The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 1 – Baptist Persecution

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we will explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. Our story begins by focusing on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17thcentury America – and a hot New England summer.

Victor Gamma explains.

An engraving of the 1651 whipping of Obadiah Holmes.

In July 1651 the Newport Baptist Church received a request from a house-bound member in Lynn, Massachusetts named William Witter. Witter was desirous of hearing the Word of God preached. Being blind and quite elderly, he requested a pastoral visit from Baptist minister and physician John Clarke along with co-religionists Obadiah Holmes and John Crandall. The three men made the eighty-mile journey to Lynn, where Witter lived. While in Massachusetts they baptized Witter in accordance with 'believer's baptism'. Clarke and Holmes were known to the Massachusetts authorities. The Bay Colony required that any who denied infant baptism or taught this to others, or who denied the right of the state to make war should be arrested and banished from the colony. Witter was no stranger to the authorities as well, being bold to the point of insolence. Salem court records have preserved some of his statements made during his earlier trial;

          “The baptism of infants is sinful.”

         “Infant baptism is the badge of the whore.”

         “They who stay whiles a child is baptized do worship the devil.” 

News of Clarke and his associates’ presence at Witter’s home spread quickly. By that very evening a warrant had been issued for their arrest, which action was carried out the following day.  The three were forced to attend a congregational service, in which they refused to remove their hats and attempted to preach. They were imprisoned and then taken to Boston for trial. Their prosecutor was John Cotton, who argued that the defendants, whom he called Anabaptists, were worthy of the death penalty for heresy. After a ‘trial’ which consisted merely of charges and sentencing, the three Baptists were given the penalties of paying fines or to be ‘well-whipt.’

Of the three Baptists, Clarke and Holmes refused to pay a fine. Clarke avoided the whipping post when a friend paid his fine while he was being led to his punishment. The steadfast Holmes, however, would brook no aid from friends or sympathizers, saying, “Agreeing to the payment of my fine would constitute admission of wrongdoing.”  By refusing to pay a fine and not allowing anyone else to, Holmes was making a statement that the law was completely invalid and unjust by its very nature.  The sentence was carried out publically with thirty stripes, which was ten less than the forty considered to be a death sentence, but equal to that given to rapists. The “whipper’s” instrument of torment featured three leather strips, so in reality Holmes received ninety lashes. Holmes chose the opportunity to preach to the crowd while being whipped. An eyewitness, John Spur, described the whipping of Obadiah Holmes. As the 'whipper' removed the clothes from his upper body in order to administer the beatings, Spur records that Holmes declared, "Lord lay not this sin upon their charge." During the whipping Holmes stated, "O Lord I beseech thee to manifest thy power in the weakness of thy creature." According to Spur, Holmes submitted to the whipping, ". . . neither moving nor stirring at all for the strokes, (and) broke out into these expressions,  'Blessed and praised be the Lord,' and this he carried it to the end and went away rejoicingly." Many onlookers were moved to loudly request the beating to stop, and were themselves arrested. As a result of his beating, Holmes was unable to sleep on his back for a month. After recovering, Holmes went on to continue his evangelistic work. His bold stand had also become a symbol in the struggle for religious liberty.

Freedom of conscience

Bold stands such as this led the historian George Bancroft to declare, “Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first a trophy of the Baptists.” In the seventeenth century, freedom of conscience had become such a become such a defining feature of Baptists that the great John Locke was moved to write, “The Baptists were the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.” Ultimately, the measures taken against Baptists would include whipping, imprisonment, fines and banishment. Because America offered such a vast abundance of space, a favorite device of those defending the Standing Order was to exile Baptists and other dissenting groups into the wilderness. As one offended contemporary put it, “All Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other enthusiasts, shall have free Liberty to keep away from us, and such as will come to be gone as fast as they can the sooner the better.”

You will not find names like Isaac Backus or John Leland in a book about the writing of the Constitution, nonetheless, these Baptists, along with their predecessors like Holmes, played a critical role in providing the underpinning attitudes that resulted in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In fighting for their own freedom, they struck a blow for all Americans, articulating a philosophy concerning the relationship between the religious and civil sphere, protecting the rights of the former. Baptists were often well ahead of their colonial brethren in the matter of freedom of conscience.

Baptists felt the heavy hand of persecution from the moment of their arrival in the English colonies. There were many reasons for this. Both the Puritans of New England and the Anglicans of Virginia believed in the union of church and state to some degree and the necessity of the civil authority to enforce religious conformity. The Protestant churches that broke away from Rome in the fifteenth century maintained the system of state support of churches. In England the government sponsorship of religion was called the ‘nursing father.’ In the English colonies, this system of the civil rulers as nursing fathers continued. Furthermore, the Puritans held that society could not function without establishment of religion, referred to as the “Standing Order.” Without it, they contended, society would crumble into anarchy and moral perversion. The 1689 Act of Toleration, although a milestone in British history, did not establish religious liberty. It extended toleration to a greater number of religious expressions, but maintained England as a protestant state with England under the prelacy of the Church of England and Scotland under the Presbyterian establishment. During the colonial era, most colonists also held the view that residents of a particular colony should properly all belong to the same church, and took it as natural that this church should be financially and legally supported by the state, including non-voluntary taxes and even laws requiring participation in religious services. Even havens of religious toleration like Pennsylvania and Maryland sometimes heard the lament of oppressed minorities.

Baptists in the New World

The Baptists, having already experienced persecution in England, arrived in the New World generally hostile to the idea of civil authorities determining their religious beliefs and practices. The Baptists eventually compiled a large amount of scriptural and historical support for their position. Isaac Backus, later to be the champion of liberty for Baptists during the Revolutionary era, relied on eighteenth-century Lutheran historian Johann Lorenz Von Mosheim to express the common Baptist view of the state of Christendom in his History of New England. Backus' history asserted that the early church's purity was perverted by  “. . . an alteration. . . that Christian ministers succeeded to the rights and privileges of the Jewish priesthood. Heathen philosophy was also called in to interpret the scriptures . . . to which they added, in the fourth century, under Constantine, the use of temporal penalties, and corporal tortures, for the same end (to promote of the interests of the church).” 

No other issue so horrified the religious establishment, though, as the issue of baptism. The Puritans and Separatists held firmly to the practice of infant baptism as one sign of the covenantal nature of the church. They saw in the ceremony a badge of the covenant a sign as circumcision was for the Jews.  As Cotton Matter put it, “They did all agree with their brethren in Plymouth in this point, ‘That the children of the faithful, were church members, with their parents, and that their baptism was a seal of their being so.’ ” In Massachusetts Puritans held to the validity of an established church, and as Anglicans in Virginia they were determined to support the canons of the Church of England including the Thirty Nine Articles. Article 27 stated, “The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institutions of Christ.” Those that refused to comply with this article were spoken of as those who “dare not submit their children to be baptized by their undertaking of god-fathers, and receive the Cross as a dedicating badge of Christianity . . .” This belief conflicted sharply with Baptist convictions. Isaac Backus in hisHistory of New England offers a quote from John Robinson which, citing scripture for each point, summarized the Baptist position on baptism “. . . the sacrament of baptism is to be administered   . . . only to such as are . . . taught and made disciples [Matt. xxviii. 19]. . . Baptism administered to any others is so far from investing them with any saintship in that estate, that [as] it makes guilty, both the giver and the receiver, of sacrilege, and is the taking of God’s name in vain.” 

The view of Baptists

False perceptions also fanned the flames of suspicion. When the Puritan or Anglican establishment looked at Baptists they often saw not simple dissenters but dangerous incendiaries. The memory of Anabaptist excesses, such as the Munster Rebellion of 1535-6 were still recalled and projected on to the Baptists. In fact, ‘Anabaptist’ was a name that continued to be applied to the Baptists.  Regardless of their efforts to distance themselves from the taint of Anabaptist excesses, the Baptists were popularly held to be dangerous subversives or degenerate antinomians.  The 1644 law banishing Baptists from Massachusetts Bay Colony stated, “Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved that since the first arising of the Anabaptists about a hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealths and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion and the troublers of churches . . .” Baptists promptly answered such charges when given the opportunity. In 1680 John Russel, second pastor of the Baptist church in Boston, sought to dispel the irrational opinions of Baptists in a tract entitled Some Considerable Passages Concerning the First Gathering and Further Progress of a Church of Christ in Gospel Order in Boston in New England Commonly (though Falsely) Called By the Name of Anabaptists. Russell’s tract was a point-by-point refutation of the common charges laid at the feet of Baptists using simple logic. For example Russell argues against the contention that Baptists were a threat to the church, “We are charged to be underminers of the Churches. This is also a great mistake: we never designed . . . any such thing, but heartily desire and daily pray for the well-being, flourishing, and Prosperity of all the Churches of Christ.” 

Up until now we’ve explored the reasons why Baptists faced persecution in America.  In part two (here), Roger Williams and Religious Freedom, we look at the story of Roger Williams and the founding of the first Baptist church in America.

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

The Controversial Career of the First Female US Senator: Rebecca Latimer Felton

In my history classes at Texas A&M University-Commerce, I enjoy talking about strong women in American history who championed for women’s rights. I consider Rebecca Latimer Felton (b. 1835) to be one of these powerful women. Felton became the oldest freshman senator  - and first female senator - at eighty-seven years old in 1922. In this article I analyze the political career of Rebecca Felton—a patriotic and successful, yet highly controversial legislator in the Progressive Era. 

Joshua V. Chanin explains.

Rebecca Felton in later life.

Political Beginnings 

Rebecca was unlike her boisterous peers on the playground, instead enjoying quieter, mature activities such as reading newspapers and partaking in dinner conversations on the state of American politics. Since her father was a Whig, young Rebecca naturally followed suite and devoted herself to reading dense material written by several prolific Whig leaders, including Henry Clay and Millard Fillmore. “I confess to a real liking for political questions. It was my habit for many years to keep up with the progress of great questions in the national congress and I found interest and food for thought in the daily, but dull, congressional record.” She later attested that Henry Clay was the greatest man in the United States in the nineteenth century. 

One of her first major political experiences was the 1844 presidential election between Henry Clay and James K. Polk. Rebecca, at age nine, “read the newspapers very diligently” and, like others among the higher social class, firmly believed that “Henry Clay’s election was a forgone conclusion. His ability as a statesman was so transcendent; defeat was unthinkable…” However, the pollsters were wrong, and Polk easily won the political race, capturing 170 electoral votes to Clay’s 105. Rebecca later recalled the political shockwaves in the South following the 1844 election: “It was a terrible affair—it ruptured friendships, split up neighborhoods and got among church people.” Rebecca’s political upbringing allowed the young girl to absorb a distinct preview of the life she would be drawn to in the future—a life of activism and unforeseen outcomes.

Standing at the Side

Amid an education at Madison Female College and responsibilities at the family plantation in Cartersville, Georgia, Rebecca Latimer fell in love with Dr. William Harrell Felton, a southern minister. The couple wed in October 1853. Political ambitions were put aside as Rebecca Felton settled into domesticity where she completed chores and tendered to five children—one of whom, Howard Erwin Felton, survived childhood. She was one among the many women in the South prior to the Civil War who did not have a public voice and was obligated to stand at the side of their husband. Rebecca Felton not only supported her spouse in his expansive political career in Georgia’s House of Representatives and the national House, she gradually honed her own political skills by polishing his speeches and helping draft bills—William Felton’s constituents often bragged that they were getting two politicians for the price of one. At first Rebecca Felton believed her career was tied to her husband, however, she strategically used her husband’s position as a springboard for her future roles. And her visibility as a champion for public education—interest in this subject increased after the Felton’s opened Felton Academy following the Civil War—and in women’s suffrage grew to immense capacities in the latter decades of the nineteenth century.

A Patriot

Like many Southerners during the Civil War, Felton did not label herself as a “rebel” nor a “secessionist.” Instead, she viewed herself as a patriot, a defender of Southern values, and a proud citizen of Georgia: “I loved my country. No heart ever was more loyal to the South and Southern honor.” Felton, among many in this region, were angry at the 1860 presidential election results and terrified that Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who had flirted with the idea of stopping the spread of slavery in the West, would abolish the slave trade and forcefully drive the Southern economy to a grinding halt. Thus, southerners kept a watchful eye for hostile political opponents and Union spies. Felton wrote about the hidden enemy in a diary: “..Danger lurked in every passing breeze and was concealed under every hasty legislative act of our political war leaders.” To combat this enemy fear, it was natural for southerners to adopt a patriotic tone in life and demonstrate fierce nationalism. 

Rebecca Felton’s love for the South and its common Confederate sympathizers during the war is evident in her 1911 memoirs: “Such heroism was unexemplified! The South has reason to be proud of its soldiers and its women. Their story of courage will bear repeating, because it was genuine, sincere and patriotic. Like all other military achievements, the officers earn and receive all the honors of war, but it was the plain soldiers and true-hearted women of the defunct Confederacy who deserve the medals of merit.” When the Confederate government ceased operations and fled Richmond in April 1865, many supporters blamed Confederate President Jefferson Davis for the country’s economic and political failures. Instead, Felton consistently defended the president’s policies, heeding to the fact that Davis had a herculean undertaking at the start of the war: “He was not faultless—he had many and violent enemies…he was victimized by newspaper reporters…he gave it the best that was in him—and went down with it in defeat.” Although patriotism plays a key role in fueling a politician’s agenda and despite being a Dixie woman of her time, Felton’s admiration for Southern racial politics cannot be ignored.

Racial Politics

Felton’s inhumane racial views coincided with her political career. She openly shunned Native Americans and called them “savages,” a label that presumably had been in her vocabulary since she was a young child when her mother occasionally told her bedside stories of Native-led massacres against the white man. Moreover, Felton promoted white supremacism by partaking in regional Ku Klux Klan activities and dissuading her husband’s political colleagues to vote on bills that favored more liberties for African Americans; she believed that more money spent on black education would result in more black crimes in neighborhoods, and voting rights for black women would lead directly to the rape of white women. Felton was eager to spread her nauseating racial beliefs to mass audiences and publicly mock the “half-civilized gorillas,” as she tried to do at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago where she proposed a southern history exhibit that featured “A cabin and real colored folk making mats, shuck collars, and baskets—a woman to spin and card cotton—and another to play banjo and show the actual life of slave—not the Uncle Tom sort.” To the relief of some, the suggested slave exhibit never came to fruition. 

During a bloody time where racial violence was already prevalent in the South, Rebecca Felton advocated for more lynchings in Georgia at the turn of the twentieth century. She wanted the rugged noose to play a fixed role in Southern society, as evident by an explicit diary entry dated on August 11, 1897: “When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about inonce and virtue—if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.” Following the burning of Sam Hose, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, by a white mob in Georgia’s Coweta County in April 1899—where civilians sold parts of Hose’s body as souvenirs—Felton vocally made it known that Hose was a “beast” who was no better than a rabid dog. Not only was she an aggressive advocate of racial prejudice, Felton condemned anyone who dared to question the South’s racial practices. When Andrew Sledd, professor of Biblical Studies at Emory University, published an article in the Atlantic Monthlyin July 1902 criticizing the lynchings of black men, Felton played an instrumental role in forcing Emory’s administration to terminate Sledd for improper behavior and stoked public anger towards the professor through a series of editorial attacks in the Atlanta Constitution. Felton’s racial views were perpetual as she treaded lightly with progressive politics and stayed true to antiquated Southern beliefs—Felton, having possessed slaves since she was eighteen years old, was the last member of either house of Congress to have been a slave owner. 

U.S. Senator

The peak of Rebecca Felton’s political career was her one-day appointment to the United States Senate between November 21-22, 1922. A Senate seat suddenly became vacant on September 26, 1922, following the death of Thomas E. Watson. Since Georgia Governor Thomas W. Hardwick wanted to win the November special election for the seat and appease the women voters who were displeased on his opposition to the Nineteenth Amendment, he strategically decided to appoint Felton as Watson’s temporary replacement on October 3. Despite the fact that Congress was not expected to reconvene until the end of November—President Warren Harding persuaded Congress to meet earlier due to an influx of letters from Felton’s supporters requesting the woman to take the oath of office—Walter F. George, the special election winner, chose to step aside and allow Felton to be sworn in as the nation’s first woman senator on November 21. The symbolic gesture to permit a female to sit in one of the highest political chairs in the United States (even just for a day) was a major political victory for white women.

Equal Partners

Felton did not have the opportunity to support or challenge any legislation in the Senate since she only served for one day. However, in front of a filled senate chamber, Felton delivered a speech to her male peers on November 22, pronouncing the increasing influence women had in 1920s national politics: “When women of the country come in and sit with you, though there may be but very few in the next few years, I pledge you that you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose, you will get exalted patriotism, and you will get unstinted usefulness.” The reactions in the chamber after the address varied. Felton wrote that some of the gentlemen “Seemed to be a little bit hysterical, but most of them occupied their time looking at the ceiling.” Felton’s triumphant exit from the Senate reinforced the suffrage message she had been campaigning about for decades. Felton had been an outspoken leader in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union since 1886 and had articulated the ideas of white women having more decision-making power in the home, acquiring education beyond basic schooling, and enjoying more influence over their children. 

Felton also had tirelessly championed for white women’s suffrage during her career—she ferociously debated anti-suffragist Mildred Lewis Rutherford in 1915. Although the suffrage marches in the 1910s propelled the government to pass the Nineteenth Amendment, the Georgia Legislature was the first state to reject the amendment on July 24, 1919. In retaliation, Felton criticized the hypocrisy of southern gentlemen who boasted about their chivalry but opposed women’s rights: “In truth, character seemed to have gone out of politics…The moral salt of character could not be rescued, inside the party, controlled by such machinery…these men in the saddle were full, fat and saucy!” Thus, white women in Georgia were not allowed to vote in the 1920 presidential election, having to wait until the 1922 congressional elections. 

Conclusion

Following an active career in politics—behind and in front of the curtain—Felton returned home to lecture at public libraries and write books; she died in Atlanta in January 1930. Senator George remarked that “All in all she [Felton] must be grouped among the great women of her time.” Despite her political success and critical efforts to advance the women’s suffrage movement, Rebecca Felton was unquestionably a flawed character, rooted in her discriminating beliefs on race and southern prejudice.

What do you think of Rebecca Felton? Let us know below.

References

Felton, Rebecca L. Country Life in Georgia in the Days of my Youth. Atlanta, GA: The Index Printing Company, 1919. 

Felton, Rebecca L. My Memoirs of Georgia Politics. Atlanta, GA: The Index Printing Company, 1911. 

Helms, Amanda. ““Poor forsaken colored girls:” Rebecca Latimer Felton, White Supremacy, and Prison Reform, 1896-1900.”  M.A. Thesis, DePaul University, 2013. 

Staman, A. Louise. Loosening Corsets: The Heroic Life of Georgia’s Feisty Mrs. Felton, First Woman Senator of the United States.Macon, GA: Tiger Iron Press, 2006. 

Talmadge, John E. Rebecca Latimer Felton: Nine Stormy Decades. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1960. 

Whites, LeeAnn. “Rebecca Latimer Felton and the Wife’s Farm: The Class and Racial Politics of Gender Reform.” Georgia Historical Quarterly76 (1992): 354-372.

The Importance Today of Abraham Lincoln’s Perpetual Speech

There seems to be ever-growing division and bitterness in American politics today – but there have been warnings this would happen before. Here, Mac Guffey explains an important speech – the Lyceum Address - by Abraham Lincoln on January 27, 1838.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here), on Franksgiving (here), the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two (here), and Christmas 1855 in the USA (here).

Abraham Lincoln in the mid-1840s.

One hundred and eighty-one years ago, on a January evening in a small Illinois town, a man talked about the way Democracy will die in America.

It won’t be from another country, he said. “It must spring up from amongst us,” and we, America’s citizens, will be both its author and its finisher, he warned.

The blueprint that he laid out that night for this collapse was two-phased.

The first phase will involve a nation-wide increase of what he called a “mobocratic spirit”. He defined this spirit as a growing propensity for violence, and those people who participate in this violence, he labeled as a “mobocracy”. The effect of this increasing frequency of violence will be a growing indifference - a numbness - by the public as the violence becomes more commonplace.

Therein, he said, lays the beginning of the end for Democracy.

This ‘numbness’ to violence will lead to even more violence by the mobocracy as their fear of the government decreases, and their contempt for its ineptitude grows.

The other effect of the escalating violence, he pointed out, is when the numbness by law-abiding citizens to the frequency of violence now turns to fear – fear for the safety of their person and property. Then he qualified that statement: It’s when the citizens believe their RIGHT to be safe in person and in property is threatened. For that, he predicted, they’ll blame the government.

So, contempt for the government from one faction of citizens and a loss of faith in the government from the other faction creates the “perfect storm” that weakens or destroys any sense of allegiance or support for that form of governance.

At that point, from among us, comes a person who promises to fix the problems.

Driven by a desire for power or fame, this person uses the moment of wavering allegiance to stir up support for another way to run things, to tear down the way it is, and to suggest to our citizens a better way to solve the problems in order to maintain their RIGHT to be safe in person and property.

But this person’s intent is to pull down Democracy - to substitute in its place, something selfish, something self-glorifying, and something non-democratic.

The solution to this human threat, said the speaker, is three-fold: One, our citizens must always be aware that THEY are the weak link in any Democracy. Two, our citizens must remain united with one another and united as a nation. Last, our citizens must maintain their allegiance to and their faith in our way of governing. These steps, he said, will successfully frustrate any person’s designs to interrupt the ‘perpetuation of our political institutions’. [1]

The View Now

In his lecture - that cold winter evening in 1838 - Abraham Lincoln perfectly described the grave threat that currently faces America’s participatory Democracy. As he said then, the responsibility for the perpetuation of our political institutions lies with its citizens. 

Now, it’s up to US to put Lincoln’s solution to work.

What do you think of Abraham Lincoln’s speech? Let us know below.

Works Cited

[1] Lincoln, Abraham. “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions – A speech at the Young Men’s Lyceum”. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln – Vol. 1.New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953.pp. 109-116.

How Ulysses S. Grant Saved Native Peoples in 1850s California

In the mid-nineteenth century there were a number of settler communities in northern California. These communities often came into conflict with native peoples. Here, Daniel Smith explains how future US President Ulysses S. Grant helped to save some native people from settler violence in the region in the 1850s.

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

Members of the Klamath in canoes in the 19th century.

Arthur Wigmore was a settler to northern California from Missouri. He lived near Lower Rancheria on the Eel River. Settlers from back east, such as Mr. Wigmore, would come to farm the land among other choice career opportunities. In September of 1854, he was murdered and thrown into a local marsh. After an investigation by officials and locals, it was made clear that a native known by the locals as “Billy” was the one who had killed him.

As soon as word of “Billy’s” accusation reached the local natives of the Lower Rancheria, they, apparently knowing or having good reason what to expect in response to this accusation, fled into the elevations of the Trinity Mountains. Over the course of a few days, meetings were held and plans were in the works to find and arrest the murderer of Mr. Wigmore. During the course of this time, one citizen “enlisted into their service a small band of renegade” natives to hunt down the perpetrator. After a day or two, the natives returned with a newly decapitated head claiming it to be that of “Billy.”[1]

Around that same time, then Commander of Ft. Humboldt Colonel Robert Buchanan sent out Captain Henry Judah to arrest any natives implicated in the murder. Judah, proving an effective leader, surprised a camp of about 100 local natives—two of whom confessed to the murder. Judah detained the two perpetrators and escorted them back to Ft. Humboldt to await civil authorities’ intervention—leaving the rest of the tribe alone.[2]

Released Without Charges

A communications breakdown would occur at this point, as the citizens of the county called upon the Commander of Ft. Humboldt to punish them—which he would not. Buchanan held firm that he had “no authority to punish the Indians for the murder of Wigmore, even after admission of guilt” occurred. At that moment in time, it was seen as not the place of the civil authorities to give legal trial to prisoners captured by the military. In the end, the two local natives were released without charges and let back to their tribe.

This incident stirred negative sentiments from the settling citizens of these industrious towns across the entire western region of Northern California. For about a year afterwards there was no outbreak of hostility. The local native tribes, however, were completely restless though and the miners in the mountain and foothill districts of Humboldt and Trinity counties were well aware. There was serious trouble on the horizon and the miners’ knew it.

Orleans Bar is located on the Klamath River that forks the Trinity River in Humboldt County.[3] In 1855, the miners along the Klamath River passed local ordinances that “all persons detected in selling fire-arms to the Indians should have their heads shaved, receive twenty-five lashes and afterward be driven from camp; and also that all the Indians in the vicinity be disarmed.”[4] In following through with the last resolution passed, a delegation of miners visited a handful of ranches and the weapons discovered there were confiscated.

The Klamath's Grace

A few tribes, though, would be reluctant to hand over their firearms to the entrustment of the miners, regardless of the reason or cause. In response to the local tribes’ disagreement, an armed company of miners was formed.  They punctually marched to the nearest ranch withholding firearms and demanded their surrender of weapons. The natives responded with a quick volley of fire from their firearms to the miners’ sudden surprise. After the melee that followed, several miners would lay dead and others would scatter wounded.

Instead of fighting, the miners retreated under attack to Orleans Bar and sent for military assistance from Commander Buchanan at Fort Humboldt. He sent Captain Judah up to the Klamath River as a response—with very little reaching effect. Partially this reason is due to his non-consent and unwillingness to lay waste to all of the natives living on the Klamath under such an isolated issue of murder in this nature. For instance, “Billy” was known around the neighborhood personally. This would further make it a domestic issue. More than that though, Captain Judah was recalled by the U.S. Army before he could even make any standing order on how to deal with the situation.

At this same time, at various areas above Orleans Bar the situation was equally as bad. At the split where the Klamath and Salmon rivers meet, there was a stout anxiety in the mining communities and they wanted to kill all of the local Klamath natives once and for all. The determination to carry out a massacre massacre was quickly thwarted by United States Army soldiers and among them was a young Captain-in-Charge by the name of Ulysses S. Grant. This is that same man who would later “rise to the highest distinction in the profession of arms and the highest office in the gift of his countrymen.”[5] Captain Grant curtailed the miners’ hostility and agitation that day, using a show of force as well as masterful communication skills. It would have been a day where the ends at that moment would have not justified the means. Without Grant's assistance, the miners would have dealt a swift end to the Klamath River tribes.

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), early Christianity in Britain (here), and the First Anglo-Dutch War (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Bibliography

1.             Hittell, Theodore H. "State Growth | Treatment of Indians." In History of California, 913-915. San Francisco: N. J. Stone & Co., 1897.

2.             Indian Wars of the Northwest, by A.J. Bledsoe, San Francisco, 1885, 161-163, 179-181.

3.             U.S.G.S. "GNIS Detail: Orleans." United States Geological Service. Accessed December 8, 2019. https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq:3:0::NO::P3_FID:264396.

A History of the Media and the American Presidency: Part 1 - Vice President John Adams and His Battle with the American Media (1789-1793)

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

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

Here, Ian Craig starts the series by looking at Adams’ time as Vice President (1789-1797).

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

Portrait of John Adams while he was Vice-President in the 1790s.

America’s First Vice President and the Media

Adams’ first battle with the media as vice president came while he led a debate in the Senate.  According to the Constitution, the vice president will serve as the president of the senate.  However, the role of vice president was largely intended to be ceremonial and had little power.  This meant that in the Senate, Adams had no real authority but to break tie votes. This was something that Adams had to learn the hard way.  One of the first debates in the Senate was over what the president should be addressed as. Adams opted to lead the way in this debate much to the displeasure of the senators.  Adams believed that “if the central government was to have greater authority and importance than the state governments, then the titles of federal office ought to reflect that.”[1] This meant that the president of the United States needed a title that was befitting of such an office.  Adams gave such suggestions as “His Majesty the President.” Some senators supported Adams’ desire for titles in debating the title “His Highness the President of the United States.”  However, this did not sit well with many people nor the media at the time.

The media was quick to point out that the Constitution forbade titles of nobility in the United States. It was at this point that many came to suggest that Adams’ time abroad had tainted him to the monarchies of Europe. To John Adams, this was not the case and he simply believed that respect should be given to the central government and to those who held office within it.  This was his idea of helping to secure the sovereignty of the government both at home and abroad.  This explanation did not stop the media from its continued attacks on Adams’ character and his intentions.  In 1791 Thomas Paine had published a work called The Rights of Man.  Thomas Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, had sent it to a publisher in Philadelphia calling it the answer to the “political heresies that have sprung among us.”[2] The publisher printed the work with Jefferson’s own words on the front page causing the public to link political heresies to Adams.  This did more to hurt the Vice President and his credibility seeing that his friend and soon to be chief rival viewed him in such a way.  Of course, Jefferson had not intended for the publisher to spin his words in that way nor make the connection that Adams wanted to take away the rights of man. 

Adams’ Defense

The Media jumped on this and the New Haven Gazette called Adams an “unprincipled libeler” who loved monarchy and had an antipathy to freedom.[3] In response to the newspaper’s claim, Adams said “if you suppose that I have ever had a design or desire of attempting to introduce a government of kings, lords, and commons, or in other words a hereditary executive, or hereditary senate, either into the government of the Unit States…you are wholly mistaken.”[4] To put it simply, the Vice President’s insistence on titles had made him increasingly unpopular and his continued desire to share his opinions in the Senate made him even more so.  The media and rivals began to paint a picture of Adams as a monarchist instead of the democracy seeking founding father he was.   In addition to this attack, the Republican media in the Aurora called him a “gross and shameless monarchist.” They went further and called him “unfit to lead the country” below the headline “An Alarm'.[5] The Boston Chronicle suggested that if Adams had his way “the principle of hereditary succession would be imposed on America to make way for John Quincy.[6]

Adams for the most part remained silent on the attacks, but they did hurt him dearly. However, Adams did not respond to such accusations outright because he believed it was beneath his office to do so.   Writing in the Colombian Centinel under the name “Publicola”, John Quincy came to the defense of his father.  He took aim at Jefferson and his sponsored work The Rights of Men.  John Quincy stated that essentially Jefferson had suggested that all who had a different political opinion from his own supported heresy.  John Quincy could not comprehend how such a respectable man as Jefferson could make such a claim.[7]   Jefferson did apologize to Adams, but their friendship would never be the same. Eventually, Adams came to understand his role as Vice President and was over time, largely forgotten and spared from the media’s attacks until his presidency.

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

[1]David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 405. 

[2]Ibid, 429. 

[3]Ibid, 431. 

[4]Ibid, 431. 

[5]Ibid, 462. 

[6]Ibid, 462. 

[7]Ibid, 430

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 4 – How the War Impacted Germany

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 how the war ended, how Germany got the blame for the war, and the lasting impact in Germany.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here, part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here, and part 3 on the roles of the Great European Powers in the build-up to war here.

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles 1919.

Welcome back! We’ve covered a good deal of information during he first three parts of just how the world spiraled into chaos in 1914. But now the answer to the question that brought us here. Why did Germany get the blame? After all, the conflict would not have occurred without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. He wasn’t even German, but Austrian. And what about those Austrians? Shouldn’t they carry some of this blame? They were the ones who wanted to fight in the first place. Germany had no direct reason to be involved other than having a treaty of military aid to Austria. 

So besides all that, let’s start with the most obvious reason: They were the first to invade anyone. Up until they crossed into Belgium in August 1914, no one had fired a shot, and no one had really believed that hostilities were that far gone. Things could have cooled, especially with Great Britain, if Germany had only got out of its own way. Arrogance and their determination at being seen as a major player is what started the war.

The War’s Progress

As the war progressed its long four-year ordeal, Germany, along with the rest of the Central Powers (that also included the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, who need their story told all on its own), began to crumble under the weight of starving troops, starving populations, and radical ideals bubbling to the surface of their cities. In 1917, Germany sent for a secret weapon to knock one of the fronts off its back. They chose the Eastern Front because Russia was simmering with revolution. That weapon was Vladimir Lenin. They paid his passage to Russia, arriving from exile like a missing hero ready to take the lead. By the end of 1917, Germany has knocked Russia out of the war by using the cries of revolution to do it. 

In Austria, things were going bad to worse. In 1916, the old Emperor Franz Josef died. His successor was the great nephew of the Emperor’s brother. Charles I, also known as Karl IV (in Hungary), became the ruler of the country at a time when change was a dangerous game. He would only be emperor for two years before abdicating his powers and abolishing the monarchy. The young King himself would be dead within 4 years of the war’s end. With the end of Austria-Hungary the land that made up the country was officially split. Austria became its own country and so did Hungary.

The Ottoman Empire

Of the other members of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire (known at the time as ‘the old man of Europe’ because they had been around since 1453) also came to a close. The sultan was deposed, although he had been nothing but a figurehead for quite some time. In fact in 1918 the Ottomans were forced to give up after the armistice between Bulgaria and the Allies. Suddenly the Ottomans had no help from them, Austria-Hungary had already begun to disintegrate, and Germany no longer had the manpower to send relief.  The Ottoman Empire signed its own armistice with Great Britain in October of 1918, just one month before the official end to the war.

In its peace terms, the Ottoman Empire was to be occupied by French, Italian, and British troops. It also stipulated that the Ottoman Empire be carved up into smaller countries; effectively ending the country as a whole. The area known as the Ottoman Empire became separate countries; including Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the boundary lines of Palestine, and the preliminary decisions of establishing land for a Jewish state. Turkey would end up changing their capital’s name from Constantinople to Istanbul.

Meanwhile, still in a position of power, the generals of Germany were beginning to see the unrest in their troops. Before long it becomes apparent that they had lost all control of their armies, and the rise of democracy became the voice of the people. While trying to salvage some remnant of the country, Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate the throne. But, unlike Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Germany did not cease to exist. The country remained unified but was now a democracy. Their elective body became known as the Weimar Republic, had control over the country and helped negotiate the ending of the war. This is why Germany is blamed. Solely for the reason of ‘last country standing.’ The season of revolution arrived and in its ruins only Germany, for the most part, remained intact. I believe had any one of the other belligerents, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire been left with some power, the blame would have been split. Since neither country existed anymore, combined with the desire to teach Germany a lesson, is how this blame came to pass. 

Accepting Terms

On a train near one of the battlefields, the representatives of the new Germany Republic were forced to sign the official Armistice. Later on at the official signing of the Treaty of Versailles they were given no chance to negotiate the terms of the treaty. All the decisions were made by the victors, including a rather smug France who implored the peace talks be decided in Paris to begin with. This brought rise to the belief that those who signed for Germany were no more than traitors to their country. Hitler used parts of this to imply that Jewish politicians were to blame for surrendering so easily.

The terms of the treaty were as follows: German land was handed over to other countries. France acquired the Rhineland, and additional lands were split between Denmark, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia. The bulk of the land was given to the newly formed country of Poland; and any colonies that Germany had were also divided up amongst the allies. From a military perspective the treaty stipulated that the army be reduced to 100,000 men, and all remaining tanks were to be destroyed. The Air Force was dismantled and any German U-Boats were to be destroyed. Essentially the country was gutted and stripped of everything that made them proud.

The final terms of the treaty were the worst of all. Germany was ordered to repay the war debt that had accumulated over the course of the war. They were charged 132 Billion Gold Marks, with a requirement of 50 Billion to be paid in full. If we adjusted for inflation, that would be $393.6 billion dollars (using the year 2005 as a point of reference). This threw the country into shambles. The citizens had lost all faith and credibility in the Monarchy and the military. While the war started with the Kaiser playing an active role in the planning and decision making, by its end he had been completely in the dark as to what was actually happening in his own country. The two generals who essentially ran the country during this time were Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenberg. Of these two, you could argue that Ludendorff was more responsible for decisions with a warped sense of reality to the loyalty of the German people and their troops.

Germany Post-war

With the Weimar Republic formed, Germany began elections under a new democracy and the former Kaiser went into exile. He ended up living the rest of his life in the Netherlands. He always thought that one day he’d return to his post but it never came. He sadly had hopes that with Hitler’s rise, he would return to prominence. But like so many others, he too was placed under Nazi Occupation in the last years of his life. 

The new government began paying the war debt immediately. Then when Hitler rose to power in the 1930s he ordered the debt not to be paid. The country would not begin to pay that debt again until after WW2. The total war debt would not be paid in full until the year 2010, some 92 years since its enforcement.

So what are your thoughts? Does Germany deserve the blame? Or is the perception of their guilt clouded by revisionist history? It’s a debate that will probably go on forever. The only thing we can all agree with is that the end of the war in 1918 was not a real peace treaty; it was merely an agreement to stop fighting - placing a band-aid on the sore spot to be dealt with at another time. Do you think if those who signed the armistice of 1918 would have done something different, if they knew what was to come within 20 years? We’ll never know.

Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

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

The History of the Great War Podcast

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

The Lack of Christmas Traditions in America in the Mid-19th Century: ‘Olden times’

Today’s Christmas traditions have evolved over time in different countries. But in America, there were few shared Christmas traditions in the mid-19thcentury. Mac Guffey tells us about Christmas in America in 1855.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here), on Franksgiving (here), and the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two (here).

Kriss Kringle's Christmas Tree. Philadelphia, 1845.

Christmas time is here again!

“. . . the time of merry-making, social re-unions and every kind of feeling among all classes . . . Krisskringle is presumed to hold sway . . . by the wondering and expectant little ones . . . he is supposed to let himself down the dark mysterious chimney, and stuff their carefully hung-up stockings with sugar-plums, pretty toys and nameless other nick-nacks. Fond pa­rents forget their own care-laden years, and grow young in the delight and smiles of their children; green garland and branches and grateful looks give an air of freshness and festivity to the plainest home.”[1]

When this description appeared in the December 22nd edition of New York City’s The Evening Post, Franklin Pierce was the President of the United States - the Civil War was six years away – and Abe Lincoln was still a Whig. Yes, it was Christmas time - in antebellum America.

It was part of an opinion piece, written by Julia Logo, a correspondent for The Evening Post. The main thrust of her lengthy article was that the way Christian countries celebrated Christmas reflected the feelings of their people, and the traditions that they developed became a “bright imagery, that time seem not able to efface.”

Unhappy Christmas?

But she was not impressed with the way America celebrated Christmas – at least in 1855.

“In our own land, each one is left to commemorate this day as best suits his tastes and inclinations. It is not throughout the United States, and as is the case with most countries of Europe, a . . . popular festival. With the exception of Philadelphia, New Orleans and some few other towns of the Middle and Western States, there is but little geniality and harmony of feeling manifest­ed in its observance.” 

Not only was the enthusiasm for Christmas and the spirit of Christmas lacking in America, but also about the different dates on which it was observed in the different cities in this country:

“What strikes me as strange, Mr. Editor, is the vast difference in the sister cities New York and Philadelphia . . . In New York, but little attention is paid to the observance of Christ­mas, farther than the ringing of bells and preaching at some of the churches; here, New Year’s day takes the place of Christmas as a popular day of amusement and festivity. In Gotham childhood is the favorite protégé of Santa Claus, and [the children come]on this day for a full share of fanciful bounties, which the jovial patron is supposed to dispense in much the same mysterious manner as good old Krisskringle.

And Logo was not above some pointed barbs regarding her preferences about Christmas date OR the name of the mythical gift-giver!

“Through some comical misrepresentation of ideas and tradition, Santaclaus has been permitted by the Gothamites to hold his levee in their gay metropo­lis on the first day of the year, instead of the day al­lotted to that worthy spirit in most Christian countries in Europe, which is about the first of December.” [1]

She explained the manner in which Christmas was kept in other countries - the St. Nicholas Day traditions and superstitions in Switzerland, the different times for celebrating the festival among the Germans and the different names they had for Him who gave humanity its first Christmas gift.

“In some parts of Germany, it is Christmas morn, but more frequently Christmas eve that is dedicated to the presentation of gifts of every variety of form, shape and purpose, that the loving heart and skillful hand can suggest and perform . . .they have in some parts such rough, and ready genii, as Krisskringles, Beltsnickles, etc.; but these are all subservient to the beautiful “Christ-kind’’ (Christ-child,) who is the ruling spirit of the feast.” [2*]

But Christmas time was different in America. To Logo, it lacked a commonality, popularity, and the set of traditions like other Christian countries. This country had bits and pieces of every type of Christmas in the world – and even areas with none at all.

In other words – in 1855 - America was still looking for its way to celebrate Christmas. 

The View Now

In the 1965 TV special, A Charlie Brown Christmas,the Peanuts gang danced around the stage singing, Christmas Time Is Here.  One part of the song goes:

“Olden times and ancient rhymes; Of love and dreams to share.” [3]

From all of those ‘olden times’ the immigrants brought with them, America gradually found its own ‘Christmas Time’ traditions. Although our traditions - as Julia Logo noted 164 years ago - are a cultural mish-mash, they reflect the single, most salient feature of this country - America itself is a mish-mash of world cultures.

We should always be thankful for that diversity. Besides, who wants to find coal in their stocking on Christmas morning?

What do you think of American Christmas traditions? Let us know below.

References

[1] Logo, Julia. “Christmas Festivities.” The Evening Post – Saturday, December 22, 1855.

[2*] ‘Beltsnickles’ refers to Belsnickelwhich is an adaptation of Pelz Nichol, stemming from St. Nicholasand the December 6th gift-giving holiday commemorating his death. Krisskringleand Santaclausboth originated with the Dutch - a corruption of Christkindlein, or Christ Childand Sinter Klass, the shortened form of Sint Nikolaas(Dutch for Saint Nicholas). 

[3] “Christmas Time Is Here” a song written by Lee Mendelson and Vince Guaraldi for the 1965 TV special A Charlie Brown Christmas.

Where does Santa come from? The Origins of Christmas Traditions

It’s that time of the year again.

Santa Claus, reindeer, singing carols, putting up trees and decorating them while putting presents underneath, dealing with the struggles of shopping, and the after-holiday debt.  All the traditions that come with Christmas… But what are the origins of this special time of the year? Johann Hollar explains.

You can read Johann’s first article on the site on Chinese legend Mulan here.

A 1907 postcard with Santa Claus and his reindeers.

The Beginning of Christmas

For those of you who have gone to church for the many Sundays in your life I know that you are aware of the fact that December 24 and 25, are the days that honor the birth of The Savior Jesus Christ.

Originally the holiday was known as Saturnalia by the Romans.  It was during the same month as Christmas.  Executions were halted and conflicts were forbidden from being started during this time.  Decorating the houses, gift giving, feasting, and giving to the poor were also common during this festival.  There was also gambling, socializing, and playing music. (1)

Yule time

The reference to “Yuletide Carol” in the popular Christmas carol refers to the ancient Germanic calendar during their lunar year known as “yule” thus referring to the winter solstice, which we nowadays would refer to as December and January

It is also said by scholars, that this particular holiday is connected to the Norse god Odin and the Anglo-Saxon pagan name Mōdraniht or “Night of the Mother”, during which ritual sacrifices may have been made. (2)

Christmas Tree

While using plants to symbolize the Winter Solstice wasn’t uncommon in pre-Christian times, it wasn’t until the time of the reformer Martin Luther that he cut down a fir tree and put a small candle on one of the branches.

It would not be until the early 17thcentury that Christmas trees would become a ‘thing’.  There was much opposition to them from the clergy because of the use of Jesus Christ in such a celebration.  Oliver Cromwell was a loud opponent in this, claiming that this heathen tradition with Christmas carols and being joyful was desecrating a sacred event.

It would not be until 1846, during the ninth year of the reign of Queen Victoria, when she and her husband Albert were sketched for the Illustrated London Newswith their children outside Windsor Castle that Christmas trees became more popular.  German immigrants brought their traditions to England and after Queen Victoria started celebrating Christmas with the fir trees it quickly became a custom all over England.

The Christmas tree became more popular in the United States after President Franklin Pierce (1853-57) had a Christmas tree brought into the White House.  President Calvin Coolidge was the first President to have the tree lighting ceremony on the White House lawn in 1923. (3)

Santa Claus

Jolly old Saint Nick himself has quite the tale behind him.

The inspiration behind Santa Claus began in the fourth century CE (Common Era) where he was known as St. Nicholas and was a Bishop.  It was also said that St. Nicholas himself was a very rich person from when his parents died at a young age.

What made him such a legend was that there was a poor man who had three daughters and had no money to give as a dowry.  One night, a bag of gold was dropped down the chimney for the first daughter and then later the second.  When it came time for the third bag of gold, Nicholas was caught by the father.  He had beseeched the father not to tell anyone, but news got out anyway and Nicholas was given the title of Saint.

It would not be until the sixteenth century, after the Reformation, that the early concept of Santa Claus came to be.  The subject of Saint Nicholas had become unpopular, but someone needed to deliver gifts during this occasion.

In England he was known as ‘Father Christmas’ or ‘Old Man Christmas’, in France he was known as 'Père Nöel'.  He would be known as Kris Kringle in the early USA and would later be called ‘Santa Claus’ when Dutch immigrants came to the USA and would combine Kris Kringle with Saint Nicholas, thus coming up with the word ‘Sinterklass’ or as we know him today - ‘Santa Claus’. (4)

Mistletoe

Enjoy kissing someone under the Mistletoe?  The concept of hanging Mistletoe was first undertaken during the Greek festival of Saturnalia and later it would symbolize marriage.

The Mistletoe was said to promote fertility and even life-giving power.

In Nordic culture, it would be considered a peace-plant that ceased all conflict - or even for couples to kiss under to cease hostilities.  Later, in eighteenth century England, it would have a certain magical appeal and be called a kissing ball.

Today, kissing under Mistletoe is done mostly by couples married to symbolize their continued love for each other or an unmarried couple’s symbol that they are not only lovers, but in the hopes that they will one day be married.

Conclusion

Whether or not you celebrate Christmas, you can still be merry for the holidays in knowing that these holidays have such a rich and vibrant history.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, a Happy Holiday, and of course, peace and goodwill unto all.

What do you think of the history of Christmas traditions? Let us know below.

References

(1) https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/saturnalia

(2) https://www.bustle.com/articles/131538-what-does-yuletide-mean-an-investigation-into-this-weird-christmas-word

(3) https://www.zmescience.com/science/history-science/origin-christmas-tree-pagan/

(4) https://www.whychristmas.com/customs/fatherchristmas.shtml

(5) https://www.theholidayspot.com/christmas/history/mistletoe.htm

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 3 – Ever Greater Tensions in Europe

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 the roles of Russia, Germany, France, and Britain prior to war breaking out in August 1914.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here and part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here.

German troops marching through Blankenberge, Belgium in World War I.

We ended part two with Austria beginning to mobilize towards war. The generals had a plan; and sad to say it’s probably the most flawed war plan of all time. Their plan was based on a six-week timeline. In that time they planned to invade Serbia, destroy it, and subsequently conquer it. Anyone else see a problem with this plan? Its ambitious sure, it may even be a feeling of confidence. But any confidence Austria had is sheer cockiness. Let us face it, Austria has always wanted the area that makes up Serbia and needed a reason to go in and take it. The Archduke’s death allowed this to happen.

There is a truth to what is really going on in Austria. The last time the country was at war, was 48 years prior in 1866. Between then and now, there is no definitive armed force. The would be soldiers were actually farmers and industry workers – these soldiers weren’t even alive the last time war came to their homes. Right off the back Austria needed to train soldiers and quickly. But that’s not the only reality they hadn’t faced. The railroad system had not been tended to in years, and there were areas across the country that still didn’t have rail tracks at all. The ones that remained had not been tended to in years. Lastly, there were the ranking members of armed forces - these men were veteran soldiers. They were also overly confident. But these were also men who fought 48 years before. Their tactics and plans and approaches were all outdated. Their choices in formations and the use of cavalries weren’t feasible any longer.  

With all these issues and preparation for war, they faced one more issue. The timing of the escalating conflict had occurred in the middle of the farming harvest for the year. So now not only did they need to train soldiers, update railway systems, and plan with outdated military resources, but they also had to wait for those farmers to finish their harvest. This is why the plan of six weeks was fundamentally flawed. They’d need six weeks to take care of the issues they have and then prepare for war. In short, it was an unrealistic plan. 

Russian Action

Meanwhile, over in Russia, the Tsar had some choices to make. He knew that if Austria mobilized her army that Germany would too. Germany had a border with Russia; which increases the chances of conflict at that border. There was also the relationship with Serbia. There was no formal agreement in place like Belgium had with Britain. Either way, the tsar felt that there was some level of protection he should give to help the Serbs. He decided to mobilize. 

In terms of preparedness, Russia was like Austria; the only caveat is that they did not have a timeline of how events were to play out. They too had outdated rail systems, farmers that needed to be trained as soldiers and commanders overly confident in the power of what the country can muster in a crisis. Russia is the largest country on earth, and with that distinction comes another: the largest army in the world. But the number of men cannot be successful if they were beaten by technological advancements. 

Back in the late 19th century Russia had a spat with Japan. This conflict would become known as the Russo-Japanese War. Other powers in Europe assumed that any ‘civilized’ country could easily beat a country that is little more than an island chain. Well good thing no one bet on the matchup because Japan won the war. Their win sent shockwaves through Europe. The war revealed to the world two dark truths of Russia: that their army could not be controlled, and there was an uneasy resentfulness of the monarchy. 1905 was a year that had handed a warning in another way - it gave the royal family a warning that the Russian people were not happy. 

No one could understand how a country as large and as populated as Russia could lose a war in such a way. The reasons lay in the lack of training we mentioned above as well as technology advancements elsewhere. But there was also the issue of transportation. The country probably had a worse rail system than Austria did. In fact, at the time, the United States had more railway systems than Russia had ever put down. 

Military Commanders in Russia were not appointed based on experience. It was a society of ‘who knows who’ aristocracy that paid little attention to threats facing the country. That’s not to say that all positions were based on who you knew; there were a few ranks that required military experience but they were far and few. The commanders of the war would make decisions that had major repercussions across the country during the war years. These actions only added to the fuel that was the Russian Revolution in 1917. 

German Ultimatum

Now that Russia had mobilized, Germany sent an ultimatum: Either stop the preparations or they would be forced to mobilize their forces. While the official message was clear, what was not is the relationship between their respective heads of state. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were third cousins; both sharing the same great great grandfather Peter I of Russia. The two began writing to each other in hopes of coming to some kind of agreement. The letters, later known as the “Willy-Nicky correspondence” did not have the result either of them wanted. The reason being that by now the decision making was well out of their hands - generals, prime ministers, and other officials were now calling the shots. 

Seeing how the letters did nothing to soothe the situation, and with Russia concerned over her ability to succeed in another war, Russia made a few calls to their ally France. The Franco-Russian Alliance was essentially a military agreement between the two nations. With Germany gaining strength in the late 19th century both countries found it needed to align with each other in the event of conflict. Now with Germany giving ultimatums, Russia activated the alliance with France. 

France up until this point had been waiting in the wings. The government had been paying attention to the events knowing that this may be the chance to get a little revenge on Germany. When Russia called on France they are all for it. The territories they lost in the Franco-Prussian War were still a sore spot and they wanted that land back. 

Escalating Tensions

Lets stop and recap for a second. Two sides have now formed: Germany and Austria-Hungary versus Serbia, Russia, and now France. If you looked at a map, or even from space that is a solid chunk of Europe and part of Asia. This is escalating, but at the level of the commanders and leaders, it's still not apparent that it will end in war. 

Germany realized that with France to its west and Russia to its east they were looking at a two front conflict. On one point they were determined to finish off France. Russia they thought could be dealt with later. This is where their plan forms to deal with both countries. As long as they could take out one of them first before either is ready, they had a shot of winning. This plan looked great on paper, but was not fully investigated. The German plan was to invade one of them, and take them out. This way a two front conflict becomes one. In looking at their options, Germany chose France to invade first because they assumed that it would take Russia longer to mobilize its forces. In that time it was theorized they could eliminate France before Russia could come with aid. 

So France was the first step. It would not be an easy approach either. Commanders went over all possible points of entry to invade France. Only one made the most sense and that was to march through the relatively new country of Belgium. Germany asked Belgium if they could march through to get to France and Belgium said no. Well Germany didn’t take well to the denial and begin to threaten Belgium that they would march through with or without permission. This was a huge mistake on the part of German arrogance. They neglect the fact that Belgium is under the protection of Great Britain.

Britain’s Role

If there was any European Power truly not directly affected by the events in Sarajevo, it was Great Britain. She’s is like the sleeping bear in the back of the cave; she may stir every once in a while, but as long as you don’t bother her or her cubs she’ll stay sleeping. Belgium is one of her cubs. When the country was formed a treaty was put in place. The Treaty of London (1839) stated that if any state threatened the neutrality of Belgium, Great Britain was required to enforce the treaty and protect Belgium. This is where Germany went wrong. When it came down to it, Great Britain was the one country that Germany did not want to go up against.

Britain had not only the firepower and global standing, they had more troops than any other country across its territories. Those troops would be not only from Britain, but also Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, etc. With the largest empire on earth Germany knew fighting them would likely mean defeat. But by now the situation was too far along. And the confidence Germany had blinded them to any real logical action. After threatening Belgium, they invoked the terms of The Treaty of London.

War Begins

Britain wasn’t really trying to go to war. They had their own problems in Ireland. Political unrest and violence between Catholics and Protestants kept them from really watching what’s happening across Europe. The Prime Minister David Lloyd George received the call of help from Belgium and discussed it with his government. They decided to give Germany a timetable. They had until midnight local time to send word they would not enter Belgium. Midnight came and went, and Britain had her answer. They started mobilizing their troops. 

By now Germany was at the border of Belgium. They did ask one more time about marching through. Again Belgium declines. Germany began entering Belgium. The date was August 4, 1914 and the war was officially live. So now we know how it all began. What’s next? Part 4 will have that and the wrap up to this tale.

What do you think about Germany invading France through Belgium? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

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

The History of the Great War Podcast

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

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.