What are Naval Figureheads? A Brief History of this Curious Tradition

Figureheads are the carved wooden figures that decorated the bows of almost all large ships until the end of the 19thcentury and into the early 20thcentury.  The origin of a ship’s figurehead, however, dates from ancient times and the religious beliefs held by early mariners. Steve Conway, conservator at The Box in south-west England, explains.

14 historical ships figureheads will be on display at The Box from spring 2020.

Embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover in 1520. There is commentary on the picture in this article.

The custom of decorating ships bows can be found in Egyptian rock drawings over 5,000 years old, which show oar-powered boats with high prows on which the head of a horned animal has been placed.  Heads of sacrificial animals such as deer, antelope and bulls also decorate a series of bronze ship models from Sardinia dated 700 BC, while sheep fleeces are depicted on fishing boats painted by Luis Borassa in 1411 at St Mary’s church in Tarrassa near Barcelona.

The animal’s head or fleece decoration may have served to appease the gods and ensure a safe journey for the ship and crew, or it may indicate that the ship itself was considered a living being with a head and tail.

The serpent or dragon became a recurring theme for the Viking ships of Norway, and the Oseberg Ship from 800 AD, which was excavated in 1900, depicts imaginary beasts entwined and spiraling up both stern and prow.  Archaeological and literary sources in the form of Nordic sagas, show that the serpent’s role was both as a protective guardian and a threat to enemies.  

16thcentury figureheads

The galleons of the 16thcentury were the culmination of a period of profound development in the art of shipbuilding and in England, Henry VIII took a great interest in founding the Royal Navy by opening dockyards at Woolwich and Deptford and by formally constituting the Navy Board in 1546.  

Exploration and trade were accompanied by the increased protection of the merchant fleet and master shipwrights met this need by designing ships which sat lower in the water and were therefore able to carry heavier ordnance, and the scope for greater decoration was increased with a longer prow and a stern gallery.

Heraldic shields were an important decorative feature of ships during this period and are shown in a painting of the embarkation of Henry VIII at Dover in 1520 (above – also at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London). This painting also shows the King’s ship with a dragon’s head carving at the prow.

Dragon heads are known to have been popular at this time and, although no examples exist, evidence in the form of manuscripts, paintings and decorated fine metalwork, all suggest the dragon was as much a symbol of power and protection for Renaissance sailors as it was for the Vikings.

Figureheads in the 17thcentury

By the end of the 16thcentury dragon carvings began to disappear and were replaced by lions.  James I was responsible for placing the royal crown on the head of a lion at the same time ship design developed so that the lion itself was carved into the framework timbers of the ship’s head, instead of projecting clear of the prow.  It was also James I, however, who introduced the idea of submitting a special figurehead for the lion on certain ships, by allowing a regal figure on horseback to be carved on the bows of the Prince Royal, launched in 1610.  This marked the departure from traditional decoration to a much more elaborate system which echoed the architectural design of the period.

The extravagance of decoration seen on the Prince Royal was taken to extremes by Charles I when he ordered the building of Sovereign of The Seas in 1637. This was to be the largest ship built at the time and is said to have finally cost the king his head due to the dissatisfaction that arose with the extra taxes he imposed to finance his naval program.  At the time a ship of 40 guns cost about £6,000.  The final cost of the 100 gun Sovereign of the Seas was £65,586.  Due to her size and firepower it is generally thought that she was 150 years ahead of her time and could quite easily have been included as a First Rate ship of the line in Nelson’s fleet.  A contemporary description by Thomas Heywood of the carved and gilded decoration that led to the Sovereign of the Seas being called ‘The Golden Devil’ by the Dutch fleet, is given below:

“I begin at the Beak-head where I desire you to take notice, that upon the stemme-head there is a Cupid, or a Child resembling him, bestriding and bridling a Lyon which importeth, that sufferance may curbe Insolence, and Innocence restrain violence, which alludeth to the great mercy of the King whose Type is a proper Embleme of the great Majesty, whose mercy is above all his Workes”

This description refers to part of the main figurehead which was an equestrian group, like Prince Royal, but which portrayed King Edgar of Wessex on his horse, trampling the seven vassal kings beneath its hooves.

By the time Sovereign of the Seas was launched a strict Rating system for warships was in force.  This originally referred to the rates of pay of captains but by the late 17thcentury the Rate was calculated by the number of guns a ship carried.  The system in summary was as follows:

1stRate:                 100 guns

2ndRate:                90 guns

3rdRate:                 80 guns

4thRate:                 60 guns

5thRate:                 44 guns

6thRate:                 28 guns

In accordance with this system, only First Rate ships were allowed to have the highly elaborate and allegorical group figureheads.  The other rates almost all had lions.

An interesting account of The Naseby, a 96 gun warship built by Oliver Cromwell, is given in Evelyn’s diary of 1656 where he describes his visit to the dockyard to see the new ship:

“I went to see the greate ship newly built by the Usurper Oliver.  In the prow was Oliver on horseback, trampling six Nations underfoot, a Scott, Irishman, Dutchman, Frenchman, Spaniard and English…”

This must have been a direct response to the figurehead of King Edgar on Charles I’s Sovereign.  However at the time of the Restoration, the Naseby’s name was changed to the Royal Charles and the original figurehead removed “to be burned on Coronation Night”.  The figurehead that replaced it can now be seen in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam as the ship was taken as a trophy in the Dutch raid on the Medway in 1667.

The 18thcentury

At the beginning of the 18thcentury, the great cost and weight of group figureheads became a complaint among captains and a cause for concern for the Navy Board.   A letter from the Navy Board to the captains at Plymouth Dockyard dated September 2, 1710 gives an indication of their dissatisfaction and heralds the scaling down of decoration which was to become legislation by the end of the century:

“Captain Leake of the Essex, having represented to their Lordships that the Lyon of the said ship’s head, being made of solid Elm, is so very heavy that when she is at sea that he apprehends she will carry all away… and (he proposes) that a Trail Board be placed in the Room of the Lyon or as light a figure as may be…”

The legislation of 1796 ordered the Royal Navy to stop fitting figureheads to new ships and replace them with an abstract scroll or billethead.  This order was not strictly adhered to, mainly because a ship without a figurehead was considered unlucky; however the scale was drastically reduced and throughout the 19thcentury, naval figureheads became increasingly isolated pieces of ornament with very limited trailboard decoration.  The 19thcentury figurehead is generally more naïve in style than its 18thcentury predecessor.  The lions, which dominated the lower rank ships, became unpopular and were replaced by busts of naval or classical heroes and it is these which form the largest part of collections today.

The end

The final decision to rid the Navy of figureheads came in 1894 when they were abolished entirely from new ships.  This time the order was easier to enforce due to the lack of suitable space on the new ‘ironclads’.

When no longer seaworthy, the wooden ships were dismantled or ‘broken up’. Useful pieces of timber were recycled for building purposes and the rest was used for garden furniture or firewood.  Decay, fire and rot was the fate of many naval figureheads, but well preserved examples from important ships were distributed and displayed in museums and dockyards throughout the world.

Opening Spring 2020, 14 historical ships figureheads (weighing over 20 tonnes collectively) will be on public display for the first time at The Box- the biggest arts & heritage centre in the South West of England.

Conservation at The Box

The Devonport Figureheads, as with other naval figureheads, suffered from years of exposure to the elements. It is clear from an article in the Mariner’s Mirrorof 1914 by Douglas Owen that they were in poor condition even at that time.  Archive records note that various material were used in their restoration and maintenance including cement and expanded polyurethane foam, and in the 1960s and 1970s, many were repaired with fibreglass resin.  These materials created micro climates promoting further rot and degradation of the historic timber under the repairs, leading to weaknesses in the structure of the figurehead that is not always obvious when viewing the brightly coloured resin surface.

The Box is a major new cultural attraction in Plymouth, UK that is opening in spring 2020 to showcase Plymouth’s visual arts, media, heritage and archives as part of the city’s Mayflower 400 commemorations.

A key element in the new permanent exhibitions is the redisplay of 14 of the Devonport Figureheads.  The display design concept suspends the figureheads, weighing 20 tons, within the main entrance hall of The Box in a huge sweep that appears to sail across the glazed façade from left to right.  Preparation for the ambitious high-level figurehead display required full conservation, consolidation and restoration of the figureheads alongside innovative design of the mounting systems to facilitate their suspension by steel cables.  

The figurehead conservation project has reversed years of decay and is the most significant of its kind in a generation, not only securing the future of the Devonport Figureheads, but identifying The Box as a centre of excellence and innovation for the preservation and display of maritime heritage, with one of the largest collections of naval figureheads in the UK.

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 2 – Crisis in Austria-Hungary

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Austria-Hungary and its pivotal role in the events that led to the outbreak of World War One.

Part 1 in the series focuses on the decades leading up to World War One: Available here.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. His assassination precipitated a crisis that led to World War One

In Part 1 we talked about the basics - some of who the main players were, and Germany’s habit of having a ruler who is an overachiever. We know that the country as a whole felt boxed in due to the alliances surrounding them. But what about their allies? We left off on the background of one of them: Austria-Hungary. Get comfy because this is where things get interesting.  

Succession in Austria-Hungary 

Wondering why the country was called Austria-Hungary and today they are just Austria and Hungary? Well, it is a bit complicated, but essentially both are separate countries and both are monarchies. Only, they have the same ruler just under different names. Using this example makes it clearer: after Queen Elizabeth I of England died, King James was called James I of England. But in Scotland, where he had been king since he was an infant, he was known as James VI of Scotland.

So, the ruler at the turn of the century was Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary and he was in a bit of a pickle. Good Emperor Franz had no male heir to take his place when he died. At the start at the war in 1914, he was 84 years old. He and his wife, the Empress Elisabeth (known as Sisi) had four children. But of those four, only one was a son. One thing to mention about Empress Sisi is that she was the most beautiful woman of her time, and was beloved by her people. Franz Joseph was deeply in love with her. Only she never quite felt the same. Her death in 1898 by an assassin deeply affected the Emperor and the country at large. The Crown Prince Rudolf was groomed from day one to replace his father. Only he would never get the chance.

Like many marriages of the day the relationship between Rudolf and his wife Stephanie of Belgium was an arranged one. Still they were able to have one child together. Perhaps it is fate, but that child would be a girl. Every prince had their occasional or favorite mistress, but Rudolf seemed to be a bit more involved with his than most. Mary Vestra was from society but had a reputation herself. At 17 years old the two of them had a torrid affair. In January 1888, Rudolf and Marie were found dead at the Mayerling Hunting Lodge. No one knows the circumstances of what the motive was or if they had planned it. The story that seems to fit best based on the discovery of Marie’s diary in 2015 is that they had a suicide pact. 

Either way, Rudolf’s death shook the country to the core. Franz only had one son and he was no longer alive to take his place. A true succession crisis was now clear to all those around the Emperor. After some consideration, the Emperor decided to make his nephew the Archduke Franz Ferdinand his successor. Ferdinand didn’t have the greatest relationship with his uncle and most of his family. His choice in marrying Sophie Chotek, a woman with no title and a morganatic marriage (a marriage with somebody of different social rank) alienated everyone. Upon the marriage, Sophie and Ferdinand waived the rights of succession for any children they had together. This was based on the fact that Sophie wasn’t of noble blood. It was a pain point for the couple, as in every official duty Ferdinand attended, his wife was forced to ‘take her place’ in the back of the room. 

Austria-Hungary’s maneuvers

Around this time, Austria-Hungary decided to officially annex the lands in Bosnia and Herzegovina into the country. This land had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, but had been occupied and essentially run by Austria-Hungary since 1878. What they didn’t consider was the reaction from nearby areas. Serbia, for one, was not happy about the annexation. They felt that lands in the Balkans should be ruled by those living in the Balkans. As a result of this, pro-independence and terrorist groups begin to form within Serbia. By making this move, Austria-Hungary’s actions led to conflicts in the years leading up to World War One - the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913.

With tensions high, Franz Joseph asked the newly made heir-apparent Ferdinand to travel to the region under instructions to review the military. The day of June 28, 1914 started just like any other day. Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were in Sarajevo; and they were put into an open car. Side note: it amazes me how long it took people to realize that any “open” mode of transportation linked with a target with this kind of high profile. Anyway, they traveled along behind local officials. As they moved through the streets, a man threw an object at the couple. There was an explosion, but the only people hurt were civilians. This would be assassin took a cyanide pill and planned to take his knowledge with him. He also threw himself in a river – but lived.

The danger apparently over, the motorcade arrived at the scheduled destination. The Archduke and his wife are a tad shocked but not too worse for wear. As they leave both Ferdinand and Sophie decide to change plans and make a visit to the local hospital to see those that were hurt in the bombing. The motorcade leaves, but no one told the driver that the plans changed and he made a wrong turn. In order to get them back the way they came and to the hospital he needed to turn around. It was in this moment that Gavrilo Princip just happened to be standing within steps of the couple. He pulled a gun and shot both Ferdinand and Sophie at point blank range. Initially those in the car did not realize that either of them had been shot. It wasn’t until Sophie loss consciousness and collapsed in Ferdinand’s lap that the realization set in. Ferdinand yelled “Sophie, don’t die. Stay alive for the children.”

Then Austrian-Hungarian Colonel Count Franz von Harrach asked if Ferdinand had been wounded. He only replied: “It is nothing. It is nothing”, before he too lost consciousness. Those in the car with them moved with all haste to the Governor’s house for immediate care. Unfortunately both Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek, Countess of Hohenberg, were dead on arrival. And with their deaths springs open a can of worms that changed everything for the next hundred years.

Aftermath

You would think that an assassination of an Archduke and heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary would send shockwaves across the globe. When we modern day folks tell the story, that’s the perception it gives. In reality, internationally it was not major news. It ended up in a few papers in some countries; but it certainly was no front-page affair. In the immediate days after their deaths, the government of Austria-Hungary wanted answers. In all honesty they were pretty annoyed. The Emperor had now lost his only son and heir, and that heir’s replacement.

Austria-Hungary knew the assassins were Serbian and wanted answers. And if they couldn’t get them, they were threatening a fight. The Serbian government was in a tough spot. The assassination wasn’t sanctioned by them, but the planning and execution of the plan were made by Serbs. For you conspiracy buff’s out there; there is a theory that the real killers were in fact part of a Serbian military force and Gavrilo Princip, along with the others, were just patsies. Maybe or maybe not, there were still no good options here for the government. So they did what any little brother would do when caught in a tough spot - they called their big brother Russia.

Now in part one I mention that the alliance between these two was nothing in a formal sense. What tied them together were ethnic lines. Many Russians were Serbian, and many Serbians were Russians. Serbia gave Russia the heads up that this situation may turn south and if it did they will need help against Austria-Hungary in a war. Russia, at the time, was still ruled by the 300-year-old Romanov Dynasty under Tsar Nicholas II. After consulting with his advisors, he opted to not make any move yet. Instead, he waited to see how things played out.

The July Crisis

While all this was going on in Serbia, Austria-Hungary made a call of their own to Germany. As part of the Triple Alliance, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to support them if war breaks out against Serbia. It’s important to keep in mind here that these events are happening lightening fast. The assassination was June 28, 1914. By the time Austria-Hungary reached out to Germany the date was July 6, 1914. From this point until the outbreak of war, it will go down in history as the “July Crisis.” 

Germany decided to pledge to Austria-Hungary in the event of war. This is called the “Blank Check;” where it is implied that Germany more or less just agreed to whatever Austria-Hungary wanted to do. By agreeing, this was a huge risk for Germany. They were already surrounded by Russia and France. And while France was not in the picture yet, if fighting broke out at the Russian border, it could trigger a two front war. The other issue was the thought of honor. Their ally had suffered a terrible blow. The honor they lost from the initial act should be defended. There was one positive going for the Germans - that Russia was still rearming itself following the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. In order for them to come to Serbia’s aid, they had to mobilize faster than Germany thought they could. With that in mind, the war generals considered the idea of a quick and easy conflict. 

Meanwhile in Austria-Hungary the plan for war was in full motion. Generals devised a timeline of how they would deal with Serbia. Side note: this was a horrible. Anyway, their timeline was to invade, destroy and occupy Serbia in six weeks. We all should be for lofty goals but this is not one of them. Why won’t this timeline work? Because Austria-Hungary was seriously underestimating its own people and their readiness to prepare for war. Also, from a technology perspective, they had little to no paved roads, and a lack of a railway system. It had been 48 years since they’d seen a war; and their generals had an outdated way of thinking. Either way, the plan was to mobilize and when they did Russia would have to make a choice. That’s for next time.

What do you think about Austria-Hungary’s importance in the outbreak of World War One?

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Was the First Thanksgiving Truly a Miracle? Or Merely an Accident?

The story of the first Thanksgiving is well known, but were the events surrounding it accident or design? Here, Victor Gamma considers some of the miraculous – or coincidental - events related to the first Thanksgiving in America.

You can also read Victor’s first article for the site on how the source of the River Nile was found here.

The First Thanksgiving, 1621. A 1910s painting by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

William Bradford reflected the unwavering heart of a Separatist when he said; "... I am not only willing to part with everything that is dear to me in this world for this Cause but I am thankful that God hath given me heart so to do; and will accept me so to suffer for Him."

For those Separatists we have come to know as "Pilgrims" such determination was combined with an unusual commitment to be fair and honest with the Native inhabitants of the new country they had settled in. In the first treaty agreement between the Plymouth Pilgrims and the Wampanoags (which lasted over 50 years), the Pilgrims agreed that if anything had been taken, it must be returned. Additionally, the Pilgrims would help the Wampanoags defend themselves if they were attacked, and the Wampanoags would likewise help the Pilgrims. Later, William Bradford, who by this time had become governor of the colony, sent word to his friend, Chief Massasoit (the leader of the Wampanoags), to; "search out those, from whom we took their corn, that we may restore the same to them in full measure."

Is it any wonder that the Pilgrims, although a relatively small group with little impact on the subsequent history of this country, have continually held a special place in the heart of Americans? Is it also any wonder that a people who dedicated themselves so seriously to their vision of God might be worthy, if anyone ever was, to receive special aid and comfort from their God? Here we come to the "Miracle of the First Thanksgiving:" that series of improbable events that can leave the reader scratching his head in wonder, for indeed, the Pilgrim sometimes sounds more like something out of fiction than reality.

It would be well to begin by asking what a verifiable miracle is. In technical verbiage a miracle is an event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes it involves a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. An event or series of events for which the best explanation is attribute them to a supernatural being, and cite this as evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Does the Pilgrim saga fit the bill? Or was it merely a succession of fortunate accidents? It is up to the individual, of course, as to which offers the best explanation. 

A Series of "Miraculous" Events

Many of the Separatists’ problems were simply due to poor planning. They had very little of the kinds of skills they would need to survive in the wilderness. Yet, time and again, when the odds were against them, they somehow managed to pull through. The pre-Atlantic crossing period of Pilgrim history is itself not lacking in amazing coincidences. During their voyage across the North Sea to Holland a violent storm rocked their ship, they cried out to God “Yet Lord, Thou canst save!” and the storm calmed down. But it is with journey to the New World that the record becomes crowded with marvels. Halfway through their trans-Atlantic crossing, the mainmast cracked. Someone remembered that there was a giant screw which the Pilgrims had brought with them. This was probably a part of a printing press. In any case, they were able to use it to repair the mainmast. If they had not been able to repair it, a return to England or an even worse peril in the storm-ridden Atlantic awaited them. Coincidence?The only other person who died on the voyage, was a crewmember who kept threatening to molest and murder many of the Separatists. When the man died, the Pilgrims interpreted his death as God's providential hand of deliverance. Even the sea-salted crew of the ship was amazed by the antagonist's death. Whether because of superstition, or true piety, the crew believed that God had repaid the man for his wickedness. In addition to making the trip miserable, the storm also accomplished another unforeseen but momentous incident. They were blown off course to Massachusetts. Because of this, and the threat of mutiny among some of the ‘strangers’, they would have to govern themselves. They decided to draw up an instrument of government called the Mayflower Compact, a critical document in the development of American democracy. If they had not been blown off course, they would have been under the authority of others, and there would have been no Mayflower Compact.  

Another happy result of the storms was the location of their arrival. They arrived at Cape Cod, whose protected inlet provided some relief from the Atlantic storms. Once on the wooded shore, they began exploring the wilderness. On two separate expeditions, corn was found buried in mounds. Some of it was gathered and stored away to be used in the spring. The pilgrims considered finding the seed to be God's providence because winter was coming quickly and the Pilgrims had no seeds to plant the following spring. It is important to remember that they left the other ship behind with much needed provisions. As one of their chroniclers put it, "And thus we came ... weary ... and delivered in our corn into the store, to be kept for seed, for we knew not how to come by any, and therefore were very glad, purposing, so soon as we could meet with any inhabitants of that place, to make them large satisfaction [due repayment and more]. This was our first discovery ... And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn, for else we know not how we should have done, ..." 

"A Spetial instrument sent of God"

With an unforgiving winter approaching, the Pilgrims still had not tackled the challenge of locating an agreeable spot to settle. With the vast majority of voyagers still aboard the Mayflower, the shallop was repaired and a small crew set out aboard her to find a good landing site. A storm whipped up in Cape Cod. They were just about to crash into a reef when a sailor shouted a warning. The wind and waves drove the shallop past the rocks to a broad, round harbor. The land was already cleared and cultivated for farming! It, in fact, was a deserted Native village which had belonged to the Patuxet tribe. The Patuxet's were a very hostile tribe that had lived in the area for generations but had been wiped out by disease recently. This was part of a devastating plague that visited the tribes of southeast New England in the decade before the arrival of the Pilgrims. The area the emigrants ultimately landed at was particularly hard hit. This is an amazing fact considering that the Patuxets were known for being violent, and were legendary for their bloody fierceness in battle. If the Patuxets had been there when the Pilgrims arrived, it is likely that there would have been an all out war, and the Pilgrims probably would not have survived. But now the fierce Patuxets were largely gone, with the notable exception of Squanto, who came into the Pilgrims’ lives soon after. 

The Pilgrims began building homes in the new settlement they named Plymouth. Winter set in upon them and there was little chance to build appropriate shelter. The storms were severe and with only rudimentary shelter, there was little protection from the elements. Many were already sick and not a few had already passed to their heavenly reward. The weather would be dangerous, for the Pilgrims were in a weakened state of malnutrition. The food supplies that were sparse to begin with ran out. Not only did the Pilgrims have to endure a harsh climate but also the prospect of starvation. At this point another "coincidence" took place. As they were just about to starve, a native walked into their village wanting to help them! As everyone watched in amazement, the man astonished the stupefied pilgrims by calling out "Welcome" in perfect English. His name was Samoset, a member of the Abenaki tribe. He later brought another native named ‘Squanto’ who also spoke fluent English. Samoset proceeded to teach the Pilgrims essential survival skills. Plymouth Governor William Bradford was moved to declare him a "spetiall instrument sent of God for [their] good." We could even say that the Pilgrims probably would not have survived without Squanto's help. 

                  From the time he was introduced to them, Squanto devoted his life to helping the newcomers survive. He taught them with great skill and patience. I think most of us are familiar with the story of how Squanto taught the pilgrims how to get maple syrup; which plants were poisonous, and which ones could be used for medicine. He instructed them how to plant corn using several seeds buried with a fish, and so forth. If Squanto had not helped, the harvest that came in that fall would have been unsuccessful and the Pilgrims would not have had enough food to store for the winter.With Squanto we come to another element of the Pilgrim saga that reads like a story out of fiction. He was kidnapped at the age of 12 from his Patuxet village by the Spanish in 1608 and one year later he was taken to Spain, where his friends were sold into slavery. Nearby Monks purchased his freedom and taught him Christianity. He convinced the friars to allow him to attempt to return home. He was then given to an Englishman and taken to London. Here he worked as a stable boy for a family called Slaney, and he was with them for five years until a trading ship going back to the coast of North America could be found. He returned home in 1619, about 6 months ahead of the Pilgrims, only to find his village wiped out by disease. Not long after, Squanto comes to the aid of starving English newcomers, who were living at the site of his former village. And it just so happened that he grew up on the spot where they had settled. This was his home that had been abandoned, and now he had, in a sense, come home. The newcomers from England basically adopted him. This made perfect sense since the forlorn Squanto had lost not his family but his entire tribe. The long list of 'ifs' grows longer. IfSquanto had not been kidnapped, he would have died along with his tribe and would not have been there to help the Pilgrims.Squanto also acted as an intermediary between the Pilgrims and the Massasoit, the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoag. In this way he helped to maintain the treaty of friendship the two signed.  Massasoit honored the treaty until his death in 1661.

In Conclusion

One further event occurred in the summer of 1623. Then, a seven-week drought threatened to kill the Pilgrims’ crops. The Pilgrims paused from work to pray for deliverance. The rain began to fall by suppertime. The current spirit of skepticism scoffs at the idea that a Divine Being had a hand in the survival of the Pilgrims, but contemporaries were matter-of-fact about attributing the Pilgrim success to divine intervention. The title page of Winslow’s book Good News from New Englanddescribes the experience of the early settlement as “shewing the wondrous providence and goodness of god, in their preservation and continuance, being delivered from many apparent deaths and dangers.” 

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

REFERENCES

Bradford, William, and Samuel E. Morison. Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647. New York: Knopf, 1952. Print

Bradford, William, and Edward Winslow. Mourt's Relation; Or, Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth, 1622. New York: Garrett Press, 1969. Print.

Winslow, Edward, Good Newes from New England. 1624. Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 1969/

The Amazing Story of the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two

The Women Airforce Service Pilots (or WASP) of World War Two played a great role in the American war effort. Here, Mac Guffey tells us about their story – and fight for recognition both during and after the war.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here) and on Franksgiving (here).

WASP pilots (from left) Frances Green, Margaret Kirchner, Ann Waldner and Blanche Osborn leave their B-17 trainer, (christened ‘Pistol Packin’ Mama’), during ferry training at Lockbourne Army Air Force base in Ohio. They’re carrying their parachutes.

Two years before America entered the Second World War, a pioneering group of more than a thousand, relatively unknown, veteran pilots stepped forward and volunteered to be a part of the solution for what they could see as a looming manpower problem in the air-arm of the U.S. military.

 “…at the height of World War II, [they] left homes and jobs for the opportunity of a lifetime – to become the first in history to fly for the U.S. military…these women became the Women Airforce Service Pilots – better known as the WASP.” [1]

This is the story of that long unrecognized and underappreciated group of determined pilots and their uphill struggles to be accepted as the soldiers they were. And it all began with a letter – woman-to-woman – because Jacqueline “Jackie” Cochran recognized a kindred soul in Eleanor Roosevelt – the First Lady.

BACKSTORY

It was 1939, and WWII had just exploded across Poland.

Realizing America’s eventual involvement, the country’s most famous female pilot wrote a letter to the most progressive First Lady in American history with a startling suggestion – use women pilots in non-combat roles to compensate for the coming manpower demands of the military. [2]

Recognizing the wisdom and prescience in Cochran’s proposal, Eleanor Roosevelt introduced her to General Henry “Hap” Arnold, head of the U.S. Army Air Force. Cochran’s plan, however, was initially rejected. Arnold expressed the misbegotten sentiments of most Americans – especially men – when he said in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose in a country which has adequate manpower at this time.” [3]

But the manpower necessary to fight this coming world-wide war was far greater than Arnold (or anyone else for that matter) ever expected, and by September 1942, Nancy Harkness Love and Cochran, with Arnold’s support, independently founded two separate flying programs (Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadronand Women’s Flying Training Detachment). On August 5, 1943, these were merged to become the WASP – Women’s Airforce Service Pilots - a civilian squadron under the aegis of the U.S. Army Air Force. And it was composed of only women pilots. Cochran was chosen to serve as the director of WASP and its training division, while Love was appointed director of the ferrying division. [2]

Nancy Harkness Love.

Jackie Cochran surrounded by WASP trainees.

QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING[4]

The military trained male civilians with no flying experience to be pilots for jobs ferrying aircraft from the factory to various military airfields all over the U.S. and even abroad. But Cochran and Love knew the bar for women pilots – even “civilian” women pilots – had to be a higher one. 

The qualifications Cochran and Love set for a woman just to be an applicant for the WASP were stringent: Potential recruits had to be between 21 and 35 years old, in good health, already possess a pilot’s license, and 200 hours of prior flight experience! 

In the sixteen months that the WASP squadron existed, more than 25,000 women applied for training. Only 1,830 of them (spread over eighteen training classes), were accepted as candidates. In the end, 1,074 of those candidates successfully completed the grueling four-month (Army way) training program at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, Texas.

Despite their advanced experience as pilots, WASP recruits were required to complete the same primary, basic, and advanced training courses as the inexperienced male Army Air Corps pilots. In addition to learning the superfluous - like marching and close order drill - they also spent roughly twelve hours a day at the airfield. Half the day was spent doing stalls, spins, turns, take offs, and landings – and all of it in very crowded airspace. The other half of the day was spent in what they called “ground school.”

By graduation, all WASP had 560 hours of ground school and 210 hours of flight training (in addition to the 200 hours required for them just to apply). They also knew Morse code, meteorology, military law, physics, aircraft mechanics, and navigation (and, of course, how to march).

Their previous level of flying experience allowed a large number of these pilots finished their WASP training with such stellar marks that they qualified to go on for specialized flight training. Many of them, by the end of their time as WASP, had flown every single plane in the American arsenal – including jets!

Despite the stiff entrance requirements and all of the additional training these female pilots endured, the WASP were still considered just “civil service employees”. Cochran, director of the WASP, and General Henry “Hap” Arnold, who was now the head of the U.S. Army Transport Command, pressed for full militarization of these female pilots, and for the WASP to be commissioned directly as service pilots, a procedure the Air Transport Command used routinely with male civilian pilots. But because of the considerable opposition to the program, both in Congress and in the press, Cochran’s and Arnold’s requests were denied. [5]

‘THOSE DAMN W.A.S.P.‘

As a WASP, Betty Archibald Fernandes’s primary job was to pick up a plane at the factory where it was built and fly it to the east coast so it could be shipped abroad. During her wartime service, Fernandes flew 30 different kinds of military planes, including fighters, bombers, transport, and training aircraft. But her number one love was fighters. “I flew every kind of fighter plane, including P-30s, 51’s, 39’s, 63’s, 47’s and 40’s,” Fernandes proudly boasted. [6]

In addition to ferrying aircraft and cargo from factories to stateside military bases and transporting military cargo all over the country, WASP also trained male bombardiers and provided instrument training to male cadets; they participated in simulations to help train radar and searchlight trackers, and they even towed targets for live anti-aircraft gunnery practice. [4]

The WASP were even used as motivators.

“When men were less willing to fly certain difficult planes, such as the YP-59 and B-29 Super Fortress, General Arnold recruited two WASP, Dorthea Johnson and Dora Dougherty Strother, to fly these aircraft. Arnold believed that if men saw women fly these planes successfully, they would be “embarrassed” into taking these missions willingly. Johnson and Strother flew to Alamogordo, New Mexico in the B-29s. There was a crowd waiting to see them land. General Arnold’s plan worked, “From that day on, there was no more grumbling from male pilots assigned to train on and fly the B-29 Super Fortress.” [7]

‘Those damned WASP‘ became a familiar refrain.

SOME WASP FACTS AND PILOTS

Collectively, the WASPflew every conceivable type of American military aircraft and logged over 60 million miles during their sixteen months of existence – often flying seven days a week. [8] Thirty-eight WASP lost their lives, and one – Gertrude ‘Tommy’ Tompkins-Silver – disappeared while ferrying a P-51 from LA to the East Coast. She is the only WASP whose fate today remains unknown. [9]     

Although the majority of the pilots were Caucasian, five pioneering women of color did break the racial barrier. Two of them were Chinese-Americans (Hazel Ying Lee and Maggie Gee ); one was Native American (Ola Mildred Rexroat, a Oglala Sioux woman from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota), and two were Hispanic-Americans (Verneda Rodríguez[**] and Frances Dias). [10]

The number of black women pilots who applied for WASP training is unknown. However, several African-American pilots did make it to the final interview stage.

Mildred Hemmans Carter was one of those finalists. In 1940, at age 19, she earned a Bachelor Degree from the Tuskegee Institute, and a year later, she earned her aviation certification. In 1943, Carter was among the first to apply to be a WASP. Like the other black pilots, she was rejected, largely because of her race. Finally, Carter’s extraordinary qualifications and her unfair rejection were acknowledged. She was retroactively recognized as a WASP– seventy years after the fact. [11]

Hazel Ying Lee.

‘THE AAF WILL MISS YOU…’

By 1944, America and its allies dominated the skies over Germany, and the air war in Europe was winding down. The Allied leaders now planned a massive ground assault to put the finishing touches on Nazi Germany. Accordingly the Army Air Force cut back its training forces and revoked civilian male training pilots exemptions from serving in ground combat units. [12]

A brouhaha ensued.

Fearing the draft, the men complained – as a group – to Congress, the media, and accused the War Department of favoring female pilots over male pilots. Congress listened and on December, 20 1944 – five months before the end of WWII and sixteen months after their formation – the WASP, as a squadron, were disbanded. [12]

And rudely.

In fact, here is part of General Arnold’s letter of notification and thanks to the WASP for their service:

When we needed you, you came through and have served most commendably under very difficult circumstances, but now the war situation has changed and the time has come when your volunteer services are no longer needed. The situation is that if you continue in service, you will be replacing instead of releasing our young men. I know the WASP wouldn’t want that. I want you to know that I appreciate your war service and the AAF will miss you… [5]

There were 915 women pilots on duty with the Army Air Force at that time, and they were scattered on bases around the country. Since they weren’t military, there was no “mustering out” time after Arnold’s notification arrived, and the women pilots were released outright. Some WASP members were allowed to fly on board government aircraft from their former bases to the vicinity of their homes – but only as long as room was available and no additional expenses were incurred. Others, however, had to arrange and pay for their own transportation home. [11]

EPILOGUE

Records of WASP were classified and sealed by the government after the war, so historians minimized or ignored the women pilots.

The WASP, however, deserved more respect and recognition than a condescending thank you note tied to an immediate eviction notice back in 1944 or being ignored by history. Thirty three years later, they took matters into their own capable hands.

However, the entire affair came with a very heavy dose of irony.

In the 1970s, the Air Force announced that it would begin accepting women for pilot training, and the media reported the story as if this would be the first time women could fly for the US military. The WASPsthen began to push for the recognition that they deserved.  U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (one of those male transport pilots in WW2) along with General Arnold’s son – Colonel Bruce Arnold – helped these women pilots lobby Congress for their long overdue recognition. [8]

In 1977 — the same year the Air Force graduated its first post-WASP women pilots — Congress granted veteran status to those who had served as WASP, and in 1979 issued official honorable discharges. [12]

Thirty-three years after that, in 2010, President Barak Obama signed the law that gave these brave, pioneering Women Airforce Service Pilots the highest civilian honor given by the U.S. Congress – the Congressional Gold Medal.

But less than 250 surviving WASPwere on hand to receive their long-overdue thanks. [8]

Veterans deserve better treatment – especially while they’re still alive to enjoy it.

QUOTES

“Already my big worry is that I might wash out. It’s going to be plenty tough to come up to Army standards. Several from W-7 ‘washed’ today. Everyone gets depressed when they go; tonight the Recreation Room was like a morgue–you just can’t help wondering “Will I be next? “ ~Adaline Alma Blank, WASP Class 43-8, Avenger Field Sweetwater, TX [*]

“Glamour, hell; it was hard work!” ~ Florence Shutsy-Reynolds, W.A.S.P.Training Class 44-w-5 [*]

 “The P-63 was quite an airplane. I just loved it. I flew as many as I could, as far as I could, as fast as I could.”  ~ Betty Archibald Fernandes, Class 43-3 [*]

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE WASP? LET US KNOW BELOW.

WORKS CITED

[*] All quotes are from https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/discover/campfire-stories/wasp

[**]Rodríguez, who died on March, 19, 1982, was the first of the WASP to be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Ceremony. From http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-s/2007/3tri07/ashcrofteng.html

[1] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Official Archive.” Texas Woman’s University. (Denton, TX) @ https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/collections/women-airforce-service-pilots/

[2] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Gateway to Women’s History: Women’s Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive.” @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[3] Cornelsen, K. (2005). “Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America.” Journal of Women’s History 17(4), 111-119. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from Project MUSE database.

[4] All the information used under this heading came from one source: Texas Woman’s University. “Training.” Woman’s Collection – Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). @ https://web.archive.org/web/20180728221611/https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/featured-collections/women-airforce-service-pilots-wasp/training/

[5] “Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Women in the Army @ https://www.army.mil/women/history/pilots.html

[6] Binz, Larry E. “Airport Day provides nostalgia for crowd, local veteran aviatrix.” Clarksdale[Mississippi] Press Register – October 20, 2010.

[7] Monahan, Evelyn M.; Neidel-Greenlee, Rosemary (2010). A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women From World War I to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York: Alfred A Knopf. pp.136-137.

[8] Texas Woman’s University. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive – WASPFacts and Stats.” Gateway to Women’s History. @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[9] Baylor University. “Above and Beyond.” Wings Across America. @ http://www.wingsacrossamerica.org/above—beyond.html

[10] Steck, Em. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Aided American War Efforts With Help From These Women of Color. TeenVogue –December 24, 2017. @ https://www.teenvogue.com/story/women-airforce-service-pilots-aided-american-war-efforts-with-help-from-these-women-of-color

[11] Cornelsen, Kathleen (2005).”Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America”. Journal of Women’s History. 17 (4): 111–119. – via Project MUSE.

[12] Wackerfuss, Dr. Andrew T. “Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Air Force Historical Support Division. @ https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458964/womens-airforce--service-pilots-wasp/

An Introduction to the 20th Century Civil Rights Movement in the USA

The Civil Rights Movement in post-war America led to fundamental changes in the country. Here Jeremy Raynolds looks at the key events in the movement in the 1950s and 1960s in this introduction to the topic.

Martin Luther King, Jr. on the day of the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. It was the day he gave the ‘I have a dream’ speech.

The Civil Rights Movement greatly changed America and made it into what it is today. The pivotal moments in the movement took place after World War Two, but there was continued pressure for change following the abolishment of slavery after the US Civil War in the 1860s. Even after that war, African Americans continued to face dehumanizing and discriminative conditions. 

The key events in the civil rights movement that took place in the 1950s and 1960s and form part of one of the 20th century’s most epic fights for equal rights in world and American history. 

Jim Crow Laws

Despite the abolishment of slavery and being given the right to vote, African Americans continued to suffer from laws like the Jim Crow Laws. These laws followed the Reconstruction period and came into effect in the late nineteenth and early twentiesh centuries. They legalized segregation. 

The Jim Crow laws prevented black and white people from using the same facilities, marrying one another, attending the same schools, or living in the same areas. Invariably black people suffered most from these laws.

It was not until after World War Two that pressure grew enough for fundamental change and in the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts, which ended segregation. But we have to go back to the 1950s for a key moment in the post-war Civil Rights movement.

The Rosa Parks Moment 

Rosa Parks was a 42-year-old African American woman who sparked a revolutionary moment on a regular day on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. In 1955, Parks sat on a seat on the bus. However, the bus was full when a white man got on. 

Subsequently, she and three other women were asked to stand up and give up their seats for white men. Rosa Parks refused and she was arrested. However, her arrest was not in vain as she gained the support of the black community who formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) under the leadership of Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. 

As a result of the incident, the MIA mobilized a boycott of the Montgomery Bus Service for 381 days and finally, in 1956, segregated seating on public transport was deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957

Despite having the right to vote, African Americans continued to face segregation, particularly in the Southern states. Racist practices were put into place to prevent blacks from enjoying rights such as voting. 

For instance, they had to sometimes take bizarre and intricate tests to be allowed to vote. President Eisenhower’s Administration took on the difficult task of pressurizing Congress to commit to the Civil Rights Movement and tackle racism in the South. Ultimately, in 1957, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law. This established the Civil Rights Commission.

The March on Washington 

The March on Washington took place on August 28, 1963, and it was organized by civil rights leaders and activists including A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and Martin Luther King Jr. The March mobilized over 250,000 people of different races to address equality and argue against racism. It added pressure for Congress to implement Civil Rights. 

The march marked an important moment in the civil rights movement. Protestors took to Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. made one of his most famous speeches, in which he declared: “I have a dream…”.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The next major Civil Rights Act was President Johnson’s 1964 act. This act banned discrimination based on many charcteristics, including race. President Johnson also went a step further than Eisenhower and and introduced a law to ban voter literacy tests. 

The Assassination of Civil Rights’ Leaders

Important people within the movement were killed simply for fighting for the rights of black people. Malcolm X, a popular figue in the movement, was assassinated on February 21, 1965 by members of the Nation of Islam group.

Martin Luther King, Jr., probably the most famous civil rights leader, was assassinated by James Earl Ray on April 4, 1968

Many other civil rights movement figures were killed in the US in the 1960s.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968

The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968 and it prohibited housing discrimination. During the period, African Americans at times struggled to get housing due to their race. This act ensured that people of all races had the same rights housing. The Fair Housing Act was also one of the last acts of the Civil Rights Movement of the period.

Conclusion

The civil rights movement in America represents a difficult yet triumphant time in American history where people from different sections of society came together to end legalized racism. America is often used as a model for democracy and equality around the world – but its history is both depressing and inspiring. 

About & Author

Jeremy Raynolds is a freelance academic writer, editor and proofreader working with some of the top online writing services for college and university level students. He also runs a blog and comes up with a podcast every week on work from home options for students and everybody else looking for a side income. In his free time, he plays tennis, writes poetry and learns photography. 

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 1 - The decades leading up to the war

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs starts her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Germany’s 19th century rise, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and the complicated alliances in place in Europe before the war broke out.

German Kaiser Wilhelm II with Winston Churchill in 1906.

This is a question I asked years ago when I first learned about the World Wars. No one could really give an answer though. Even in college, the narrative was the same: An Austrian Archduke was assassinated and a war begins because of it. After four years of fighting, the country that started this whole thing isn’t even blamed or even stuck with some share of guilt? It seemed unfair for Germany to have all that on their shoulders; and it makes one wonder if it would have made a difference in the years leading up to WW2. So, because no one ever told me why I will tell you why. And I promise it won’t be boring, let's make history fun.

1871 – Germany is born

Now in order to understand how and why Germany gets the blame, we first have to look at the circumstances that started the war in the first place. We’ll need to take a trip down memory lane to establish just where everyone involved is in time. The year is 1871, and Germany, as we know it today territorially, is born. Before this, there was no unified German state. It was just a collection of separate Duchies all being ruled by their own head of the house. One of the most famous was the Duchy of Bavaria (and later the Kingdom of Bavaria). Its claim to history is the gorgeous Neuschwanstein Castle, built by Ludwig II. Ludwig wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and had a rather odd demise. That’s a story for another time. 

Each of the duchies (or in the case of Bavaria Kingdom) elected to become one country with one Emperor to rule. The one chosen became known as Kaiser Wilhelm I of house Hohenzollern. The name Kaiser is the German word for Caesar, the traditional name used by later Emperors of Rome. A little known fact about this - we in the present day have been mispronouncing Caesar this whole time. The German pronunciation of Kaiser is actually close to the Latin pronunciation. The ‘c’ is not an ‘s’ sound but more of a ‘ke’.

Wilhelm, I at the time of his ascension had a son that would in time wed the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria. Victoria, Princess Royal, married Frederick; who would later be known as Kaiser Frederick III. The son they have will become Kaiser Wilhelm II. Wilhelm was born with a deformed arm as a result of complications at birth. As a result, the arm was withered and smaller than the other. He, not wanting to look weak, took up every manly thing there was to do at the time.

A complex?

Wilhelm had this complex about himself, and really about the German people. He was proud to be a German and did not identify with his mother’s perception that everything British is best. She made him speak English to her and not his native German, and she also looked at Germany as a sort of step down. After all, her mother was the Empress of Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, and other places... So he hated all things British; and spent most of his life trying to be better in everything they did. But even though he hated all things British, he adored his grandmother Queen Victoria - a feeling that was not mutually shared by her. 

Knowing this about Wilhelm I will help to understand why Germany did the things it did as a whole. His commanders and leaders had the same feeling of pride about themselves and wanted the world to know it. He wanted to be up there with his cousins; King George V of Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. He would never be like them though in temperament or in ruling. Wilhelm got his chance when he ascends to the throne after his father Frederick III dies before anyone had a chance to get used to him being Emperor. He’s basically the blip on the story that is WWI. So Wilhelm gets the crown in 1888 and begins making his mark on the country.

Franco-German relations

He starts to build up his military and begins to take on colonies. Wilhelm is all about getting to this table; his cousins are already there. He’s the new kid on the block and he wants them to know that he can roll with the big boys too. But that’s not all the reason he’s building. Germany’s arch-rival is France. They’ve had quite the skirmishes in the past. The last being the Franco-Prussian War; where at its conclusion Imperial Germany was born. They won this war against France and took land in that victory. So the more powerful he looked the better to keep France from thinking about revenge. 

But all the building and changes he did was really making people uneasy. To its east, in Russia, there was a concern that if they got too confident Germany could try and gain more territory. To the west, in France, they were immensely concerned that the rapid armament of Germany was increasing the chances of a conflict. Even though France lost the war, they still wanted that land back. They wanted payback, but not if they couldn’t do it alone. They needed some help.

The Triple Entente

One of the many reasons the war occurred was due to the number of treaties, alliances, and pacts made between countries over the 30-40 years prior to 1914. These agreements crossed over each other; some secret, some out in the open, and some that weren’t even official. When it came to France, they knew that if Germany became too powerful, it could be a threat to everyone in Europe. So in 1904, they proposed a formal agreement with Great Britain. For those not familiar, this was significant as the fight between Britain and France is legendary for the sheer span of time that they fought off and on. Both countries agreed to come to each other’s aid; with Britain not being exclusively required to do so. That would be determined by the circumstances. Either way, France now had an ally. This agreement became known as the Entente Cordiale. 

Russia, feeling the same as France and not wanting to fight without an ally, also formed an alliance. The Franco-Russian Alliance enabled each to come to the aid of the other when or if Germany ever threatened their parts of mainland Europe. Great Britain also teamed up with Russia and formed an alliance at the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907. Now we have three countries that all have some kind of an alliance with each other. They combined into one alliance becoming the Triple Entente. 

One treaty that is not part of the Triple Entente is the Treaty of London of 1839. This treaty applied only to Great Britain. The treaty was in regards to the newly minted country of Belgium. One of its main terms were that being a new independent state, Belgium had to remain neutral in any subsequent conflicts. This will become an important treaty to remember as we get closer to Germany’s overall blame.

The Triple Alliance

Now, just because there were alliances on one side didn’t mean that Germany was alone. Because of the Franco-Russian Alliance, they were now facing a potential threat both east and west. In adding Great Britain with the Triple Entente, the threat was even more stressful. Britain and Germany had been in a small but potentially heated arms race between 1898 and 1912. Both countries essentially tried to psych the other out. The idea was for Germany to build a fleet of ships that could defeat Britain, assuming that any relief from a British Colony would take time to arrive. (This thought process is an example of Germany thinking too well of itself and having the confidence that they could actually do this. Having self-confidence isn’t a bad thing, but it is problematic when that self-confidence isn’t based in reality). Germany would continue to make that assumption of their power, and this will eventually lead to their downfall. 

In 1882, an agreement was struck between Austria-Hungary and Germany. It will come to be known as the Triple Alliance. Like the Triple Entente, there were three countries in the agreement to support each other. The third country was Italy. (This is surprising to some since we know what happens during World War I, but the events of the beginning of the war will cause Italy to reconsider some priorities.) Eventually, another country would be added to the alliance bringing the total to four, yet still kept the name triple. The alliance had discussed the opportunity of Italy gaining colonies just like the other powers of Europe. The Triple Alliance was a renewable agreement, and it would be renewed up until the breakout of war in 1914. But unbeknownst to Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy had also signed a secret treaty with France in 1902. Italy did this because they still did not have any new territories that were promised to them from Germany. So the treaty with France is similar in nature to the original one with Germany.

Up until now we’ve explored Germany’s rise to an empire, covered their ruler, and discussed the enemies surrounding them. Their allies, though they may look great on paper, are in reality no more than out-dated old men.  In part two, we’ll start with the Hapsburg family in Austria-Hungary. 

What events in the decades prior to World War One were most important to Germany getting the blame at the end of the war? Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Wikipedia

What was Puritan Society like in Seventeenth Century America?

Puritans started arriving to America from Britain in the seventeenth century. They had strong religious beliefs and social customs, many of which were different to official Protestant teachings in England. Here, we consider Puritan society in seventeenth century New England.

You can read a few of the author’s former articles on US history on the bodies in Benjamin Franklin’s basement (here) and the humility of George Washington (here).

Pilgrims Going to Church, an 1867 painting by George Henry Boughton.

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the English Parliament put forth measures designed to reform the theological doctrines and rituals of the Church of England. This church was founded during the reign of King Henry VIII in 1534 after separating papal authority from England in order to annul his marriage to his first wife and marry Elizabeth’s mother. From then on, the Puritan movement flourished both in prosperity and persecution. [1]

However, even after Elizabeth’s death and ascension of her cousin, King James I of England, Puritan leaders requested he grant numerous reforms including the abolition of bishops, most of which the king rejected. Fed up with mounting subjugation from the English government and church hierarchy, many Puritans immigrated to the New World.

Under the backing of the Massachusetts Bay Company, the first major Puritan migration to New England occurred, and with that, strong religious convictions to shape all colonies north of Virginia with New England as its center. A key difference between pilgrims and puritans is that the pilgrims were commonly known as “Separatists” who believed that the only way to live according to the Bible involved leaving the Church of England completely while Puritans believed they could reform the church from within and live out the congregational way in their local churches without abandoning the Church of England which is how they earned their occasional nickname – “non-separating” Puritans. [2]Both groups shared much in common pertaining to forms of worship and self-organization referred to as “the congregational way.”

The Puritans, with more money to bring with them than the Pilgrims, saw a desirable investment opportunity by owning land in the New World while also believing that due to the distance from England, they could create the ideal English church. John Winthrop, a Puritan leader, commented regarding founding a church “that will be a light to the nations,” according to Vicki Oman, associate director of group participation and learning at the historic Plimouth Plantation. The first great migration of Puritans took place in 1630, placing God and church at the center of their lives. The ministers of these churches wielded considerable influence in their communities and the colonies.

Political Life

The people of a society were bound by a social covenant according to the Puritans. Examples of such an agreement are the Mayflower Compact in Plymouth and New Haven’s Fundamental Agreement. Eligible voters chose qualified men to govern and submit to the covenant and to God as well as promote the common good. On a national scale, the Puritans believed in a national covenant with God, that they were chosen by God to help redeem the world through their complete obedience to his will. If they honored the covenant, they were rewarded; if not, they would fail. In Puritan colonies, the Congregational church operated as a state religion. All residents in Massachusetts and Connecticut were required to pay taxes to support the Congregational churches. Church attendance was mandatory. There was greater separation between church and state in Puritan commonwealths than anywhere in Europe at the time. Secular matters were conducted only by civil authorities and those who held religious offices were barred from holding positions in civil government. [3]

Family Life 

For Puritans, marriage was the foundation of the family and hence society. While in England, people were wed by ministers in church mandated by the Book of Common Prayer, Puritans thought that there was no biblical justification for church weddings or the exchange of wedding rings. Instead, marriages were conducted as a private, contractual occasion oversaw by a civil magistrate in his home or a member of the bride’s family. [4]

Scholars debate on the nature of Puritan child-rearing with some historians arguing that it was repressive, based on the equally debated views of John Robinson, the Pilgrims’ first pastor. Others argue that child-rearing aimed to grow godly affection and reason in children with corporal punishment utilized as a last resort.[5]

Education 

England at the time possessed a literacy rate of less than 30 percent. Therefore, Puritan leaders in colonial New England strongly encouraged that children be educated for religious and civil reasons. In 1642, Massachusetts mandated that men, the heads of their households, teach their wives, children, and servants fundamental reading and writing skills so they could read the Bible and comprehend colonial laws. Teachings of enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke’s ‘blank slate’ in children, were shared by the Puritans. In 1647, the government asked all towns with fifty or more households to hire a teacher and towns of a hundred or more households to hire a grammar school instructor to prepare boys for college. [6]Thanks to these efforts, the Puritans were “[o]ne of the most literate groups in the early modern world,” according to historian Bruce C. Daniels, with an approximately 60 percent literacy rate in New England.

Recreation and Leisure

According to satirist and journalist H.L. Mencken, Puritanism is “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”[7]While Puritans did not celebrate traditional or personal holidays like Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or anniversaries, they did celebrate military victories, harvests, ordinations, weddings, and births. The tavern was also a significant place for people to gather on a regular basis. A Puritan clergyman, Increase Mather, wrote that dancing was “a natural expression of joy; so that there is no more sin in it, than in laughter,” but discouraged mixed dancing between men and women, something that was illegal in taverns. [8]

Sports and games were also a favorite pastime so long as gambling was not in the picture. The Puritans were opposed to blood sports that included cockfighting, cudgel-fighting, and bear-baiting as these were viewed as cruel and harmful to God’s creatures. Hunting and fishing were considered productive and therefore, accepted. Sports that promoted civic virtue in the views of the Puritans involved marksmanship, running, and wrestling.

Decline in Influence

The Half-Way Covenant, a form of partial church membership, in addition to the rise of dissenting Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, meant Puritan and Congregational churches were on the decline. While a specific year or set of years when the Puritan era ended is not recorded or agreed upon universally, 1740 seems the most likely year for the end of the Puritan era. At this time, Puritan tradition branched off into conservatives, pietists, and rationalists. [9]Puritan decline was also making way for the Great Awakening of the 1740s, marked by widespread religious fervor and calls for toleration in the colonies, and the Enlightenment of the 1750s, marked by many scientific discoveries and inventions and the power of human reason. [10]There is no doubt the Puritan foundation of New England’s colonies provided the blueprint for breaking away from Great Britain in the Revolutionary War more than a century later.

Having contributed a wide range of articles over the last two years, this is Casey’s last article for the site (but hopefully she’ll be back one day!). The editors would like to thank her for the numerous excellent articles she has written.

Now, please feel free to share a comment on this article below.

[1]“People and Ideas: Early American Groups.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service,www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/godinamerica-early-american-groups/.

[2]Roos, Dave. “What's the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims?” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 31 July 2019, www.history.com/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences.

[3]Bremer, Francis J. (1995). The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards (Revised ed.). University Press of New England.

[4]HOCHSTETLER, LAURIE. “MAKING MINISTERIAL MARRIAGE: THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS LEGACY OF THE DOMINION OF NEW ENGLAND.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 86, no. 3, 2013, pp. 488–499. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43285011.

[5]Moran, Gerald F., and Maris A. Vinovskis. “The Great Care of Godly Parents: Early Childhood in Puritan New England.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, vol. 50, no. 4/5, 1985, pp. 24–37. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3333861.

[6]Bremer, Francis J. “Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction.” Google Books, Google, 2009, books.google.com/books?id=RDnRCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[7]Mencken, H. L. “A Quote from A Mencken Chrestomathy.” Goodreads, Goodreads, www.goodreads.com/quotes/34745-puritanism-the-haunting-fear-that-someone-somewhere-may-be-happy.

[8]Daniels, Bruce C. “Sober Mirth and Pleasant Poisons: Purltan Ambivalence Toward Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England.” American Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 1993, pp. 121–137. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40642499.

[9]Noll, Mark A. “America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.” Google Books, Oxford University Press, 3 Oct. 2002, books.google.com/books?id=LanKhFle9BUC&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

[10]“Americans Share New Ideas.” The Story of America, by John A. Garraty, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1994, pp. 95–98.

The Year Thanksgiving Changed to a New Date: Franksgiving

Thanksgiving now occurs in America on the fourth Thursday of November – but it has not always been the case. Here, Mac Guffey looks at how President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the date of Thanksgiving in 1939 – and the issues it caused.

You can read Mac’s first article on the site, A Brief History of Impeachment in the US, here.

Troops enjoying Thanksgiving after the end of World War I, November 1918.

November 1939: ‘The Great Turkey Issue’

In the summer of 1939, an executive order was whimsically issued by the President of the United States, while vacationing at his resort. It came at the request of one of his Cabinet members, and it was executed without any due diligence other than a request by the head of a national business association for the change. His irresponsible action caused an unprecedented uproar across the country for three years.

Sound familiar?

That ‘Executive Order’ happened eighty years ago; the President was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the issue that caused the uproar was the date of Thanksgiving.  

Traditions

Since 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the executive order (then known as proclamations) officially proclaiming the first Thanksgiving and stipulating the last Thursday in November as the date of its observance, it became a yearly tradition followed by every President of the United States to do the same (except President U.S. Grant in 1869, but that’s another story). [1]

Periodically however, Novembers have five Thursdays. In Lincoln’s time, no one cared. But by 1939, another holiday tradition had become a part of America’s yearly holiday traditions – the Christmas shopping season. And it officially kicked off the day after Thanksgiving.

As the Daily Republican (Monongahela, PA) explained:

“It is a tradition among business men that advertising and display of Christmas goods is withheld until after Thanksgiving, and since that holiday would have fallen this year on the latest possible date, there would have been only 20 Christmas shopping days.” [2]

Big Business

Since the American economy was finally picking up its pace after being dormant for so many years due to the Great Depression, and because a minor recession in 1937-38 scared many business owners, some retailers were naturally concerned that losing six days of the Christmas shopping season might have a detrimental effect on their businesses. 

Therefore, Lew Hahn the general manager of a retail groups and more than 5,000 storeowners - the National Retail Dry Goods Association– wrote a letter to Harry Hopkins, Secretary of Commerce for FDR, with a request: An earlier Thanksgiving would be “good for business”. [3]

Time Magazinewryly noted FDR’s August response to the delegation’s request in its August 21stissue:

“At his Campobello cottage, Franklin Roosevelt broke his umptieth precedent, and gave a headache to football fans and turkey-growers by moving Thanksgiving Day up this year from November 30 to November 23.” [4]

Roosevelt explained that his decision was at the requests of thousands of businessmen and merchants, and since there was nothing sacred about the customary date – and no Federal law governing it – he moved it up a week. He also announced that all future Thanksgivings, beginning in 1940, would be on the second Thursday of November. [2]

Here’s a key fact worth noting at this point: Since there was no Federal law regarding the date of Thanksgiving, any President’s Thanksgiving proclamation truly affected only the District of Columbia and any territories belonging to the United States. It was actually up to the governors of each state to decide when to celebrate that day in their state. Since 1863, the governors traditionally just echoed the President’s proclamation.

Until 1939.

America’s Split Reaction

FDR’s lack of economic “due diligence”, his political oversight, and his insensitivity to the American public’s reverence for its traditions all combined to make this issue a political bludgeon and a public relations nightmare for his administration!  

The political backlash was immediate. 

“Mayor C.D. White of Atlantic City, N.J. dubbed it ‘Franksgiving’…” The term went national (and historical, and it was seemingly misattributed). [5*]

Alf Landon - FDR’s 1936 G.O.P. presidential opponent - pointed out:

“If the change has any merit at all, more time should have been taken in working it out so as to assure wholehearted co-operation instead of springing it upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.” [6]

Other Republican politicos insisted that such important changes should be resolved through a deliberate, bipartisan legislative process, and not by arbitrary, executive decisions. Many Democrats agreed. 

The governors of each state were forced to decide whether to follow Roosevelt’s proclamation or stick with the traditional fourth Thursday in November. The results were twenty-three states and D.C. followed FDR’s proclamation date of November 23rd, and twenty-three other states disagreed and kept the traditional date. Two states – Texas and Colorado - decided to honor BOTH days. [7]

The American public flooded the White House with letters and telegrams. One Brooklyn businessman immediately wrote to FDR regarding the President’s sweeping but unsubstantiated allegation that more shopping days benefitted merchants.

“The small storekeeper would prefer leaving Thanksgiving Day where it belongs. If the large department stores are overcrowded during the shorter shopping period before Christmas, the overflow will come, naturally, to the neighborhood store…We have waited many years for a late Thanksgiving to give us an advantage over the large stores, and we are sadly disappointed at your action in this ma tter[sic]…Kindly reconsider and oblige thousands of small retail storekeepers throughout this country.” [8]

Newspaper articles pointed out some of the glaring consequences of FDR’s hasty decision. One consequence was the $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 costs to the calendar business. In 1939, the ONLY calendars America had were printed ones, and they were used by every business, school, government office, and many individuals.

“It will be terrible” [Fredrick E. Baker, president of H.G. Brace Calendar Co.] said. “Better than 70 per cent of 1940 calendars have already been sold and about 50 per cent or $50,000,000 worth are already in production throughout the country. Most calendar makers begin production in January on the following year’s calendar.” [2]

Other articles detailed how America’s schools, both public and private, as well as both K-12 and universities were totally disrupted.  Like the calendar businesses, schools schedule everything in advance – school functions, vacations, and annual sports events. FDR's new date for Thanksgiving forced school boards, teaching staffs, athletic departments, and athletic conferences into emergency meetings to reconsider set schedules and decide whether and how to reschedule everything just prior to the start of the new school year.  Boston College decided to ignore it.

“Franksgiving was held yesterday but don’t let that worry you, our turkey stuffing day comes on the 30thwhen we get time from classes to stuff ourselves.” [9]

Besides all of that, many Americans were just plain angry that Roosevelt tried to alter such a long-standing tradition to help businesses make more money. A very sarcastic editorial, “Thanksgiving – A La FDR”, appeared in a small town weekly in upstate New York - ironically published ‘on Thursday of each week’.

“But why should the President stop with this slight change in the traditions of a nation? Why not extend his pet whimsies? We would suggest the following…Advance the observance of Thanksgiving Day to January first of each year, which, in accordance with presidential opinion, would give the public fifty-one solid weeks of Christmas shopping.” [10]

The uproar even found its way onto the Hollywood Big Screens with the 1940 Three Stooges short film No Census, No Feeling, and Irving Berlin’s 1942 filmHoliday Inn(Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, and Marjorie Reynolds).  [11]

George Gallup Takes a Poll

Because the 1940 Presidential primaries and election were just around the corner and FDR was planning an unprecedented third term run, was every American against the change or was this just a party issue? George Gallup decided to take a poll and find out. 

According to Dr. Gallup, Republicans disapproved of the plan by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent. Even the Democrats weren’t happy, with 52 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. “Dictatorship,” “whimsy” and “just upsetting everything he can” were among the most frequent negative responses given to the poll-administrators. [6]

Gallup’s summary:

“What John Smith, U.S.A., thinks about President Roosevelt's plan to change Thanksgiving Day pretty much depends on what John Smith thinks of President Roosevelt…Though President Roosevelt acted in response to the wishes of retail organizations who want the period of Christmas shopping extended, the survey shows that a majority of Americans - and particularly Republicans - are in favor of letting the nation's turkeys live a week longer.”[6]

Gallup also added this final - and rather sage - comment:

“No issue to make cabinets totter, the turkey day issue is, nevertheless, a prime example of the way Americans sometimes see questions through party-colored spectacles [glasses].” [6]

Leftovers

Three weeks after FDR’s Thanksgiving proclamation – at dawn on September 1,1939 – German troops stormed across the Polish frontier. WWII had begun, capturing much of the world’s attention. 

Despite the war and our struggle to remain neutral, the ‘Franksgiving’ or Thanksgivinginconvenience continued to be a distraction in America for two more years. By 1941, the business data indicated that FDR’s date-change had no significant effect on Christmas retail revenue. In fact, it actually affected revenue negatively in some places. So bowing to public opinion in the fall of 1941, President Roosevelt returned Thanksgiving 1942 to its traditional date.

But Congress decided to formally mandate that Thanksgiving be observed on the fourth Thursday in November to prevent any future problems. President Roosevelt signed the legislation on December 26thwithout fanfare. [13]

‘The Great Turkey issue’ was finally over.

The ViewNow

Although that was eighty years ago this month, the causes of 1939’s ‘Franksgiving’ fiasco are still around. Those very same forces that created that upheaval – insensitivity to the public, executive orders without bi-partisan cooperation and executive due diligence, the strong political and economic force of big business and retail sales, and special access to the Oval Office - are all the same forces causing our current political, economic, and social uproar. And, unfortunately, our ‘party-colored spectacles’ are still warping the view of our political system, and its proper limitations.

Two Turkey Days anyone?

This is the first of a new monthly feature. We will select one story that occurred during that month from history and take a fresh look at the story through modern eyes.

You can let us know what you thought of this article below.

References

[1] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.) v.6: pp.497-498. Also, Ulysses S. Grant, Proclamation 186—Thanksgiving Day, 1869 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.Retrieved October 20, 2019 from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204624https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-186-thanksgiving-day-1869

[2] “Roosevelt Advances Thanksgiving Day a Week; Business Pleased, But Grid Managers Aren’t”. The Daily Republican – Tuesday, August 15, 1939. Monongahela, PA.

[3] “Rebellion Grows Against Change in Thanksgiving Date by F.D.R.” Plattsburgh Daily Press – Wednesday, August 16, 1939. p.1.

[4] Time Magazine.(August 21, 1939: Vol. XXXIVNo. 8.). “The Presidency: Off the Floor” p.7.

[5] “Nation, Divided On The Date Of Thanksgiving, Thankful For Peace”. Plattsburgh [NY] Daily Press, Friday, November 24, 1939. p.1. [*] “Franksgiving’ is often misattributed to Thomas D. Taggart, Jr. The term appears in many newspapers during the fall of 1939. Taggart was a NJ state assemblyman AND a Democrat at the time. The Mayor of Atlantic City in 1939 was Charles D. White, a Republican. The term ‘Franksgiving’ was White’s portmanteau.

[6] Gallup, Dr. George. “News Release: August 25, 1939 - Public Sees Thanksgiving Issue Through Party Classes”. Gallup VaultRetrieved October 23, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/vault/222494/gallup-vault-thanksgiving-sparked-partisan-storm-1939.aspx

[7] Waxman, Olivia. “The Real Reason Why Thanksgiving is Always on a Thursday”. Time.com – November 20, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2019 from https://time.com/5455162/thanksgiving-on-thursday/

[8] “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Thanksgiving Proclamation.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.fdrlibrary.org/document-november

[9] Cullen, Art. “Tabloid”. The Boston College Heights – Volume XIX, Number 37, 24 November 1939. p.2. 

[10] Tefft, W.R. editor. “Thanksgiving  - A LA FDR”. Ticonderoga Sentinel - Thursday, August 24, 1939. p.2.

[11] Retrieved October 25, 2019 from The Three Stooges Website @ https://www.threestooges.com/1940/10/04/no-census-no-feeling/. Also, my parents told me the story behind Berlin’s Holiday Inngraphic the first time we watched Holiday Innon television back in the 1950s. Their personal stories were hilarious – (btw, they chose Thanks notFrank’s). The topic has intrigued me ever since. 

[12] “Abandons Early Thanksgiving: Roosevelt to Return to Old Date in November 1942”Hope[AK]Star – Tuesday, May 20, 1941. p. 1. Also,Jackson, Debbie and Pittman, Hilary. “Throwback Tulsa: Roosevelt created a ‘Franksgiving’ monster.”Tulsa World – November 16, 2017.Retrieved October 29, 2019 fromhttps://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-roosevelt-created-a-franksgiving-monster/article_9e6c3704-d31c-5c48-b79b-1a14a1a7f683.html

The First Anglo-Dutch War: How it Began

The First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654) was the first of three wars fought between England and the Netherlands in the 17th century. Here, Daniel Smith considers the background to the war and some of the key battles and events during the war’s first year

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

An 1873 depiction of the Battle of Dover/Battle of Goodwin Sands.

Into The First War

It was between the years of 1652 and 1678 that England and the Netherlands would fight a terrible series of wars for ultimate control of trade and mercantile establishments over both the English Channel and the North Sea. During this time period, most nations would come to rely on merchant shipping with a couple of cannons for their naval defense. However with the rise of trade and the pretense to control trade, this series of events may have been the catalyst that led to England’s historic reputation as a naval superpower.

In 1790, the Royal Navy was ten times larger than it was in 1650. Soon well-crafted vessels which were well-armed in cannon with disciplined crews began to emerge. In the Anglo-Dutch Wars, British ships would end up attacking Dutch interests all over the world: Africa, North America, the West Indies, and actually capturing New Amsterdam—where it was immediately renamed New York. It was the growth of the English and the Dutch fleets, who had been rapidly expanding since earlier in the 17th century, that would cause hostilities and political friction. It was them who had been competing in a rivalry over securing maritime trade and in pushing early colonial expansion.

Prior to the year 1648, the Dutch were at war with the Spanish. This was beneficial to English traders who could profit from the Spanish marketplace, where the warring Dutch merchants were banned from commerce. This was typical of warfare, where neighboring nations would capitalize on trade with neighboring belligerent nations, while staying far away from participation. Spain and the Netherlands would sign a formal peace treaty to cease hostilities in 1648. Due to this, the very expertly mercantile Dutch nation would return to the trading sphere globally. As a result of this, English merchants would end up being economically pushed out of the very profitable East Indian spice trade and their economic markets would resultingly plummet. To make matters worse, England would quickly lose global trade power and suffer a significantly detrimental shock to its economy. 

Due to security fears, the Navigation Act of 1651 was passed through parliament and opened up privateering (codified contractual piracy) to ordinary captains of vessels outside of the Royal Navy. English privateers began to exercise these new legal rights and the profitable Dutch shipping trade and their cargo became main targets. The Dutch government regarded England as a traditional Protestant ally against Catholicism and the Pope, despite the aggressive trade war that had been ensuing. At this point there had been internal struggles inside both nations, but more specifically with the beheading of King Charles I in England and no hereditary heir to the Dutch Stadtholder (government). Stability in both nations was at a low point. In the Netherlands, as the Prince of Orange, Willem II, was too young to inherit the responsibilities and obligations to lead the Dutch government, two elite individuals jumped on the opportunity.

It’s Just Politics

Dutch republicans (government party officials) led by Cornelis de Graeff and Johan de Witt used their cunning and wit to influence the House of Orange – the very influential aristocrats. While this velvet takeover was taking place inside of the Dutch palace, the English had sent a diplomatic envoy to The Hague led by Oliver St. John in March 1651. The ultimate goal of St. John’s was to present a political union between England and the Netherlands; however the political upheaval in England was too heavy for the Dutch to consider a union. Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector over England with the execution of Charles I. Besides religious and political turmoil, the House of Orange would never accept an informal government.

Soon after the negotiations between the two nations fell apart, St. John drafted a malicious trade policy that would later be drafted into law called the Navigation Act of 1651—which would further increase the tensions between the Dutch and the English. Besides that, the Dutch did not want to risk losing their sovereignty over a political union with England. They felt the plan was underhand and could even compromise the existence of the Netherlands. With such an excessive and aggressive maritime policy in effect and relations spiraling out of control, the Dutch and English both felt war inevitably on the way.

It was during the blistery winter of 1651 and into the spring of 1652 that the English would press their will onto Dutch shipping with letters of marque. Later, France would lend political support to the English Royalists - the opposition of the English government. Because of this, the English authorized letters of reprisal—allowing them to confiscate French cargo onboard Dutch shipping. Meanwhile, the naval officer and well-respected veteran Maarten Tromp took to the ocean in May of 1652. 

Lieutenant-Admiral Maarten Tromp had orders to defend Dutch merchant shipping from any belligerent flying the English flag. English Captain Robert Blake and Tromp of the Netherlands would end up meeting in a naval engagement off the coast of Dover, England in May. War would be officially declared by both nations on July 8, 1652. Naval battles would be fought predominantly in the English Channel and the North Sea, with minor action in the Mediterranean.

The engagement by both naval commanders would officially be titled the Battle of Dover (Goodwin Sands) on May 19, 1652. Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp sailed with a strong fleet of 42-ships one-month prior in April, with naval superiority as the goal set for his fleet inside of the English Channel. This was a logical attempt to prevent Dutch merchant trade from being disrupted by English hostility and naval aggressions. During his patrol of the straits, Tromp and his fleet experienced a storm that would have surely battered down the fleet. To protect it, he attempted to duck into a pocket near the Kent coastline outside of Dover under the South Foreland. Much to his dismay, Tromp sailed right into nine British warships under the command of Nehemiah Bourne. There was a timid stand-off between the two fleets before the Dutch officers insisted that they were only seeking shelter from the storm. 

Ducking the Channel

The two opposing fleets would stay anchored within sight of each other until the next day. An awkward departure, Tromp’s fleet sailed off towards Calais, France. At one point, Tromp’s War Galleon rendezvoused with two Dutch merchants who had been shot at by an English fleet near Kent’s coast at Start Point. Tromp’s fleet responded by punctually returning back to meet Captain Blake’s squadron. On May 19, upon arriving near Dover, Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp ordered his ships into the oncoming path of Blake’s ships. Further, he refused to hoist their Dutch colors up the mast when approaching the English - a complete sign of disrespect. Captain Blake responded in kind by sending a warning shot over their bows. The event would spiral out of control and a full-blown battle occurred.

There were two highlights to the battle: Captain Blake’s fleet had considerably more heavy ships, in comparison to Tromp’s fleet which only had one heavy ship—his own—theBrederode off Helvoetsluys. The Dutch fleet was also very uncoordinated in their execution of tactical and logistical planning during the battle. Further, the back-up fleet of Nehemiah Bourne’s nine warships arrived unexpectedly to attack the Dutch rear. In knowing that the battle was lost, Tromp’s merchant fleet returned to the Netherlands (minus two that had been captured) after sundown without further actions or incident.

The English were content on retaliating. The English Council of State would end up ordering Sir Robert Blake to cut off (and possibly capture) the Dutch East Indian trading convoy that was headed towards the Netherlands from Scotland. Their course was dialed in to avoid any English patrols in and around the English Channel. On June 27, 1652, Captain Robert Blake took his fleet of warships north, and Sir Ayscue would stay to patrol. Six days later in the Channel, Ayscue with ten warships, would spot a Dutch merchantmen fleet near Calais. He moved to attack. In the melee, three Dutch ships were destroyed. Five of them were captured, and out of further fear of death, the others would purposefully run themselves aground on the local sandbars.

A month later, on July 8, Maarten Tromp’s now had a massive war-fleet of eighty-two vessels and nine fireships (boats designed to be set afire and pushed into enemy vessels). In seeing the outnumbered fleet, Ayscue parked his fleet underneath the artillery fort on the coast near Deal, England. This move was of course a defensive posture. It seems as though providence may have been on the side of the English, as a fierce storm prevented the massive Dutch fleet from entering the coastal area where Blake and his fleet were anchored. At this point, Captain Blake’s fleet was split into two. His smaller squadron located on the southern end of England, and the larger squadron on the northern end of England. 

A Twice-Bitter Ending

The Dutch fleet of warships patrolling the English Channel decided to pursue Blake’s more vulnerable flotilla in the north on July 10, 1652. Captain Blake in the meantime was busy between the northern islands of Orkney and Shetland near Scotland, awaiting the East India Trading convoy scheduled to make their appearance. While there, he also took aggressive action in breaking up the North Sea fishing fleet—a pride of the Dutch—while operating in the area. While on patrol near Fair Isle on July 24, Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp spotted Captain Blake and his fleet. 

In another turn of extraordinary events, another fierce storm took hold in their location that lasted for three days.  It seems it was another disaster, as the Dutch squadron was smashed apart on the rocks of Sumburgh Head. Captain Blake ended up ducking into Bressay Sound to avoid the winds and waves. Most of his fleet was damaged to some degree, but all of his ships managed to stay afloat. On July 27, the fierce storm began to subside and both the English and the Dutch fleets set a course to their own home ports. Both sides limped back; however, Tromp’s fleet had halved in size 

It would be in fact Lieutenant-Admiral Tromp that received a bitter homecoming, as his political opponents laid complete blame on him for all the losses involved. He would resign his commission showing his complete ownership of the defeat. Generally speaking it was the heavier weighted and well defended English warships that prevailed over the Dutch fleet. The war would end up peaking with the loss of the fleet and untimely death of Tromp in July of 1653. He etched his historical end at the battle of Scheveningen 

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), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), and early Christianity in Britain (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Bibliography

John Barratt, Cromwell's Wars at Sea, (Barnsley 2006)

Sir William Laird Clowes, The Royal Navy, a history from the earliest times to the present, vol.ii (London 1898)

Bernard Capp, Cromwell's Navy: the fleet and the English Revolution (Oxford 1989)

S.R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate vol. iii (London 1903)

A Chinese Legend and the Disney Movie: Who is Mulan?

The 1998 Disney film Mulan is based on the Chinese legend of Hua Mulan. But how did the film tell the story? And how true to reality was the film? Johann Hollar lets us know.

An 18th century depiction of Hua Mulan.

Did you know that Disney's Mulan is inspired by a Chinese poem?

The original work that was the 'Ballad of Mulan" is lost to history; however it was well documented enough to make its way into Chinese literature and popular culture as Disney has shown with its movie.  Whether Mulan was a real person or not has yet to be determined, but the story itself shows how women can change the course of history.  [1]

The Story

No matter how many centuries have passed, the beginning of her tale remains the same.  She joins the army disguised as a man to go in place of her father, who along with his age is also ill and would likely killed during the first battle.  She was said to have brought her family's ancestral blade with her into battle and she proved to be an efficient commander in battle. In the end she surprises her comrades-in-arms by revealing herself to be a woman. [2]

Other aspects of why Mulan did what she did

Other than the fact that Mulan was a woman and proved to the ruling Chinese dynasty at the time that a woman can lead, serve and fight as well as any man, she also proved that she could perform other roles too. In Chinese culture, honoring one's elders and being modest is paramount.  She refuses a favor offered to her by the emperor, preferring to go home, thus promoting modesty.  Her willingness to go into battle in place of her father shows how much she honors her elders (in this case her father). 

Different endings

One ending was that after she refused the Emperor’s gifts, she returned home to find out that her father had died and thus losing the reason for why she went in the first place.  Another version is where she comes home having been so traumatized by the fighting that she falls into depression and eventually commits suicide.[3]

What isn't mentioned in the movie

There are also a few notable historical inaccuracies or missing information in the movie.  The first is that Mulan was not an only child.  She had a brother, but he was far too young to serve. [4] Second, the use of rocket weapons in China did not occur until the Battle of Kai-Keng in 1232 CE (Common Era) against the Mongols. [5] Third and final is that the invading forces were called Huns in the Disney movie. According to historical facts about the Northern Wei Dynasty (386-534 CE, when the story of Mulan is said to take place [6]), they were attacked by the Rouran, who were, like the Huns, from Mongolia but were not the same people. [7]

Other warrior women

Mulan wasn’t the only warrior woman in the history of China.

Before her the first female general in the history of China was Fu Hao.

During the Shang Dynasty, she began her life as a consort and was able to rise up in the ranks to become the first female general in China. [8]

Another one was Xun Guan during the Western Jin Dynasty, who suppressed the Revolt of Xiangyang city, by breaking through enemy lines. [9]

Legacy

The tale of Hua Mulan has inspired adaptions before and after the Disney version.  Stage, television and even the live action movie Mulan: Rise of a Warriorare amongst the many depictions of famous warrior woman in China.  

Historically, two more examples of warrior women in China are the revolutionary Qiu Jin, who contributed to the fall of the Qing Dynasty [10], or even Liang Hongyu, who suppressed a rebellion that threatened the Song Dynasty. [11]

I am of course well aware of the fact that Disney is doing a live-action version of Mulan starring Lei Yifei as the title heroine and Jet Li as the Emperor of China.

It seems from a cultural perspective that women were treated far better in China than in Europe.  There may have still been some chauvinism in China, but that did not stop them from becoming the heroines of their time and becoming the legends that they are today.

What do you think of Mulan? Let us know below.

References

[1]http://www.char4u.com/content/the-legend-of-hua-mulan/

[2]http://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/learn/article/read/item/v7oZoV5fuog/mulan-chinese-stories-history.html

[3]http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/ballad-hua-mulan-legendary-warrior-woman-who-brought-hope-china-005084

[4]https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-real-story-of-mulan

[5]https://www.thoughtco.com/early-fireworks-and-fire-arrows-4070603

[6]http://www.nouahsark.com/en/infocenter/culture/history/dynasty/northern_wei.php

[7]http://chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/rouran.html

[8]https://gbtimes.com/fu-hao-chinas-first-female-general

[9] http://www.womenofchina.cn/womenofchina/html1/people/history/12/4863-2.htm

[10] https://theculturetrip.com/asia/china/articles/qiu-jin-the-female-knight-of-mirror-lake/

[11] https://people.wku.edu/haiwang.yuan/China/tales/lianghongyu_b.htm