The importance of an African American Exhibit at the 1900 World’s Fair

Ben Parten takes us back to the 1900 World’s Fair and considers how W.E.B. Du Bois made attempts to overcome the Color Line and continued prejudice against African Americans through a breakthrough exhibition.

Exhibit of American Negroes at the Paris Exposition. Photographer unknown. Photograph undated, in Review of Reviews, vol. 22.

As the world turned its back on the nineteenth century and entered the twentieth, civil rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois assessed the social state of American society looking forward. In his famous book The Souls of Black Folk, he prophetically claimed, "For the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line." In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Du Bois emerged as the intellectual voice of the race uplift movement­, which sought to advance the social status of African Americans. Prior to his “color line” statement, Du Bois foresaw challenges approaching the black community and attempted to redirect the perceptions of African Americans on the world’s biggest stage: the 1900 World’s Fair in Paris. Though primarily thought of as an exposition to showcase industrial and technological feats, Du Bois saw the World’s Fair as an arena where “the problem of the color line” could be denigrated by expressing the intellectual acumen and social progress of African Americans. If Du Bois and his team could effectively demonstrate to their European peers that the African American community was a thriving and active component of American society, it would be a step in the direction of racial tolerance at home and abroad.

Though Du Bois is conventionally identified with the Exhibit of American Negroes, the exhibit was initially organized by Thomas Calloway. After petitioning then President William McKinley for the necessary funds to conduct the project, he enlisted Du Bois and Daniel Murray - an assistant at the Library of Congress - to gather the appropriate materials. From these collected materials, Du Bois and Murray hoped to convey four different aspects of the African American community: their history, their present state, their education, and their literature. Accordingly, they assembled a large collection of patents from African American inventors and a bibliography of over 1,400 pamphlets and books written by African American writers. Most notable of these writers was the popular poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar. The group even constructed charts that mapped out the demographic status of African Americans within America and in comparison to Europe. Du Bois specifically points out in “The American Negro at Paris” that “there are nearly half as many Negroes in the United States as Spaniards in Spain” and illiteracy of African American children is “less than that of Russia and only equal to that of Hungary.”

Yet, the most intriguing component of the exhibit was its compilation of photographs. Du Bois and Murray compiled over five hundred photographs highlighting the social progress of African Americans since emancipation. In order to highlight social advancement, these pictures often portrayed families, clubs, or single individuals dressed in nice clothes and sporting stylish accessories equal to those of whites. The pictures also conveyed the importance African Americans placed on education. Photos of whole graduating classes at the major African American colleges like Fisk and Howard were taken along with photos of younger students attending grammar school. Photographs were even taken of African American middle class working conditions and places of worship to show just how far African Americans had progressed since their days of servitude.

African Americans, mostly women, sorting tobacco at the T.B. Williams Tobacco Co., Richmond, Virginia

Interior of 'Negro' store, Buffalo, N.Y.

Aside from highlighting social advancement, these pictures also demeaned the disparaging notion that African Americans were less than human. In fact, the pictures proved to a European audience that African Americans were as equally human as whites by showing African Americans participating in the same types of human experiences as whites. Not only were African Americans capable of engaging in these experiences, but they had the abilities to thrive in the same modern society as white Americans. Du Bois and Murray masterfully used pictures, literature, and patents to illustrate to the Europeans that the days where an African American did not even possess his or her own body were over; they now possessed the self-ownership and proper education to actively take part in a larger global community.

During the fair, the exhibit was practically snubbed by the other American exhibitionists, and the mainstream news outlets generally ignored it. It was even relegated to a location separate from the main United States exhibit. Though dismissed by the American exhibitionists, the Exhibition of American Negros was extremely popular amongst the patrons of the fair. Europeans gawked at the amazing images and were astonished at the oeuvre of literature displayed. Even some American patrons came away impressed. One anonymous American writer called it the “most authentic evidence of the literary output of the race” and another called it “a prophetic of what may be expected.” In sum, the project was a success. Du Bois and his team were able to take an exhibit that Du Bois referred to as “an honest straightforward exhibit of a small nation of people, picturing their life and development without apology or gloss” and use it as a tool to quicken the march toward African American equality.

You can read an article related to African American Emancipation and the struggle for equality in the June 2014 issue of History is Now Magazine, our latest issue. You can even read it for free today if you take up a no-obligation trial now.

Click here for information on the iOS/Apple edition

Click here for information on the Android edition

References

Anonymous. "Negro Authorship." Publications of the Southern History Association, 4:4. 1900 (July): 295-296.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vdQRAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&pg=PA295#v=onepage&q=murray&f=false

Anonymous. "The Negro in Literature." Literary Digest, v.21, n.5 (August 4, 1900): 130

http://books.google.com/books?id=_03QAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Du Bois, W.E. Burghardt. 1900. "The American Negro at Paris." The American Monthly Review of Reviews, vol.XXII, no.5 (November): pp.575-577.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hTIIg_nfB3YC&pg=PA575&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Du Bois, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Penguin, 1989. Print.

Gnovis, Vol. 6 (Georgetown University's journal of Communication, Culture and Technology
www.gnovisjournal.org/files/Shannon-Grevious-Finding-One-s-Place.pdf

Image Sources

Library of Congress original pictures - http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?st=grid&co=anedub

Library of Congress blog - http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2014/04/collection-connections-twelve-years-a-slave/

A Scene of Chaos in a 19th Century Asylum – Image of the week

Our image of the week looks at a scene of anarchy in an eighteenth century asylum.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries life was extremely hard for many. And it only became more so when you possessed a mental health problem. Indeed, in this period mental health issues were known, but often not fully understood. One such arena in which ‘lunacy’ was often not considered was court. So, an ongoing battle was fought in the nineteenth century and in to the twentieth century to have mental health issues considered as part of trials.

At the same time, those who did manage to have their mental health problems recognized as being a mitigating factor in crimes were sent to some less-than-nice places.

The image above is a scene entitled In the Madhouse, painting eight of William Hogarth’s A Rake’s Progress. In the scene we can see the inside of Bethlem Hospital (‘Bedlam’), the foremost criminal lunatic hospital of its day. The painting was produced in the 1730s. The hospital’s roots can be traced as far back as the thirteenth century, while in the Georgian era, it housed many people who were classed as insane by the authorities. The image itself shows us a picture of chaos inside the hospital, with dark figures lurking who are undertaking all sorts of weird and wonderful activities.

The latest issue of History is Now magazine features an article on criminal lunacy in the nineteenth century. The magazine also has a range of fascinating articles related to modern history from America and the wider world.

Click on the following links for more details and to get the latest issue for FREE today: Android | Apple iOS

FDR, Truman and Eisenhower in World War I

Steve Strathmann considers what the three presidents most closely associated with World War II did during  that other great war of the twentieth century – World War I.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson led the United States as it entered the First World War. In his speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war, Wilson presented Germany’s submarine warfare as the primary reason to go to war, but he also stated a greater goal:

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.

The two men who held the office before him supported the nation’s entry into the war. Theodore Roosevelt, a veteran of the Spanish-American War, asked to personally raise a division of troops to be sent to Europe. Wilson met with Roosevelt and politely declined the offer, explaining that the ranks would be instead filled through a draft. Another strike against Roosevelt going to Europe was his poor overall health; he would barely outlive the conflict, passing away on January 6, 1919.

William Howard Taft spoke publicly in support of the war. On June 13, 1917, he repeated Wilson’s “war for democracy” theme, declaring “...Now we have stepped to the forefront of nations, and they look to us.” Taft would be tapped by President Wilson to chair the National War Labor Board, a panel set up to handle labor/management disputes during the war.

While other future presidents would make contributions to the war effort (especially Herbert Hoover, whose work during and after the war would make him internationally famous), what did the three presidents most identified with the Second World War do in 1917? As we shall see, these three men all served their nation’s military in different ways.

The Assistant Secretary

FDR, with Secretary Daniels and the Prince of Wales, in Annapolis, 1919.

While the war raged overseas, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Theodore’s cousin) was a member of the Wilson administration serving as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. At the start of war, Roosevelt publicly called for an increase in the size of the US Navy by 18,000 men. This got him into trouble with Wilson and Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels, who were trying to maintain a state of neutrality. Roosevelt had to recant his statement, and learned not to step on his superiors’ toes.

By July of 1915, the administration was coming into line with Roosevelt’s beliefs on naval expansion. Increased action in the Atlantic Ocean, including the sinking of the Lusitania, convinced Wilson that the military needed to be updated and enlarged to improve the nation’s defenses. Daniels and FDR presented a plan calling for the construction of 176 new ships, including ten battleships. This was approved by the president and Congress.

Even with these preparations, the US Navy was relatively small when war was declared. This had changed by the end of the war, when the force had expanded to almost a million sailors on over 2,000 vessels. Roosevelt had a hand in this, proving to be so good at gathering military supplies that he had to be asked to share the navy’s material gains with the army.

According to biographer Jean Edward Smith, FDR’s greatest wartime work was the creation of a North Sea antisubmarine chain of mines. While the initial plan was not Roosevelt’s, his promotion of the idea and the technology to accomplish it was what led to it being implemented. The chain wasn’t installed until the summer of 1918 and it was never fully tested, but estimates of German U-boats destroyed by the mines range from four to as many as twenty-three.

Above all, Franklin Roosevelt wanted to serve in the military during the war. He knew how his cousin’s military exploits helped with his political career and wanted to follow in his footsteps. Theodore Roosevelt even encouraged Franklin to enlist. Unfortunately for FDR, his talents working for the administration meant that Wilson and Daniels would never let him leave his post.

Roosevelt did eventually make it to the Western Front, but not as a soldier. In the summer of 1918, he was sent as part of a Senate committee to inspect the situation in Europe. He insisted on going to the French battlefields, including Verdun and Belleau Wood, and came within one mile of the German front lines. Little did he know, his future vice president was serving in an artillery unit not too far away.

Captain Harry

Harry S. Truman in France, 1918.

Harry S. Truman volunteered when war was declared, and the former Missouri Guard member was elected an officer in the artillery formations being organized in the Kansas City/Independence region. After training in Oklahoma, the units sailed for France, arriving on April 13, 1918.

On July 11, Truman took over command of Battery D. The battery had had issues with their previous commanders, but Truman soon earned their respect. Indeed, according to author Robert Ferrell, these soldiers would in the future be Truman’s political base, willing to do anything to support the man they called “Captain Harry.”

Truman’s battery saw action in the Vosges Mountains, Meuse-Argonnes and Verdun. Before Meuse-Argonnes, the captain marched his battery for twenty-two nights to reach their destination. During the two weeks there, Truman’s men sometimes fired their guns so often that, according to the battery’s chief mechanic, “...they’d pour a bucket of water down the muzzle and it’d come out of the breach just a-steaming, you know.”

Verdun was a particularly grizzly posting. The area where the unit was stationed was part of the 1916 battlefield, so every shell that landed around the battery would churn up graves from the previous action. Truman would describe waking up in the morning and finding skulls lying nearby. The battery would serve at Verdun until the end of the war.

While Truman was learning to become a leader of men under fire, one of his future generals was fresh out of West Point, desperate to join in the action, but continually thwarted in his attempts.

Ike

Dwight D. Eisenhower, with tank, in Fort Meade.

Dwight D. Eisenhower graduated from West Point in 1915, sixty-first in a class of 164. Despite his wishes to be posted in the Philippines, he ended up in Texas. When the United States entered the war, Eisenhower was appointed regimental supply officer of the new 57th Regiment.

Unfortunately for the ambitious Ike, he proved to be an excellent training officer and was turned down every time he requested a transfer to Europe. Like Roosevelt, he was too valuable to let go. He was soon transferred to Fort Meade to help organize the 301st Tank Battalion, one of the United States’ first tank units. He was supposed to leave for France with the 301st as its commander, but at the last minute was told that he would remain behind (once again) to set up a training base, Camp Colt, to be located on the old Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsylvania.

Eisenhower did a fantastic job setting up Camp Colt, which soon held more than 10,000 men training on the site of Pickett’s Charge. Due to a lack of tanks, they would use guns mounted on flatbed trucks to practice firing at targets while in motion. Finally all was going well and Eisenhower was scheduled to leave for Europe with the next group of recruits, but the war ended just as they were preparing to leave.

War to End All Wars?

As the war ended, these three men probably thought what most others did: this war was the last of its kind to be fought. Eisenhower would remain in the army. Truman would return to Missouri and try his hand in business. Roosevelt would continue in politics, running for vice president on the unsuccessful 1920 Democratic ticket. Little did these three men know that they were destined to meet in just over a couple of decades, fighting the next world war.

If you enjoyed this article, tell the world. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

Aboukhadijeh, Feross. "U.S. Entry into WWI" StudyNotes.org. StudyNotes, Inc., Published November 17, 2012. Accessed May 16, 2014.

Duffy, Michael, ed. “Primary Documents- U.S. Declaration of War with Germany, 2 April 1917.” FirstWorldWar.com. Published August 22, 2009. Accessed May 16, 2014.

Duffy, Michael, ed. “Primary Documents- William Howard Taft on America’s Decision to go to War, 13 June 1917.” FirstWorldWar.com. Published August 22, 2009. Accessed May 16, 2014.

Ferrell, Robert H. Harry S. Truman: a life. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1994.

Korda, Michael. Ike: An American Hero. New York: Harper, 2007.

Smith, Jean Edward. FDR. New York: Random House, 2007.

Photos

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/npc2007000705/resource/ (FDR, with Secretary Daniels and the Prince of Wales, in Annapolis, 1919)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_S._Truman_WW_I.jpg (Harry S. Truman in France, 1918)

http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/museum/Eisenhower_with_Tank.jpg (Dwight D. Eisenhower, with tank, in Fort Meade)

The man who wanted to resurrect George Washington

William Bodkin tells us the fascinating story of William Thornton, the man who wanted to resurrect George Washington after his death.

Humanity has often exhibited a desire to exalt the great individuals of an age; indeed, the study of history itself often lends itself to not just the memorialization of these men and women, but their continued veneration after their time on earth. Occasionally, this veneration takes on a desire to keep the person’s physical body present with us. For example, the newly canonized Pope John XXIII lies in state at the Vatican for pilgrims to visit. At the other end of the spectrum, Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Russian Soviet Federative Republic and then the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, lies still in his mausoleum in Moscow’s Red Square. And following the death of George Washington, first President of the United States of America, one individual had quite a different plan; not to have the great general and widely hailed ‘Father’ of the United States lie in perpetual state, but to bring him back from the dead.

Washington on his Deathbed by Junius Brutus Stearns. 1851.

William Thornton was a medical doctor, schooled at the University of Edinburgh. Not content with this simple profession, he was also an inventor, painter, and architect (though he lacked formal training in the latter). He designed the United States Capitol building, served as the first ‘Architect of the Capitol’ and the First Superintendent of the United State Patent Office.[1] Often described as an authentic ‘polymath’, he was a Renaissance man of the American Enlightenment.

WASHINGTON AND BEING BURIED ALIVE

Thornton shared with many of the time the preoccupation with the dangers of being buried alive, or with people returning from what seemed an all but conclusive death. In his youth in Britain, Thornton had been a member of the “Royal Humane Society,” which despite its familiar name, was devoted not to the protection of animals, but was rather a group organized and devoted to preventing human drownings and to attempt to resuscitate the newly or near drowned.[2]

George Washington shared these views. That is to say, while he did not share Thornton’s preoccupation with bringing back the newly dead, he wanted to make certain he was not buried alive. In the hours before his death from “acute bacterial epiglottitis”[3], an infection of the entrance to the larynx that made it all but impossible for him to eat, Washington instructed his personal secretary, Tobias Lear, to have him “decently buried” and to “not let me be put into the Vault in less than three days after I am dead.”[4]

As Washington lay in his final illness in December 1799, Thornton, long a friend of the President, was invited by one of Martha Washington’s granddaughters to tend to the dying man.[5]  Thornton, then supervising construction of rental property in the District of Columbia that Washington owned,[6] left for Mount Vernon at once, confident of being able to relieve Washington of his discomfort by means of a tracheotomy. But Washington died on December 14, 1799, a few days before Thornton made it to Mount Vernon to attend to him. Thornton himself describes his reaction:

When we arrived, to my unspeakable grief, we found him laid out a stiffened corpse. My feelings at that moment I cannot express! I was overwhelmed with the loss of the best friend I had on earth.[7]

True to form, though, death would not deter Thornton from his efforts to save his new nation’s first president:

The weather was very cold, and he remained in a frozen state for many days. I proposed to attempt his restoration in the following manner. First and by degrees and by friction to give him warmth, and to put into activity the minute blood vessels, at the same time to open a passage to the Lungs by the Trachea, and to inflate them with air, to produce an artificial respiration, and to transfuse blood into him from a lamb. If these means had been resorted to, and had failed all that could be done would have been done, but I was not seconded in this proposal; for it was deemed unavailing. I reasoned thus. He died by the loss of blood and the want of air. Restore these with the heat that had subsequently been deducted, and as the organization was in every respect perfect, there was no doubt in my mind that his restoration was possible.[8]

LIVING FOREVER

Calmer heads, however, prevailed and Thornton was prevented from enacting his plan. Perhaps as a consolation for a friend, Thornton’s demand that Washington’s body be enclosed within a lead coffin was granted,[9] but his stated reason for doing so, that Washington might be entombed one day in an eventual monument to honor him in the District that now bears his name never materialized.  Martha Washington insisted her husband remain in the family vault at Mount Vernon.[10]

Thornton remained a believer in the merits of his plan, wondering if it were possible, or if it would be right, to attempt to bring back to life “one who had parted full of honor and renown; free of the frailties of age, in the full enjoyment of every faculty, prepared for eternity.”[11] Was Thornton a genius or madman?  His widow, perhaps quite naturally, believed the former, recording in her diary that the good doctor had been told by a member of Congress that he was living a hundred years too soon and that his views were to vast to be embraced by the men of the time.[12]

If Thornton was ahead of his time, it is likely that it was more than 250 years, and not a century as that unnamed Congressman speculated. Recently, studies were published suggesting that blood transfusions from younger animals, that use their stem cells, may hold the key to reversing certain effects of the aging process.[13] The wisdom of this, to be sure, must also be debated. Would the United States have benefited from having George Washington bestride it in perpetuity? Could anything have been accomplished had John Adams and Thomas Jefferson been alive to quarrel with each other for the last few centuries, instead of their proxies and ideological inheritors undertaking the task? Fortunately for us, these questions, though tantalizing closer, remain for historians, scientists, and philosophers to debate until they (possibly) become reality.

If you enjoyed this article, tell the world. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

[1] Paulson, George. Dr.William Thornton’s Views of Sleep, Dreams and Resuscitation.  Journal of the History of Neuroscience, 18:25-46 (2009)(“Paulson”).

[2] Paulson, 42

[3] Mitgang, Herbert, “Death of a President: A 200 Year Old Malpractice Debate,” New York Times, December 14, 1999

[4] Thompson, Mary V. “Death Defied: Dr. Thornton’s Radical Idea of Bringing George Washington Back to Life”  George Washington’s Mount Vernon website, www.mountvernon.org

[5] Paulson, 44

[6] Paulson, 44

[7] Harris, C.M., ed. “The Papers of William Thornton,” University of Virginia Press (2009), p. 528 (“Harris”).

[8] Harris, 528.

[9] Thompson

[10] Paulson, 44

[11] Harris, 528

[12] Paulson, 44.

[13] Villeda, Saul, et. al. “Young Blood Reverses Age-Related Impairments in Cognitive Function and Synaptic Plasticity in Mice (Nature, 2014).

The Power of Scotland, King Charles I and the start of the English Civil War

In the latest in the English Civil War series of articles, Myra King looks at how a change imposed by King Charles I and the strength of Scotland put Charles in a position so weak that it would lead to war.

In this series on the English Civil War, we have previously considered the Divine Right of Kings, and Henry VIII and bloody religious change, and how the Gunpowder Plot may have been a Protestant-led conspiracy.

On July 23, 1637 Jenny Geddes threw a chair at a church minister’s head and started the English Civil War.

Edinburgh Minister Dean Hannay condemned himself by attempting to read the new English Prayer Book. This not only angered the congregation but instigated flying furniture. Jenny Geddes screamed, “Villain, dost thou say mass at my lug?” She then continued to curse him with colic and threw the three legged stool she was sitting on. This act started a riot and more chairs were soon thrown. Riots spread so quickly throughout Edinburgh that ministers were forced to arm themselves before service. In one church, the minister actually pointed a gun to his congregation while reciting the Lord’s Prayer. It was the only thing that kept his head from connecting with a chair.

King Charles I by Anthony van Dyck. 1636.

Flying furniture, riots and guns may seem a complete over-reaction to a simple prayer book but it was, in fact, quite small compared to what that prayer book stood for. Throughout England, the spread of Protestantism meant only one thing - bloodshed! Torture, murder, mass genocide and other horrific crimes filled the land simply because the monarch decided on a different strand of Christianity. But England had always been conquered and plagued by whatever faction was strongest. Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Angles and Normans had all arrived and changed whatever they felt like - this almost always being religion and how the country was run. The monarchs were simply children of their culture.

This was not the case in Scotland however. The Picts, natives of the area we now know as Scotland, were not the people to tangle with. After England fell to the Romans, the Legions marched into Pict territory, expecting to conquer it. They came, they saw, but they most certainly did not conquer. Rather, they got slaughtered. That was the Roman introduction to Scotland. And it did not go much smoother for anybody else. The Scottish were a formidable enemy. When King James I inherited the English throne, he took the tumultuous Stuart Dynasty down to London and for the first time in centuries kept Scotland and England in a peaceful, productive truce. But the decades of peace did not soften the Bonnie Scots. When King Charles I began his campaign to bring religious change to Scotland after he ascended the throne in 1625, he expected that change would be as easy as it had been in England in prior years. He was to be in for a surprise.

THE PATH TO WAR

The Scottish knew the history of English religious genocide and they refused to go the same way. And so, when the prayer book entered their churches, the Scottish rose up as one to stop the start of a genocide. Charles I, although King of the Scots, could not control them from London and so declared war on his own people. Unfortunately he could not raise the funds or an adequate army within England. Charles, like his father, believed that he could run his kingdoms without Parliament and so didn’t call Parliamentary sessions. This meant that he could not get funding or command the armies that he needed. The men he could rally were poorly trained, under fed and improperly attired. The Scottish army was the complete opposite. There were a few minor battles between the English and the Scottish, but neither side really wanted to fight, and finally Charles agreed to a general assembly to discuss disputed topics. Without Charles’s permission, however, Scotland abolished his religion and declared itself free from royal control. Charles was furious and immediately brought back Parliament in order to raise funds for a real army and a real war.

This government, known as the ‘Short Parliament’, refused to do Charles’s bidding until he sorted out their grievances. He refused and dismissed the Parliament after only a few weeks. While Charlie was battling his government, the Scottish army crossed the River Tweed into England. The English army retreated, leaving the whole of Northumberland and County Durham, regions in the far north of England, to the Scots.

Have you noticed the strangest part of all of this? Charles was king of England, and so had to pay for the English army. But Charles was also King of Scotland, and so had to pay for the Scottish army too. This man was such an incompetent leader that he was literally paying to go to war with himself. This only gets worse with his decision to leave the two English counties in Scottish hands in order to pay the Scottish off for attacking the two counties. Up to his eyeballs in debt, Charlie reconvened Parliament in order to raise the funds he could not obtain. This government, known as the ‘Long Parliament’, attacked Charles’s advisers and actually executed his chief supporters. This showed the king that the English Parliament was most certainly not his friend. Luckily for him though, he had another government that he could turn to. And so he went up to Scotland in 1641 to give titles to the two Scottish leaders who invaded England. Interestingly, he gave them titles for fighting against him. This action won him favor with the Scottish but he was in no way their beloved king; in fact they made sure that Charlie boy accepted every one of their decisions without complaint. He was their king in name only.

This did not agree with a man who believed in ‘The Divine Rights of Kings’ and he took his frustrations out on the English. One hundred years before, Charles would have been able to do as he pleased. But too much abuse of power from his predecessors, coupled with the knowledge that the Scottish controlled their King’s strings, had made the English strong.

And just like Jenny Geddes, they were about to throw a chair.

Did you enjoy this article? And would you like to read more in-depth history articles? Well, take a look at History is Now Magazine! It is available instantly and is free for at least one month if you subscribe today! And what’s more, there is no obligation to pay anything if you’re not 100% satisfied with the magazine…

Click here for information on the iOS/Apple edition

Click here for information on the Android edition

References

Slimy Stuarts by Terry Deary

www.britannica.com

www.bbc.co.uk/thebishopswar

www.battlefieldstrust.com

www.historyofwar.org

British History by Miles Kelly

The History of the Last Meal – A final compassionate act or an undeserved reward?

In this article, Robert Walsh writes about the history of the last meal for those condemned to death. He considers its Christian roots and looks at how it has been carried out in different states. Finally, we look at some of the more unusual last meal requests.

Study media reports of executions, recent or decades-old, and you’ll probably find mention of the prisoner’s last meal. Most prisoners spend their entire sentences eating whatever the prison kitchen provides and have no choice. Condemned inmates are traditionally allowed to choose their final meal though. Before British reporters were barred from witnessing hangings in the early twentieth century their reports usually mentioned whether a prisoner enjoyed their final breakfast. Today, American reporters often mention what prisoners have for their last meal, although prison authorities often call it a ‘special meal’, deferring to the prisoner’s feelings about their upcoming death.

The Last Supper. Leonardo da Vinci. Late fifteenth century.

The last meal is usually a tradition, not a rule. No law automatically entitles prisoners to anything other than standard prison meals so it’s a privilege, not a right. It’s also far more significant than being merely a kind gesture. It’s an important part of the execution ritual and has been for centuries. Barring last-minute legal action a prisoner’s last meal is usually their last chance to control anything that happens in their final hours. Modern executions are usually conducted according to strict timetables and rigid rules with minimal deviation there from. In the US, a prisoner might wait over twenty years between sentencing and execution so their last freedom of choice can be very important to them.

RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE

Execution is a grim ritual. The last meal is a part of that ritual and a ritual in itself. In medieval Europe it had religious significance dating back to when religion played a far greater role in daily life than it does today. A mental image of Christ’s Last Supper is often referenced as a parallel to a modern-day convict choosing their final menu. It also symbolizes a prisoner making peace with their executioners, breaking bread with them in the same way that Christ invited Judas Iscariot to the Last Supper. In modern-day Louisiana, a strongly-religious Southern state, Warden Burl Cain routinely invites condemned prisoners to eat their last meal with him and invited guests, offering the condemned Christian fellowship. Cain still supervises the execution, but he extends the invitation regardless. Naturally, the inmate isn’t obliged to accept.

Religion aside, superstition once played its part. In medieval Europe many believed that well-fed prisoners could be executed without fear of their returning as ghosts. The quality of the final meal was also believed to influence the likelihood of their doing so. If the food and drink were of the best quality it was believed that prisoners would be less likely to haunt their executioners. If the meals were poor, many believed prisoners would return as malevolent spirits bent on tormenting those involved in their deaths.

THE MEAL IN DIFFERENT STATES AND TIMES

What prisoners are permitted varies according to their location. In Texas, the last meal was introduced in 1924, the same year that Texas replaced the gallows with the electric chair and the State took over executions from individual counties. With one single Death Row located at Huntsville, the State of Texas centralized and standardized custody of condemned inmates which included granting them a last meal. Today, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice no longer allows last meals. Condemned inmates get the standard meal before execution. Other US States have widely-differing policies. Florida is comparatively generous, allowing a budget of $40. Oklahoma budgets only $15.

New York performed its last execution in 1963 (the state abolished capital punishment in the early 1970s) but was especially generous to its condemned. An inmate at Sing Sing Prison’s notorious ‘Death House’ could order both a last dinner and last supper. For example, murderer Henry Flakes was executed on May 19, 1960; his dinner consisted of barbecue chicken with sauce, French fries, salad, bread rolls, butter, strawberry shortcake with whipped cream, 4 packs of cigarettes, coffee, milk and sugar. Supper was equally generous: lobster, salad, butter and bread rolls, ice cream, a box of chocolate candy, four cigars, two glasses of cola, coffee, milk and sugar. Unlike many prisons today, Sing Sing’s condemned could include tobacco products like snuff, cigars, chewing tobacco and cigarettes. In 1930s Indiana, the State Prison at Michigan City was equally generous with last meal requests. Like Burl Cain today, on May 31, 1938 Deputy Warden Lorenz Schmuhl dined with murderer John Dee Smith at sundown and electrocuted him just after midnight.

Prisoners have often been offered alcohol just before execution, while prisoners facing firing squads have long been offered the traditional last cigarette. Both are partly a compassionate gesture, but also calm an inmate’s nerves in their final moments and make them more co-operative. In 1925 Patrick Murphy was executed at Sing Sing having pleaded with Warden Lewis Lawes for one final drink. In 1925 Prohibition was in force throughout the US so whiskey was forbidden for every citizen, incarcerated or otherwise. Lawes, a firm opponent of capital punishment and well-known to enjoy a pre-dinner Scotch throughout Prohibition, made a compassionate-yet-illegal decision. He broke both prison rules and Federal law, slipping Murphy a small bottle of bourbon an hour before his execution. Murphy took the bottle, looked at Lawes (who loathed executions) and died having returned the bottle to Lawes saying, “You look like you need it more than I do, Warden.”

British hangman John Ellis often recommended prisoners were offered a cup of brandy minutes before their execution. At California’s San Quentin Prison inmates were once allowed a little whiskey immediately before they entered the gas chamber. Nowadays American prisons allow no alcohol of any kind and, unlike 1960s New York, few prisons allow tobacco products as part of a prisoner’s final meal. When the state of Utah used the firing squad, prisoners were allowed a last cigarette but were escorted into the exercise yard to smoke it. Under Utah state law, smoking indoors in public buildings (including prisons) is forbidden because it’s a health hazard.

MORE UNUSUAL RITUALS

There are other lesser-known rituals associated with the last meal. Between 1924 and 1964 Texas electrocuted 361 inmates at Huntsville. As part of their last meal Texan inmates often ordered as many portions of dessert as there were condemned inmates. If a prisoner wanted ice cream and there were five other condemned inmates on Death Row, then the prisoner would ask for six portions of ice cream so that no condemned inmate endured an execution night without a parting gift to raise their spirits. In New York, a number of Sing Sing’s condemned either shared their last meal with another inmate (as Francis ‘Two Gun’ Crowley shared his with John Resko in 1931) or split their meal with all the other condemned (as did Raymond Fernandez, hours before his execution in 1951). Like the last meal itself, sharing food was a tradition rather than a right, but it often kept inmates more settled when one of them was about to die.

It’s not unusual for a prisoner’s final choice to reveal something about them. Some decline a last meal to demonstrate contempt for prison authorities or simply because fear has left them unable to face food. Others opt for old favorites, food they probably haven’t had since their arrest, perhaps as a consolation and reminder of happier times. Some order huge meals, some order small ones, some order food they’ve never tried before out of curiosity. A few inmates make choices that seem bizarre to others, but make sense to them such as Victor Feguer, hanged in 1963. Feguer requested a single olive, asking that the olive pit be placed in his shirt pocket before he was buried. A strange request unless you know an olive pit is a symbol of rebirth. New York’s last execution was of Eddie Lee Mays on August 15, 1963. Mays wanted no food or drink, only a packet of cigarettes and a box of matches. Matches were forbidden for condemned inmates so Mays received his cigarettes, but had to ask guards to light them for him. At San Quentin, one Jewish inmate ordered an elaborate kosher meal then requested his first ham sandwich. San Quentin inmate Wilson De la Roi turned his final meal into a joke. When asked for his choice he requested a packet of indigestion tablets. Asked why, he chuckled, remarking that he might have gas on his stomach.

All in all, the last meal is many things to many people. To some it’s a kind gesture that should be retained as a final compassionate act. To others it’s an unnecessary offer that the prisoners don’t deserve. To prisoners themselves it can be a gesture of defiance, a chance for one final joke, a last chance to try something new, something to look forward to as the clock ticks down or simply not worth bothering with. It’s certainly far more than simply ordering from a menu.

You can find out more about the death penalty in our podcast on prisoner’s final words. Click here to listen.

Finally, if you found the article interesting, tell others. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

References

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15040658

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/comfort-foods-last-meal_n_1839009.html

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/martin-leslie-dale.htm

http://www.kevinroderick.com/gas.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/a-man-who-knew-about-the-electric-chair/

Condemned: Inside the Sing Sing Death House, Scott Christianson, NYU Press, 2001, Page 137.

Ibid, Page 166.

Murder One: They Went To The Death Chamber, Mike James, True Crime Library, 1999, Pages 3-16.

Have a Seat, Please, Don Reid, Texas Review Press, 2001, Pages 1-16.

Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen Prejean, Harper-Collins, 1996, Pages 110-112.

Diary Of A Hangman, John Ellis, True Crime Library, 1996, Page 21.

Death Row Chaplain, Byron Eshelman, Signet Books, 1972, Pages 30-31.

The most beautiful castle in Scotland – Image of the week

Our image of the week is of a stunning castle in Scotland.

Castles have been built in Scotland for well over one-thousand years, and they can be split into five key phases of styles and purposes, going all the way back to the mid-first millennium AD. As noted in the new issue of History is Now magazine:

Scotland was dominated by hill forts perched like eagles atop rocky promontories, the most dramatic example being the fortress of Dunnottar near Aberdeen, and by the enigmatic stone towers known as brochs, found only in Scotland.

The image above is of the stunning Eilean Donan castle, perched next to a location where three lochs meet in the Western Highlands of Scotland. It is one of the most famous of Scotland’s many castles due to its dramatic location and interesting look. As we also note in the magazine:

Scotland’s most picturesque castles, such as Duart on the Isle of Mull or the world famous Eilean Donan, were crumbling ruins until their restoration in the 1910s. Indeed, castles remain very important for Scottish heritage and identity, not to mention tourism.

The image source is David Iliff. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0. Available here.

The latest issue of History is Now magazine features a history of Scottish castles. The magazine also has a range of fascinating articles related to modern history from America and the wider world!

Click on the following links for more details and to get the latest issue for FREE today: Android | Apple iOS

Animals at War? Pet Mascots

Bill Edwards-Bodmer considers ship mascots and fascinating photos of animals at war in this image-packed article.

US Marine feeding a two-week-old kitten whose mother had been killed during a battle in Korea, circa 1953. The Marine named the kitten “Miss Hap.”

Capturing a moment of extraordinary compassion and tenderness during the violence and bloodshed of the Korean War, the above well-known image demonstrates the remarkable relationship that often existed between animals, and the soldiers and sailors who wage war. Besides the millions of horses who served in cavalry units throughout history, military units and navy ships often adopted animals as mascots. Sailors and marines in particular have a long history of sharing their cramped lives aboard ships with animals.

Cats were one common animal. Mariners in ancient Egypt were known to keep cats aboard their vessels for the vital service the felines provided: ridding the ships of rats and mice that would otherwise eat and destroy provisions, cargo and other supplies and spread disease. Sailors throughout history also believed cats brought good luck, as well as amusement during long voyages. They also adopted cats from the foreign ports they visited.

Sailors on USS Nahant playing with two cats, circa 1898.

Two US Navy pilots playing with a cat while serving in the Pacific during World War II.

Dogs also have a long history of serving at sea. On ships, especially naval vessels, dogs were kept to provide much needed companionship and to boost moral during long, monotonous journeys. Naval crews adopted these dogs as the ship’s mascot. Countless images exist of sailors proudly posing with their ship’s mascot, so showing the positive effect that dogs had. 

Crew of USS Hunchback during the American Civil War. The crewman to the left of the man holding a newspaper is with a small dog.

Sailor with “Mike,” mascot of USS New York, circa 1899.

“Salty,” the mascot of a Coast Guard destroyer escort, circa 1943.

“Blackout,” the mascot of a Coast Guard LCI, circa 1944.

US Marine private takes a nap with his division’s mascot while on Okinawa, 1945.

“Sinbad,” mascot on Coast Guard cutter Campbell, circa 1944.

Besides dogs and cats, more unusual and exotic animals were often adopted as mascots. These animals were usually given as gifts to visiting ships at ports by local officials. This was notably seen on the ships of the famous Great White Fleet of the United States Navy during its world cruise of 1907-1909. The mighty battleships of the US fleet received everything from kangaroos to eagles to bears. Some animals didn’t work out so well: monkeys given to sailors on one of the ships escaped their enclosures and made a home among the smokestacks, biting anyone who tried to catch them (source: steelnavy.org).

Sailors with a goat mascot during the Great White Fleet world cruise, circa 1907-1908.

Pig mascot of USS Connecticut, circa 1908.

Eagle presented to USS Connecticut during the Great White Fleet’s world cruise, circa 1908.

The citizens of Seattle, Washington presented a bear cub to USS Missouri when that ship visited in 1908 as part of the Great White Fleet world cruise.

Feeding a bear mascot on board the USS Connecticut during the Great White Fleet cruise, circa 1908.

The citizens of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia presented USS Connecticut with a kangaroo when that ship visited in 1908 during the Great White Fleet’s world cruise.

Lieutenant John E. Lewis with a kangaroo on board USS Connecticut, circa 1908.

These images provide a light-hearted view of past life in the United States Navy and Marine Corps, and show the special bond that could exist between animals and the sailors and marines who cared for them.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by pressing one of the buttons below…

For more images please see the Naval Historical Center here or the US Naval Institute here

References

Naval History and Heritage Command - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/ev-1900s/gwf07-09/gwf-sb4.htm

US Naval Institute - http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/dogs-and-the-sea-services

The Weapon that Conquered Ancient Egypt

Adrian Burrows tells us the incredible tale of how a defensive weapon managed to conquer one of the world’s great ancient civilizations. And how cats were an integral part of this weapon.

So far in my series of articles looking at Weird and Bizarre Weapons of History (that’s Bizarre Body Armor and Bat Bombs), I’ve focused on relatively modern inventions. That’s something that I intend to continue over the coming months, but I thought that for this particular article I would take a little diversion. After all, it’s not like bizarre weapons of war were exclusive to the 20th century. Oh no good reader, mankind has come up with many a strange method of defeating their opponents over our history. But what were these inventions? What were the defining weird weapons of Ancient History? Which one will I write about?

There were so many to choose from… The 420 feet long Hellenic Warships (with 7,000 crew on board) were an early contender, then I had to consider the Byzantine Empire’s flamethrower (it had the first hand grenade too) and of course the Zhuge Nu Semi-Automatic Crossbow had to be an option (10 bolts fired in 15 seconds is nothing to be sniffed at). But none of those weapons had been responsible for an entire nation being conquered. The bizarre weapon that I have chosen was accountable for such a feat. Responsible for defeating a nation that at the time was one of the most powerful and advanced in the world. A nation that we are still fascinated with today: Ancient Egypt. And most impressively of all, the weapon in question wasn’t technically a weapon at all… It was a shield.

A meeting between Cambyses and Psammenitus. Artist: Adrian Guignet. 19th century.

The Cat Shield

Invading Egypt was not an easy thing to do. After all, its expanses of near endless sand, lack of water and formidable armies had deterred many invaders over approximately two thousand years of history. The Babylonians themselves had tried to take Egypt by force twice and both times had been repulsed, so why did the armies of Persia think that their fate would be any different? Well, the difference came from the cunning of one man and the knowledge of a culture’s religious beliefs.

The Persian Leader King Cambyses II was well aware that the Egyptians revered the cat above all other animals. The cat represented the goddess Bastet, a goddess of home and love. She was both kind and loving unless she was offended, at which point she transformed into her alter ego ‘Sekhmet the Vengeful’ and brought divine retribution to those who had angered her (she loved the taste of human blood). Cambyses had done his research on his enemy, knowing that to defeat them he had to find their weakness. He had discovered that in Egypt the love for cats was so great that the punishment for killing one was death itself. Herodotus the ‘Father of History’ commented that an Egyptian, if caught in a burning house, would save a cat before trying to put the fire out or saving himself.

And so a plan was formed. I call it… The Cat Shield

Battle of Pelusium

So it came to be that at the Battle of Pelusium, Cambyses intended to deploy the cat shield. The Egyptians, under the leadership of Pharaoh Psammenitus, were feeling confident about victory, and why not? They were positioned in a series of fortresses near the mouth of the River Nile, they knew that their position would enable them to pour down a storm of arrows on the Persian Army, perhaps enough to annihilate the force long before they had managed to join the battle. So, it must have come as a horrific surprise when, as the Persian soldiers advanced, they held aloft battle shields emblazoned with the image of Bastet

The Persians then revealed the second part of their plan. The soldiers released cats ahead of their formation, forming a protective sea between Persian flesh and Egyptian arrow. It wasn’t only cats that the Persians had leading the charge either; they had, according to Polyaenus, ‘ranged before his front line dogs, sheep, cats, ibises and whatever other animals the Egyptians held dear.’ The Egyptian army, well-fortified as it was in Pelusium near the mouth of the Nile, was at a loss. They could not risk firing arrows at the Persian army less they kill or harm the animals at the lead, they could not charge towards the enemy as they would still risk harming the animals and angering their gods... What could be done? Chaos erupted in the Egyptian ranks that soon descended into a full rout. As the Egyptians fled their positions, the Persians pursued and cut them down.

Of course, this being Ancient History, there are always historical holes to examine and question. The logic that protrudes between myth and fact. Primarily, if this is true, how did the Persians stop the cats from wondering off? After all, it’s not like they would have been able to train the creature to march along in front of the army. Different translations of Polyaenus’ writings of the battle lead to different conclusions. Some have theorized that the Persian soldiers actually held the creatures aloft in front of them, others, such as the historian Tom Holland, suggest that the Persians had a much more efficient and vicious way of ensuring that the cats stayed where they should do - by pinning them to the front of their shields. Here’s the quote from Holland’s excellent book Persian Fire:

When the Persians finally met the Egyptians in battle, it is said that they did so with cats pinned to their shields, reducing their opponents' archers, for whom the animals were sacred, to a state of paralysis.  Victory was duly won.  Pelusium, the gateway to Egypt, was stormed, and the bodies of the defeated left scattered across the sands.

Regardless of whether the cat shield was simply an image of a cat on a shield or an actual cat nailed to a shield, there is one thing that cannot be disputed. Egypt was conquered not by offensive weapons, such as a sword or an axe, but by the symbol of defense. The humble shield. The cat shield had been responsible for the fall of a country. The cat shield had ended Ancient Egypt’s sovereignty. The cat shield had forever changed history.

Adrian Burrows works for Wicked Workshops, an organization that brings historical workshops to primary schools across the UK. They are currently delivering many workshops about World War I. They also run Ancient Egypt workshops. Click here to find out more about this great organization.

If you enjoyed this article, do tell others. Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below!

References

http://elektratig.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/did-cambyses-have-cats-nailed-to-his.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18687_6-amazingly-high-tech-ancient-weapons.html

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/43/

Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West by Tom Holland

America’s Great 19th Century Statement of Intent

In this fascinating article, Wout Vergauwen tells us about the Monroe Doctrine, an Empire of Liberty – and America’s expansion across the West and beyond into the rest of the American Continent.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND MANIFEST DESTINY

“We shall divert through our own Country a branch of commerce which the European States have thought worthy of the most important struggles and sacrifices, and in the event of peace … we shall form to the American union a barrier against the dangerous extension of the British Province of Canada and add to the Empire of liberty an extensive and fertile Country thereby converting dangerous Enemies into valuable friends.”

Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

Thomas Jefferson was a great many things, but above all he was a visionary. Yet, it is hard to imagine that even he understood to the fullest extent what his Empire of Liberty could become. Several presidents have, at least to a certain extent, broadened the interpretation. Whereas Jefferson’s empire ideally stretched, as Katharine Lee Bates wrote “from sea to shining sea,” it would become an idea that was applied to the United States’ expansionist efforts, both at home and abroad. However, the first extension of Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty almost caused Mr. Madison to lose US territory in the War of 1812. Luckily for the Americans, the British were too busy fighting Napoleon to pursue their efforts in North America. Ultimately, the British and the Americans signed the 1814 Treaty of Ghent, reaching a modus vivendi on the expense of the Native Americans. Yet, it quickly became clear that Uncle Joe intended to look across the border. 

A portrait of Thomas Jefferson from 1791. At the time Jefferson was Secretary of State. Painted by Charles Willson Peale.

When the Spanish failed to control their colonial possessions in the Americas, another opportunity arose for the United States to expand their sphere of influence. Given that the United States had only gained independence as recently as half a century earlier, they did not feel confident to invade a world power’s possessions, even if that world power was waning. However, colonial insurrection in present-day Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico was too good a chance to let go by. Both the Monroe administration and Congress favored action of at least some sort, because the possibility of having Spain intervene in Latin America would first of all pose a threat to American security. Second of all, reinforced Spanish colonies would also prevent any further expansion of influence across the continent.

Although still dreaming of an Empire of Liberty, caution was required. Spain did indeed still possess Florida, and it would have been unwise to provoke more than strictly necessary. However, immediately after Florida was ceded to the United States, Washington was inevitably going to act quickly. As soon as 1822, the United States recognize the rebelling colonies as independent countries. And besides the ideological ‘support-another-former-colony’ idea, there were several important reasons for having done so. Indeed, a Holy Alliance consisting of Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia had formed in Europe, trying to uphold monarchy and suppress liberalism. The rumors were that after crushing rebellions in both Spain and Italy, the alliance might help Spain to regain control over its prestigious colonies. In a statement supported by Congress, James Monroe read a statement written by future president John Quincy Adams. The American continents, he declared, “are henceforth not to be considered subjects for future colonization by any European power.” That might have been the end of it supposing that there was such a thing as a capable American army. But this was 1823.

FROM TEXAS TO THE WORLD

Just as in 1814, the Americans had the British to thank. Indeed, making a bold statement is one thing. Upholding it is another. Luckily, British interests aligned with America’s. By then, the British had already set up very profitable trade routes with Spain’s former colonies, and they were not going to give them up easily. Already in the early 18th century James Thomson wrote “Rule, Britannia! Rule the waves.” And yes, by 1823, they did. Commanding the most powerful Navy ever seen, King George IV was not going to let an Armada supported by the Holy Alliance cross the Atlantic. The Spanish, still remembering the fate of the Great Armada, decided to hold back and let the Americans have it their way.

Finally having gained the confidence they had lacked since 1776, the Americans went the full mile by 1845. The trigger was, once again, a foreign threat. Although this threat was much less serious when compared to previous ones, some Americans still believed the British might cause trouble in California, Oregon, and Texas. The latter is a special case here. Ever since the Lone Star Republic gained independence from Mexico in 1836, a large majority of the population had wanted to join the United States. Southern states favored the admission of Texas, yet Northern states originally opposed the admission. They feared that Texas might be admitted as a slave state – or worse, divided in up to five slave states – and thus disturb the balance in Congress. Even though a treaty was finally drafted on February 27, 1844, it was not signed. John L. O’Sullivan, an editor from New York, urged President Polk to finally sign the treaty and admit Texas to the union, if only because it was their “manifest destiny.” The term quickly became popular and thrived on the assumption that Providence had intended the United States to control the entire North American continent.

Even though successful attempts were never made to annex Canada, as was Mr. Madison’s dream, Manifest Destiny guided US policy for the rest of the century. Whether manifest destiny caused Polk to annex Texas in 1845 is not entirely clear, and your guess is as good as mine. Yet, in the subsequent eight years, undoubtedly guided by manifest destiny, the US would gain control over the remaining third of its contingent states. An 1846 treaty with Britain gained them Oregon country, also including Washington and Idaho. An 1848 treaty with Mexico gained them present-day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Finally, the 1853 Gadsen purchase gained the United States the final part of its contingent states – a thirty thousand square mile border area between Mexico and the United States.

Ultimately, by the end of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt would square the circle by amending the Monroe doctrine, thereby confirming America’s global intent. His Roosevelt Corollary was thus the capstone of Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, let the world know. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below!