France in Algeria: Algerian Independence and its Lasting Legacy

France first started to colonize Algeria in 1830 and its influence grew there in the following century; however, after World War II, there was pressure to allow Algeiran independence, ultimetaly relwating in the Algerian War of Independence. Here Will Desvallees tells us about French colonialism in Algeria and the lasting impacts of it in contemporary France.

A depiction of the 1836 Battle of Constantine in Algeria. The French lost this battle, but ultimately took control of Algeria.

In 1945, WWII came to an end, but the European presence in North Africa did not, and tensions between settlers and local populations grew in the years that followed. In the case of Algeria, a “malaise politique”[1] set in between Algerians and French settlers. Eventually, this deteriorating relationship would push Algeria to achieve independence from France in 1962. Under French control, Algerians suffered. Questions, ambitions, and public sentiments regarding national identity animated the conflict, which would become increasingly violent in nature. The story of the Algerian War (1954-1962) and the history of Franco-Algerian relations before the conflict reveals how French colonialism took root and operated. The history, however, continues to resonate. The war’s cascading effects are present in the disturbing rise of anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic politics in contemporary France. The foundations of twentieth century French nationalism are rooted not only in the civic commitments to liberté, égalité, and fraternité, but also in the suffering the French inflicted upon Algerians in defense of their imperial acquisition. In the last ten years, France has seen a rise in violence and nationalist far-right ambitions, much of which can be linked to the human rights abuses, violence, and torture Algerians underwent at the hands of French colonial forces as they sought independence.

France in Algeria

French involvement in Algeria began in 1830 when France took direct political control of port cities on the Algerian coast, seeing in the territory a vast supply of raw materials for its nascent industry and presaging a process of accumulative expansion. In addition to natural resources such as oil, the Algerian territory was ideal for wine production as well as other agricultural products.[2] The years that followed led to an increasing number of French settlers and French présence: “En 1930, les terres issue de cette colonisation officielle représente 1,500,000 hectares sur les 2,300,000 possédés par les Européen.”[3] French colonization of Algeria only serves as one example of the broader rise of imperialism in Europe, as white settlers subjugated “natives” across the Global South. In 1919, the first Algerian social movement for independence would be created under the leadership of Ferhat Abbas (1899-1985), which would send representatives to the League of Nations to fight on behalf of Algerian independence. In the first half of the twentieth century, rightist ideology in European countries grew in response to social inequality. In response to this, the Algerian movement expanded in reach and popularity.

Following the Second World War, given Algeria’s economic dependence on French subsidies, the Algerian colonial economy was devastated. “The wine, grain, and livestock industries collapsed leaving an impoverished, unemployed proletariat of 10 million Muslims governed by an increasingly French colonial state” (Hitchcock 2003, 184). If the French were to stay in Algeria, how could they let its people suffer? Algerian resentment began to rise. In 1945 in a series of articles published by Albert Camus in a daily French newspaper, one article he entitled“malaise politique” depicts the rising strength of Algerian opposition to French rule:

The Algeria of 1945 is drowning in an economic and political crisis that it has always known, but that has not yet reached this degree of acuity. In this admirable country that’s Springtime without legal protection in this moment of its flowers and its lights, men are suffering from hunger and demand justice. These are sufferings that cannot leave us indifferent, because we have known them ourselves.[4]

Growing tensions

Camus wrote this piece on May 16th, approximately one week after the beginning of a violent French reassertion of control on May 8th 1945, as France celebrated its own liberation. That day, Algerian citizens began to protest in large numbers. Outraged by this, the French did not hesitate to use violence against Algerian citizens who participated in these demonstrations. One group of Algerians would claim the lives of twenty Europeans. That month, in an effort to retaliate and demonstrate their strength, the French killed thousands of Algerians and tensions between Algerian nationals and French authorities would reach a tipping point: “Over a hundred Europeans died during this month of insurrection, Algerian deaths are unknown, but have been estimated at between 6,000 and 8,000.”[5]

One of the main concerns for French armed forces in Algeria can be traced to the military defeats they suffered in Vietnam, largely because they were unprepared for the guerilla warfare tactics of the Viet Minh. Paranoia pushed the French military to employ more violent means of maintaining control in Algeria. The French would use excessive force in an attempt to prevent any of the military defeats they had suffered in Indochina.

While France was winning the war in Algeria in the late 1950s, the French public was increasingly opposed to the methods of torture used by French military personnel in Algeria, which were exposed in lurid detail by numerous French publications. Among those covering the war was Claude Bourdet, a journalist for France Observateur, who in an article entitled “Votre Gestapo d'Algérie,” gave his readers examples of the brutality employed by the French military: “l’empalement sur une bouteille ou un bâton, les coups de poing, de pied, de nerf de boeuf ne sont pas non plus épargnés. Tout ceci explique que les tortionnaires ne remettent les prisonniers au juge que cinq à dix jours après leur arrestation.”[6] In his article, Bourdet referred to French military officers as “Gestapistes,” drawing for a French public who had lived only very recently under Nazi occupation a sharp comparison between the methods used by French authorities and those employed by the German secret police.

Frantz Fanon on colonialism

Similar coverage in French mass media stimulated a snowball effect for domestic discontent and opposition to the war in Algeria. Indeed, the hypocrisy of employing Nazi-associated torture methods after the ruthless devastation France faced during WWII did not escape an increasingly conscious French public. The brutality of French colonial administration after WWII, in Indochina and Algeria, and the associated atrocities committed against “natives” pushed Frantz Fanon, a French psychiatrist and political philosopher from Martinique to write The Wretched of The Earth. He published this work as France was finalizing the last stages of its official exit from Algeria. In the first part of his work entitled “On Violence”, Fanon focuses on the vital role of violence as a necessary tool for activists to fight for independence. Principally basing his argument on the current events and recent history of what had taken place in Algeria, Fanon paints the portrait of decolonization as a violent process no matter where or no matter who is involved. He relates this tendency to a colonial structure he defines as the presence of a native population inevitably dehumanized by the settlers. Two foundational principles that come out of his work to explain the long term impact of colonization. First, he explains that it is the replacement of one’s population by another. Second, he describes the manner in which natives know they are human too and immediately develop a progressively deepening rebellious and resentful attitudes towards the settlers. Camus was warning the French public of this in 1945 when he was explaining the “malaise politique” he perceived was growing rapidly in Algeria between the settlers and the settled. 

Fanon would also explain that the colonial process divides the native population into three distinguishable groups: native workers valued by the settlers for their labor value, “colonized intellectuals” a term he uses to refer to the more educated members of the native population who are recruited by the settlers to convince natives that the settlers are acting properly, and “Lumpenproletariat” a term Fanon coined based on Marxist principles to refer to the least-advantaged social classes of the native population. He explains that this third, least advantaged group of natives will naturally be the first to utilize violence against settlers as they are the worst-off from the effect of colonization: “The native who decides to put the program into practice, and to become its moving force, is ready for violence at all times. From birth it is clear to him that this narrow World, strewn with prohibitions, can only be called in question by absolute violence.”[7] Some of the long-term effects Fanon focused on would help to explain the long-term cultural and human impact from colonization. French violence during Algerian occupation followed by the French-Algerian war would lead to long-term devastating impacts to Algerian nationals and generations to follow: 

In ‘On Violence’, Fanon highlights the mechanisms of the colonized violence against themselves. (...)The exacerbated militarization og the ‘indigenous sector’ in Algeria manifests itself physically in the de-humanization of the colonial subjects who turn the colonial violence and repressed anger against themselves (madness, suicide) or against each other (physical fights, murder) in a desperate attemt to extricate themselves from and escape the sordid reality of colonialism.[8]

Fanon’s work is important in explaining not only the violence that Algerians being the colonized needed to use to fight for their independence, but also in highlighting the internal social and cultural devastation that would lead to violence and devastation among Algerians themselves. Fanon suggests that the impact of colonialism can directly be linked to violence between the colonists and the natives, and indirectly between the natives themselves. This can be linked to the frustration, pain, and suffering felt by Algerians leading to internal deprivation and conflict among themselves. 

Fanon was an outspoken supporter of Algerian independence from France and of the FLN’s operations to accomplish this goal: “The immobility to which the native is condemned can only be called into question if the native decides to put an end to the history of colonization - the history of pillage - and to bring into existence the history of the nation - the history of decolonization.”[9] Fanon’s unique and powerful reflection on colonial violence and the long term effect of colonization would serve as an instrumental source to enlighten the French people of what was taking place in Algeria and that it needed to come to an end. Eventually public attitudes and the seemingly endless violence in Algeria would push French President Charles de Gaulle to move towards granting Algeria independence and put an end to French involvement in the region.

Charles de Gaulle’s impact

General Charles de Gaulle, who was elected president of France in 1958, made it one of his main responsibilities to move France out of Algeria as peacefully as possible. His plan consisted of a gradual removal of French military personnel in Algeria in the goal of keeping what was left of any kind of relationship between the two countries as strong as possible. While he chose not to exit Algeria abruptly and quickly, de Gaulle wanted Algeria to be decolonized and for Algeria to eventually declare its independence. At the same time, he was attempting to preserve any international relationship they had before the years of the war: “Depending on one’s politics, the endgame that de Gaulle played in Algeria may be seen as the brilliant management of an explosive crisis in which he brought France to accept the inevitability of Algerian independence.”[10] Eventually, de Gaulle would put an end to the conflict in 1962 when he would formally declare Algeria to be an independent nation. On July 1st 1962, a referendum in Algeria was held with a voting population of 6,549,736 Algerians. The question which respondents had to answer in the affirmative or negative was: “En conséquence la Commission Central de Contrôle du référendum constate qu'à la question: ‘Voulez-vous que L'Algérie devienne un Etat indépendant coopérant avec la France dans les conditions définies par les déclarations du 19 Mars 1962’, les électeurs ont répondu affirmativement a la majorite ci-dessus indiquées.”[11] The declarations this central referendum question refers to are the conditions of a structured exit of France from Algeria in which both countries could continue to maintain a mutual and positive relationship. Of those who participated, 5,992,115 (91.5%) expressed that they experienced suffrage under French control, and 5,975,581 (91.2%) responded in the affirmative to the main question asked. In 1962, Algeria had an estimated population of approximately 11.62 million. This means that a large majority of the Algerian adult population participated in this referendum, meaning that the results were significant in showing the extent to which Algerians felt they had suffered under French control and were devout supporters of a new independent Algerian nation.

Among many other factors which contributed to the growing foundations for a successful right-wing nationalist political party, many viewed France’s withdrawal from Algeria as another military defeat, like they had suffered in Indochina. 

The purged collaborators of Vichy France joined virulent anti-communists and those disillusioned by the weakness of the Fourth Republic (1945-1958) to form a ready clientele for anti system nationalist movements. The impetus for the Radical Right in postwar France was seventeen years of unsuccessful colonial War, first in Indochina (1945-1954) and especially in Algeria (1954-1962).[12]

After independence

Post-independence relations between Algeria and France would lead to a massive increase in legal migration of Algerians into France. The 1960s and 1970s naturally became a time in which many first generation French citizens from non-french parents were born. This was also met by an increase in the number of mosques and Muslim establishments in France. Traditional French families became increasingly in number disfavorable to the transformation in the ethnic makeup of France’s population. The Front National’s (FN’s) resurgence can largely be connected to these trends, and Algeria was the principal country from which Muslims from the Maghreb immigrated into France. In 1999, the largest immigrant population in France was still Algerians at 576,000 total immigrants. Today, more than 8.8% of the French population is Muslim, and many of them are second or third-generation descendants of individuals who had migrated in the 1960s from the Maghreb. In recent years, the resurgence of the Front National was largely in response to the millions of Muslim migrants, many of whom were political refugees from Syria and other countries.

The French-Algerian War carried on for eight years. These were eight years of bloodshed in which hundreds of thousands of people died, the majority being under-sourced and outmatched Algerian nationals. The violence and oppression felt by natives during this time carries a burden for generations to come. Specifically, the perpetuation of this burden is reinforced by islamophobia and highly conservative views on topics of immigration. In 1962, once Algeria had finally declared its independence, many immigrated into France making Algerians the largest population of Muslim immigrants from North Africa. While speculation is foolish, one can certainly establish a link between far-right ideology, its resurgence in recent decades, and its relation to French colonial history. The implications of colonialism, as Fanon explains, can only lead to violence and long-term animosity between the settlers and the natives. The long-term sysemic oppresion facing french Muslim citizens of North African descent, perpetuated and reinforced by the populist far-right of France, are the implications that Fanon correctly forecasted in 1961 and symbolic of the stigmatizing view shared by so many in our world today. 

What do you think of France’s actions in Algeria? Let us know below.

[1] Camus, Albert. “Le Malaise Politique.” (Paris: Combat, 18 May 1945).

[2] William I. Hitchcock, The Struggle for Europe: the Turbulent History of a Divided Continent, 1945 to the Present (New York: Anchor Books, 2003), 184.

[3] Marie Fauré, La Guerre d’Algérie: La Terre aux Remous de la Décolonisation (Ixelles: Lemaitre Publishing, 2017), 7.

[4]  Camus, Albert. “Crise en Algérie,” Combat, 13 May 1945.

[5]  Hitchcock, The Struggle for Europe, 185.

[6] Bourdet, Claude. “Votre Gestapo d'Algérie.” France Observateur, 13 January 1955.

[7] Fanon, Frantz, Richard Philcox, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Homi K. Bhabha. The Wretched of the Earth. (Cape Town: Kwela Books, 2017), 37.

[8] Sajed, Alina. Postcolonial Encounters in International Relations: The Politics of Transgression in the Maghreb. (Taylor & Francis Group, 2013).

[9]  Fanon, Frantz, Richard Philcox, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Homi K. Bhabha. The Wretched of the Earth. (Cape Town: Kwela Books, 2017), 51.

[10] Hitchcock, The Struggle for Europe, 189.

[11]  Sator, Kaddour. Proclamation Des Résultats du Référendum D'Autodétermination Du 1er Juillet 1962. (Algerie: Commission Centrale de Contrôle Electorale, 3 July 1962.)

[12] Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. (Vintage Books, 2005), 177

Secondary Sources

Fauré, Marie, and 50 Minutes. La Guerre D'Algérie: La France Aux Remous De La Décolonisation. Vol. 47, (Lemaitre Publishing, 2017).

Hitchcock, William I. The Struggle for Europe: The Turbulent History of a Divided Continent, 1945 to the Present. (Anchor Books - A Division of Random House, Inc. New York, 2003).

Howell, Jennifer. The Algerian War in French-Language Comics: Postcolonial Memory, History, and Subjectivity. (Lexington Books, 2015).

Saada, Emmanuelle, and Arthur Goldhammer. Empires Children: Race, Filiation, and Citizenship in the French Colonies. (The University of Chicago Press, 2012).

Sajed, Alina. Postcolonial Encounters in International Relations: The Politics of Transgression in the Maghreb. (Taylor & Francis Group, 2013).

Silverman, Max. Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks: New Interdisciplinary Essays. (Manchester University Press, 2017).

Primary Sources

Boualam, Bachaga. Mon Pays… La France. Paris, France: (Editions France-Empire, 1962).

Bourdet, Claude. “Votre Gestapo d'Algérie.” (France Observateur, 13 January 1955).

Camus, Albert. “Crise en Algérie.” (Combat, 13 May 1945).

Camus, Albert. “Des Bateaux Et De La Justice.” (Combat, 16 May 1945).

Camus, Albert. “Le Malaise Politique.” (Combat, 18 May 1945).

 Sator, Kaddour. Proclamation Des Résultats du Référendum D'Autodétermination Du 1er Juillet 1962. (Commision Centrale de Controle Electorale, 3 July 1962).

 Fanon, Frantz, Richard Philcox, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Homi K. Bhabha. The Wretched of the Earth. (Cape Town: Kwela Books, 2017).

The First Woman Convicted of Murder in the Oregon Territory: Charity Lamb

Charity Lamb (c. 1818-1879) was infamous in her time for the being the first woman convicted of murder in the new Oregon territory (the territory in the north-west of the United States). Here, Jordann Stover returns and tells us about the murder, Charity’s trial, and the aftermath.

You can also read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II here, and on Princess Olga ‘Olishka’ Nikolaevna, the Eldest Daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia here.

The Oregon Hospital for the Insane, where Charity Lamb spent her years from 1862.

Charity Lamb -- we do not know the exact date of her birth or what she looked like. We have photos of the asylum she spent the rest of her days confined to, photos of her lawyer but there is nothing of the woman herself. She was born around 1818 and died some sixty years later. She was convicted of murder, the first woman to recieve such a conviction in the new Oregon territory after she plunged an axe into her husband, Nathaniel’s, skull. 

Humans have always had an inherent curiosity for crime, the deadlier the better. We find ourselves captivated by blood spatter and ballistics, by the process of getting into the mind of the world’s most violent individuals. Just as we have done and continue to do in the face of horror, Charity Lamb’s case was sensationalized by the world around her. There were talks of love triangles, insanity, infidelity, and more. The Oregon territory would have had you believing that Lamb was certifiable, that she was a woman lusting after a young man under her husband's (and daughter’s) nose. She, who was almost certainly a housewife who led a monotonous, ordinary life up until the beginning of this fiasco, was seen as a cold-blooded sex-feind. The truth was, of course, far less Lifetime-y. The story of Charity Lamb is one born of an all too familiar circumstance-- a woman trying desperately to survive her marriage to a violent man. 

The Crime

It happened on a Saturday evening. Charity, her husband, and their children sat around the table for a dinner Charity had certainly spent some time preparing. At some point during the meal, Charity stood from the table and left the cabin. We cannot be sure if there was a reaction of any sort from the rest of the family, not until Charity returned just a moment later with an axe. She stepped up behind her husband and hit him as hard as she could in the back of his head not once but two times. After doing so, she and her eldest child, Mary Ann, who was seventeen at the time, fled. The remaining children watched in horror as their father fell to the floor, his body “scrambl[ing] about a little” before falling unconscious. The man did not die immediately; instead, he held on for a few days before dying.

What seemed to have precipitated this event was the affections Mary Ann felt for a man named Collins. Collins was said to have been a farmhand working for a family nearby. There is no record to confirm whether or not the feelings were reciprocated. Perhaps Mary Ann had not gotten a chance to truly express her feelings to the man before her father forbade her from being with him which subsequently led to the teenager asking her mother for help in writing a secret letter to the young man. 

Nathaniel discovered the letter on his wife and accused her of having feelings for Collins herself. We cannot be sure whether or not she truly had feelings for the young man but we can make assumptions-- a case such as this makes a retelling without such assumptions practically impossible. It is unlikely that this woman with a group of children and nearing forty would have been pursuing a presumably penniless farmhand. What is far more believable is that Charity, a mother who knew very well how deeply her daughter’s feelings went, was doing her best to help. Regardless of what was the truth, Nathaniel was furious. He threatened Charity, threatened to take her children away, to murder her. Charity was quite obviously terrified but according to their children who testified at her trial, Nathaniel had frequently been violent with their mother. He’d knocked her to the ground, kicked her, forced her to work when she was sick. He was downright brutal with her for their entire marriage which leaves us to wonder-- what was it about this last threat that scared her so much? Charity was used to this violence so whatever he said to her, whatever he might have done was enough for her to legitimately believe her life was in jeopardy. 

According to Charity, he’d threatened her just as he had many times before; however, this time he was serious. He told her that she would die before the end of the week and once she was gone he’d take their children far away, hurting them in the process. He told her that if she ran, he’d hunt her down and shoot her— it was known how good of a shot Nathaniel was as he was an avid, accomplished hunter. 

The Trial

Charity and Mary Ann were arrested following the events of that morning. The community was outraged. They hated them, and saw them as monsters. Newspapers practically rewrote the events to match whatever story they believed would sell. They told salacious fable after salacious fable until Charity became the most hated woman in the Oregon territory. 

Mary Ann went to trial before her mother and was acquitted. One can only imagine the relief Charity must have felt— this was her fight, certainly not something she wanted her daughter tangled up in anymore than she already was. Charity’s trial followed a few days later and a similar outcome was expected; however, she would not be so lucky. 

A part of the blame can be put on the men who decided to defend her. They had her plead not guilty by reason of insanity, insisting that Charity was not mentally sound; therefore, she could not have known the consequences of her actions. They claimed that her husband’s actions had driven her to insanity. This proved to be the beginning of the end for her hopes of acquittal as anyone in the room could see that she was relatively competent. The judge, in a move that was questionable for someone who was supposed to remain impartial in such matters, sympathized with her. He instructed the jury to acquit if they truly believed her actions were done in self defense.

Despite the sympathies of the judge and the testimonies of the Lamb children confirming the abuses Charity claimed to experience, she was found guilty of murdering her husband. 

Charity wept loudly as the verdict was read. This woman who had survived the Oregon Trail, multiple pregnancies, life on the frontier, and a violent husband was sentenced to prison where she would be subjected to hard labor. The officers had to take her infant from her arms, depositing the child into the arms of another. 

There were no prisons for women in the Oregon territory; Charity was the first woman to be charged with such crimes in the area. The local prison where she was eventually sent had no provisions for her and she remained the only female prisoner for her entire stay. She did the warden’s laundry and other household tasks to fulfill her sentence of hard labor until she was transferred to Oregon Hospital for the Insane in 1862. She lived out the rest of her days in that hospital with a smile on her face and proclaiming her innocence. 

What do you think about the trial of Charity Lamb? Let us know below.

Sources

Lansing, Ronald B. "The Tragedy of Charity Lamb, Oregon's First Convicted Murderess." Oregon Historical Quarterly 40 (Spring 2000)

“Charity Lamb.”, The Oregon Encyclopedia 

https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/lamb_charity_1879_/#.Xukj7kXYrrc

The American Civil War: The Legacy of Social and Economic Control

The American Civil War ended in 1865, but its effects lasted a long time – and even linger to this day. Here, Daniel L. Smith returns and presents his views on how economic and social control emerged from the Civil War and last to the present in America.

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

Freedmen voting in New Orleans in 1867.

It's far from over. In fact, it was never over. Here's a historical clarification to give an insight and some background information into the political 'shadow-war' occurring today in Washington DC and within states nationwide. And that is just the fallout of the ongoing American Civil War. American historians James McPherson and James Hogue, both prominent intellectuals whose area of expertise are in the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, gave an eye-opening account on the forecast of the Democratic Party’s intentions for America in 1857 and beyond.

​“Slavery lies at the root of all shame, poverty, ignorance, tyranny, and imbecility…” With a direct emphasis on the rogue political tactics used to obligate the whole mass of society, “the lords of the lash” (speaking of Democratic politicians and business elites) who “are not only absolute masters of blacks [but] of all non-slave-holding whites, whose freedom is merely nominal, and whose unparalleled literacy and degradation is purposely and fiendishly perpetuated.”[1]

R. H. Purdom would give an early warning: "Decided course for the speedy suppression of the intolerable abuses” taken on by workers was absolutely necessary for the “permanent welfare of the institution of slavery itself.”[2] Mr. Purdom was a master mechanic who stood up to address a meeting in Jackson, Mississippi. He gave a stark warning to the elite’s controlling the southern economy. By this point, even the poor working white class were ready to turn coat on their own institutions.

In September 1865, a prominent leading Democratic politician (just recently pardoned by the federal government after losing the Civil War) publicly scoffed at any idea of the Democratic Party remaining loyal or maintaining good relations with the newly re-established United States government. Even Wade Hampton, one of the South’s wealthiest elite farmers, would mention immediately after the Civil War that it “is our duty” (talking of the post-war Confederates who were legally pardoned of treason) to support the President of the United States; however their loyalty to the new government would only stay intact if “he manifests a disposition to restore all our rights as a sovereign State.”[2]

After war’s end

Even though rebellious military action ceased weeks after the loss, the Democratic Party of the post-Civil War period only declared a momentary political ceasefire. And although they had formally lost, they did not willingly capitulate to the federal government (the Union) at the moment of military surrender. Between April 9 and November 6, 1865, a nearly invisible ‘shadow war’ marked the 'beginning of the end' for the future of political and social cohesion within America.

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 passed statutes and amendments to state constitutions that effectively disenfranchised most African Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites. They did this through devices such as poll taxes for voters and literacy tests to “qualify” to vote (among other underhand tactics). By the late 1950s, the Democratic Party began to embrace the Civil Rights Movement, and the old argument that Southern whites had to vote for Democrats "to protect racial 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. Segregation also became incompatible with their party’s ethics, which is to oppress the poor regardless of color. So what did they do? Modernization had brought factories, national businesses and a more diverse culture to cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, and Houston. This attracted many northern migrants, including many African Americans. They gave priority to modernization and economic growth over preservation of the "old ways" of the Democratic Party, but they wanted social and economic control, a process which had started earlier.

Social and economic control

Between 1865 and the late-1880s, prices were falling and people's incomes increased six-fold, so offering American's more purchasing power.[3] The politicians of the New South began feeling the pressures of big businesses complaints that the increased wages were rising fast. It is because of this major economic shift that the attack on the greedy worker was to begin. There was another shift as well. A social one. Now the freedmen (former slaves) and previously non-slave-holding whites, were able to climb the free-market ladder unhindered. For the Democratic Party, it was time to shift the focus to social and economic control.

"Cut their wages to begin with. Make them work harder. To align their interests with their employers, put wage earners on piecework (part-time). Above everything, do something to stop skilled workers from setting the pace of production and spreading to co-workers their spirit of 'manly' resistance to speed-ups" (hostile resistance to forced increases in manual labor). Much like the post-Modern Institutions of Fast Food, Gas, and Retail, one laborer wrote: "You start in to be a man, but you become more and more a machine.... It's like any severe labor. It drags you down mentally and morally, just as it does physically."[4] Of course the Iron Workers during those times had it painstakingly hard physically, but the shift today has moved to being exhausting mentally.

With the Covid-19 Pandemic, Republicans are screaming at Americans to "get out and live!" They want to encourage financial independence and societal success. The Democrats are screaming at Americans to "stay home and save lives!" At this point, for what? One Democratic politician was quoted recently as telling Americans that they should just stay home and "get paid" with the federal government paying out a basic universal income for everybody. And in the future? Who knows, but the way things look, it could possibly be by something as simple as misleading everybody into eventually doing everything from home -and only home.[5]

It is apparent through history's evidence that control is the Democratic Party's modern end-game.

At least it seems that way.

​Enough said.

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.

Bibliography

​[1] McPherson, James M., and James K. Hogue. "The Problems of Peace and Presidential Reconstruction, 1865." In Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, 543. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

[2] Beatty, Jack. "The Problems of Peace and Presidential Reconstruction, 1865." In Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900, 543. New York: Vintage, 2008.

[3] “Mechanical Association,” Mississippian State Gazette, Dec. 29, 1858, 3.

[4] Perrow, Charles. "A Society of Organizations." Theory and Society 20 (1991), 791. doi:10.1007/bf00678095.

[5] Chris Talgo, Opinion Contributor. "Universal Basic Income and the End of the Republic." TheHill. Last modified May 12, 2020.https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/497244-universal-basic-income-and-the-end-of-the-republic.

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.

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 Radical Nature of American Politics: A Perspective

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.

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.

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

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.

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.

Richard Kyle Fox: The Irish-born publisher whose Publication Documented America's Gilded-Age

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.

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.

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.

Abraham Lincoln: The Story of how he Became a Wrestling Champion

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.

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

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

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 we look at the sons of George III who all found themselves suddenly in need of wives in order to continue the Hanover line.

Denise Tubbs explains.

George III in the 1770s. Painting by Johann Zoffany.

Great Britain has had its share to succession crises over the centuries. The legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and their subsequent children has been debated for over 500 years. During the reign of Elizabeth I, succession was a huge topic since she refused to marry. Even spanning back to 1066, the Battle of Hastings between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson started as a result of a succession crisis. So, what is it about this crisis that separates it from the rest? Well, no other royal house had more effect on world events for the next 100 years. 

George III had a lot of kids. A total of 15 children - nine sons and six girls. Of his daughters, two never had children, two were never married, one died in childhood, and the last had no surviving children. The continuation of the house of Hanover lied solely with his sons. His son the future George IV and Ernest Augustus both had only one child. Ernest Augustus had a son days apart from Victoria, missing the title of heir by a mere three days (Victoria was born on May 24, 1819 and George was born on May 27, 1819). The future William IV had a total of 10 children. Unfortunately, none of those 10 were legitimate. Prince Augustus Frederick had three children from his marriage; however, because he got married in secret and without the permission of his father, all were deemed illegitimate. Prince Frederick married, but had no children. Prince Adolphus has children but not until after the births of Victoria and Prince George. Lastly, Prince Edward had one child with Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (she was the sister of Prince Leopold, Charlotte’s husband) before dying at the age of 52. This child was Victoria.

The line of succession

Since George IV was the oldest son and heir apparent to his father’s throne, that made his heir Charlotte. But when she died in 1817, the new heir apparent would have been the second oldest son of George III, Prince Fredrick. He would die in 1827, so the heir became the third oldest son of George III, William. At the time of Charlotte’s death William, Edward and Adolphus were not married. Ernest Augustus had married two years prior. All three unmarried princes were pressured by the public to do away with their bachelor life, marry and have a child before the line had no one left. The three of them would get married in rapid succession of each other - all getting married in 1818.  

So, let us recap since this was a lot of information. By 1817, George lost his only child and heir in childbirth, Charlotte. At the time of her death, William, Edward, and Adolphus were not married nor had any legitimate children. Ernest Augustus was married but had no children yet. Frederick was married but with no children. Augustus had children but they were ruled illegitimate. If William became king after George IV, and none of the remaining sons got married, William’s heir would be Ernest Augustus (Edward would be dead by 1820, so he and Frederick will be out of contention). Ernest Augustus had a son in 1819, so the throne would have passed to him next. If his son had no heir and the remaining sons were still alive the succession would have passed to Augustus and Adolphus. The line would die after Adolphus. 

This meant that the first son to have a child would be the father of the future of the country. The game is set, and as mentioned above, Victoria is born three days before her first Cousin George of Hanover in 1819. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, there would have been no need for those three sons to make their rush to the altar. Victoria, as a result, would not have been born and her direct descendants who had a major effect on world history as we know it today would be drastically altered. Furthermore, even with Charlotte’s, if Victoria was born after George of Hanover she also would not have been in direct line to the throne. There are then two what if possibilities: of Victoria never being born or born after her cousin.

Next up we will look at the children of Victoria and the effect they would have on world events. 

Now, read part 3, the final part, here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

What do you think of this royal succession? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia

PBS drama Victoria