America’s society seems increasingly divided these days – but such division has deep origins. Here, Daniel L. Smith offers his perspective on the division of American society and his take on radical politics by going back to slavery and the US Civil War.

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

An 1884 depiction of a cotton plantation on the Mississippi. Such plantations were key to the southern US economy for much of the 18th and 19th centuries.

An 1884 depiction of a cotton plantation on the Mississippi. Such plantations were key to the southern US economy for much of the 18th and 19th centuries.

When America was established, it was based not in only one region, but three regions. Northern, Middle and Southern Colonies - each with their own various political charters and slightly differing Christian doctrine. Political and cultural expansion is a complex political and cultural process that takes decades to accomplish, but only at a snail’s pace. The American Colonies started off representative of what the nation would come to be founded upon—an orderly Christian society. One based upon the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, guaranteeing prosperity, as promised in Scripture. Over time, corruption of American doctrine and certainly poor pastoral leadership weakened throughout our nation’s existence, and would give way to the adaptation of certain aristocratic principles, including the slave-driven aspect of the economy in the South.

This flaw in their radical method of economics, politics, and culture would begin to slowly emerge over time. The Democratic Party officially formed in the 1828 election when Andrew Jackson ($20 bill) defeated (Federalist) John Quincy Adams in the presidential election that year. Now before moving ahead, we have to step back for a moment and look at the economics of the South at that time. The economy of the South was largely based on agriculture. Cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar cane, and indigo (a plant that was used for blue dye) were sold as cash crops. Cotton ultimately became the most important staple crop after Ely Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin. More slaves were now needed to pick the cotton and as a result of this slavery became absolutely essential to the South’s economy.

Moving ahead, lead positions in the local governments of the South were typically elected by the minority of farm owners, whom also were elected due to their status as the wealthy farm-elite. Because of this, the South’s policies were ultimately determined by the upper-class plantation owners and their families. It was primarily children of plantation owners who received education. Essentially, the South revolved around plantation life. It’s no surprise that the Southern government municipalities were all monopolized by the "Democratic Elite", this gave the government and business elite the ability to manipulate the decentralized laws set in place for individual states and local governments. Remember, slaves were considered property and not of human value, so giving them zero political or human rights whatsoever.

The Confederacy (composed of Democrats, along with some radical Republicans) fought and lost the Civil War with the fundamental basis of slavery as their way of life. May I remind you all that just because you lose a war it does not mean that you completely lose or even change your ideology? The slaves were 'freedmen' with no social or economic safety net, nor given any formal re-education into American society. At the end of the Civil War, much of the conquered Confederacy lay in ruins. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 and 1868 placed most of the southern states under military rule, requiring Union Army governors to approve appointed officials and candidates for election.

 

Enfranchised to Disenfranchised

They enfranchised African-American citizens and required voters to recite an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, effectively discouraging still-rebellious individuals from voting, and led to Republican control of many state governments. This was interpreted as anarchy and upheaval by many residents. However, Democrats had regained power in most Southern states by the late 1870s. Later, this period came to be referred to as "Redemption". From 1890 to 1908, the Democrats (who will now also be called the ‘radicals’ for the rest of this article) passed statutes and amendments to their state constitutions that effectively disenfranchised most African Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites. They did this through devices such as poll taxes to vote and literacy tests to “qualify” (among other underhand tactics).

By the late 1950s, the Democratic Party again began to embrace the Civil Rights Movement, and the old argument that Southern whites had to vote for Democrats to protect segregation grew weaker. The Democratic Party realized that regardless of the outcomes of the Civil War and Reconstruction, the policy of "slavery-by-color" was over. Even segregation became an option not viable to their party’s ethics, which was to oppress the poor regardless of color. So how did they do this? Well, modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and a more diverse culture to cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte and Houston. This attracted millions of northern migrants, including many African Americans. They gave priority to modernization and economic growth over preservation of the "old ways" of the Democratic Party.

The radicals shifted their focus to an emphasis on societal engineering that would ultimately program our society into being ego-driven, self-centered, ignorant, and constantly pushed by the media to chase a never-to-arrive dream of money, fame, and power. This new programming in our society started with television (ads and sitcoms) and its ability to mass-manipulate American society, full well knowing that the most vulnerable place to attack a person’s psyche is their own home and place of comfort. Scientists, psychologists, and technologists have all contributed to this - knowingly and unknowingly. Radical leaders have set up institutions specifically aimed at buying up mainstream media outlets and funding universities for the benefit of pushing their political agenda and ethos. Keeping the average family divided morally, and constantly in debt -- morally and financially. This ultimately attacks one’s own personal and fundamental direction in life.

 

A Wake Up Call

President Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat) was a President whom I believe is the first President to come into the full knowledge of certain political shifts and the public’s manipulation. The quote appeared for the first time anywhere on page 33 of Ronald Kessler’s book, Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World’s Most Powerful Institution, published in 1995. Johnson, like other presidents, would often reveal his true motivations in asides that the press never picked up. During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them (African Americans) voting Democratic for two hundred years.” Further, “That was the reason he was pushing the bill,” said MacMillan, who was present during the conversation. “Not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic Party. He was phony from the word go.” The “MacMillan” referenced above was Ronald M. MacMillan, a former Air Force One steward Kessler interviewed for Inside the White House.

This example illustrates today's radical establishment, which does not reflect the earlier Northern-Democratic party of the early 19th century that carried moderate principles. It seems as though radical policies had been adjusted to remake the Democratic Party of the 1860s. This is not a political rant slamming the Democratic Party, as much as it is a historical discussion to certain facts pertaining to our political and cultural origins. America has been fighting the same cultural battles since the Civil War; however, these battles are being fought in the much larger context of what is American culture.

The information received by the public is much more complex to grasp today; indeed it is harder than ever to find an individual understanding of what “truth” actually means. I guess Phil Collins was right when his band Genesis made the music billboards in the late 1980s with their hit song “Land of Confusion.” It was not just a play on American societal direction and what was to follow in the aftermath of the 1980s, but a seriously powerful and honest observation by a common man with a gift. Misleading the public is a serious pitfall that will have consequences for our society.  Discernment about everything today from our life choices made daily, to the information we are taking into our heads.

 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (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), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne?  What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two (here), we discussed the sons of George III and how the lack of heirs prompted the events that led to Victoria’s birth.

Here in part 3 we’ll consider Victoria’s children with Prince Albert, how the genetic disease hemophilia spelled disaster for Europe in the 20th century, and various ‘what if’ scenarios.

Denise Tubbs explains.

Prince Albert, Queen Victoria and their nine children, 1857.

Prince Albert, Queen Victoria and their nine children, 1857.

To start, let’s consider hemophilia. It is a disease whereby a person’s blood does not clot. Clotting of blood is essential as clotting helps stop bleeding. As a result, the affected person will bleed for longer than those without the disease. They will bruise easily, take longer to heal, and can bleed internally. Any of these can lead to death. In the 19th century, a disease like this would likely result in a limited life span.  A lot has been learned about the disease since the time of Victoria and her immediate family. In fact, al lot of what was learned was from the study of Victoria herself and her children. 

So how does one get a disease like this? We already established that it is a genetic disease; so, the individual must carry that gene and then pass it to their children. Putting on our high school biology hats we learned that humans have 46 Chromosomes. So 23 from mother and 23 from father combine to make the next person. In that same class we learn about dominant and recessive genes. A large ‘X’ for example would denote a dominant gene, while ‘x’ means recessive genes. Now, women’s chromosomes are represented by ‘X or x’ symbols, and men are just ‘Y’. Hemophilia is a recessive disease that is carried in the ‘x’ chromosomes. Since we know that men only inherit one ‘x, X’ from their mother, the man will inherit one or the other. Men will have a 50/50 chance of getting the disease from their mother. And yes, in case you’re thinking, women can get hemophilia but only if she receives both recessive ‘x’ genes. 

 

Victoria’s impact

Victoria was a carrier of the disease and had a total of nine children with Albert. Of her four male children, only one had the disease. Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, made it to adulthood and had two children; but the disease killed him after a fall in 1884. His daughter Alice would inherit the gene from her father and went on to pass it to her son Rupert of Teck. This would become a pattern in all of Victoria’s children, influencing the world. 

Calling Victoria the ‘Grandmother of Europe’ was an understatement. All her children made it to adulthood, and all married into prominent families of Europe. And she would have a total of 87 grandchildren. Through this, her daughters brought the disease right into the heart of Europe. Daughters Beatrice and Alice both would pass on the gene to their daughters: Alix (future Empress Alexandra of Russia), Irene, Victoria (future Queen of Spain) all carried the disease. We already know how the story ends for Empress Alexandra and her son Alexei, Tsarevich of Russia. His disease would in part be the catalyst for the fall of the Russian Empire. 

But what of the other two? Beatrice’s daughter born Victoria Eugene married into the Spanish royal line. Later as Queen of Spain two of her three sons inherited the disease. Alphonso, Prince of Asturias, died after a car accident; his injuries exacerbated by the hemophilia inherited from his great-great grandmother Victoria. Eerily his brother Infante Gonzalo of Spain also died in a car accident years before and also had the disease. 

Irene, or Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine, had three sons with her husband Prince Henry of Prussia. Two of her sons would inherit the disease, with one (Heinrich Viktor) dying at age four. The other son Prince Waldemar Wilhelm not only lived to adulthood; he lived the longest of all the men afflicted with the disease. Waldemar lived until the age of 56, by far the oldest of any of his cousins. During the final stages of World War II, Waldemar had fled the safety of his home in Bavaria when word came of a Russian advance. He relied on blood transfusions to keep his hemophilia in check. 

After leaving Bavaria, he and his wife made it to the town of Tutzing and Waldemar was able to get a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the United States entered the city and took over all available resources.  The army had moved all medical supplies and personnel to the nearby concentration camp of Dachau. With no other option of medical assistance Prince Waldemar died in May of 1945, due to complications from the disease.

 

The importance of Victoria’s family

In looking at the impact of Victoria and her family, clearly, we see that this one family controlled more than just the fates of each other. They also held the world in its hands. Even after her death, her eldest son Albert (later Edward the VII) came to be called the ‘Uncle of Europe’ because of the number of relations by blood and marriage. Indeed, if Victoria had not been born, the world could look very different. It’s an interesting thing to contemplate - a lot of ‘what if’s’ begin to emerge. 

Starting with the circumstances of Princess Charlotte. If she had lived, and by extension her child (who was a boy), the line of Hanover would have continued through him. We can only guess who he would have married and subsequently the impact it would have had on Europe.

But in a situation where Charlotte had lived, and her son did not, there are two scenarios. Firstly, that the young age of Princess Charlotte would surely have allowed another chance to have a child with Prince Leopold. This could have prevented his crowning of Leopold as the first king of Belgium. Leopold stayed in London after Charlotte died, and the Belgian revolution resulted in a list of candidates to take the throne of the country. Leopold, who had already turned down the crown in Greece, may have opted not to take the crown and instead remain with his wife. With no Leopold as the king of Belgium, it could also mean that his son Leopold II would not have been born and the exploitation and atrocities in the Congo would not have happened.

The second scenario is that with Charlotte surviving and the child dying, there would still have been a succession issue since she and Leopold were still childless. It could be theorized that if she had become pregnant with a second child and still died, the crown is in the same position as before. Only in this scenario, if Victoria is not born, the crown would go to Ernst Augustus and subsequently his son George. The line of Hanover would then exist in Britain and Germany through the unification of Germany in 1866.

There are more ‘what ifs’ out there, regarding the line of Victoria; however I think these are probably the two largest. 

 

What do you think would have happened if Princess Charlotte of Wales had not sadly died? Let us know below.

Standing on the roof terrace of his recently opened publishing house at Franklin Square, Lower Manhattan on May 24, 1883, Richard Kyle Fox witnessed the opening of The Brooklyn Bridge. As the festive nuptials between Manhattan and Brooklyn proceeded, the millionaire's decision to send out ten thousand invitations to his palatial new building ensured that many of New York's dignitaries were afforded a unique vantage point from which to witness this "wire wedding" extravaganza.

Though President Chester A. Arthur could not avail of Fox's hospitality on this occasion due to his ceremonial engagements, he did find time to give a special salute by "doffing his cap repeatedly to the cheers that resounded from the gay and festive sporting palace." Who was Fox and how had he achieved such eminence?

Liam Hayes explains.

Richard Kyle Fox, c. 1908.

Richard Kyle Fox, c. 1908.

Born in Belfast on August 12, 1846, Richard Kyle Fox truly was the epitome of that "rags to riches" narrative popularised in many a Horatio Alger novel. Before arriving at Castle Garden immigration station (now Castle Clinton) in 1874, Fox's formative years were spent as an office boy at the Banner of Ulster newspaper and later as a debt collector for the Belfast News-Letter.

His background in the publishing industry in the Old World served him well as he almost immediately found employment. Following a brief period at the Commercial Bulletin, Fox secured a full time position at the then struggling National Police Gazette, a weekly newspaper which was mainly concerned with exposing rogues, racketeers, and all things nefarious.

Such was the Irishman's impact at the Police Gazette's advertising department, he was able to relieve the owners of their debt-ridden rag within a year in lieu of wages owed to him. Now at the helm, Fox doubled the pages to sixteen, began printing on eye-catching pink paper, and targeted young men who frequented Gotham's myriad of barrooms, brothels and barbershops. The Fox journalistic doctrine was simple: "Tell your story in three paragraphs at most; if you can't tell it in three, tell it in two, and if you can't tell it in two, get the hell out of here!"

An 1891 version of the National Police Gazette.

An 1891 version of the National Police Gazette.

Boxing promoter

Fox's breakthrough occurred in 1880 following his decision to cover the much anticipated pugilistic contest between Tipperary's Paddy Ryan and Joe Goss of England. The fight, in which Ryan was victorious, created an unprecedented demand for the Police Gazette, and the accompanying woodcut illustrations of the event afforded those unable to travel to the illegal prizefight at Collier's Station, West Virginia a unique journalistic experience.

Subsequently entering the surreptitious world of prizefight promotion, the young publisher eventually encountered a young braggadocious Bostonian by the name of John L. Sullivan. Sullivan and Fox's less than cordial relationship, supposedly ignited by the former's refusal to accept the publisher's hospitality at Harry Hill's notorious Bowery entertainment establishment, ensured an evidently convenient discord, as both men profited handsomely from the publicity.

Becoming the biggest boxing promoter in the United States by pitting opponents against Sullivan, sales of Fox's Police Gazetteincreased rapidly. The practice of awarding championship belts was popularised by Fox, including the famous Police Gazette Diamond Belt. Other belts included Jack "nonpareil" Dempsey's middleweight belt, Jack McAuliffe's lightweight belt and Ike "Belfast Spider" Weir's featherweight championship belt. For his contribution to the fistic phenomenon of the late 1800s the publisher was posthumously inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1997.

 

Sports promotion

In addition to the Police Gazette's boxing coverage, the prescient publisher also promoted all manner of athletic contests, including wrestling, weightlifting, baseball and many peculiar feats of human endeavour, most notably the exploits of French-Canadian strongman Louis Cyr and famed Irish-American wrestler William Muldoon. Annie Oakley, the celebrated female sharpshooter from Ohio was extremely proud of the medal awarded to her by Fox. In 1896 he sponsored Frank Samuelsen and George Harbo's successful crossing of the Atlantic Ocean in an eighteen-foot rowboat. In all, Fox is estimated to have donated almost $1 million in trophies and medals.

Not confining his publication to sports, Fox's Gazette was teeming with titillating woodcut illustrations of Gilded-Age beauties, voluptuous Victorian ladies, and many of the leading stage soubrettes of that era.

It was for the gratuitous nature of these illustrations that Fox came to the attention of Anthony Comstock (1844-1915), United States Postal Inspector and founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. "These weekly illustrated papers are staunch, well-constructed traps of the devil, capable of catching and securely holding the mind and heart of the young, until they yield a ready service to the father of all evil," wrote the Connecticut native in 1883. Comstock had Fox prosecuted on many occasions but this only resulted in increased interest and circulation for the wily Belfast man’s weekly. 

As the 1800s drew to a close, Fox was spending more and more time at his new offices in London's Fleet Street. He became a popular figure amongst Britain's aristocracy and was made an honorary member of the infamous Pelican Club. When Hugh Lowther, the extravagant Earl of Lonsdale required a lightweight carriage for his much anticipated race against Lord Shrewsbury in March, 1891, Fox had one specially shipped-over from New York.

 

Legacy

Richard Kyle Fox died on Nov. 24, 1922, at his home in Red Bank, New Jersey. He was interred in an elaborate, Egyptian-themed mausoleum at Woodlawn cemetery in the Bronx, New York. His beloved National Police Gazette, once the most popular perusal wherever men gathered to escape the confines of Gilded-Age propriety, had long been imitated and succeeded by the larger daily newspapers of media moguls such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.

Fox's Police Gazette went bankrupt in 1932 and changed ownership many times before it eventually ceased publication under the ownership of Canadian publisher Joseph Azaria in 1977. The Police Gazette building (once one of the most impressive buildings in New York) from where Richard Kyle Fox had proudly witnessed the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 had been demolished a decade earlier. The building’s ornate railings, their glorious gilding long since disappeared, were fortunately salvaged by Pop-Art aficionado Ivan Karp and later donated to the Brooklyn Museum by the William and Marian Zeckendorf Foundation.

 

 

What do you think of Richard Kyle Fox? Let us know below.

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 explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. In the fourth and final article we will see how Baptists, in particular John Leland, played an important role in ensuring religious freedom in America.

Victor Gamma explains. You can read part 1 on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17th century America here, part 2 on Roger Williams and religious freedom here, and how Baptists became tolerated (here).

A depiction of John Leland. Available here.

A depiction of John Leland. Available here.

And now the main event! We will see that Religious liberty is enshrined in the constitution of the new nation thanks, at least in part, to the Baptists. It was a long, hard road to get there. If you were a Baptist, Pennsylvania life would be good. Founded by such a broad-minded fellow as William Penn, Pennsylvania offered a level of tolerance rare in the world at that time. But in places like Massachusetts and Virginia, matters were different, and here the battles over religious freedom were fought the hardest. Back in Massachusetts, Henry Dunster, none other than the first president of Harvard College, had abandoned Puritan doctrine and come to accept Baptist theology regarding baptism. Dunster was subject to earnest efforts by the colonial magistrates to return to Puritan orthodoxy. He refused to give up his beliefs, holding firmly to the conviction that only adults could be baptized.  Forced to resign his position at Harvard, Dunster exiled himself and became pastor of the First Church of Scituate, Massachusetts. Charges were brought against him but they never made it to court. The incident was a shock to the Puritan community; if the president of Harvard could become a dissenter, Baptist beliefs could not be ignored.

 

Going to Court

A tiny band of Baptists, founding a church in June, 1665, found themselves ordered to attend the Congregational Church. In September, upon refusing to attend the Standing Order, several members, including a Mr. Gould, were ordered to stand before the court where they presented their confession of faith. The court heard them but ordered the nonconforming Gould and his followers to “desist from their schismatic practices.” Upon refusing to pay a fine, the group was charged with “Schismaticall opposition to the Churches of Christ here settled” and jailed. They were released, but Gould and a few others were jailed again in 1668 for participating in a “public disputation” at the First Church in Boston on April 14-15, 1668. Once brought before the court, the defendants were not allowed to speak. David Benedict, a contemporary, commented, “When the disputants met there was a long speech made by one of their opponents, showing what vile persons the Baptists were and how they acted against the churches and government here, and stood condemned by the Court. The Baptists desired liberty to speak, but they would not suffer them, but told them that they stood there as delinquents and ought not to have liberty to speak.”

Transcripts of the offending debate at the First Church have come down to us. John Trumble, although not himself a Baptist, defended the Baptist position, while Jonathan Mitchell, a Congregational Minister, argued the case for the Standing Order. The exchange displayed the fundamental differences between Baptist and Puritans regarding the wisdom of allowing religious freedom or equality for any dissenting sect:

Thrumble: We came for liberty of conscience as well as yourselves. You had not a patent for such a form: and you are not perfect. We are daily exhorted to be growing [in] grace and knowledge: and if you be not perfect: we are to look for light as well as you.

Mitchell: You say the patent give us liberty of conscience. Lo there is no such word as liberty of conscience. This people had made a sad bargain for themselves and their posterity if they had come hither for . . . liberty."

 

John Leland and the US constitution

Such persecution continued into the revolutionary era. Through the colonial era Baptists persevered in advocating for freedom of religion. When the struggle for independence from Great Britain got under way, most Baptists joined the American cause despite generations of harassment at the hands of their fellow-colonists. They were determined, though, to leverage the conflict to their advantage and put an end, once and for all, to religious persecution. Among the leaders that emerged to head the fight for religious liberty was John Leland of Virginia. 

After American independence was secured and the young nation tackled the challenge of writing a constitution John Leland was determined that the new nation would guarantee the freedoms that Baptists had long been denied. Leland was an articulate and effective spokesman for the Baptist cause. He was also uncompromising in his conviction for the absolute separation of church and state. In a strongly-worded essay, he declared, "The liberty I contend for, is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration, is despicable, it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest, to grant indulgence whereas, all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians. Test oaths, and established creeds, should be avoided as the worst of evils." The Baptists supported the like-minded Jefferson and Madison as they drew up Virginia’s Statute for Religious freedom. But this milestone needed to be applied on a national level, which brings us to the Bill of Rights. 

If you happen to be in Virginia visiting historic sites and you are on your way to Monticello, you will most likely miss a small park. It is the Leland-Madison Memorial Park. This is where a meeting took place which had a direct impact on the First Amendment. But first, the back story.

 

Religious freedom

Leland had written a letter to Madison asking him to include stronger guarantees of religious liberties.  He put that at the very end of the letter to make sure Madison would not forget. For his part, Madison needed little convincing. As a young man fresh out of college, he was keenly offended by the persecution of religious minorities, such as Baptists, in his native Virginia. On exactly how to implement religious freedom in the Constitution, however, the two men did not agree. Madison did not feel that an amendment specifically to safeguard religious liberty was necessary. Leland and his fellow Baptists, having suffered generations of persecution, strongly disagreed.  When Madison didn’t respond to Leland’s letter, the Baptist firebrand decided to turn up the heat. Since Baptists represented an important voting block in the district Madison represented in the First Congress under the new Constitution, Leland threatened to run against him if he did not provide a firm guarantee of religious liberty. Leland, in fact, had more votes than Madison for the Orange County seat that would go to the convention to ratify the Constitution.  Madison needed Leland’s support to win. This prompted a visit to Leland by the great lawyer. In the fine traditions of American politics, a deal was struck whereby Leland agreed to drop his bid for Madison’s seat and Madison committed to push for the clear guarantee of religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. When this hallowed document became the law of the land in 1791, Baptists knew that at last their long-delayed dream of religious freedom had been realized. 

Leland continued his career as a fiery preacher, political leader and fierce advocate of the separation of church and state. In a July 4 address in 1802 he thundered, “Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny — the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans [sic] of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful.” When the stout-hearted champion of liberty finally succumbed on January 14, 1841 his tombstone included these words: “Here lies the body of John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men.” It was not only a fitting epitaph for Leland but could very well serve as an appropriate tribute for all Baptists.

 

How important do you think John Leland was in guaranteeing religious freedom in America? Let us know below.

References

Leonard, Bill J. Baptist Ways: A History. Valley Forge PA: Judson Press, 2001.

Shurden, Walter B. (2008). Turning Points in Baptist History. Mercer University Press. 

Ferguson, John E. The First Amendment Encyclopedia, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1219/john-leland

American Senator Joseph McCarthy remains well known due to his Communist witch-hunts in 1950s America. But others were giving similar messages a decade earlier. Here, Alex Reid explains how Vincent Hartnett was discussing the rise of Communism and its threat to America in the 1940s.

A colorised image of Joseph McCarthy, a man much more famous for his anti-Communism than Vincent Hartnett. Available here.

A colorised image of Joseph McCarthy, a man much more famous for his anti-Communism than Vincent Hartnett. Available here.

McCarthy and the 1950s

The 1950s for the United States proved to be a time in which it could flex some of its muscle as a new world superpower after the conclusion of the Second World War. Consumerism was flourishing amongst citizens and Rock n’ Roll was hitting the mainstream. However, the same decade in which Elvis Presley was swinging his hips on the new media platform of television is synonymous with Communist anxiety. No one better personifies this anxiety, arguably, than Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy was a Senator from Wisconsin during the 1950s who reached a level of infamy that few can claim to have without leaving behind a body count. His ascent into notoriety as well as fear mongering began with a speech he delivered in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9, 1950. As we know, the speech mostly consisted of McCarthy ranting that he held a list of known Communists that had infiltrated the State Department. The ensuing panic gave McCarthy his own “ism” and the early 1950s became known as the McCarthy era.

It is no secret that McCarthy was not the first person to spread fears of an impending Communist takeover, he does get the most attention though. He also wasn’t the only one to do so using religious overtones due to his strong Catholic upbringing. During the 1940s, before McCarthy was the face of anti-Communism, a writer named Vincent Hartnett was polluting the air with Communist fears. Hartnett would obtain some notoriety himself in the Faulk v. AWARE Inc. court case. Hartnett was one of the founders of AWARE Inc. in 1953 which was one of the organizations responsible for the blacklisting of celebrities during the 1950s due to possible Communist affiliations.[i] In 1962 Hartnett was being sued by actor John Henry Faulk for lost wages and libel. Faulk was fired from his job as a radio host due to the publications by AWARE Inc. labeling him as a Communist. Hartnett’s publications during the two decades before the court case show that he was no stranger to condemning people for what he saw as the downfall of the country.

 

Hartnett’s Fears During the 1940s

Hartnett wrote numerous articles for America Press Inc, the subjects of which ranged from book reviews to critiques on society. The former usually turned into the latter, however. One of his favorite themes was the impending collapse of western civilization due to the rise of naturalism and society’s shift away from religion. In an article Hartnett published in 1941, he discussed the dire need for Catholic leadership against expanding paganism in the United States.[ii] He stated in the article that “At the present day, when the powers of hell are attacking the Mystical Body of Christ with almost unparalleled violence” not referring to anyone specifically but bringing attention to what he believed was a crisis. Hartnett wasted no time in placing blame for the destruction of religious values. He traced the causes back to English desists, French Encyclopedists and the Illuminati in Germany. Scientists and patent offices also received their own share of the blame for bringing too much comfort and convenience to our everyday lives.

Like McCarthy, Vincent Hartnett was a staunch Catholic. Both were obsessed with what seemed like an unseen nemesis to the American way of life. Harnett even went as far as to call naturalism an “invisible toxin” that was poisoning Catholics. According to Hartnett, Western civilization was almost beyond the point of saving. In another article he wrote for America Press in October 1941, he cited a census taken in 1926 that stated less than half American citizens attended any church regularly.[iii]Hartnett excelled at using religious rhetoric to stir up fear and anxiety in the community. However, after the United States became directly involved in the Second World War his writing shifted in attempts to disfigure the causes and meaning of the war.

 

Communism and Soviet Attacks on Faith

Hartnett published an article in 1942 titled “Wanted: More Saint Justins in the Church’s Serious Crisis” that heavily discussed the book Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson published in 1907.[iv] Immediately Hartnett points out that the novel is set at the end of the world in a time of universal Socialism.  He praises Benson for his far-sightedness but stated that he did not predict the rise of Communism or Nazism. Once again Hartnett tries to convince readers that Christianity is facing a time of absolute crisis. According to Hartnett, the true evil of Nazism and Communism is not the Holocaust or the Great Purge by Stalin, it was their attacks on spiritual values. In fact, he makes no mention of Nazi or Communist actions outside of religious perspectives. Hartnett goes as far to say that Nazism and Communism are nothing but the tip of the iceberg hiding the true enemy, naturalism.

Even though Nazism and Communism were discussed, Hartnett condemns the latter more so. The root of his condemnation was that “Communists have been more forthright in their abjuration of religion than have the Nazi leaders.” Death tolls did not seem to be a problem for Hartnett but what he believed was a Communist attempt at building a Utopia without God was. He argued that not only does Communism attempt to destroy religion, Communism is a logical reaction of the rejection of God. Without God, Hartnett argued, the United States would fall into a totalitarian government. The spread of Communism meant the spread of paganism which meant the downfall of the United States.

Hartnett proposed this supposed war on faith was being waged on the United States by the Soviet Bezbozhniki, or Union of Militant Godless.[v] Not only was this Soviet group attacking Christianity, it was attacking the American democratic way of life. He sincerely believed this group had been slowly poisoning the United States. The article culminated in a call to arms of all Catholics especially writers and journalists. He was charging these writers with the task of stopping the expansion of paganism through Communism in the United States. It should be noted that he mentioned that action must be taken quickly because America might already be losing to Communist despotism. Hartnett drew on emotion by relating the story of Saint Justin in which he became a martyr and wrote one last Christian message with his own blood. He stated that the United States needed more people like Saint Justin.

Harnett turned the Second World War into a religious battle between Christianity and Atheism. He believed a victory in the war without faith was no victory. Communist ideals would bring about the end of Western civilization. Hartnett’s constant crisis rhetoric as well his anxieties about Communist subversion serve as a precursor to McCarthyism. Although Hartnett has not obtained the infamy or notoriety that McCarthy has, his goals were the same. Hartnett continued his fear mongering from the 1940s into the 1950s. More broadly, there is a lack of current writing on Vincent Hartnett and this lack has led to a weak spot in the historiography of McCarthyism.

 

What do you think of Vincent Hartnett? Let us know below.


[i] Doherty, Thomas. Cold War, Cool Medium. New York: Columbia University Press. 2003. 

 

[ii] Hartnett, Vincent. “Accent on Catholic in Catholic Action.” America Vol. 65, Issue 9 (1941): 233-234. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/

 

[iii] Hartnett, Vincent. “Tertiarism: Sanctity with Action.” America Vol. 66, Issue 1 (1941): 7-9. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/

 

[iv] Hartnett, Vincent. “Wanted: More Saint Justins in the Church’s Serious Crisis.” America Vol. 66, Issue 16 (1942): 430-432. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/

 

[v] Ibid. Pg. 431. 

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova (1901-1918) was the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, Russia’s last Tsar. While many of us know how Nicholas II and his family were killed by the Bolsheviks, so ending the Romanov Dynasty, many of us know less about Nicholas’ children. Here, Jordann Stover tells us about Grand Duchess Anastasia.

Grand Duchess Anastasia in court dress, 1910.

Grand Duchess Anastasia in court dress, 1910.

We’re all familiar with the auburn haired beauty drawn up by 20th Century Fox, the orphaned girl rescued by a young boy at the height of an attack on her family’s palace. The animated movie, Anastasia, was released in 1997 and has since become a childhood classic for a generation of children. We watched Anya slowly transform into the missing Grand Duchess; we cheered as she fell in love with Dimitri and hid our eyes when the menacing Rasputin appeared on screen in an eerie green hue. For many of us, this story was the first time we’d dipped our feet into the subject of history, marveling as our parents told us the true story-- that there had once been a powerful Romanov family that was murdered but the remains for the youngest daughter had never been found. As young kids, we hoped that Anastasia would one day remember who she was, that this real princess would get the happily ever after awarded to her fictional counterpart.

 

The life of Anastasia

In 2007, the final two remains of the Romanov family were found in a Siberian forest. The state of their bodies was consistent with the executioners’ notes and were then confirmed to be Romanovs via DNA testing. With that case closed and any chance of the Grand Duchess or any of her family members surviving their basement room assassination in the Ipatiev House, the real story becomes inherently more interesting. Who was Anastasia? What is the story behind those ghost-like characters who danced along to the iconic “Once Upon a December”? Anastasia was born Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, the youngest daughter and fourth child of the last Tsar of Russia, Nicholas II, on June 18, 1901. While her parents had been hoping for a son and heir, they loved their little Anastasia. She was named for St. Anastasia in the Russian Orthodox Church, the saint known as "the breaker of chains". A fitting title as Anastasia broke nearly every rule set in order to chain her to the idea of what an imperial daughter should have been.

Even when Anastasia was a small baby, her personality was larger than the Alexander Palace itself. She was best friends with her big sister, Maria with whom she was fondly referred to as “the Little Pair” in contrast to her older sisters Olga and Tatiana who were the “the Big Pair”. The four were close but so incredibly different; unlike the introspective Olga, the dutiful Tatiana, and the loving Maria-- Anastasia was referred to as “Schwipsig” meaning “little mischief” in German. She did the same needlework, the same chores and academics as her three sisters but she desired something far more fun than listening to tutors lecture for hours. Anastasia had a knack for comedy, often performing little skits with her sisters. She not only thrived on making people laugh, she excelled at the art. Helen Azar notes in her short biography of the fourth Grand Duchess that “some remarked that [Anastasia] was destined for the stage. Even in the darkest of times for her family following her father’s abdication and their arrest amidst country-wide revolution, she managed to draw laughter from her loved ones, the sound surely echoing off the walls of their prison house in Ekaterinburg for the Bolshevik guards to hear. 

Her personality, though fun-loving and entertaining, was not always charming to the people around her. As a small child, she was known to be a bit of a brat, her will too strong to be held back by her English, Victorian nannies. She would climb trees, hide away in cupboards, and refuse orders. She was a master at pranks and naughtiness, the blue eyed, strawberry blonde haired little girl dissolving into fits of giggles as she tripped servants and her siblings. She was not always the ideal playmate with other children, even noted by her cousin, Princess Nina Georgeivena, as being “nasty to the point of being evil”. Anna Vyrubova notes of an instance in her memoirs where Anastasia played a bit too rough with her sisters-- the four sisters had been having a snowball fight in the yards of their Polish palace when Anastasia knocked Tatiana to the ground with a snowball full of rocks.

 

Birth of a male heir

When her little brother, Tsarevich Alexei, was born, the family and country rejoiced. Russia remained one of the only monarchies at the time to refuse women the throne. Because of the Law that had been put into place by the son of Catherine the Great, the fact that Tsar Nicholas already had four daughters, they meant little to nothing for the Romanov line of succession. The birth of a little boy in 1904 meant that the Tsarina had fulfilled her duties as Empress and that the four sisters had a little one to dote on. When it was discovered that their baby brother was sick, that he had the dreaded Hemophilia, the four young girls became even more protective of the boy. They kept a close eye on him, sitting by his bedside when he was sick and writing letters when they were not permitted to visit. Despite his sickness that often left him bedridden, Alexei was a vivacious, curious boy. Who better than to be his partner in crime? His big sister, Schwipsig. The two of them were incredibly close, the absolute best of friends. Together, they no doubt ran their governesses ragged.

 

Towards the end

As Anastasia aged to the seventeen year old she would forever be frozen as, she mellowed out. She still enjoyed making people laugh, still pushed the boundaries of what was allowed-- for example, during the family’s time under house arrest Anastasia was nearly shot for peering out a window and then stuck her tongue out at the guard who had fired at her. Anastasia went from playing silly pranks and sticking pins on the chairs of her tutors to becoming the relief that her family desperately needed. One can hardly imagine what it must have been like for the teenage girl locked up with her future in constant danger. She and her family had no clue what awaited them, they did not know if they’d ever be allowed outside for more than an hour under guard ever again, they had no clue if they’d be allowed to see their friends, to dance, paint, sing, or any of the other number of activities they’d so loved prior to the Russian Revolution. Anastasia, determined to maintain her status as the joy of the family, must have felt an enormous weight on her small shoulders. How was she to make her father, who had lost his kingdom, laugh? Her eldest sister, Olga, who was becoming thinner and more depressed with each passing day-- how was she to bring a smile back to her face? Her brother who was in agonizing pain, her mother who was suffering from her own ailments-- could she make things better for them? We will never know if Anastasia was able to accomplish these goals but we can hope. We can hope for this Anastasia, the real girl with messy hair and skinned knees who lost her life before it had truly begun, just as we hoped for the animated princess of our adolescence. 

 

What do you think of Princess Anastasia? Let us know below.

References

Azar, Helen (2017). GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA NIKOLAEVNA: 18 JUNE, 1901 – 17 JULY, 1918. theromanovfamily.com

Eagar, Margaret (1906). Six Years at the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org

Massie, Robert K. (1967). Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Dell Publishing

Vyrubova, Anna. Memories of the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org.

Nostradamus (1503-1566) is perhaps the most famous prophesier in history. Despite being born more than 500 years ago, he remains well known. Here, Jamil Bakhtawar introduces Nostradamus and tells us about 7 of his most shocking prophecies.

An 1846 portrait of Nostradamus.

An 1846 portrait of Nostradamus.

Michel de Nostredame (also known as Nostradamus), was a French physician and astrologer who was born in December 1503 in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, Provence, France.  He is also known as a reputed and prolific seer. He published a collection of prophecies that have since become widely famous and is best known for his book Les Propheties (The Prophecies – Amazon US | Amazon UK), the first edition of which appeared in 1555.

Since the publication of the book, which has rarely been out of print since his death, Nostradamus has attracted a following that, along with much of the popular press, credits him with predicting many major world events. 

Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus’ predictions are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power.

 

Nostradamus in his own time

His book The Prophecies, received a mixed reaction when it was published. Some people thought Nostradamus was a servant of evil, a fake, or insane, while many of the elite evidently thought otherwise. 

Catherine de’ Medici, wife of King Henry II of France, was one of Nostradamus’s greatest admirers. After reading his almanacs for 1555, which hinted at unnamed threats to the royal family, she summoned him to Paris to explain them and to draw up horoscopes for her children. At the time, Nostradamus feared that he would be beheaded, but by the time of his death in 1566, Queen Catherine had made him Counselor and Physician-in-Ordinary to her son, the young King Charles IX of France. Since his death, the Prophecies have continued to be popular.

 

Nostradamus’s predictions

Nostradamus has been credited, for the most part in hindsight, with predicting numerous events in world history, from the Great Fire of London, and the rise of Napoleon and Adolf Hitler, to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

The prophecies retold and expanded by Nostradamus figured largely in popular culture in the 20th and 21st centuries. As well as being the subject of hundreds of books (both fiction and nonfiction), Nostradamus’s life has been depicted in several films, and his life and writings continue to be a subject of media interest.

 

1.     9/11

Perhaps the most famous assertion made in the past 20 years was that Nostradamus predicted the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It's a story that circulated widely in late 2001, and is still widely believed. One verse in particular sent shockwaves throughout the world: 

"Two steel birds will fall from the sky on the Metropolis. The sky will burn at forty-five degrees latitude. Fire approaches the great new city. Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up. Within months, rivers will flow with blood. The undead will roam the earth for little time."

 

2.     The Great Fire of London

The following passage is often linked with the devastating Great Fire of London of 1666:

‘The blood of the just will commit a fault at London,

Burnt through lightning of twenty threes the six:

The ancient lady will fall from her high place,

Several of the same sect will be killed’.

 

In regards to the date, 20 times three is 60. Add six to that, and you've got 66 — or the year '66. London's infamous three-day blaze began on September 2, 1666. This prediction is one of the weaker prophecies, as it's often quite a stretch to link the historical events of the Great Fire of London with Nostradamus' words.

The fire wasn't set off by lightning, however. A hot, arid summer and a spark in the bakery of Thomas Farriner on Pudding Lane set the stage for the inferno. Peasant and middle class deaths were not recorded at the time, according to the Smithsonian Magazine, but it's likely that hundreds or even thousands of people perished in the flames.

 

3.     The French Revolution

‘From the enslaved populace, songs,

Chants and demands

While princes and lords are held captive in prisons.

These will in the future by headless idiots

Be received as divine prayers’.

 

This was a verse that related to the French Revolution. Starting with the storming of the Bastille in 1789, the French Revolution saw the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a new republic. The Third Estate (enslaved populace) took control of Paris and forced their demands on royalty (princes and lords).

Ultimately, the revolution turned bloody. Nobles and commoners alike were declared traitors to the revolution and beheaded at the guillotine (headless idiots).

 

 

4.     Adolf Hitler

This was one of the most shocking of Nostradamus’ predictions. The verse as follows:

From the depths of the West of Europe,

A young child will be born of poor people,

He who by his tongue will seduce a great troop;

His fame will increase towards the realm of the East.

 

Also:

Beasts ferocious with hunger will cross the rivers,

The greater part of the battlefield will be against Hister.

Into a cage of iron will the great one be drawn,

When the child of Germany observes nothing.

 

On April 20, 1889 Adolf Hitler was born in Austria. But his family was middle class, not impoverished. Hitler did rise to power in part due to his oratory abilities (by his tongue will seduce), and did initiate World War II (a great troop) by invading Poland.

 

5.     Natural disasters

The prediction of ‘Floods and drought for forty years and the rainbow will not be seen and there will be great floods when it is seen’, could relate to the recent devastating earthquakes, floods and hurricanes that we are witnessing in the world. 

 

6.     US conflict with North Korea and Iran

 ‘Thunder and conflict - The great man will be struck down in the day by a thunderbolt. An evil deed, foretold by the bearer of a petition’ could relate to the war of words amongst the US, North Korea and Iran.

 

7.     The assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy

‘The great man will be struck down in the day by a thunderbolt,

An evil deed foretold by the bearer of a petition.

According to the prediction, another falls at night time.

Conflict at Reims, London and a pestilence in Tuscany’.

 

This verse has been most associated with the assassinations of the Kennedys. President John F. Kennedy (great man) received numerous death threats (petition) over the course of his presidency. While visiting Dallas on November 22, 1963, the president was gunned down (thunderbolt). The assassination shocked and devastated the US.

His brother Bobby Kennedy was later assassinated just after midnight on June 5, 1968 (another falls at night time).

The conflict in Reims and London and sickness in Tuscany, however, doesn't fit in with the assassination of the Kennedys. So this verse could go either way when talking about the actual foretelling of the Kennedy’s deaths. 

 

Conclusion

Nostradamus has been in the spotlight for many years and his predictions have been shocking yet notorious at the same time. While his words aren’t necessarily absolute, it is worthwhile noting how interesting certain predictions can be.

 

What do you think of Nostradamus’s predictions? Let us know below.

 

Now read Jamil’s previous article on Leonardo da Vinci’s 9 greatest inventions here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
3 CommentsPost a comment

Education in the 19th century was very different to today. It was not as widespread, often not free, and the way of learning could be quite different. Even so, reformers started to make great changes to the system. Here, Jeff Blaylock provides an overview of education in the 19th century before telling us some interesting facts.

Horace Mann, c. 1850. Mann was a well-known education reformer in 19th century America.

Horace Mann, c. 1850. Mann was a well-known education reformer in 19th century America.

19th century education

The 19th century education system was certainly different to that of today. For starters the lessons and the way of learning was different. While subjects focused on areas such as grammar and arithmetic, which we also learn today, they had more of a focus on memorizing information. And more broadly, there were a range of education issues in Western countries – education was far from universal and it was the poorest who suffered the most from this. 

To over come the education divide, in the US education reform was championed by Horace Mann, with the aim of promoting state-sponsored public education. He was based in Massachusetts, but gained wider prominence over time in the US. He wanted to give more children a free, secular education. A key problem in providing this free education was that rural areas did not have enough schools, even though large numbers of the population lived in such areas; however, with the help of reformers such as Mann, by the end of the 19th century, there were a great many public schools. While public schools still prosper today, for students in need of additional support and ideas, finding a reliable writing research paper service can be crucial in ensuring they succeed in their academic pursuits.

Back to the 19th century, a key challenge in some parts of the country was that children had to work in factories or help with farm duties or other tasks, so schools had to be balanced with work responsibilities. Another key challenge was how to bring greater equality by ensuring that no matter which school a child went to, the education level provided met the same standards. This was of course very difficult, or impossible in the century, but a laudable aim.

Mann also believed education should not be a luxury for wealthy people, which meant that schools had to be free. Not every family had money to send their child to a private school, so this widespread, free provision of education was an essential part of reform.

Following that introduction, here follow some facts about education in the 19th century that might come as a surprise.

 

One classroom school buildings

To start, rural schools in the 19th and even part of the 20th centuries frequently had only one classroom. The reasons for this included a lack of funds to create bigger schoolhouses and the numbers of children who could attend schools in less densely populated areas - in an era before cars became ubiquitous.

 

Different grades had lessons together

One room schools led to the common circumstance that one teacher taught grades from one and up at the same time. The youngest would sit in the front and oldest in the back. But despite different grades being sat together in rural areas, at some schools, boys and girls studied apart from each other. This even included having separate school entries.

 

Time spent studying was shorter

The average student today attends school for about 180 days a year, so half of the year, and stays there about seven hours a day. In the 19th century, study was for around 50 days less, with lessons commonly starting at 9 a.m. and finishing in the afternoon, with five hours being more typical. This type of arrangement was needed because students may have had to work and couldn't balance education and work otherwise. Due to the prevalence of students working more in some schools, it of course meant that students had less time for homework and useful content.

 

Lashing did happen

We are used to seeing teachers disciplining students through physical punishment in older movies. It may seem like a cinematic exaggeration, but it did happen. Discipline was very strict. Punishments like suspension and detention existed, but poor behavior could also lead to lashing. Later when lashing became less popular or even removed from schools, physical punishment didn't stop. Teachers could still use a ruler to lash a student's palms. Other punishments included rewriting one word or phrase many times (maybe one hundred times!) to make the student understand and admit what was done wrong, and holding a heavy book for a long time. As vile as it may seem to some of us, physical punishment is still legal in many countries and even encouraged by some students’ parents.

 

Teachers lived with their students

Teachers were seen as examples and were looked up to. But a responsibility for some teachers was to actually live in the same house as their students. They were provided a room at a student's house, where they stayed for around a week. Then weekly they changed location to different students’ houses. It may seem like a punishment in today's society, but back then that kind of teacher influence may have helped students.

 

Conclusion

The education system was transformed carefully and slowly over time. We know today’s school system as it is because of the work laid by great reformers in the 19th century, and ultimately reform was successful because of the strong-mindedness of people like Horace Mann.

 

Author’s bio

Jeff Blaylock is a freelance copywriter. He is deeply invested in historical topics and lately, he has taken it upon himself to invest more time into digging deep into education history. His writings are catchy and informative - for casual readers and intellectuals alike.

 

Editor’s note: The article contains external links that are not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link here for more information about external links on the site.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Writing is the inscription or printing of symbols on a medium to communicate thoughts or ideas and to record events – and it had an interesting history in early ancient civilization. Here, Jeff Blaylock tells us some interesting facts about the history of writing.

Egyptian hieroglyphs, image available here.

Egyptian hieroglyphs, image available here.

Before written communication grew in use, there were verbal and non-verbal ways to communicate through sounds and gestures that were only beneficial in close-knit groups. Writing arose due to the need to communicate timelessly and over a long-distance. Our tribal ancestors needed to inform others, what they thought, felt, did, experienced and believed. One way this is evident is through ancient cave wall drawings made tens of thousands of years ago. They depicted epic battles of men wielding spears and shooting arrows, things people possessed, such as herds of cattle, and burial and divination rituals. The history of writing then has pictures as the first forms.

For those studying the evolution of communication, understanding these early forms of expression can be fascinating and rewarding. Indeed, when it comes to academic writing assignments on this topic, sites such as Writepaper can help to write a paper, offering assistance in articulating complex ideas effectively.

 

Writing systems

Writings systems originally used symbols to replace the cumbersome drawings of objects, sounds, and actions. A lot of factual material could then be preserved through writing and passed down undistorted, for generations. 

Pictographs – symbols that represent objects, animals, people

Phonograms – symbols that represent sounds from spoken language

Pictograms – symbols that represent actions and events

 

Cuneiform: Mesopotamia 3500-3000 BCE

Cuneiform comes from Latin cuneus, meaning wedge. It was developed by ancient Sumerians who lived in Mesopotamia (including modern-day Iraq), around 3500-3000 BCE. It was first used by temple officials and scribes to record animals and other goods that the temples owned. It was later adopted by the great civilizations of the region such as the Babylonians, Hittites, Assyrians, Elamites, and Hurrians.

The tools and methods

The writing system uses symbols to characterize objects, sounds, and actions. The writing device used is the end of a sharply cut reed and wet clay is the writing surface. Wedge-shaped marks at the edge of the reeds are pressed upon the clay to form characters. On a lump or block of wet clay, a simplified picture of the item is drawn. The clay is allowed to bake in the sun until it becomes a permanent record.

 

Hieroglyphics: Egypt 3200-3000 BCE

Hieroglyphs are characters used in a system of picture writing. They were used to represent speech sounds. Later on, the pictographs and phonographs were made up of letters which were known as "alphabetic signs". Hieroglyphics were in part influenced by the Sumerians before taking a more original path. The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics were a syllabic language. By using phonograms, pictograms and alphabetic signs, they were mixed in art form and hence rich in presentation. 

The tools and methods

This form of writing was reserved for holy texts; hieros means ‘sacred’ and glypho means 'engrave' in Greek. The standard writing device was the fine reed pen used by the scribes, while a smooth papyrus scroll was the writing surface. The hieroglyphics were so varied and most of their useful content was widely published owing to the vibrant nature of ancient Egyptian civilization. Previously characters were carved and painted on wood, walls, tombs, and rocks. With papyrus, writing became more fluid and the documents more portable.

 

Chinese characters: China 1600 BCE

Chinese writing is composed of signs that have both syllabic and semantic value. It was initially used for sacred functions, and then it was largely applied for administrative purposes and literature. In its evolution, it never attained the alphabetic stage. All Chinese characters add up to approximately 47,043.

The tools and methods

Chinese symbols are also called ‘square forms’ or fangkuaizi. Their meaning is expressed using short strokes that go in different directions on a surface or medium. The first surfaces where the characters were inscribed were dry bones, and later Bronze, Seal scripts, clerical scripts, and Square scripts.

 

Evolution of writing

Since its inception, writing has evolved according to human needs and the level of technology available.

There are four major stages in this evolution of writing.

1.     Picture-based writing

As mentioned above, these were the very early writings that utilized limited media for presentation such as cave walls. Colorful and sometimes very detailed drawings were made. It was often artistic.

2.     Word-based writing

When early civilizations invented spoken words for objects and actions, they applied symbols to denote them and these symbols replaced actual tedious drawings. Most symbols were oversimplifications of previous drawings.

3.     Sound-based writing

This evolution took effect after advanced languages with vowels and consonants were developed. Words had distinct pronunciations which needed to be presented visually. The symbols representing words were varied across different civilizations and were not tied back to drawings or images.

4.     The alphabet: 800-750 BCE

The Greeks identified 24 characters otherwise known as letters that would form a widely accepted foundation for words. The letters would later be borrowed and assimilated into Latin and English. Today, alphabets are of course used widely.

 

Conclusion

In all the forms it has existed, writing has functioned to preserve an as accurate as possible human heritage, culture, and history in all its diversity. It has helped dissipate news to a wide audience through print media and spread knowledge and ideas in books. Without writing, scientific inventions, the advancement of technology, and modern civilization would not have been possible. 

 

Author’s Bio

Jeff Blaylock writes articles and well-researched essays on a variety of topics. He has experience in writing historical accounts of ancient civilizations. His writings are catchy and informative - for casual readers and intellectuals alike.

 

Editor’s note: The article contains external links that are not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link here for more information about external links on the site.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
2 CommentsPost a comment

Widely considered the greatest President in American history, much has been written about the man, the myth, the legend: Abraham Lincoln. From his acclaimed debates with Stephen A. Douglas, to his creation of the Emancipation Proclamation, to the Gettysburg Address, and finally his tragic death by the hands of John Wilkes Booth after the Civil War, President Lincoln will forever be an icon of US history. Even Lincoln’s childhood and early adulthood has come under scholarly examination. However, what is less spoken of is the strange but prolific wrestling career of the Great Emancipator. Brenden Woldman explains.

A painting of Abraham Lincoln reading as a boy. By Eastman Johnson, 1868.

A painting of Abraham Lincoln reading as a boy. By Eastman Johnson, 1868.

In the moderately sized city of Stillwater in Payne County, Oklahoma stands the National Wrestling Hall of Fame. Enshrined within those hallowed halls are America’s greatest wrestlers, from collegiate athletes to Olympic champions. But there is one man who was granted a spot within the Hall for his grappling tactics within the ring, and earned him an “Outstanding American” honor.[1] Though his gangly stature became a point of insult for his political rivals and contemporaries, with one man once telling Lincoln that he did not possess the “features the ladies would call handsome,” the future president as a young man was, surprisingly, built from stone.[2]  Lincoln may have been a thin, wiry young man standing at 6 feet, 4 inches and 180 lbs., but years of working manual labor as both a farmer in the Kentucky backwoods as well as a rail splitter helped forge a naturally strong specimen of a man who towered over any and all who stood beside him.[3]

 

Wrestling fame

Though he had no dreams of sporting grandeur, the future president, like many of his contemporaries who worked manual labor jobs, enjoyed physical activities like wrestling as a leisure activity. But just like in his political career Lincoln was a calculated and ambitious wrestler. Still, conversely to his political persona the young Lincoln was a confident sportsman who could be simply described as cocky. Lincoln’s confidence in his ability stemmed from his mastery of the “catch-as-catch-can” manner of wrestling, a brawling and combative style known for its bull-like aggressive rushes and hand-to-hand combat tactics to the opponent. Nevertheless, this bar fight style of wrestling still needed more than a hint of skill to pin a rival.[4] Lincoln’s rare mix of thin and wiry but broad, strong, and smart athlete made him nearly impossible to beat. His physical prowess made Bill Green, a local store owner from New Salem, Illinois, note that “[Lincoln] can outrun, outlift, outwrestle and throw day any man in Sangamon County,” after the young man beat multiple opponents in one day.[5] Moreover, Lincoln matched his reputation as an in-ring force with his loud public trash talking. After decisively defeating another opponent with a single toss in the ring, Honest Abe being as honest as he could be looked into an entire crowd and challenged any and all who dared to face him. Lincoln shouted, “I’m the big buck of this lick. If any of you want to try it, come on and whet your horns.”[6]Unsurprisingly, there were no takers.

The legend of Lincoln the wrestler continued to grow during the late 1820s and into the early 1830s. But what made Lincoln a local wrestling legend came in 1831, when the Great Emancipator was only 22 years old. Lincoln was quietly tending to the store he worked at as a clerk in New Salem when his boss Denton Offutt out of the blue challenged any of the local Clary’s Grove Boys to a good natured wrestling match with his star clerk.[7] The Clary’s Grove Boys, who were known for their rowdy, fraternity-like attitude toward frontiers life, enjoyed drinking and fighting more than anyone around.[8] After Offutt boasted that no one could beat his employee, the Clary’s Grove Boys’ “champion wrestler” Jack Armstrong took the challenge, believing, that he “had found only another subject by which [they] could display its strength and prowess.”[9] Lincoln accepted the challenge, getting up from behind his counter, and prepared to wrestle the feared Armstrong. 

Confident that he could outmatch the taller but gawky Lincoln, Armstrong felt no fear. Who could blame him? Lincoln had been, and would continue to be, judged by his physical appearance his entire life. However, soon after the match began, the Clary’s Grove Boys champion realized he had bit off more than he could chew. Lincoln from the start was able to control the match due to his enormous reach, forcing Armstrong to fight dirty as a means of desperation.[10] Annoyed by the lack of sportsmanship, Lincoln lost his temper and, according to legend, won the match by grabbing Armstrong by the neck, raising him above his head, shaking him around, and slamming him on the ground.[11] The crowd was shocked by Lincoln’s clear victory, and the rest of the Clary’s Grove Boys were angered by the result. Enraged, the Clary’s Grove Boys began to threaten Lincoln. Luckily, Armstrong bounced back up and defended the future president. Smiling, Armstrong looked at his friends and said, “Boys, Abe Lincoln is the best fellow that ever broke into this settlement. He shall be one of us.”[12]

 

A very impressive career

Lincoln gained the respect of Jack Armstrong and the rest of the Clary’s Grove Boys. As a result of his victory, the young Lincoln gained the reputation as the champion wrestler of New Salem, gladly taking on, and easily defeating, any and all opponents who came to challenge him. Amazingly, Lincoln was nearly impossible to beat. According to historians who have researched the win/loss record of Honest Abe, Lincoln has only one confirmed lose in allegedly more then 300 matches over the course of 12 years.[13] That sole lose came at the hands of Pvt. Lorenzo Dow Thompson, the St. Clair wrestling champion whom Lincoln met when he was a Captain during the Black Hawk War. Upon hearing of Thompson’s prowess at wrestling, Lincoln was certain in his own ability and “told my boys I could throw [Thompson].”[14] As confident as ever, Lincoln set up a match between himself and the private when both of their regiments had down time from fighting. Unfortunately, much like how Armstrong underestimated Lincoln, Lincoln underestimated Thompson. Though still in his physical prime, Lincoln realized rather quickly after the match began that he was wrestling “a powerful man” in Thompson, and that “the struggle [of winning] was a sever one.”[15] Shockingly, Lincoln for the first time in his career was thrown out of the ring and lost the match. When his men came to the defense of their captain claiming Thompson had cheated, Lincoln laughed and said Thompson won fairly. When asked how did he know, Lincoln simply said, “Why, gentlemen, that man could throw a grizzly bear.”[16]

 

In retrospect

There is something funny when we read or write about famous historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. For the most part, we think we know everything there is to know about a figure because we have been indoctrinated about the “greatest hits” of these figures. We all know about the stoic Lincoln who unified the Union during the Civil War, freed the slaves, and was assassinated, but we should never think we know everything about someone. Moreover, the importance of Lincoln as a wrestler transcends something more than an interesting tidbit of information about America’s greatest president. Lincoln learned about his own strength and confidence as well as humility through the sport. Writer and historian David Fleming said it best, noting that “when his wrestling skill diminished, Lincoln’s leadership qualities emerged.”[17] Without what he learned from wrestling, Abraham Lincoln would not have been the same man that became America’s sixteenth President.

 

 

Do you think Abraham Lincoln’s wresting career was important for his later political career? Let us know below.

 

You can read Brenden’s previous article on US politics: Violence in the Senate – Slavery, Honor and the Caning of Charles Sumner here.

[1] Christopher Klein, “10 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln,” History.com (A&E Television Networks, November 16, 2012), https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-abraham-lincoln)

[2] Susan Bell, “Lincoln's Looks Never Hindered His Approach to Life or Politics,” USC News (USC, February 19, 2015), https://news.usc.edu/75846/lincolns-looks-never-hindered-his-approach-to-life-or-politics/)

[3] “The Railsplitter: Abraham Lincoln: An Extraordinary Life,” National Museum of American History (National Museum of American History, n.d.), https://americanhistory.si.edu/lincoln/railsplitter)

[4] Bob Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” National Wrestling Hall of Fame (National Wrestling Hall of Fame, n.d.), https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/)

[5] David Fleming, “The Civil Warrior,” Sports Illustrated (Sports Illustrated, n.d.), https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/02/06/the-civil-warrior-on-the-us-frontier-young-abe-lincoln-was-a-great-wrestler-and-sportsman)

[6] Klein, “10 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln,” https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-abraham-lincoln

[7] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/R.J. Norton, “Abraham Lincoln's Wrestling Match,” Abraham Lincoln Research Site (Abraham Lincoln Research Site, n.d.), https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html)

[8] Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[9] Dan Evon, “Is Abraham Lincoln in the Wrestling Hall of Fame?,” Snopes.com (Snopes.com, n.d.), https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

[10] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/

[11] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/, Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[12] Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[13] Bryan Armen Graham, “Abraham Lincoln Was A Skilled Wrestler And World-Class Trash Talker,” Sports Illustrated (Sports Illustrated, February 12, 2013), https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-was-a-skilled-wrestler-and-world-class-trash-talker)

[14] Evon, “Is Abraham Lincoln in the Wrestling Hall of Fame?,”https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

[15] Ibid.,

[16] Ibid.,

[17] Graham, “Abraham Lincoln Was A Skilled Wrestler and World-Class Trash Talker,” https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-was-a-skilled-wrestler-and-world-class-trash-talker