The Man who Proposed a Jewish State in the 19th Century

Jewish people have been the victim of great discrimination over the centuries. But in 1890s London, one man had a plan that would help to overcome this – an idea that would one day become reality. Here, William Philpott tells us about Theodor Herzl’s attempts to gain support for a Jewish state.

Theodor Herzl in 1897.

The oldest hatred

In November 1895, a young journalist and playwright arrived at Charing Cross Station. Knowing no-one and armed only with a letter of introduction, he set about trying to garner support for what he referred to as his ‘old, new idea’, a scheme which would require a high level diplomatic strategy coupled with substantial funding and he targeted the wealthiest and most influential members of Jewish communities.

Born in Budapest in 1860, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the period known as the European Enlightenment, Theodor Herzl’s subsequent university studies in Vienna initially took him into the legal profession which he later gave up to become a writer. 

In 1894 as the Paris based correspondent of the Vienna based Neue Freie Presse[i] he observed the Dreyfus Affair, where a Jewish French army officer had been charged, found guilty and sentenced to life servitude on Devils Island. What especially disturbed Herzl was the reaction by many observers that Dreyfus was not simply a traitor who happened to be a Jew, but a traitor because he was a Jew. It later transpired that he was completely innocent, the victim of a cover up and the stench of anti-Semitism was integral to the whole affair.

The following year Herzl was in Vienna and witnessed the mayoral election success of the Christian Social Party led by Dr Karl Lueger, a rabid anti-Semite whom Hitler subsequently claimed was a major inspiration for his own transformation to anti-Semitism. 

It was these and other events, coupled with pogroms regularly perpetrated on Jewish communities in Czarist Russia, which Herzl to conclude that as anti-Semitism continued to exist and even thrive in enlightened societies, assimilation had not and could not provide a solution to the Jewish Question. His analysis was that of all the peoples’ of the world, it was the Jews alone who were denied what others took for granted, a state of their own. His prognosis was that only through possessing such a thing would Jews be accepted as having the same value as every nation.

Herzl is widely regarded as the founder of modern political Zionism and proposed that an area of land be purchased large enough to accommodate any Jew needing refuge. To legitimise his scheme he also sought a charter, recognised and sanctioned by international law under the protection of one of the major powers. His focus for land was the Ottoman Empire which had ruled over Palestine for four hundred years.

An astounding proposal

British influence had spread across much of the world and consequently Herzl began his quest at the very seat of its empire visiting on ten occasions in his quest to gain political and financial support for his proposal.

His first contact was made after a hansom cab ride on a foggy evening to the home of the writer Israel Zangwill in Kilburn. Zangwill was quickly sympathetic and opened doors for Herzl to meet other members of the Anglo-Jewish community.

A gathering was hastily arranged to enable Herzl to address the Maccabeans, a group of writers, artists, philosophers and professional men regarded by themselves as ‘such Jews as are untainted by commerce’[ii] who met regularly for dinner and discussion. Although broadly supportive, their political influence and financial standing was not at the level Herzl sought.

When he met Sir Samuel Montagu, a banker and MP for Whitechapel, he appeared sympathetic to Herzl’s scheme but notably failed to make any firm commitment.

In Rabbinical circles, an early sympathiser was Rabbi Simeon Singer who accompanied Herzl to the Bayswater Synagogue and Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler invited Herzl to his home in Finsbury Square; however, he did not commit to support the proposal and soon after became an ardent opponent.

The one journey outside London was to meet Colonel Albert Goldsmid at his regimental home in Cardiff. He had worked for the wealthy Baron von Hirsch who was funding several settlement programmes particularly in Argentina, for Jews seeking to escape pogroms and poverty. Upon hearing Herzl’s proposal, Goldsmid flamboyantly announced ‘I am Daniel Deronda’[iii] the Jewish hero in the book of the same name by George Elliot.

Returning to London, an encouraging offer was made by Asher Myers, editor of the weekly Jewish Chronicle who invited Herzl to submit an article outlining his idea, for inclusion in a future edition.

At the end of his first visit to London, although Herzl was in optimistic mood, in practice few of those he had sought support from had rallied to his scheme and were at best lukewarm or ambivalent.

The article for the Chronicle appeared in January 1896 along with an editorial comment declaring ‘that this is one of the most astounding pronouncements which have ever been put forward on the Jewish Question’ but concluded ‘We hardly anticipate a great future for a scheme which is the outcome of despair’.[iv] As predicted by Myers, Herzl’s article generated little response from its readers.

A false Messiah

However, by the time Herzl returned to London the following summer he had already published his full proposal in a pamphlet. Originally published in German[v] and which became commonly known as The Jewish State, it was quickly translated into several languages including Yiddish, Russian, Romanian, Polish and English.

The publication aroused concerns among many influential Jews, some of whom regarded it as a dangerous folly. Herzl again met with Montagu at the House of Commons, but on this occasion he recognised that the Member of Parliament was prevaricating which was an indication of what was later to become outright opposition. Nonetheless, Herzl began to understand why English Jews should wish to cling to a country where one of their own could now freely enter that place as a master.

Another false dawn appeared when the journalist Lucien Wolf asked to interview Herzl for the Daily Graphic newspaper which was based in the Strand. The interview took place in Herzl’s suite at the Albemarle Hotel, Piccadilly but the final result in print implied that a mystical shroud covered the whole project and Herzl was a ‘new Moses’[vi] who had stepped forth to fulfil the prophesy of a return to Palestine. This was not the practical endorsement hoped for.

Even Zangwill, was now writing that although Herzl had initially startled the community, it had been a seven day wonder and ‘has rather simmered down now’[vii]

Disappointed by the general lack of support from the most influential members of Anglo-Jewry, Herzl accepted a surprise invitation to speak at a mass meeting in the east end of London. On an oppressive Sunday afternoon in July, the Jewish Working Mens’ Club, Gt Alie Street was adorned with posters announcing his attendance. He generated support from many poor Jews who lived and worked in Whitechapel and subsequently described his feelings as he sat on a platform amid overwhelming heat as seeing and hearing ‘my legend being made…..I am the little people’s [sic] man’[viii]. Neither Montagu nor Goldsmid attended.

During his week-long visit, Herzl also met more members of the community and one such meeting took place at the Bevis Marks synagogue. However, he did not fare well and was roundly criticised for both his scheme and his decision to attend the meeting in Whitechapel which was regarded as unnecessarily exciting the masses.

He was challenged by the scholar Claude Montefiore who saw this new political Zionism as a direct threat to Judaism itself and dismissed Herzl as just another false messiah who would ultimately fail as others before had done. The bullion dealer and philanthropist Frederic Mocatta said that the very idea of funding such a scheme would be a great risk to both finances and reputation and could not guarantee the twin objectives of securing land and a charter. He and others mocked what they saw as Herzl’s naivety at the very idea of handing over vast sums of money to the corrupt Turkish Sultan in the belief that the land would be forthcoming.

Even Joseph Prag, a leading light in the Hovevei Zion[ix] movement, the headquarters of which was at Bevis Marks, which was already implementing a limited settlement programme in Palestine, was opposed to the idea of a state and eventually dismissed Herzl with a curt ‘goodbye Dr Herzl’.[x]

To Basel and back

By the time Herzl left London for the second time he had concluded that a great gathering should be organised which would internationalise his proposal and in August 1897 the first Zionist Congress was held in Basle, Switzerland. 

Of the two very wealthy Barons’, Edmund Rothschild who was himself funding several settlements in Palestine wrote, ‘I tell you frankly that I should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish Colony. It would be a ghetto with the prejudices of the ghetto’[xi]. The other, Maurice von Hirsch, who was funding Jewish settlement in Argentina would have nothing to do with the scheme. Herzl now declared ‘This is the cause of the poor Jews, not of the rich ones. The protest of the latter is null, void and worthless’.[xii]

Progress continued and in 1898 Herzl addressed a mass meeting at the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End. A conference was held at Clerkenwell Town Hall resulting in the formation of the English Zionist Federation subsequently inaugurated at the Trocadero, Piccadilly. However opponents were active too and in November, Chief Rabbi Adler preached at the North London synagogue on the subject of ‘Religious versus Political Zionism’.[xiii]

Two years later, perhaps influenced by the development of Zionism in England, the fourth congress was held at the Queens Hall, Langham Place. Herzl arrived one week before the start of the congress but was suffering from a fever. After a few days of confinement to his bed at the Langham Hotel, he was able to attend a rally of English Zionists and the following day was at a garden party in Regents Park.

After a restful night Herzl addressed the Congress and two important objectives were achieved. The first was to gain coverage in the mainstream British media which was generally sympathetic to the idea of a return of Jews to their historic home. The second was the agreement to establish the Jewish Colonial Bank, which he insisted be registered in London, subject to English law and proposed an initial capital of fifty million pounds although in the absence of commitments from wealthy Jews he envisaged public subscription playing a major role.

By then the Zionist movement had taken root throughout the Jewish world, although many such as Anglo-Jewry felt comfortably ensconced in the country where they lived and remained implacably opposed to the very principle of a Jewish homeland.

The final appeal

Since the early 1880s large scale immigration of poor Russian and Polish Jews in particular into the east end had resulted in growing concerns and one response was the creation of the British Brothers League which held a mass meeting at the Peoples’ Palace in Stepney in January 1902. That year Herzl returned to London following an invitation to speak to the Royal Commission into alien immigration and the established leader of the Zionist movement proposed that support of the British government for a Jewish state would reduce the number of those arriving in the UK.

It is possible that Herzl’s representation at the Commission indirectly led to negotiations the following year with Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary about the potential to allow large numbers of Jews to settle in east Africa under some form of self-government, although the scheme was eventually aborted. 

However, time was not on his side and Herzl died in Austria of a heart condition two years later aged forty-four. He had not been the messiah who had led his people back to the Promised Land but he had created and presided over an international movement. Despite many external and internal obstacles during the next four decades, the establishment of the Jewish state to which he had dedicated the last nine years of his life did materialise, the impact of which still resonates in many parts of the world today, over one hundred and twenty years later.

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

[i] New Free Press. 

[ii] The Origins of Zionism. Vital. 1990 pp257

[iii] The History of Zionism. Laqueur. 2003 pp101.

[iv] Vital pp258.

[v] Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Losung der Judenfrage. Published by Breitenstein. 1896.

[vi] Daily Graphic. Monday July 6th 1896

[vii] English Zionists and British Jews. Cohen. 1982 pp27. After Herzl’s death, Zangwill formed the Jewish Territorial Organisation (Ito) to identify and secure land other than Palestine for large-migration. 

[viii] Laqueur. pp101.

[ix] Lovers of Zion. 

[x] The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (1-5). Patai. 1960. 

[xi] Zionism the formative years. Vital. 1988 pp141. 

[xii] Vital. 1990 pp257.

[xiii] Cohen pp96.

The Story of a Failed French Settlement in 16th Century North America: Charlesfort

Charlesfort, also known as Santa Elena, was a French settlement founded in 1562 in modern day South Carolina. Here, K.R.T.Quirion tells us about the troubled settlement – and the terrible journey that many of the settlers made back to France.

You can read K.R.T.Quirion’s past articles on telegraphy in the US Civil War (here) and a secret US Cold War facility in Greenland (here).

Oil painting of Admiral Jean Ribault, who led the expedition to set-up Charlesfort, by Calvin Bryant. Source: Calvin Bryant, Florida. Available here.

During the early part of the 16th century, Spain had grown wealthy and powerful through its exploits in Central and South America. By the mid-century their European rivals wanted a piece of the action. The French were among the first to join the colonial land grab. An expedition to North America was organized by Admiral Gaspard de Coligny and led by the French explorer Jean Ribault. Ribault and his men landed at the mouth of the St. John’s River in northern Florida in 1562. There they constructed a monument claiming the territory for the French crown. They soon moved north into present-day South Carolina where they began construction of a fort at Port Royal. Charlesfort would be one of the first European settlements in North America, established three years before the Spanish colony at Saint Augustine. Ribault oversaw the design before returning to Europe for supplies. In his absence, he left Captain Albert de la Pierria in command of the fort and a garrison of twenty-seven men.

Starting the settlement

Initially, the settlement prospered. With a temperate climate and an abundance of surrounding wildlife, Ribault had described Port Royal as “one of the goodliest, best, and fruitfullest countreys that ever was scene.”[1] Expecting to be resupplied by Europe, the colonists at Charlesfort made no efforts to live off the land. Unfortunately, in their absence, the Wars of Religion had exploded across Europe and Ribault had been imprisoned in the Tower of London where he would remain for two years. At first, good relations with the local Native American tribes compensated for the colonists lack of foresight. By the fall of 1562, the overtaxed supplies of Native American began to thin and they retreated into the Carolina woods to avoid the colonists. To make matters worse, a fire at Charlesfort consumed almost the entire remaining store of supplies.[2]

Ribault had left Charlesfort under the command of the experienced soldier Albert de la Pierria. Unfortunately for the colonists, Captain Pierria turned out to be a rather cruel disciplinarian. As the situation at Charlesfort grew dire, Pierria’s punishments became increasingly severe. He ordered one colonist hung for a small infraction and banished a soldier named La Chère to anearby island for an unrecorded misdemeanor. La Chère was promised food and water but when Captain Pierria reneged, the garrison turned on him. The remaining soldiers mutinied, executed Pierria and rescued their stranded compatriot. Ribault had promised to return within six months. That had come and gone. Now, leaderless and out of supplies, the remaining colonists resolved to build a ship and return to Europe.

The crossing back to France

The distance from Port Royal, South Carolina to Le Havre, France is approximately 3,500 miles. It was a long and dangerous crossing for skilled sailors who knew the route. The men of Charlesfort knew little about sailing, less about boat building, and almost nothing about the voyage they were planning. Construction of the ship proceeded with whatever materials they could scavenge. Seams were caulked with pine resin and Spanish moss, and sails were sewn together in a patchwork using old clothing and bed sheets.[3] After completing their ramshackle vessel, one of the younger men, Guillaume Rouffi, decided his chances of survival were greater if he stayed behind rather than attempt the crossing in such a ship. As it turns out, Rouffi was right.

In all the annals of sea voyages, there is nothing quite like the Charlesfort crossing.  As they started out to sea the weather was calm, so calm that it greatly hindered their speed. After three weeks on the ocean, they had only sailed twenty-five leagues, which is equal to about 86 miles. Realizing that the crossing would be longer and more complicated than they had initially anticipated the men set about rationing their limited supplies. Each man was allocated twelve grains of corn per day. Even with this rationing, their supplies were soon used up. As starvation set in they took to eating their shoes and leather coats for food. When their fresh water ran dry, they drank seawater - and some even drank their own urine. [4]    

To make matters worse, the boat began to leak so badly that they had to continually bail out the water to keep it from sinking. The leak was made worse when they sailed into a powerful storm which badly damaged one side of the boat. The men then gave up bailing out the water and resolved themselves to drowning. One resolute man assured his compatriots that if they only fought on for three more days they would reach the shores of France. This encouraged them such that they steeled themselves and pressed on against the storm.

The end of the journey

After three days they still had not sighted land. Despair began to set in again. With nothing left aboard to eat, starvation began claiming the crew. A few died before they agreed amongst themselves to do the unthinkable. Ribault’s second-in-command, Rene de Laudonniére interviewed the survivors of the voyage and recorded their horrific story.

“Wherefore in this extreme despair certain among them made this motion that it was better that one man should die, [than] that so many men should perish: they agreed therefore that one should die to sustain the others. Which thing was executed in the person of Le Chère of whom we have spoken heretofore, whose flesh was divided equally among his fellows: a thing so pitiful to recite, that my pen is loath to write it.” [5]

Before they were forced to resort to cannibalism a second time, one of the crew sighted land. They were intercepted by an English ship which happened to have a Frenchman from Ribault’s original company aboard. He identified his former crewmates despite their pitiful state and ensured that they were well treated.

Back on the other side of the Atlantic, Guillaume Rouffi, who had elected to take his chances alone, continued to live at Charlesfort. He remained the fort’s sole garrison and France’s only representative in the New World for over a year. Finally, the Spanish sent Don Hernando de Manrigue de Rojas to root out their rivals. Rojas sailed to the Carolinas and razed the garrison at Charlesfort. Rouffi was captured and brought to Havana, thus ending one of the first European colonial efforts in North America.

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

[1] Harris, Sherwood, “The Tragic Dream of Jean Ribaut,” American Heritage, Vol. 14 Issue 16, (16 Oct. 1963), https://www.americanheritage.com/tragic-dream-jean-ribaut.

[2] Saraceni, Jessica E, “Charlesfort Identified,” Archaeology Magazine Archive, Archaeological Institute of America, (1996), archive.archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/charlesfort.html.

[3] Laudonniere, Rene, “Three Voyages”, University of Alabama Press, (2001), 48.

[4] Laudonniere, “Three Voyages”, 49.

[5] Id, 50.

The Pioneering Soviet Espionage Device that was Active in the US Embassy in the USSR for Seven Years

‘The Thing’ is surely one of the most remarkable espionage devices in all history. Given to the Americans as World War II was closing, it managed to escape American notice for 7 years – despite being in the US Embassy in the USSA. And it took a lot longer for the West to uncover its secrets. But what was ‘The Thing’? And what did it do? Pitamber Kaushik explains.

The seal opened exposing the Soviet bugging device, ‘The Thing’, on display at the National Cryptologic Museum in Maryland, USA. Source: Austin Mills, available here.

Automated Doors, Manufacturing line tracking, Supermarket Product Tags, Credit Cards, and Passports are common places where you might encounter the humble RFID tag - a radio frequency identification tag whose information can be “read” using radio waves, a form of shortwave electromagnetic radiation. RFID tags are a crucial component of modern-day automation and information tracking, and were the very definition of “Smart” before the advent of the modern smartphone, and were in fact, a contender technology for realizing the ‘Internet of Things’. These nifty, effortless labels became commercially popular only in the last couple decades of the 20th century and hence it might come as a bit of a surprise to know that they essentially operate on World-War II technology. Its bulky forerunners were Radio Frequency Identification kits that were used in World War 2 fighter aircraft to prevent friendly fire. One aircraft’s radar would “illuminate” the other’s kit which would automatically communicate a signal indicating that it was on their side. This response needed no power source on the part of the latter - it drew its energy from the incident radiation.

As a token of appreciation, amity, and solidarity for their alliance in the Second World War, and a promise of maintaining them in its wake, the Young Pioneer Organization of the Soviet Union, an organization of boys, presented a hand-carved two-foot wooden plaque of the Great Seal of the United States to the American ambassador to the Soviet Union W.A. Harriman, a month before the conclusion of the war. It was a natural procedure for the embassy office to meticulously scrutinize any inbound item but this souvenir without a trace of wiring or batteries seemed totally innocuous and did not appropriate a thorough dissection and consequent desecration. It was, after all, a harmless gift from enthusiastic children, and was thus gladly and dearly hung on the wall of Harriman’s study. Harriman gave it a privileged place in his private chambers since it was a welcome gesture from the Soviets. Or was it? The Americans had slightly underestimated Soviet engineering. They had fallen for the Trojan horse, admitting it into their most intimate quarters.

Leon Theremin, the inventor of the eponymous no-contact electronic musical instrument, was compelled to work in the Soviet Experimental Design Bureau, a specialized espionage department. It was here that he had designed the Buran eavesdropping system, a sophisticated device that cast infrared rays on windowpanes from a distance, in order to “listen to” conversations inside the room via the vibrations induced by them on the glass - a technology that Lavrentiy Beria, the Head of the Soviet Secret Police would use to eavesdrop on the British, French, and American embassies, as well as allegedly, on Stalin himself. It was also Theremin who had designed the minimalistic bug that was concealed in the plaque. It was a passive device, meaning it needed no attached power source. When the Soviets irradiated it with radio waves, it responded to them, at other times remaining inanimate, making it very difficult to detect. It derived its operational impetus from the inbound “interrogating” signal and “answered” to it utilizing the signal’s own energy.

The device being inconspicuous in size and structure and spontaneously operational (staying dead-silent when not being tapped into), it didn’t catch the notice of anyone at the office for a long time. It remained dead until it was activated by the right frequency Soviet interrogation waves, upon which it reacted to the sounds around it (sounds varied its ‘capacitance’, encoding their waveforms into its outbound signal) and relayed them to the Soviets in its retransmitted signal. The Soviets sent out a characteristic signal which would be regenerated by the device, now enclosed in the envelope of the signal of the sound in the room. The audio transmission from the room would be superposed over (act as a container for) the communicating signal. The Soviets would disentangle their own rebounded communication wave from the characteristic frequency from the encoded signal in a process called demodulation, extracting the audio from the room. Put simply, whenever the Soviets cast the appropriate signal upon it, the device conveyed the sounds of the room encoded in the same signal back to them.

Its simplistic design and passive nature gave it a veritably unlimited operational life. It would be seven years before the device would be discovered, during the tenure of George Keenan, owing to an accidental reception by an operator at the British Embassy when the Soviets were illuminating the device. In the meantime, it would have relayed much of the vital contents of Harriman’s private conversations. Upon its discovery, two State Department Employees were dispatched to the USSR in order to conduct a “sweep” of American, British, and Canadian embassy buildings to check for other bugs. Its discovery sparked a frenzy of emulation, improvisation, and progressive development of radio signal-based eavesdropping devices on the Western side. Such was the precisely frugal ingenuity of the device that even upon discovery and procurement, it befuddled American scientists, working on comprehending and possibly emulating it, for quite some time. It appeared to have several resonant frequencies, relied on both Amplitude Modulation and Frequency Modulation, and its membrane was so sensitive that it was damaged during the American probe of the device and had to be replaced. It would be years before the British and the Americans would develop a reliable, pulsed cavity resonator of their own. The Western vexation at the elusively designed device is palpable in the name it was given – ‘The Thing’.

What do you think of ‘The Thing’? Let us know below.

Bernard Freyberg: The New Zealand World War I Hero who Failed to Defend Crete in 1941

For the Greek public, the 1941 Battle of Crete is known for the wrong decisions made by the British commanders, so leading to an Axis victory. The tactical mistakes of the British were critical in allowing the occupation of the island by the Nazis and were caused by the decisions of high-ranking officers like General Bernard Freyberg. But who was this General? And why is he a hero in his native New Zealand? Here, Manolis Peponas looks at the life of Bernard Freyberg.

Bernard Freyberg (right) during the Battle of Crete in May 1941

Bernard Freyberg was born in London in 1889 but moved to New Zealand with his parents in 1891. When he was a young man, he became famous as a swimmer. In March 1914 he moved to the USA and, after that, to Mexico where he participated in the Mexican Revolution. In the summer of 1914, he was informed about the beginning of World War I and decided to enlist in the British Army. That was the starting point of a successful military career.[i]

Freyberg fought on the Western Front and in the Gallipoli Campaign. He was wounded nine times and became one of the most decorated young officers in his homeland. For example, he won a Distinguished Service Order (DSO) because he swam ashore in the Gulf of Saros and diverted Turkish attention from the main landing, at Bulair in Gallipoli in April 1915. In 1916, he won the Victoria Cross for his heroic acts at the Battle of the Somme. During the interwar period he worked mainly in staff positions, and in 1937, he was obliged to retire because of a heart problem.[ii]

World War II

Following the outbreak of World War II, Freyberg again offered his services to the New Zealand government. Immediately, he was appointed as the commander of the 2nd New Zealand Division which took part in battles in Greece, North Africa, and Italy.[iii]

Winston Churchill said about Freyberg:

“I had suggested to the C.I.G.S.[iv] that General Freyberg should be placed in command of Crete, and he proposed this to Wavell, who had immediately agreed. Bernard Freyberg and I had been friends for many years. The Victoria Cross and the D.S.O. with two bars marked his unsurpassed service, and like his only equal, Carton de Wiart, he deserved the title of ‘Salamander’. Both thrived in fire, and were literally shot to pieces without being affected physically or in spirit. At the outset of the war no man was more fitted to command the New Zealand Division, for which he was eagerly chosen.”[v]

In Crete in May 1941, the New Zealand major general believed that he was to face an invasion from the sea, so he created a plan that was wrong from the start – the German invasion was in fact mainly airborne. Also, he did not give the right orders for the support of the Commonwealth’s troops who defended the Maleme airfield. However, Freyberg was not the only one responsible for the fall of Crete; he had to command a varied and badly equipped army, without the RAF’s support or the necessary artillery battalions.[vi] This meant that despite the Allied loss in the Battle of Crete, as recognition of his service, he added a third bar to his DSO and was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general.

After the Allied victory in the war, the retired high-ranking officer was appointed Governor-General of New Zealand, a position he served from 1946 to 1952. After that, he returned to Britain where he acted as Deputy Constable and Lieutenant Governor in charge of Windsor Castle. He died in Windsor on July 4, 1963 following the rupture of one of his many wounds. Today, he is a national hero for the people of New Zealand.[vii]

What do you think of Bernard Freyberg? Let us know below.

[i]         Ewer, Peter (2010). Forgotten Anzacs: The Campaign in Greece, 1941. Scribe Publications. p. 30.

[ii]        ‘Bernard Freyberg', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/bernard-freyberg, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 8-Nov-2017. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

[iii]               'Freyberg given command of 2NZEF', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/bernard-freyberg-assumes-command-of-the-nz-expeditionary-force, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 17-Nov-2016. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

[iv]               C.I.G.S.: Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

[v]       Churchill, Sir Winston (1959). Memoirs of the Second World War. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 441.

[vi]      Barber, Laurie. “Freyberg and Crete: the Australasian Perspective”, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Vol. 72, No. 292 (Winter 1994), pp. 247-254.

[vii]     ‘Bernard Freyberg', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/bernard-freyberg, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 8-Nov-2017. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

How did Nazi Germany Treat Mixed Race People?

The German Nazi Party is responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in all history, notably the Holocaust in which around 6 million Jews were killed. But in Nazi Germany what happened to mixed race, or ‘Mischlinge’ people - that is people who were partly Jewish and partly not Jewish by descent? Seth Eislund explores this question by looking at the work of three historians.

Erhard Milch, who was in charge of Nazi Germany’s aircraft production in World War II. His father was Jewish and his mother was not Jewish.

From its inception in 1920, the German Nazi Party saw the Jews as an “anti-race” that threatened to destroy the purity of German blood. Following Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933, the Nazi government legalized its racist anti-Semitism with the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. In addition to discriminating against Jews, these laws created a racial category called “Mischling,”[1] or “mixed-race,” for Germans of partial Jewish descent. There were different classifications of Mischling depending on how much “Jewish blood” a person possessed. A “full Jew” had three or more Jewish grandparents, a “Mischling First Degree” (a “half-Jew”) had two Jewish grandparents, and a “Mischling Second Degree” (a “quarter-Jew”) had one Jewish grandparent.[2] While Nazi legislation defined who a Mischling was, what was the regime’s policy towards Mischlinge, and how was this policy enforced? Historians Peter Monteath, Bryan Mark Rigg, and Thomas Pegelow provide compelling answers to this question. While the three scholars use different methodologies to examine Nazi policy towards Mischlinge, they agree that such policy was inconsistent and vacillated between persecution, semi-toleration, and racial reclassification.

Monteath’s Approach: A Social Analysis

Drawing on extensive oral history research, Peter Monteath argues that Nazi legislation towards Mischlinge displayed a clear disconnect between ideology and practice, and that Mischlinge consequently lived anxious and tumultuous lives. Monteath observes that there were two main schools of thought regarding Nazi Mischling policy. The first school tended towards a pragmatic integration of Mischlinge into German society. This form of thinking led to the opening of the draft to Mischlinge in 1935, and the declaration of “mixed marriages” as privileged and protected against anti-Semitic persecution in 1938.[3] The second school of thought, however, was more radical. Its adherents saw Mischlinge as equivalent to Jews, and therefore they needed to be removed from Germany. These party radicals pushed for violent measures against Jews, such as pogroms like Kristallnacht.[4] These integrationist and radical schools of thought manifested themselves in local Nazi policy. For instance, certain German cities, like Dortmund and Hamburg, gave illegitimate half-Jewish children a “German upbringing,” while Königsberg saw such children as thoroughly “semitised” in blood and mentality.[5] Furthermore, at the infamous Wannsee Conference of 1942, its attendees agreed on conflicting resolutions to “the Mischling Question.” It was agreed that half-Jews should be treated as “full Jews,” while Mischlinge married to Germans with Aryan blood should be exempted from being treated as Jews.[6] Similar to the Nazi government’s inconsistent policy towards them, Mischlinge lived uncertain and anxious lives. They existed in a grey area between the racial categories of “Jewish” and “Aryan,” and faced persecution ranging from daily slights to the deportation and mass murder of relatives and friends.[7] Thus, Monteath convincingly argues that Nazi Mischling policy and the lives of Mischlinge were incoherent and chaotic.

Rigg’s Approach: Mischlinge in the Military

While Monteath does an excellent job of describing the specificities and constant uncertainty of Mischling life and policy in Nazi Germany, his analysis overlooks a key aspect of the Nazi regime: the military. However, Bryan Mark Rigg provides a thorough examination of Nazi policy towards Mischling soldiers in the Third Reich, which he calls “a maze of confusion and contradictions.”[8] According to Rigg, the Nazis either persecuted or tolerated Mischling soldiers based on their perceived loyalty and importance to the regime, which varied widely on an individual basis. Rigg states that despite their Jewish ancestry, half-Jews and quarter-Jews were legally allowed to serve in the German military until 1940.[9] However, they were forbidden from becoming non-commissioned officers or officers without the personal approval of Adolf Hitler. Hence, due to their Jewish blood, Mischling soldiers were not allowed to advance in rank. Their Aryan commanders, who were their superiors in rank and blood, were destined to command them. Thus, the Nazis saw Mischlinge as useful to their military goals but refused to treat them as equal to Aryan soldiers due to their Jewish ancestry. However, Mischling soldiers were treated far better than their Jewish parents, who lost their jobs and civil liberties due to Nazi legislation.[10] This demonstrates a disconnect between the Nazi treatment of “full Jews” and Mischlinge. While a “full Jew’s” blood was completely tainted, a Mischling possessed some Aryan blood and could therefore serve the Third Reich. While Hitler eventually decided to expel all half-Jews from the German military in 1940, he made several exceptions. Hitler personally signed thousands of special permission forms that “allowed [half-Jews] who had proven themselves in battle…  to [remain] with their units.”[11] This demonstrates that Hitler approved of veteran half-Jewish soldiers more than he did ordinary half-Jewish soldiers, as their extensive service demonstrated their loyalty and utility to the regime. Thus, Rigg makes the potent observation that, in military terms, Nazi policy towards Mischlinge was influenced by an individual soldier’s perceived devotion and significance to the regime based on their decoration and experience in combat.

Pegelow’s Approach: The Language of Nazi Racial Categories

Although he reaches similar conclusions to Monteath and Rigg, Thomas Pegelow’s analysis differs from theirs. Instead of examining the social or military aspects of Nazi policy towards Mischlinge, he examines the language behind Nazi racial categories, arguing that “Racial discourses were not static, but were constantly remade.”[12] Pegelow focuses on the Reich Kinship Office (RSA), which was created in 1933 with the mission of “determining people’s ‘racial descent’ in cases of doubt.”[13] The RSA’s decisions about a person’s racial descent had severe consequences: being designated as “Aryan” resulted in one’s safety while being designated as “Jewish” resulted in one’s death in a concentration camp. Mischlinge knew this, and many tried to avoid persecution by publicly disputing their Jewish ancestry with the RSA.[14] Pegelow’s portrayal of Mischlinge corroborates Monteath’s argument that Mischlinge lived frantic lives due to their ambiguous status in Nazi policy. Consequently, Pegelow argues that the RSA committed “linguistic violence” against Mischlinge. This was because the RSA constructed racial categories through language, such as the German Volk and the Jewish race, and it used language to determine who was a member of each group.[15] The RSA excluded some Mischlinge from the Volk, thereby condemning them to persecution and death. However, they also declared 4,100 Mischlinge, or 7.9% of all Mischlinge who petitioned for racial evaluations, to be legally Aryan.[16] Thus, the RSA’s classification of over 4,000 Mischlinge as Aryan demonstrates that Nazi policy towards Mischlinge was inconsistent. The category of “Mischling” was fluid and ambiguous, and it’s meaning changed depending on the individual Nazi official who interpreted it. Some Nazis associated Mischlinge with the Aryan side of the racial spectrum, while others saw Mischlinge and Jews as identical.

Conclusion

Peter Monteath, Bryan Mark Rigg, and Thomas Pegelow’s research demonstrates that Nazi policy was inconsistent towards Mischlinge, as it shifted between persecution, quasi-toleration, and conflicting racial definitions. According to Monteath, Nazi officials contested the status of Mischlinge: some party members advocated for the integration of Mischlinge into German life, while others saw them as “full Jews” and pushed for their removal from Germany. Mischlinge lived similarly incongruous and anxious lives: they suffered varying degrees of persecution and constantly worried that they would face imprisonment and death. Similarly, Rigg observes that even Hitler’s policy towards Mischlinge serving in the German military was contradictory. While Hitler discriminated against Mischling soldiers by preventing them from serving as NCOs or officers, he signed thousands of forms that allowed battle-hardened Mischlinge to continue fighting during the Second World War. Lastly, Pegelow argues that Nazi racial categories, such as “German” and “Jewish,” were linguistically constructed and therefore subject to constant change. Nazi functionaries defined Mischlinge, who occupied an uncertain place within the Nazi racial hierarchy, as either Aryan or Jewish based solely on their individual assumptions. Thus, the inconsistency of Nazi policy towards Mischlinge reflected the latter’s ambiguous status in the Third Reich. For the Nazis, Mischlinge were members of a contradictory and perplexing racial category, a bizarre mix of the most superior race and the most inferior race, and Nazi policy towards them was equally paradoxical.

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

[1] In German, “Mischling” is singular and “Mischlinge” is plural.

[2] Peter Monteath, “The ‘Mischling’ Experience in Oral History,” The Oral History Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 142, www.jstor.org/stable/20628029.

[3] Monteath, 142-143.

[4] Monteath, 143.

[5] Monteath, 144.

[6] Monteath, 144-145.

[7] Monteath, 154.

[8] Bryan Mark Rigg, “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers,” in Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, ed. Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth (New York: Berghahn Books, 2012), 123.

[9] Rigg, 119-121.

[10] Rigg, 119-120.

[11] Rigg, 121.

[12] Thomas Pegelow, “Determining ‘People of German Blood’, ‘Jews’ and ‘Mischlinge’: The Reich Kinship Office and the Competing Discourses and Powers of Nazism, 1941-1943,” Contemporary European History 15, no. 1 (2006): 43, www.jstor.org/stable/20081294.

[13] Pegelow, 44.

[14] Pegelow, 45.

[15] Pegelow, 46.

[16] Pegelow, 64.

Bibliography

Monteath, Peter. “The ‘Mischling’ Experience in Oral History.” The Oral History Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 139-58. Accessed April 23, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20628029.

Pegelow, Thomas. “Determining ‘People of German Blood’, ‘Jews’ and ‘Mischlinge’: The Reich 

Kinship Office and the Competing Discourses and Powers of Nazism, 1941-1943.” Contemporary European History 15, no. 1 (2006): 43-65. Accessed April 23, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20081294.

Rigg, Bryan Mark. “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.” In Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, edited by Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth, 118-126. New York: Berghahn Books, 2012.

Did Settlers Commit Genocide in America?

There were several great periods of migration across America. The settlers performed various cruel activities; however was there genocide? Here, Daniel L. Smith returns and presents his views on the question. 

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

"Protecting The Settlers". Illustration by JR Browne for his work "The Indians Of California", 1864. Portraying a massacre by militia men of a Native American camp.

It was certainly polarization issues that made the 19th century a true “wild west," and I really find "wild west" fits in every sense of the phrase.

​The American Settler’s from the east came over the Rocky Mountains with both broken dreams and real optimism for a new successful life. Each miner, settler, businessman (or woman), and government employee had their own personal reasons for leading a new life in California. The financial burden of the 1837 financial collapse was a national hardship, and encouraged the soon-to-be settler headed out west.[1] American economist Martin Armstrong wrote, “The U.S. entered a serious economic depression following the failure of the New Orleans cotton brokerage firm, Herman Briggs & Co in March of 1837. Inflated land values, speculation and wildcat banking contributed to the crisis, which became known as the “Hard Times of 1837-1843.” New York banks suspended payments in gold on May 10th and financial panic ensued. At least 800 US banks suspended payment in gold and 618 banks failed before the year was out.”[2]

With the discovery of gold in California and the resulting influx of immigrants, it seemed almost inevitable that the U.S. government would openly authorize the 1862 Homestead Act. This decree would guarantee all American citizens permanent private ownership of newly acquired territory west of the Mississippi River.[3]  Economic growth would boom for the nation given the limitless resources of the newly acquired land. Timber, hunting, fishing, mining, commercial business, and government would take over. It was the principal economic body that California would come to offer a rapidly expanding nation, which was recovering from a financial meltdown. This new economic and cultural opportunity didn’t just benefit the legitimate law-abiding settlers, but this new world also opened up to the criminal and unprincipled elements of American society as well. This was a somber reality to the preceding historical events throughout the mid-19th century.

Violence

This same reality applies to the cultural similarities in unprincipled behavior that both settlers and Native Americans exhibited between each other, as both played a part in antagonizing the other. I stand with Michael Medved by saying that the word genocide does not truly apply to the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American Settlers. Further, in “the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness --- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.”

“But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality. Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World.”[4]

Guns, Germs, and Poor Ethics

UCLA professor Jared Diamond, author of the acclaimed bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, writes:

"Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Colombian Native American population. The most populous and highly organized native societies of North America, the Mississippian chiefdom's, disappeared in that way between 1492 and the late 1600's, even before Europeans themselves made their first settlement on the Mississippi River.” (page 78)

“The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers.” (page 212)

“As for the most advanced native societies of North America, those of the U.S. Southeast and the Mississippi River system, their destruction was accomplished largely by germs alone, introduced by early European explorers and advancing ahead of them" (page 374)

Obviously, the decimation of native populations by European germs represents an enormous tragedy, but in no sense does it represent a crime. Stories of deliberate infection by passing along "small-pox blankets" are based largely on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter and bloody French and Indian War. By that time, Native American populations (including those in the area) had already been terribly impacted by smallpox, and there is no evidence of a particularly devastating outbreak as a result of British policy. Medved writes, “For the most part, Indians were infected by devastating diseases even before they made direct contact with Europeans: other Indians who had already been exposed to the germs, carried them with them to virtually every corner of North America and many British explorers and settlers found empty, abandoned villages (as did the Pilgrims) and greatly reduced populations when they first arrived.”[5]

Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond's book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements - have been the rule rather than the exception.

Finding evidence

I have found a lot of evidence difficult to obtain through large institutions bureaucratic archives. These are crucial for a more thorough and explicit observation on specific events that had occurred in relationship to the unprincipled behaviors and actions of those few individuals or groups. Some of the evidence that I have been able to successfully retrieve truly illustrates this particular viewpoint. Is this finally a small beam of light on the topic of relational nuances that occurred on both sides of the cultural aisle? The truth of the matter is that all of the overall regional hostility came down to certain specific cultural customs or traditions, which also included the erosion (or complete absence) of any personal ethical and moral values.

The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents America’s "original sin" fails to put European contact with these often struggling societies in any context and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in all Americans ignorant of the facts.

Finally, a nation ashamed of its past will fear its future. "One of the most urgent needs in culture and education for the United States of America is discarding the stupid, groundless and anti-American lies that characterize contemporary political correctness. The right place to begin is to confront, resist and reject the all-too-common line that our rightly admired forebears involved themselves in genocide. The early colonists and settlers can hardly qualify as perfect but describing them in Hitlerian, mass-murdering terms represents an act of brain-dead defamation."[6]

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.

References

[1] Smith, Daniel L. "New American Settlers." In 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California: The American Settler's First Documented Accounts of their Unwelcome Arrival, 20. Publication Consultants, 2019. Print.

[2] Armstrong, Martin A. "Panic of 1837." Princeton Economic Institute. Last modified January 12, 2014. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/panic-of-1837/. 

[3] "Act of May 20, 1862 (Homestead Act), Public Law 37-64 (12 STAT 392); 5/20/1862; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789 - 2011; General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11; National Archives Building, Washington, DC." DocsTeach, 20 May 1862, www.docsteach.org/documents/document/homestead-act. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.

[4]Medved, Michael. "Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans." Townhall. Last modified September 19, 2007. https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject-the-lie-of-white-genocide-against-native-americans-n989275.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

The 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Pandemic and the Boy Scout Movement

The 1918 flu pandemic, or ‘Spanish Flu’, lasted from the spring of 1918 to the summer of 1919. With many Americans in Europe to fight in World War One in 1918, sometimes other groups stepped in to help. Here, Joseph Connole tells us how the Boy Scouts of America provided much needed assistance during the pandemic.

Boy Scouts helping to distribute food and medicine to houses during the 1918 influenza epidemic.

The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918 was the worst public health crisis of the 20th century; however, some public officials were reluctant to acknowledge the extent of the pandemic because of the First World War. As a result, the virus spread through communities across the world and the US, killing an estimated 650,000 Americans in just less than two years. Local authorities responded differently to the outbreak, in some cities the authorities shut down businesses, schools, and churches. In others, little was done.[i] The outbreak of the flu in 1918 was different though; it killed those who were in the prime of their lives. To complicate matters, the U.S. was fighting a war. As the U.S. war effort started, the government instituted a draft taking millions of men away from homes to fight in Europe. Yet, across the country, young men in the Boy Scouts of America sprang into action to help those suffering from the influenza.  At the start of the First World War, there were 150,000 men in uniform. At the same time, in 1918, there were over 400,000 Scouts and Volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America.[ii]  The Boy Scouts of America were the largest uniformed body in the country. Scouts helped the nation’s war effort by holding parades, selling war bonds, and establishing victory gardens. During the Spanish Influenza, they helped by handing out health guides, serving as informants for local health officials, serving food, and working with local hospitals to provide help. 

How the Scouts helped

In cities across the country, local Boy Scouts came to the aide of local health officials, hospitals, and the Red Cross. They distributed literature, ran kitchens, and helped in a variety of other ways.  Between October 1918 and July 1919, the Boy Scout official magazine for volunteers, Scouting Magazine, recorded how Scouts from across the country answered the call for assistance as the nation was paralyzed by the flu.[iii]

The image of Scouts during the second decade of the twentieth century is one of young men marching in parades, selling liberty bonds, and planting gardens. But during the Spanish Influenza outbreak, Scouts heard the call of local officials in need of help and selflessly came to their assistance. In the October 24, 1918 edition of Scouting Magazine, the Boy Scouts took out several pages to address the Spanish Influenza outbreak in the United States. They declared, “Scouts and Scout officials are not only, definitely concerned, but have a distinct opportunity for service by reason of the nation-wide Spanish Influenza epidemic.”  This call for action would be heard by Scouts across the nation. Scouts would go on to serve as junior health officers and in at least one instance, a Scout served as an intern in a hospital. The movement warned Scouts to be on their guard due to the highly contagious flu and implored Scouts to receive permission from local health officers before undertaking any risk to themselves or their families.[iv] The same issue of the magazine went on to discuss the best ways to prevent infection. 

In Shoshone, Idaho Scouts distributed some 7,500 pieces of literature to residents and met trains as people came off and distributed masks,[v] while in Topeka, Kansas, Scouts were sworn in as junior health officers. Scouts took the following oath before taking on their official duties:

In assuming the duties in the Topeka health service, I agree to hold myself responsible for the distribution of all notices and literature in my district requested by the commissioner of health. 

I further agree to gather any information that may be desired and to report on the health and sanitary situation in any district when asked to do so. 

I agree to assist the Topeka health department in every way I can, with the understanding that I will not be called upon to perform any duty that will interfere with my school or endanger my health.[vi]

In a time well before the Internet, one of the most effective ways for local health officials to get out notices to people was through the Scouts in their communities. But in some special circumstances, Scouts were also called upon to do more. In St. Paul, Minnesota, Scouts were tasked to report on violations of local health orders which would then be investigated by a health officer.[vii]

Doing their duty

In other instances Scouts took on even more advanced roles than were found in Topeka and St. Paul. In New Brunswick, New Jersey, York, Pennsylvania, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Morgan, New Jersey, Scouts provided help by guiding and manning ambulances, escorting nurses or acting as orderlies, and serving as messengers or telephone operators. The Elizabeth Daily Journal praised the work of Scouts saying, “The work of the Boy Scouts received the warm praise of all the older workers, who found their assistance almost invaluable.”  It went on to report, “They carried cots, ran errands, acted as escorts to the refugees, served the food, stood guard over families, cared for the babies and acted in almost every capacity.”[viii] In every instance where Scouts assisted local health officials or hospitals, their work was praised according to Scouting Magazine. 

The most impressive effort made by Scouts came in Morristown, New Jersey. In one instance, a Boy Scout acted as an intern for the hospital and “he did all of the work which is usually performed by a grown man” for two weeks. Another Scout drove a supply truck three times a week for the Red Cross between Hoboken and a convalescent hospital for soldiers in Mendham. And yet another worked for a week inside a children’s home where nearly sixty of the children were sick. That Scout carried water up four flights of stairs, prepared and served meals, and did various other tasks required of him.[ix]

The Scouts who performed these duties showed unparalleled courage. In each instance of the Scouts helping in their respective communities, they were well received by the local officials and hospitals that they served. Their contributions helped save an unknown number of lives and they did it without desire for public recognition.

What impact do you think the Boy Scouts had on the Influenza Pandemic? Let us know below.

[i] https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities

[ii] Boy Scouts of America. Annual report of the Boy Scouts of America: Letter from the chief scout executive transmitting the annual report of the Boy Scouts of America ... as required by federal charter. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off. 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000054452598&view=1up&seq=8  Accessed 5/1/2020. P. 18

[iii] All citations of Scouting stories during the Spanish Influenza pandemic come from Scouting Magazine in the Porta to Texas History unless otherwise noted, individual issue citations are given. Scouting Magazine in The Portal to Texas History. University of North Texas Libraries. https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/SCOUT/ accessed March 18, 2020.

[iv] Boy Scouts of America. Scouting, Volume 6, Number 24, October 24, 1918, periodical, October 24, 1918; New York, New York. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth282984/: accessed March 18, 2020), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Boy Scouts of America National Scouting Museum. p. 5

[v] Ibid., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 5

[vi] Ibid., Volume 7, Number 11, March 13, 1919. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283026/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 8

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Quoted in, ibid. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283061/: accessed March 18. 2020, p. 70

[ix] Ibid., ., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p.7

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon – Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 2: How Henry’s Efforts to Overturn the Marriage in the Courts Failed

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  In part 2 of the series, Victor Gamma considers how Henry tried to overturn the marriage through the English courts and then via the support of universities across Europe.

You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here.

King Henry VIII of England. Portrait by Hans Holbein.

Back to Henry VIII’s arguments for the divorce…

Henry’s second argument related to the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II. A dispensation is an exemption from the usual rules. The King argued that the dispensation for the marriage was null because no pope could not set aside the law of God as found in Leviticus. According to canon law, closely related couples were forbidden to marry. In other words the degree of affinity, or kinship, would present an impediment to the marriage. In Henry’s situation, he and Catherine were technically related since Catherine had been married to his brother. Also, Henry argued that the pope’s dispensation was invalid because it was based on the belief (which Henry repudiated) that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. In Medieval thinking, it wasn’t a real marriage if it had never been consummated. 

Henry Goes to Court

So how did Henry VIII’s case hold up? In 1527, the King was summoned to Cardinal Wolsey's palace in Westminster. The issue of Henry's relations with his brother's widow was to be the subject of an official pronouncement. Several experts in canon law were consulted. Much to the king’s chagrin, they overwhelmingly held that Henry’s marriage to his brother’s widow did not violate God’s law and therefore, Pope Julius' dispensation had been valid as well. After a thorough study of both scripture and the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical leaders such as Bishop John Fisher declared that no prohibition against such a marriage existed. Henry’s attempts to get Pope Julius’ original dispensation for his marriage to Catherine declared invalid did not fare any better. The current pope, Clement VII, would not agree to this. First, to declare an earlier pope’s dispensation mistaken would undermine respect for the office of the papacy. Moreover, he was at the time threatened by Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s uncle. Not wishing to offend Charles, Clement could do no more than grant Henry’s wish for a commission to investigate the case. Wolsey made one last effort to argue that Julius II’s dispensation contained technical defects. This, too, failed.  

In the spring of 1529 at a Legatine court at Blackfriars, London, the public inquiry into the validity of the marriage took place. It was to be an inquisitorial procedure, attempting to discover the truth of the matter through questioning and investigation. The purpose of the court was to determine whether the marriage of Henry VIII to Catherine was valid according to Divine Law. Cardinal Campeggio, the pope’s legate, and Cardinal Wolsey, heard the case. It did not go well for Henry. Early in the proceedings he asserted that all the bishops shared his doubts about the marriage and had signed a petition to investigate the matter. At this point the indomitable Bishop John Fisher violently protested that he had not signed any such petition and that his name had been forged.  As to Fisher’s credibility, one contemporary wrote of him: "He was in holiness, learning and diligence in his cure (care of souls) and in fulfilling his office of bishop such that of many hundred years England had not any bishop worthy to be compared with him.” The bishop himself commented on the effort he put into the divorce issue: "The matter was so serious both on account of the importance of the persons it concerned, and the express command of the king, that I gave more labour and diligence to seeking out the truth lest I should fail him and others, than I ever gave to any other matter."

Henry brushed Fisher’s protest aside only to face another unexpected resistance. His wife Catherine, upsetting the procedures of the court, knelt before the king and eloquently pleaded her case. After finishing her speech she then left the court, never to return. In her absence testimony was heard regarding the issue of whether consummation between Catherine and Arthur had taken place. Much of it was flimsy. The Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, assumed that prince Arthur had consummated his marriage because he himself had done so at the age of fifteen. Another witness based his opinion on Arthur’s “sanguine complexion” after his wedding night. Others testified of comments Arthur made which implied the couple had marital relations. One had to ask why this ‘evidence’ was not brought up during the time Pope Julius was examining the case in order to grant a dispensation. Great caution must be exercised for this ‘evidence’ which mysteriously appeared only when the King needed it. The hard fact was, whether or not the queen was a virgin when she married Henry was impossible to prove. 

The court dragged on until Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate, adjourned the court for the summer recess in July of that year. The court never re-convened nor did it ever issue any ruling. While the court was still in session, pope Clement rejected Henry’s annulment petition.

Henry Changes Tactics

Still lacking a resolution in his favor, Henry next appealed to the Universities of Europe. Henry prided himself on his scholarly abilities and felt confident in a positive result. Did the universities’ response help prove or disprove his case? Their findings generally reflected the wishes of the rulers they served. In France, for instance, they found in favor of Henry because it served the political purposes of King Francis I. Likewise, Oxford and Cambridge lent their support to their own King Henry. Enormous sums of money were spent to bribe scholars to find in favor of divorce, making many of the verdicts questionable. The Spanish scholars weighed in against divorce and in Italy opinion was divided. In short, the stalemate continued. In the war of pamphlets that accompanied this debate, John Fisher emerged as the chief opponent of the king’s argument. He so thoroughly shredded the arguments of the king’s supporters that Henry’s followers began to focus on another line of attack on another front - the original dispensation of Julius II Ad Librum Secundum issued in 1503.

How did Henry fare on this front? First of all, pains were taken to avoid the mistake of bestowing the sacrament of marriage on a couple that had an impediment. In the late Middle Ages, such dispensations were common, particularly amongst royal families wishing to preserve the bloodline. And in such a case as Henry and Catherine the impediment of affinity was not normally held to be a violation of divine law. Moreover, the king would by implication, be condemning dozens of papal dispensations granted during the previous two centuries. Despite this, Henry argued that "The marriage [to Catharine] is against human and divine law. If the papal dispensation is put forward as an argument, it may be answered that the pope's authority does not extend to degrees prohibited by divine law.” In other words, the pope had exceeded his power. But Bishop Fisher effectively destroyed that argument in a letter to Cardinal Wolsey:

"(I) Cannot see any sound reason to show that it is prohibited by divine law for a brother to marry the wife of a brother who has died without children; and considering the fullness of authority given by our Lord to the pope, who can deny that the latter may give dispensation to that effect, for any serious cause?. . . As the pope, therefore, has more than once by his act declared that it is lawful to dispense in this case...this alone should determine the question....that the dispensation is within the pope's power."

Additionally, Fisher brought up the bull of Innocent III, Deus qui Ecclesiam, in which Innocent had allowed converted Latvians to remain in marriages with their brothers' widows, providing the brothers had died childless. That effectively buried Henry’s case against Pope Julius II’s dispensation. 

Now you can read part 3 on Catherine’a case for the divorce here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below. 

Sources

Campbell, Phillip.”The Canon Law of the Henry VIII Divorce Case,” Senior Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Social Studies Department of Madonna University, Livonia, MI. Presented June 14th, 200.9

Fraser, Antonia, The Wives of Henry VIII. New York:Vintage Books,1994.

Guy, John, Tudor England. Oxford University Press, 1988. 

Haig, Christopher, The English Reformation: Religion, Politics and Society Under the Tudors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 

Lehman, H. Eugene Lives of England's Reigning and Consort Queens. 

"June 21 - Catherine of Aragon steals the show" The Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society, June 20, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9DknPWlJA

McGovern, Thomas, “ Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls,” Catholic Culture.org, 1987.

Afro-Cubans in the USA During the Cold War

The Cold War and the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s led to permanently altered demographics in Miami, Florida and New York due to several influxes of Cuban immigrants in the years and decades after. Studies of this tend to focus on key players such as John F. Kennedy, political tensions between the USA and Cuba, and specific immigration issues, for example, the Elian Gonzalez scandal. 

Still, a question begs for attention: how did race and politics influence the lives of Cuban refugees in America during the Cold War? The answer is most obvious when we look to the experiences of Afro-Cuban refugees. Lietty Roig explains.

A boat with Cuban refugees arrives in Key West, Florida in 1980 as part of the Mariel Boatlift.

Afro-Cubans have not only been underrepresented and understudied in the literature of the Cold War, but they have mostly been included in the tales of how others experienced their arrival. Research shows a clear pattern that initially Afro-Cubans often settled away from Miami, Florida because the racism was so unbearable. During the first wave of migration in the 1960s only between 3 and 9% of individuals were Afro-Cubans. Under the assumption that those figures are accurate, their absence from the early scholarly literature makes sense. Still, a more practical explanation for migration further north than Miami rests on the practical reason that they would be very far away from the feared bombings and military activity of the era. During the later waves of migration, some Afro-Cubans did settle in Miami. However, these individuals struggled to fit in with white Cubans, who they shared a nationality with, and African Americans, who they shared African roots with. As a result, Afro-Cubans created their own space in the greater Miami area: Allapattah, the point between Little Haiti and Little Havana. 

What is interesting about the Afro-Cuban experience during the Cold War is that it was not universal. During the early waves of Cuban migration, Afro-Cubans enjoyed government aid, and a higher socio-economic status in New York City. In 1980, the last wave of Cuban mass migration took place through the famous boatlifts. This group of immigrants did not receive government aid, and society labeled them as criminals. So, that last wave of Afro-Cubans was met with the same discrimination as the early refugees, only this time they were stripped of their identity. By the late 1980s, Afro-Cubans were grouped with African Americans in Miami, and Puerto Ricans in New York. That triggered a crisis of identity for all the demographics involved. For one, African Americans and Afro-Cubans have African roots in common, but their histories are quite different. A similar divide can be established between Puerto Ricans and Afro-Cubans.

Yet, to think that race alone influenced their experience is naïve. Politics was a driving force in everything. For instance, John F. Kennedy was adamant about relocating many Cubans away from Miami to reduce the overflowing population. Still, that is the tip of the political iceberg.  Obviously, the United States lived in fear of communism, and so did the white Cuban refugees from the early waves. So, an “ideal” Cuban refugee was created in the United States: anti-communist, mostly republican, and white. However, Afro-Cubans struggled to fit in this mold not just because of race, but because many of them – at least initially - supported Castro. The fact of the matter is that the early wave of Cuban refugees was fleeing Castro’s ideologies, and one of those promises was racial equality. If you are at the top of the totem pole, you want to stay at the top; it is a natural reaction, whether we like it or not. Yet, those Afro-Cubans were lulled into favoring Castro because of that promise of racial equality - until they saw what reality under his rule was like. Then no one wanted to be there because there was only one person on top of the pyramid: Castro. 

While it would be easy to say that Afro-Cubans were excluded from the narrative because of racist writing, it would also be ignorant. Afro-Cuban refugees made up only a small portion of immigrants during the early years of the Cold War. During the later waves of migration, Afro-Cubans struggled with a self-identity crisis, and were not quite sure how they fit in their new surroundings. It would also be ignorant to say that discriminatory experiences started in the United States, because Afro-Cubans experienced their fair share of racism in Cuba.

What do you think about the experience of Afro-Cubans in the United States? Let us know below.

References

Benson, Devyn S. "From Miami to New York and Beyond: Race and Exile in the 1960s." In Antiracism in Cuba: The Unfinished Revolution, 122-52. University of North Carolina Press, 2016.

Current, Cheris Brewer. "Normalizing Cuban Refugees: Representations of Whiteness and Anti-communism in the USA during the Cold War." Ethnicities 8, no. 1 (2008). 

Grosfoguel, Ramón, and Chloé S. Georas. "Latino Caribbean Diasporas in New York." In Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York City, by Laó-Montes Agustín and Dávila Arlene, 97-118. Columbia University Press, 2001.

McHugh, Kevin E., Ines M. Miyares, and Emily H. Skop. "The Magnetism of Miami: Segmented Paths in Cuban Migration." Geographical Review 87, no. 4 (1997): 504-19.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: Was she Really the 'Virgin Queen'?

Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603; reign as Queen 1558-1603) was a child of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and remains one of the most famous English monarchs.

Nicknamed Gloriana, and reigning for nearly fifty years, Queen Elizabeth is important in British history. However, why was this queen so adamantly against her supposed monarchical duties of providing an heir? And why was she so infamously portrayed as the ‘virgin queen’? Hannah Rooney looks at the rumors and explains why she really may have been a ‘virgin queen’.

Queen Elizabeth I Ddancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

Bisley boy

Elizabeth’s lack of an heir makes her an intriguing subject of discussion. Ranging on varying aspects of absurdity, one conspiracy was begun by the author of the novel Dracula, Bram Stoker. Allegedly, on visiting a small English town named Bisley, Stoker found out that on May Day, the traditional ‘May Queen’ would be dressed as a boy (rather than a white gown and crown), and upon research, Stoker uncovered the story of the ‘Bisley boy’.  This said that during bouts of the plague, a young Elizabeth was sent to the town for security and safety. However, she became deathly ill and supposedly died whilst there. Known for his wild temperament and tendency to sentence, Elizabeth’s governess, terrified, frantically searched for a resembling girl, but only came across a young boy of the same age and some likeness. When Henry came to visit, the deception had worked. As a rather cold father, he was distant and visited infrequently, and in combination with Elizabeth’s usual shyness toward her father, the secret was kept. Over 300 years later, whilst undergoing building work, a stone coffin was found with the body of a young girl in an Elizabethan dress. In the years after this, there were other signs towards this theory. Furthermore, her tutor Robert Ascham described her as being “endued with a masculine power.” Her striking use of wigs and thick, white makeup which would take hours to apply is also used as an indicator, as it was said she would not be seen without it unless to her servants and maids. Even in her dying moments, she was adamant she would not receive an autopsy. 

This theory is widely used as to why she would never marry. However, it has many faults-Elizabeth was inspected by doctors to ensure that her ‘child bearing’ abilities were adequate, to which the results were affirmative. Furthermore, a potential suitor, Philip II of Spain, had asked of her fertility to her laundress, having heard rumors, who reported with a wide indication of menstruation. Arguably, it is a misogynistic perspective used to imply that a woman of the 1500s could not be so powerful, so must have been a man, and her masculine features and perspectives towards leadership are supposed ‘evidence’.

Lord Robert Dudley

The ideas do not end here, though. Supposedly, the ‘virgin queen’ may not have been virtuous at all. Lord Robert Dudley, born in June 1532, befriended Elizabeth during the reign of Queen Mary I, a time of impending danger for the young Elizabeth, and on Elizabeth’s ascension in 1558, she appointed him master of her horse, and the two remained close at court, often dancing, horse riding, and hunting. Dudley was married to Lady Amy Robsart Dudley; she was almost never in court, with Dudley’s bedchambers moved next to Elizabeth’s private rooms for their meetings. In 1587, after rumors swirling around the country viciously, a man named Arthur Dudley arrived at Philip II’s court in Spain and claimed to be the illegitimate child of Dudley and Elizabeth. His supposed conception in 1561 was eerily linked to the time Elizabeth had been bedridden with an illness which had resulted in her body “swelling.” Matters were made worse for the supposed couple when in 1560, Dudley's wife Amy was found dead in her residency, at the bottom of a flight of stairs with a broken neck, the circumstances for which were regarded as suspicious - and Robert Dudley felt the brunt of it. For almost 50 years, their relationship was filled with turmoil, yet Elizabeth always described him as her ‘sweet Robin’, and had accordingly been brought to tears for several years after his death in 1588, upon anyone saying his name. So perhaps she never married due to a sweet childhood romance, a lost case of love, though she solemnly swore on her deathbed that ‘nothing unseemly had ever passed between them.’ No physical evidence accounts for otherwise too. 

A real Virgin Queen?

Most notably, Queen Elizabeth could have actually been a “virgin queen.” Her complex relationship with her father likely had a large impact on her chastity - losing her own mother at two years old to the hands of her father would have had an inevitable impact on the young girl, particularly being indoctrinated with the wild accusations and defamation against her own mother, as a ‘witch’ and ‘conspirator.’ Her stepmother, Catherine Howard, who was allegedly very warm and kind to Elizabeth, suffered the same fate of execution via beheading. Elizabeth was just eight at the time, and supposedly uttered, that she would ‘never marry.’ Her perspective likely linked matrimony to ideas of pain, loss and death.

Personally, I see it in the sense that it was a choice made by Elizabeth. There was a deep requirement for marriage during her reign and she knew it: being an unwed queen held her at an incredible risk of losing credibility as a ruler, especially with rival Mary, Queen of Scots, announcing her pregnancy and eventually conceiving a young boy, who would become King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. And it wasn’t like opportunity was sparse: countless suitors presented themselves, such as Philip II of Spain, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, Prince Eric of Sweden, and a plethora more. To me, it is likely that the incredibly intelligent and sharp queen disliked the idea of sharing her own political power, or risking her country with dependency on others. She cunningly used the incessant possibility of her hand in marriage as an opportunity to prevent uprisings and ensure increasingly civil foreign affairs. Devoted and unwavering, Queen Elizabeth remained, ultimately, ‘married to her country.’

All of these speculations will fly around for the rest of history, but what’s more inspiring to believe? A queen, defiant of societal constructs and unwilling to conform to 16th century stereotypes - that sounds pretty amazing to me. Throughout her father’s inevitable dismissal, determination for a male heir and half sister Mary’s doomed marriage, Elizabeth proved to be a successful and hearty leader, without the need of a man, and arguably, even for her rival and cousin, Queen Mary, she proved the misogynistic John Knox incorrect on his views of female monarchs. The perfect summary would be her Tilbury speech to the troops for the Spanish Armada: ‘I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too [..] we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.’

Why do you think Queen Elizabeth I of England never married? Let us know below.