedition began into the interior of east Africa to locate a series of great lakes said to exist. They also, of course, were hoping to find the source of the Nile. 

A Prize Gained but a Friend Lost

Their final attempt began in June 1857. This 500-mile trek was slowed not only with fever but the never-ending complications of local politics. As the expedition passed from the realm of one ruler to another great caution and skill were needed to secure permission and protection as well as to recruit guides. This involved so much gift giving and bribery that the expedition was well fleeced by the time Speke made his great discovery. Burton became so ill that he was eventually forced to stay behind while Speke forged ahead to a lake the locals called Ukerewe. This separation was to prove ominous to the two adventurers, for it meant that when Speke beheld what he believed was the source of the Nile, Burton was not there to see for himself. Burton would refuse to accept Speke's opinion. This led to a disagreement between the two men that quickly became very public and bitter. 

Nonetheless, the parting of two great men of exploration did not stop the march of geographical progress. Leaving Burton behind in the Arab settlement of Ujiji, near the lake of the same name, Speke set out across this lake, now known as Lake Tanganyika, hoping it was the source of the Nile. Unable to obtain an adequate boat, Speke was forced to abandon the quest and rejoined Burton. While recuperating at Kaze, in the land of the Unyamwezi where they had stayed earlier, the locals related more tales of Lake Ukerewe to the two explorers. Illness sapped the interest that Burton would normally have had, but the stories fired Speke's imagination. With a hurriedly gathered force of men and supplies Speke set off for the fabled lake. On July 30, 1858 he reached the shores of the lake. He bestowed the name Victoria on the lake in honor of his queen. But lack of provisions and equipment forced Speke to content himself with a rough sketch of the lake and a burning conviction that he had the solution to a 2,000 year-old riddle.  He returned to Kaze and presented his case to his colleague. The fever-stricken Burton, however, refused to accept Speke's conclusion. An on-going debate ensued in which the two men failed to agree. The discussion became exceedingly lively. Illness, exhaustion and divergence of temperament all played their part. The final fallout occurred when Speke, back in England, made his case to the Royal Geographical Society. Burton had remained in Zanzibar, too sick to travel but expecting that Speke would delay his announcement until Burton could be present to argue his side of the issue. Although Speke could hardly ask his sponsors to wait to hear the results of their investment, Burton saw Speke's actions as a mortal sin and never forgave him. 

The Puzzle Unraveled at Last

To confirm the epic discovery, Speke returned to Africa, this time in the company of an old companion from his India days, James Augustus Grant. Having learned his lesson from earlier attempts, Speke and Grant assembled a well-provisioned expedition of 200 men before setting out in 1860. Nonetheless, the usual delays of travel in Africa at that time caused interminable delays. It would in fact be two years before Speke arrived at his longed-for destination. But when Speke heard of a river that flowed out of Lake Victoria, nothing could stop him from reaching for what men had dreamed of so long. Leaving the fever-stricken Grant behind to rest, he explored Lake Victoria and found the rapids where a river left the lake and fed the Nile. 

Rejoined by Grant and accompanied by another associate from the Indian service, hunting-enthusiast Samuel Baker, Speke then began a descent of the Nile. Upon reaching Khartoum, Speke wasted no time in sending a now famous telegram to London. The terse but momentous message read simply, "The Nile is settled." Upon his return to England, Speke received full credit and plaudits for his accomplishments. Like Columbus, John Hanning Speke's moment of triumph was short-lived. Only two years later, in a tragic postscript, and on the day before he was to face his old colleague and enemy Burton in a debate over the Nile question, Speke was killed in a hunting accident. He was 37. 

Final confirmation of the source of the Nile was to wait until 1875. It was then that Henry Morton Stanley, of "Dr. Livingstone I presume" fame, circled Lake Victoria and confirmed Speke's claim. Grueling determination, suffering and imagination had solved another age-old mystery.

What do you think of the explorers who confirmed the source of the Nile River? Let us know below.

References

Southwaite, Leonard, Unrollingthe Map: The Story of Exploration,The Junior Literary                    Guild, New York, 1930, pages 253-8

(February 4, 2010) "Speke and the Discovery of the Source of the Nile: An Introduction." [Web blog post], https://www.faber.co.uk/blog/speke-and-the-discovery-of-the-source-of-the-nile-an-introduction/