Just why do we Love the Tudor Dynasty?

The Tudor Dynasty ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms, Wales and Ireland, from 1485 until 1603. It remains one of the periods of British history people are most fascinated by and includes two of the greatest and most famous – or in one case infamous – monarchs: King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Here, Victor Gamma explains why we continue to love the Tudors so much.

Portrait of King Henry VIII of England, 1542. By Hans Holbein.

In the recesses of a magnificent palace, a man enters a rich chamber. He is wearing a doublet of blue and red velvet. It is lined with cloth of gold in addition to purple satin embroidered with gold. Underneath is a white silk shirt, frilled at the neck and wrists. His lithe movements betray an athletic tendency. All in all, he is a magnificent sight. He smiles as a woman enters. Her lustrous, black hair is only partially hidden by a gable hood with pinned up lappets and a hanging veil. Her jet-black eyes are set in a face that is not stunningly beautiful but rather handsome, of an olive complexion. It is his mistress. The man is married but his wife will not grant him a divorce. The scandal has become not only the talk of the court, but the talk of Europe. The couple embraces. The lady’s eyes, always expressive, sparkle under her lover’s passionate attention. After a moment of flirtation, the discussion turns serious. An argument ensues. She presses him to know when his divorce will finally come through. He is evasive and grows irritated. Her fiery temper gets the better of her and she lashes out, “It has been three years and we are no nearer the promised betrothal than we were then. I could have contracted an advantageous marriage by this time! I am about to turn 30.” The man, feeling the pressure of being caught between a stubborn wife and a nagging mistress, rushes out of the room in a huff. This is not a scene from a soap opera or made-for-TV historical drama. It is one of many real-life incidents in the life of the Tudors, and it is one element that makes this dynasty provide such rich fodder for an ever-adoring audience.  

In 1603 Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudors, died without an heir. Her successor, James I, was proclaimed king within eight hours. He set about immediately on a triumphant procession from Scotland to take the throne he had coveted so long. Even in this honeymoon period, though, signs appeared that anyone hoping for a continuation of the great Tudor administrations was in for a disappointment. At Newark, a thief was caught in the act and James ordered him to be executed without a trial. This was but once instance in which James displayed his utter lack of knowledge regarding English customs. He also brought with him a penchant for lecturing, a feature which did not endear him to those who suffered through them, including Parliament. The excellent rapport Elizabeth had nurtured with Parliament soured. He made peace with Spain, and deprived Englishmen of the popular enemy. Before long many an English heart yearned for the days of Gloriana, the Sea Dogs and the great victory over the Armada. Since that time, the Tudors, especially the gigantic personality of Henry VIII, have been celebrated in every media imaginable. The author has observed this phenomenon throughout his own lifetime. In childhood I learned the cut of the beautiful 15th century court costumes from  “Anne of a Thousand Days,” and “A Man for All Season.” Then as an adolescent I grew up on the outstanding BBC productions on “The Six Wives of Henry VIII,” and “Elizabeth R.” Down to our own times I have observed the success of the television series “The Tudors.” On any visit to Barnes and Noble, a lavishly illustrated book on the Tudors is almost certain to greet your eyes. Why this on-going obsession with a dynasty that died out over 400 years ago? Diverse elements serve to explain the perennial love affair with a long-past British dynasty. 

Made for television?

The Tudors were made for the camera. First, the Tudor dynasty was full of colorful characters and dramatic events; Henry VIII and his six wives.... fierce religious controversy.... the tragic tale of Lady Jane Grey... the great intelligence of Elizabeth I and the artistic accomplishments of her reign… Bloody Mary… Drake and Hawkins...Shakespeare, the list goes on. It doesn’t hurt that the sixteenth century was a pivotal time for Britain. During that bursting-at-the-seams hundred-year period, England transitioned from the medieval world to the modern. Most notably it marked the end of the Catholic Church in England. A new spirit of confidence and patriotism swept the country. Great naval exploits began the great English seafaring tradition. Whether as pirates, officers or explorers, Elizabethan sailors controlled the seas. And besides the political and religious changes, the Tudors themselves were interesting and complex people.

The Tudors have everything an audience could want; Passion, sex, power, conflict and strong characters. In the passion department, Henry VIII made up for his descendants shortcomings. Not only did he have six wives, he found time to carry on affairs with a variety of mistresses. A costume drama at its best, who can resist an alluring woman dressed up in full Renaissance regalia? But it wasn’t just its plentiful supply of love-interest. Henry wasn’t the only monarch with an over-active libido, Charles II’s reign also consisted of basically one royal fling after another. But Charles lacks the personal magnetism of Henry and only had one wife. Every school child knows that Henry VIII had six wives, and many can name at least some of them. But who remembers the name of Charles II’s wife?

Additionally, everyone loves drama. Even today, the royal-watching media feeds on one main narrative to keep its audience enthralled: dysfunction! Many other monarchs had devoted and sedate family lives which do not make for tantalizing reading or viewing. In fact they can be downright dull. What attracts people is the sensational and extraordinary. The Tudors possessed enough dysfunction to keep tabloids, if they had existed at the time, busy forever. Here we have a man with a succession of six wives, each of which provided her own tantalizing drama: two are beheaded, one dies in childbirth, one is tossed aside, but the king, ever the courtier, allows her a palace and a castle to live out her days, and one nurses him in his old age. After Henry we have a sickly youth, Edward VI, who is so nervous he throws up when he is proclaimed king. After a brief reign he tries, on this deathbed, to disinherit his own sister from the throne. He is followed by a queen who reigned for a grand total of nine days before her overthrow and execution. Her successor, Mary, spends most of her reign pining over her un-besotted (and absent) husband, burning heretics and trying to destroy everything her father tried to accomplish. Finally comes Elizabeth. She did the unthinkable and refused to marry during her long reign. She became the target of countless schemes and a succession of courtships, but survived everything to become one of the most praised rulers in English history. And of course, constant intrigue surrounded these events. 

Henry VIII

Let’s focus for a while on the most famous, or infamous, Tudor, Henry VIII. Britain today still bears his imprint. The England Henry VIII left behind in 1547 was much different than the one he inherited in 1509. This can be seen physically in the ruined shells of the monasteries that dot the English countryside, reflecting the turbulence of Henry's reign. It can also be seen in the monarchy's titles of fidei defensorand Supreme Head of the Church of England. Additionally, until recently, "Britannia rules the waves" was a reality largely as the result of Henry's labors. His work to build up England’s power at sea earned him the name “Father of the English Navy.” “Fortress England” also began to emerge in reaction to the threat of invasion. Medieval England was torn to shreds in the hands of this giant personality and thrust kicking and screaming into the modern age. The forces of change he unleashed became the dominant themes upon which Edward and Elizabeth built and Mary tried to destroy. Since England was to export its culture to the far corners of the globe, Henry's actions not only changed the course of English history, but affected the whole world. 

The spiritual landscape of England is ax§lso greatly reflective of Henry's will. The Anglican Church displays Henry's wish as a middle way between Catholicism and extreme evangelicalism. So passionate was he in his conviction that his subjects were united religiously that he gave in to tears when addressing Parliament. The division of Ireland into Protestant and Catholic realms began with Henry's attempt to establish the Reformation in that land. The break with Rome and subsequent events led to a growing anti-Catholic feeling which became increasingly identified with English nationalism. The critical event in this development was Henry's initial break from the Roman church. The Reformation that Henry began and established by law in the form of the Acts of Appeals and Six Articles. This has been called a 'revolution in jurisdiction.' The fundamental relationship between church and state was changed. The freedom of the church from secular jurisdiction, traced back to the Magna Carta and beyond, was shattered. All religious matters would now become a parliamentary concern under the authority of the king-in-parliament - in particular, the dissolution of the monasteries brought huge changes throughout the countryside. 

American connection – And success

Also, Americans are keenly aware that under Elizabeth, the first stumbling but bold efforts to establish an empire in the US took place. Those fly-speck beachheads would grow to a mighty torrent in the following generations. We know that although the first permanent English settlement would not be established until after the last Tudor died, it was this dynasty that started the process. Americans feel a special kinship with the Tudors for that reason. The story of the English-speaking United States really begins with names like Raleigh, Drake, and Hawkins.

Moreover, they were successful. They contained not one but TWO of the greatest royal administrators in history: Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I (by the way, Henry VII, who started it all, was not a bad ruler as well!). The previous dynasties had too many ups and downs. The Hanoverians are known for losing America. Later dynasties don’t count because they had no real power. No one considered the House of Stuart successful by any stretch. Everyone loves a winner and the Tudors fit the bill and then some. With a small bodyguard and no standing army, they maintained and expanded the respect and power of the monarchy, preserved the peace, held their own against the best diplomacy and military Europe could throw at them, and guided the nation through changes that destroyed others. A comparison with France will shed some light on the measure of their success. France suffered from decades of cruel religious wars. While Britain, despite even more drastic change, experienced very little upheaval. The political and administrative skills of the Tudor monarchs are admired even today. Monarch and parliament enjoyed a stable and workable relationship. The development of a national consciousness, or 'Englishness', developed throughout the sixteenth-century.

The appetite for exploring the intriguing characters of “Bluff King Hal,” “Bloody Mary,” and “Gloriana” shows little sign of abating. So brace yourselves for the next Tudor drama, it's sure to come soon!

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

If you want to learn more about the Tudors, read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1928 New York Gubernatorial Campaign – Part 2 – Accepting the Nomination

Nearly exhaustive research has been done on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) four national campaigns, his controversial Presidency, and his leadership in WWII. Surprisingly little, however, has focused on his New York State gubernatorial campaign in 1928. This was the campaign and position in which FDR would prove his fitness for the presidency of the Unites States, a position he held from 1933 to 1945.

In part 2, K.R.T. Quirion explains how a not-so-healthy Roosevelt ended up accepting the 1928 nomination, how he set up his campaign team, and the very start of his campaign in October 1928.

You can read part 1 on how Roosevelt overcame a serious illness, polio, to be able to take part in the 1928 campaign here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in Olean, New York. October 19, 1928.

DETERMINATION

When Al Smith was nominated by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a second presidential run in 1928, Roosevelt was again approached about running in the New York gubernatorial campaign. Committed to his full recovery—and even more dubious about the Democrat’s chances of success in 1928 then he was in 1924—Roosevelt was determined to stay out of the political race, or so he thought. 

Roosevelt returned to his beloved Warm Springs after delivering Smith’s nomination speech in Houston. He was barely settled into his routine at the Georgia hideaway before he was summoned to New York City by the DNC. For the next three months, FDR remained on the periphery of the Smith campaign. Finally, in late September, Roosevelt escaped back to Warm Springs. He needed to get away, as much for his health as to avoid the importuning politicians who were already harassing and cajoling him to run for governor of New York.[1]

Howe agreed with Roosevelt’s decision not to run for three important reasons. First, he concurred with Roosevelt’s concern for his health. The second reason was their mutual awareness that FDR might be defeated. Third, they “felt that 1928 was too early for [Roosevelt] to run again for office.”[2] Smith implored Roosevelt on multiple occasions to reconsider his candidacy and each time Roosevelt remained unwavering in his opposition.

Once situated in Warm Springs, Roosevelt began taking increasing steps to “deliberately cut himself off from communication with” the Democrat delegates in New York that were pushing him to accept the nomination.[3] Eleanor, who had remained in New York was under pressure from the delegates to convince him to run. She held out until October 1, when she finally agreed to help Smith get in contact with her husband.[4] In the conversation that followed, Smith brought all the force he could bear against the reluctant Roosevelt. Finally, the combination of Eleanor’s tacit endorsement of his nomination, John Raskob’s promise to financially maintain the Warm Springs Foundation, and Smith’s decision to frame his plea on a personal basis, Roosevelt, at last, began to buckle.[5]

Smith and the DNC believed that without Roosevelt, he had no chance of carrying New York in the general election, and if he did not carry New York, then he had no chance of securing the electoral votes needed to win. Roosevelt argued against this line of reasoning, but once Smith had made the matter personal, Roosevelt knew that if he refused, he would likely lose the support of Smith and his political machinery in all future endeavors. As the conversation came to its conclusion, the exasperated Smith was nearly shouting into the phone. He asked whether Roosevelt would “actually decline to run if nominated.”[6] At this FDR waivered. He told Smith that if the convention, in full knowledge of his wishes, chose to nominate him, then he was unsure what he would decide. Roosevelt might as well have announced that he wanted to be drafted. For Smith, the effect was the same. 

The very next day, FDR was nominated by the convention in Rochester, New York. Mayor Walker of New York City announced FDR’s nomination to the crowded convention. He lauded the choice of such a “distinguished, honorable American” assuring the crowd that Roosevelt would “maintain the same high degree of efficiency, the same genius, in fact, in government, the same sterling honesty that has characterized the present Governor of this State.”[7] At 1:10 P.M. that afternoon, Roosevelt sent a message to the convention acknowledging his intent to accept the nomination.[8] The nomination of Roosevelt inspired Democratic party leaders.[9] Even the heavily Republican press was pleased with the nomination. Two New York papers, The Sunand The New York Telegram, which had both supported Herbert Hoover in the national election, immediately came out in support of Roosevelt.  

GETTING A “RUNNING” START

At once, Roosevelt set himself to the task before him. He plunged into the campaign with the same force of determination with which he had initially refused, though his past reluctance haunted his initial steps. As Kiewe explains, “the campaign ahead was largely defined by Roosevelt’s refusal to run due to the health issue.”[10] The disease that had paralyzed him was once again a hurdle to his ambitions. The New York Herald Tribune threw the first stone on October 3, one day after Roosevelt’s nomination. It complained that his nomination was “unfair to the people of the State who, under other conditions, would welcome Mr. Roosevelt’s candidacy for any office.”[11] Smith backed up his candidate by returning fire through the New York Times:

‘The real fact is this,’ the Governor said. ‘Franklin Roosevelt today is mentally as good as he ever was in his life. Physically he is as good as he ever was in his life….a Governor does not have to be an acrobat. We do not elect him for his ability to do a double back flip or a handspring. The work of the governorship is brain work. Ninety-five per cent of it is accomplished sitting at a desk. There is no doubt about his ability to do it.’[12]  

Despite Smith’s vigorous advocacy, Roosevelt would still have to prove to the electorate the truth of those assertions. The key to putting the questions regarding his disability to rest was to cultivate the image of an active and mobile campaigner.[13] He further defused the health question by making light of his disability. In an interview with the New York Herald Tribune, Roosevelt stated that “most people who are nominated for the Governorship have to run, but obviously I am not in any condition to run, and therefore I am counting on my friends all over the state to make it possible for me to walk in.”[14]

Even before returning to New York, FDR had begun planning his campaign. In a telegraph to some of his political allies in the City, Roosevelt indicated that he would run an aggressive campaign for himself as well as other Democratic candidates at the State and national level.[15] Instead of confining his race to the Democrat-controlled cities, plans were put into place to carry the campaign “into the ‘enemy’s country.’”[16]  These were the rural districts where Democratic voters had been rare in past elections.[17]

Roosevelt arrived in New York City six days after accepting the nomination via telegraph. He used his travel as an opportunity to campaign for Smith. In one speech on October 6, in Cleveland, Roosevelt revealed some of his up-coming platform for the New York race. Following a denunciation of religious bigotry, Roosevelt stated that he accepted the nomination because he was “so anxious to see Governor Smith’s policies continued that he was willing to make the effort.”[18] He also stated his belief that prohibition was a “cloak for something else” but in his view, the tactic’s effect was receding.[19]

Campaign team

His first stop in New York was Hyde Park where he was greeted by “200 of his neighbors in an impromptu celebration.”[20] On October 8th, FDR met with the candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Colonel Herbert Lehman, and other party leaders at the campaign headquarters in the Biltmore Hotel. The next day, Roosevelt met with Smith to finalize his campaign plans. Among the strategies adopted was the creation of a Citizens’ Campaign Committee designed to register voters and encourage people to go to the polls in November. When Smith last ran for Governor, the Democrats had instituted a similar Committee with success. This time, James Farley and the Chairman of the Democratic Committee, William Bray, were responsible for the up-State campaign, while the infamous Tammany Hall handled New York City and the boroughs. 

Apart from Howe and Farley, there were several other indispensable figures in Roosevelt’s campaign. The Bronx Democratic Boss, Edward J. Flynn, was among the first to join Roosevelt’s team. Flynn had been active in Smith’s presidential election but, because of New York’s importance in the national election, he detached himself from the Smith campaign to aid Roosevelt and secure the State’s desperately needed electoral votes. Raymond A. Moley, a professor at Columbia University was summoned to aid the campaign as speech draftsman and as a consultant on issues of crime prevention and criminal justice.[21]

Then there was William H. Woodin. A life-long Republican and the President of the American Car and Foundry Corporation, Woodin had endorsed the Smith campaign in July. He personally contributed $25,000 to the Democratic national campaign fund. Woodin was enlisted as Roosevelt’s “financial dictator.”[22] Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was personally recruited to direct the campaign’s agricultural platform. One of the most important aids brought into was Samuel I. Rosenman who joined after Roosevelt requested an advisor that could supplement his deficiencies concerning the legislative history of the parties in New York.[23]

After conferring with Smith and his team at the Democratic campaign headquarters in the Biltmore, Roosevelt made his first formal interview with the press concerning the gubernatorial race. There, he announced that he did not favor re-enacting the Mullan-Gage State Prohibition Enforcement act. He further added that while traveling throughout the country he had found the Prohibition acts of other States no more effective than those of New York, which relied exclusively on Federal laws.[24] When asked if, as Governor, he would veto a Legislative bill for the enforcement of Prohibition, he replied in the affirmative.[25] He closed his remarks by promising to run an active campaign “with a lot of handshaking and close contact with the voters.”[26]

Campaign starts

By Friday, October 12, the campaign itinerary was released. It listed Roosevelt speaking at nineteen events over nineteen days beginning on the 17th in Binghamton. His final speech would be made on the last night of the election, November 5, in Poughkeepsie at a neighborhood rally.[27] The campaign was officially kicked off when Roosevelt officially accepted the nomination at the National Democratic Club on the 16th. He opened his speech saying, “I accept the nomination for Governor because I am a disciple in a great cause.”[28] The cause he was referring to was the continuation of Governor Smith’s reforms. Continuing, consolidating and making permanent these reforms was the first great issue of the campaign. The second great issue, Roosevelt declared, was whether New York would “undertake new improvements” in government to “keep pace with changing times.”[29]

“Progress means change,” he said, and there were four areas he had in mind. [30] The first was the passage of law mandating the public retention of State-owned water-power resources. Second, he called for a reform of the Judicial System. He asserted that the judiciary “failed to keep pace with the advancement[s] of a practical age.”[31] The final two points focused on New York’s rural districts. He believed that measures were needed to improve the economic conditions of agricultural communities. Finally, he called for governmental reorganization policies at the State level to extend to county and town administrations as well.[32]

With these points Roosevelt launched his campaign. His opponent for the governorship, Albert Ottinger, had already accepted his party’s nomination and begun campaigning. During his acceptance speech, Ottinger indicated his stance on the opposite side of the water-power issue. The Republican Party in New York had long stood against the policy advocated by Roosevelt. Ottinger, in lockstep with his party, was a consistent advocate of private waterpower. If elected, he promised to create a commission of experts to investigate the subject and recommend policy.[33]     

Now, read part 3 in the series on what happened during the short 1928 New York Gubernatorial campaign here.

What do you think of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to accept the nomination in 1928? Let us know below.

[1] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 838.

[2] Ibid., 839-840. 

[3] Ibid., 848.

[4] On October 1, Roosevelt had deliberately planned to spend “a long afternoon of picnicking at the Knob, miles from the nearest phone, planning to return to his phoneless cottage barley in time to dress for the political speech he was to make that evening in Manchester, ten miles from Warm Springs.” Thus, he had hoped to “double lock the door of unwanted opportunity.” However, Eleanor knew, as did the Smith, that Roosevelt would not refuse a “person-to-person” phone call from his wife. With this backdrop, Eleanor knew that her assent to Smith’s plea was “no neutral, noncommittal gesture.” Rather, she knew that it would be interpreted by her husband as a silent conclusion that he should accept the nomination. Ibid., 846, 848.

[5] Ibid., 851.

[6] Gunther, 253.

[7] Special to The New York Times, (Oct 03, 1928), “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[8] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file), 2.

[9] “F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State,” (Oct 04, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File, 1.

[10] Kiewe, 158.

[11] Goldberg, 108. 

[12] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 03, 1928), “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1-2.

[13] Kiewe, 159. 

[14] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 31. 

[15] “F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once,” 2.

[16] Ibid., 1.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Special to The New York Times, (1928, Oct 07), “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[19] Ibid.

[20] “F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today,” (Oct 08, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[21] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 33.

[22] “Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State,” (Oct 10, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[23] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 35.

[24] “Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law,” (Oct 09, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[25] Ibid

[26] Ibid., 2.

[27] “Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State,” (Oct 13, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[28] Franklin D. Roosevelt, “The Candidate Accepts the Nomination for the Governorship, October 16, 1928,” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932, (New York, NY: Random House, 1938), 13.

[29] Ibid., 16.

[30] Ibid., 14.

[31] Ibid., 15.

[32] Ibid., 16.

[33] “Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power,” (Oct 17, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State.” (Oct 12, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104441542?accountid=12085.

“F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today.” (Oct 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104448848?accountid=12085.

F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State. (Oct 04, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104470038?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308830?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 3, 1928). “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104425583?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 18, 1928). “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104438214?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 20, 1928). “Roosevelt Begins Work on Message.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104443997?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 24, 1928). “Roosevelt Confers on Labor Program.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104398916?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 11, 1928). “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104416279?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 19, 1928). “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104437219?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 22, 1928). “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104310663?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308778?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue.” (Oct 16, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File).  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104430730?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory.” (Nov 19, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104439338?accountid=12085. 

“Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat.” (Nov 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104415539?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104460248?accountid=12085.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.” June 27, 1936. The American Presidency Project. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15314.

“Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover.” (Nov 02, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104414619?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State.” (Oct 10, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104321497?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power.” (Oct 17, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104423627?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law.” (Oct 09, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104367563?accountid=12085. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932. New York, NY: Random House. 1938.

“Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433007?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (1928, Oct 07). “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104469322?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Nov 27, 1928). “Democrats List Funds at Albany.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104304172?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326803?accountid=12085. 

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326338?accountid=12085. 

Woolf., S.J. (1928, Oct 07). “The Two Candidates for the Governorship.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433929?accountid=12085.

Secondary Sources

Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928. New York, NY: Random House. 1972.

__________. FDR: The New York Years 1928-1933. New York, NY: Random House. 1985.

Goldberg, Richard Thayer. The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 1971.

Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History. New York, NY: Harper. 1950.

Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012.

Journal Articles           

Carlson, Earland I. “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964): pp. 298-308.

Goldman, Armond S., Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr. “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography. (11, 2003): pp. 232–240.

 Kiewe, Amos. “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship.” The Southern Communication Journal. (Winter, 1999): pp. 154-167.

Who Wrote the Book that led to the American Revolution? The life of Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, or Tom Paine was born in 1737 in Britain and dies in 1809 in New York City – in a very different world to that he had been born in. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about Paine’s life, including his roles in the American and French revolutions, as well as his extremely important book – Common Sense.

A late 18th century painting of Thomas Paine. By Matthew Pratt.

John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Paine is the most extraordinary man, this age, or this world, ever produced.” But elsewhere Adams also said: “He was the greatest mischief-maker of the age. “ He made his presence felt as a citizen of three countries and two revolutions. His earthly debut came in 1737 in Thetford, England as the older son of Quaker parents.

Thetford is a mid-sized market town 35 miles north of London. Home for the Paine family was typical for working class folk of the time – a modest thatched cottage on the edge of the village. Young Tom, from his bedroom casement, looked out on a low, windswept landscape that led 200 yards to “Hangman’s Hill”, the scene of many ghastly executions - a harbinger of the time that would come when Tom participated in the French Revolution.

Boys of Tom’s class would typically receive a basic education to 12 years of age. But young Tom was something of a natural scholar. He became self-taught, and he especially liked the works of Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift. He was soon expected to work seven years at a trade, and gradually to be formally recognized as a journeyman. Young Tom Paine proved to be a flop at any trade he tried. At last, he was apprenticed as a corset maker under his own family. Tommy Paine – corset maker? No, that could never be. By age 17 young Paine decided he could hear ‘the call of the sirens’ and he left home and headed to sea.

Although young when he began to haunt various shipping berths along the Thames, Tom was not in quest of the thrills of adventure on the high seas. His motivation was financial, plain and simple. He felt his working class education had been inadequate and he was very much a knowledge seeker. While most of his shipmates received their share of a ship’s profits in the morning, only to be in debt by the same afternoon, Tom was paying modest fees to listen to the several lecturers in town. Most of these talks were political in nature and the young man listened carefully.

Political beginnings

Paine developed his political creed through his twenties working as a schoolteacher, a corset maker, and (especially) as an excise taxman. It was during this time that he met Ben Franklin who convinced him that the American Colonies were on the road to separation from King and country. Franklin also advised him that a young man of his sort belonged there and Franklin suggested that Philadelphia should be his destination. Indeed, near the midpoint of 1774 that is where Tom Paine landed.

It was in transit from England to America that Paine completed his extended essay “Pure Reason” which remained the working title until shortly after meeting Doctor Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush was generally considered the most accomplished medical man in 18th century America. Rush suggested Paine’s essay should be entitled, “Common Sense”.  And possibly the world’s best-known essay was born.

The first of two Continental Congresses met in the Pennsylvania State House during the summer of 1774. They sought mainly to patch up differences with the mother country over excise taxes. The basic views of the delegates at this conference broke down as follows: Approximately one-third were in favour of holding on to Mother England regardless of tax squabbles, one-third sat on the fence, one-third were restless and eager to separate.  “Common Sense” was published and the world would never be the same.

Common Sense

Common Sense burst from the printing press like a bolt of lightning. It ran to seven editions in just a few hours.  A copy of the mercurial missive reached George Washington two days after its debut on the streets of Philadelphia. His take: “I find Common Sense is working a powerful change there in the eyes of many men.” The world has not seen, before or since, a document that mesmerized a people like this brainchild of Tom Paine. But nothing man-made lasts forever. 

Common Sense did not alter the result but it certainly sped things up. After the initial sensation of the tract Paine contributed many speeches to the cause of the Revolution. And it needs to be said that Paine could not hold others in thrall in person the way he could by his written word. His physical appearance alone put many off.

Tom Paine was of average size but he had a face with rosy cheeks. Throughout his life he had a face that burned with a steady, bright red colour. And his eyes released an incandescent black emanation that startled any interlocutor with menace. He was difficult to converse with but he was a genius with the written language. George Washington, for example, got Paine a job as a war correspondent. At the close of a day when negativity reigned following a loss in the field, Paine wrote on a drumhead by the light of a campfire:  “These are the times that try men’s souls.” And now France beckoned.

French Revolution

The firebrand orator soon made his voice known in a new arena – at the famed Tennis Court Oath of 1790. Later still he was to almost lose his head during the Reign of Terror. He had made the mistake of dressing like a Gironde. Lafayette was there to rescue him. Soon after this close shave, Paine fled across the channel to his country of birth but England was not large enough for Paine and George both. And soon he was back stateside, all the while crafting his burning prose. One more thing  - and this time it is of a personal nature.

During his French sojourn the omnipresent and stylish Lafayette presented the Brit turned American with a key - and not just any key. This long black key had been in long-time use at the centre gate of the Bastille.  Subsequently Tom gave the key to George Washington. Shortly after the death of the president, the key to the Bastille became a steady draw for visitors to Mount Vernon.

And I, lingering after hours was allowed to hold the key and feel the weight of it myself!

What do you think of Tom Paine’s importance in the American Revolution? Let us know below.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1928 New York Gubernatorial Campaign – Part 1 – Overcoming Illness

Nearly exhaustive research has been done on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) four national campaigns, his controversial Presidency, and his leadership in WWII. Surprisingly little, however, has focused on his New York State gubernatorial campaign in 1928. This was the campaign and position in which FDR would prove his fitness for the presidency of the Unites States, a position he held from 1933 to 1945.

In part 1, K.R.T. Quirion explains the background to the campaign, the struggles that FDR had after he contracted Polio, and an amazing comeback appearance in 1924.

Franklin D. Roosevelt on crutches in August 1924, several years after his illness. Here with Lieutenant Governor George Lunn, FDR, John W. Davis, and Al Smith at Roosevelt's family home in Hyde Park, New York. Source: FDR Presidential Library & Museum, available here.

INTRODUCTION

While there has been little focus on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s campaign for governor of New York State in 1928, it is known that prior to the campaign he had taken “steps in the presidential direction.”[1] Amos Kiewe outlines FDR’s climb up the political ladder starting his election to the New York State Senate, his appointment to Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and finally, his nomination as Vice-President on the 1920 Democratic ticket. Ultimately, however, New York was the crucible in which FDR demonstrated his fitness for a shot at the nation’s highest office.

Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s vision of political grandeur was cut abruptly short when he contracted poliomyelitis—commonly known as polio—during a vacation to Campobello Island in the summer of 1921.[2] Despite his affliction, FDR would return to the public arena within three years and re-enter political office in seven. In hindsight, this short withdrawal from public life was a relatively small detour in FDR’s long political career. During the “nearly fatal initial phase of the [polio] attack” he might well have abandoned his political aspirations and retired to Hyde Park for good.[3] Instead, thanks to the support of his wife Eleanor and his life-long friend Louis Howe, Roosevelt overcame his affliction and began the long road of recovery.  

Over the next seven years, FDR strengthened his body, his mind, and his belief that there was a providential plan for his life. Davis explains how, in retrospect, FDR “knew absolutely that what had happened to him…was integral to God’s design.”[4] His wife Eleanor believed that her husband’s trial by fire was preparing him for the “great historic tasks he must ultimately undertake.”[5] Despite the great personal difficulty of this period, Eleanor and Howe were successful in keeping Roosevelt plugged into the political arena.

The 1928 chance

His moment came in 1928. New York governor and presidential hopeful, Al Smith, indicated his desire to have FDR continue his legacy in the Empire State. More importantly, Smith knew that the “margin between victory and defeat…in the national race might well be provided by a victorious Democratic gubernatorial candidate in New York, and it was a margin that Roosevelt and Roosevelt alone could assure.”[6] At first, FDR was staunchly opposed to entering the race. He refused Smith’s initial invocation to run, citing concerns about his health.[7] Privately, Roosevelt believed that 1928 would be a bad year for Democrats and preferred to wait until the 1932 election. He finally yielded to Smith on October 2, on the condition that the delegates chose to nominate him with “full knowledge of his personal situation and wishes.”[8] The very next day, the Democratic convention in Rochester, NY nominated Roosevelt by acclamation. 

Over the next month, Roosevelt crisscrossed New York State, stumping in every city where he could make time for a speech. This important race attracted individuals, like Judge Samuel Rosenman, that would become intertwined in FDR’s political career for the next 17 years. The race was so invigorating that he once exclaimed if “I could keep on campaigning twelve months longer, I’d throw away my canes.”[9] As the New York polls closed on November 7, 1928, the votes appeared to favor the Republican candidate, Albert Ottinger. But, by the 19th, Roosevelt had won by a razor-thin margin of less than half of 1% of the total vote.[10]

What allowed a candidate who had spent the last eight years living on the periphery of New York politics, to win a heavily contested race with a mere three weeks of active campaigning? This article examines the challenges that FDR faced in convincing the New York electorate that he was fit for the Governor’s Mansion. The article explores how he overcame concerns about his physical health by presenting himself as an active campaigner. It also looks at Roosevelt’s experimental coalition of labor, agriculture, minority, and urban voters and the platform he used to convince these widely differing constituencies to give him their vote. Finally, this article argues that the 1928 campaign boosted FDR to the forefront of national politics and laid the groundwork for convincing the national electorate that he was ready for the White House in 1932. 

Though initially reluctant to his candidacy, once nominated, FDR boldly met the challenges of the race. His 1928 platform and his tenure as Governor of New York laid the foundation for his national policies in the White House. Eight years after his gubernatorial race, President Roosevelt would tell supporters at the 1936 Democratic National Convention (DNC) that their generation of Americans had a “rendezvous with destiny.”[11] For Roosevelt, when destiny came knocking, he confidently answered. 

POLITICS, POLIO, POLITICS AGAIN

Despite his nearly miraculous victory in the gubernatorial campaign, the 1928 race was not run in a vacuum. Roosevelt had been on a political trajectory long before contracting polio. After his outstanding record as assistant secretary of the Navy, FDR sought to establish himself as the “heir to Wilsonian Progressivism.”[12] A platform to project that image presented itself in 1920 when the DNC named Roosevelt the running mate of their Presidential nominee, James M. Cox. Though the election did not favor the Democratic ticket, it did allow FDR to build a national network within the Party.[13] Another important side-effect of the election was that FDR was able to build up his permanent secretariat.[14] He would rely heavily on his so-called “Cuff-Links Club” in future campaigns and in office.

Following the landslide loss of 1920, Roosevelt and his family retired to Campobello Island for some much-needed respite. However, the fatigue that he was hoping to recuperate from “did not go away.”[15] Instead, disaster struck a few days into the vacation. The young political maverick had his aspirations of future office dashed when he contracted polio which left him permanently disabled. As Amos explains, “the disease was a devastating shock to the energetic Roosevelt.” Not only did he have to re-learn basic skills and face the “mental anguish of a life-long disability”, but he also had to cope with the stigma of polio.[16] In the early 1900s, polio was viewed as the “disease of the unclean and unhygienic” and the “poor and low class.”[17] This aura clung even to Roosevelt. Despite his upper-class upbringing, even he struggled to shake this humiliating stigma.

The physical and psychological struggle that FDR endured during the initial stages of his recovery was then multiplied by the fear that his political aspirations had been dashed in one cruel blow. The disease engulfed his body and swallowed all hope of political grandeur in its wake. Instead of sinking into the depths of history as the tragic shadow of his cousin Theodore, FDR was carried through the storm by his wife Eleanor and the political acumen of his close friend and advisor Louis Howe. Roosevelt managed to stay politically active from the sidelines.  He never dropped out of public life. With the help of Eleanor and Howe, he continued his extensive political correspondence “virtually without interruption.”[18]  

Politics after Polio

Roosevelt’s first major political action following his disability was his endorsement of Al Smith for Governor of New York in 1922. This wise investment would pay dividends for FDR within the decade. Following a successful term as Governor, Smith was impeccably positioned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1924. Early that year, Roosevelt formally endorsed Smith’s candidacy. Though harboring doubts about the election, Roosevelt “calculated that the Smith campaign would keep his name before the public.”[19]

His strategy paid off amidst the chaos of the 1924 Democratic Convention. When he took the lectern to deliver Smith’s nominating speech at Madison Square Gardens in New York City, onlookers waited with bated breath as he moved slowly and carefully to the podium. He proceeded across the stage alone “swinging his weight from his hips.”[20] Even this physical stunt was a calculated political decision. In June of 1922, Roosevelt had begun training himself to exercise some amount of independent movement.[21] He believed that the appearance of health and independent movement was a necessity if he ever wished to hold political office again. This had been the reason for his physical training. Roosevelt knew that no modern leader had reached the highest rungs of political office without the public perception of good health and physical command. His performance at the Convention went a long way in proving that he was ready to return to politics.

In addition to demonstrating his physical recovery, the remarks at the DNC earned him even greater political points. His “Happy Warrior” speech resounded with millions of people from all across the nation who listened over the radio.[22] Davis writes that Roosevelt “was the central figure of the only scene that would brightly shine…out of the Garden’s prolonged and gloomy turmoil.”[23] The publicity that Roosevelt reaped from this speech was as significant for his political future as it was proliferous.[24] Following the Convention, a columnist for the Herald Tribune wrote that, “[f]rom the time Roosevelt made his speech…he has been easily the foremost figure on the floor or platform…” and “...has done for himself what he could not do for his candidate.”[25]

The momentum Roosevelt created at the Convention translated into an invitation to run for Governor of New York that very year. He declined, however, explaining that he would “not run for public office until he could walk without crutches.”[26]Despite this commitment, which he would cite again in 1928, FDR would soon concede to the pressure of politics. 

Now, read part 2 on how Roosevelt accepted the nomination here.

What do you think of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to getting Polio? Let us know below. 

[1] Amos Kiewe, “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship,” The Southern Communication Journal, (Winter, 1999), 154.

[2] A 2003 study published in the Journal of Medical Biography has placed the actual nature of FDR’s disease in question. The accepted diagnoses has been polio. However, a team of medical research led by Dr. Armond S. Goldman, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas has shed new light on this once solidly held fact. Their research suggests that FDR actually suffered from Guillain–Barre´ syndrome, a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. Despite the probability of this assertion, for the purposes of my research, I will maintain the widely accepted diagnosis as it neither adds nor detracts from the content of this article, whereas “rocking the boat” so to speak, by replacing the commonly accepted diagnosis with a rare and difficult to pronounce disorder is distracting at best and confusing at worst. Armond S. Goldman, Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr, “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?,” Journal of Medical Biography, (11, 2003): 1. 

[3] Kenneth S. Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, (New York, NY: Random House, 1972), 10-11.

[4] Ibid., 11.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, (New York, NY: Random House, 1972), 851.

[7] Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[8] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 852.

[9] “Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover,” (Nov 02, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[10] “Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory,” (Nov 19, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 6.

[11] Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.,” June 27, 1936, The American Presidency Project, online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley.

[12] Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel, History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940, (New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012), 1037.

[13] Ibid.

[14] John Gunther, Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History, (New York, NY: Harper, 1950), 217.

[15] Richard T. Goldberg, The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability, (Cambridge, MA: Abt Books, 1971), 28.

[16] Kiewe, 155.  

[17] Ibid.

[18] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 673.

[19] Goldberg, The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability, 70. 

[20] Ibid., 71.

[21] Roosevelt in fact could not walk. Instead, he used the muscles in his upper body and torso and swung his legs—which were re-enforced with heavy steel braces—so that he could give the appearance of walking. 

[22] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 756.

[23] Ibid., 755.

[24] “[T]he New York World proclaimed that ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt stands out as the real hero of the Democratic Convention of 1924.’ Said the World: ‘Adversity has lifted him above the bickering, the religious bigotry, conflicting personal ambitions and petty sectional prejudices…It has made him the one leader commanding the respect and admiration of delegates from all sections of the land.’” Ibid., 757.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Gunther, Roosevelt in Retrospect, 247.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State.” (Oct 12, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104441542?accountid=12085.

“F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today.” (Oct 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104448848?accountid=12085.

F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State. (Oct 04, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104470038?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308830?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 3, 1928). “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104425583?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 18, 1928). “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104438214?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 20, 1928). “Roosevelt Begins Work on Message.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104443997?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 24, 1928). “Roosevelt Confers on Labor Program.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104398916?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 11, 1928). “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932.”New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104416279?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 19, 1928). “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104437219?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 22, 1928). “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104310663?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308778?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue.” (Oct 16, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File).  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104430730?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory.” (Nov 19, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104439338?accountid=12085. 

“Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat.” (Nov 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104415539?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104460248?accountid=12085.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.” June 27, 1936. The American Presidency Project. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15314.

“Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover.” (Nov 02, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104414619?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State.” (Oct 10, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104321497?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power.” (Oct 17, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104423627?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law.” (Oct 09, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104367563?accountid=12085. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932. New York, NY: Random House. 1938.

“Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433007?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (1928, Oct 07). “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104469322?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Nov 27, 1928). “Democrats List Funds at Albany.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104304172?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326803?accountid=12085. 

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326338?accountid=12085. 

Woolf., S.J. (1928, Oct 07). “The Two Candidates for the Governorship.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433929?accountid=12085.

Secondary Sources

Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928. New York, NY: Random House. 1972.

__________. FDR: The New York Years 1928-1933. New York, NY: Random House. 1985.

Goldberg, Richard Thayer. The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 1971.

Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History. New York, NY: Harper. 1950.

Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012.

Journal Articles           

Carlson, Earland I. “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964): pp. 298-308.

Goldman, Armond S., Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr. “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography. (11, 2003): pp. 232–240.

 Kiewe, Amos. “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship.” The Southern Communication Journal. (Winter, 1999): pp. 154-167.

The Takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Headquarters in 1972

The Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. was taken over from November 3 to 9, 1972 by the American Indian Movement. Here, Daniel L. Smith returns to the site and tells us about this event.

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

Tipi with the sign "American Indian Movement" on the grounds of the Washington Monument, Washington, D.C. in 1978. Source: Warren K. Leffler, available here.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) headquarters building was raided, ransacked, vandalized, and ultimately occupied for almost a week from November 3 to 9, 1972. 

Nearly 500 Native Americans marching with the American Indian Movement (AIM – a progressive grassroots movement) ended their attention grabbing parade called the Trail of Broken Treaties, in front of the BIA building in Washington D.C. This cross-country political parade was intended to highlight Native Americans’ social issues, such as their standard of living and obligated treaty rights as legally sovereign nations.

Activist and news contributor Bob Simpson would point out that “leaders of the Trail of Broken Treaties were negotiating with the Interior Department over the question of housing. Suddenly fighting broke out between several GSA security guards and a group of young Indians.” He goes on to say that “apparently the guards misunderstood that the BIA had given the Indians permission to stay in the building past closing time. The guards were quickly overpowered and escorted from the building. Indians ran through the BIA building at 19th and Constitution, breaking up furniture to barricade entrances and manufacture makeshift weapons. The occupation was on.”[1]

Once inside the BIA’s building, protesters displayed their frustration towards the interior of the building. They threw furniture against windows and doors barricading themselves against potential police interference. Other members of the group set multiple fires in different interior offices and vandalized the polished marble lobbies. Unfortunately many historic documents were destroyed in the vandalism.[2]

The following day on November 4, John Chancellor, reporting desk anchor for NBC News said: “Several hundred American Indians remained in the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington today. They took it over late yesterday after scuffles with police.” Moments later, news field-anchor John Cochran reported live stating: “It was peaceful if not quiet at the Indian Affairs Bureau, but nothing was settled today. The Indians are waiting for the Administration to respond to their demands for reforms in the way the government deals with Indians. And they’re asking for a decent place to eat and sleep while in Washington. Until they get it, they vow to stay in what they call their embassy.”[3]

Altercations and Theft

After a few days of altercation, the protesters began to run out of supplies. There was quickly little food and provisions to sustain their opportunistic operation. The AIM protesters would not allow police or government representatives to cross into the Bureau of Indian Affairs building. Because of this, two children of BIA employees were recruited to bring in supplies and rations to the protesters.

It was reported that the AIM’s actions created the loss, destruction, and theft of many historical records—mainly critical treaties, property deeds, and water rights documentation.[4] Even Native American officials stated that the consequences of the AIM’s actions could set Native American culture back 50 to 100 years—with a final estimated loss of nearly $2.28 million dollars in damages and theft by the hostile takeover of the BIA to the American taxpayer.[5]

In the end, it was the Nixon Administration who would secretly sign the “Menominee Restoration Act” on December 22, 1973. This policy would ultimately give the Menominee fully-recognized tribal status by the U.S. government, and return their land assets to trust status. Although only one tribe benefitted from this policy, it was a direct message sent to those who understood Nixon’s political interests - especially when it could be seen that his administration quite quickly agreed to these demands.

Corruption Through Proxy

More broadly, Nixon did have some sympathy with the Native American rights movement. Prior to the BIA takeover in Washington D.C, President Nixon stated in his 1970 address to Congress: 

“The special relationship between Indians and the Federal government is the result instead of solemn obligations which have been entered into by the United States Government. Down through the years, through written treaties and through formal and informal agreements, our government has made specific commitments to the Indian people. 

For their part, the Indians have often surrendered claims to vast tracts of land and have accepted life on government reservations. In exchange, the government has agreed to provide community services such as health, education and public safety, services which would presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of other Americans. 

This goal, of course has never been achieved…”[6]

Younger Native Americans and First Nations peoples would give the most support to the American Indian Movement’s radical cause. The groups and entities found sympathetic to the BIA takeover of 1972 were:

·       The National Indian Brotherhood of Canada

·       Native American Civil Rights Fund

·       Native Indian Youth Council

·       National American Indian Council

·       National Council on Indian Work

·       National Indian Leadership Training

·       American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Other entities that endorsed and supported the takeover were:

·       The Native American Women’s Action Council

·       United Native Americans

·       National Indian Lutheran Board

·       Coalition of Indian-Controlled School Boards

·       Black Panther Party for Self Defense

To Conclude

There is almost always a political motive behind current events. Occupations, building takeovers, and progressive grassroots movements are all just a part of radical American history. It takes a certain rebellious ideology to undertake this type of insubordinate behavior and defiant action.

This is also the same type of ideology and behavior that commits citizens to the destruction of their own history. 

Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

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.

[1] Simpson, Robert. "Native Americans Take Over Bureau of Indian Affairs: 1972." Washington Area Spark. Last modified May 10, 2013. https://washingtonareaspark.com/2013/03/26/native-americans-take-over-bureau-of-indian-affairs-1972/. 

[2] The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). "Amnesty Denied To Indians." November 10, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-10_amnesty_denied.jpg. Note: An initial first estimate was officialized at about $250,000 in damages within the building.

[3] "Occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs" NBC News, New York, NY: NBC Universal, 11/03/1972. Accessed Sat Jan 11 2020 from NBC Learn: https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/browse/?cuecard=5170  

[4] The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). " Justice Eyes Way to Charge Indians.” November 10, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-1_justice_charge_indians.jpg. 

[5] The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). " Damage to BIA Third Heaviest Ever in U.S..” November 11, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-11_damage_to_BIA.jpg. 

[6] Nixon, Richard. "Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs." The American Presidency Project. Last modified July 8, 1970. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-indian-affairs. 

Spies in the American Civil War

Spying and espionage has been a part of war for centuries and the American Civil War (1861-65) was no exception. Here, James Adams shares an overview of spies and spying on both the Union and Confederate sides in the early part of the war.

Allan Pinkerton, President Abraham Lincoln, and Major General John A. McClernand, 1862. Pinkerton was the head of the Union Intelligence Service during the early years of the war.

Although neither the Union nor the Confederation had an official military intelligence network during the US Civil War, each side obtained crucial information through espionage. From the start of the war, the Confederates set up a spy network in the federal capital of Washington, D.C., which was home to many supporters of the South. 

The Confederate Signal Corps also included a secret intelligence agency known as the Secret Service Bureau, which managed espionage operations along the so-called secret line from Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Virginia.

As the Union did not have a centralized military intelligence agency, the generals took charge of collecting intelligence for their own operations. General George B. McClellan hired prominent Chicago detective Allan Pinkerton to create the Union's spy organization in mid-1861.

Confederate spies in Washington

Located 60 miles south of the Mason-Dixon line, Washington, D.C. was full of southern sympathizers when the Civil War broke out in 1861. Virginia Governor John Letcher, a former member of Congress, used his knowledge of the city ​​to set up an emerging spy network in the capital in April 1861, after the secession of its state, but before its official entry into the Confederacy.

Thomas Jordan, a West Point graduate from Washington before the war, and Rose O'Neal Greenhow, an openly pro-South widow who was friends with a number of northern politicians, including Secretary of State William Seward and Massachusetts Senator Henry Wilson, were key in this network

In July 1861 Greenhow sent coded reports across the Potomac to Jordan (now a volunteer with the Virginia militia) regarding the planned federal invasion. One of his couriers, a young woman named Bettie Duvall, dressed as a farmer to pass Union Sentries from Washington, then drove at high speed to the Fairfax Courthouse in Virginia to transmit messages to the Confederate officers stationed there.

Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard later credited information received from Greenhow in helping his rebel army achieve a surprise victory in the First Battle of Bull Run (or Manassas) on July 21, 1861.

Confederate Signal Corps and Secret Service Bureau

The Confederate Signal Corps, which operated the semaphore system used to communicate vital information between armies on the ground, also set up a secret intelligence operation known as the Secret Service Bureau.

Led by William Norris, the former Baltimore lawyer who also served as chief communications officer for the Confederation, the office managed the so-called secret line, an ever-changing mail system used to get information from Washington through the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers to Confederate officials in Richmond, Virginia. The Secret Service Bureau also managed the transmission of coded messages from Richmond to confederate agents in the North, Canada, and Europe.

A number of Confederate soldiers, particularly cavalrymen, also acted as spies or "scouts" for the rebel cause. Among the most famous were John Singleton Mosby, known as the “Gray Ghost,” who led guerrilla warfare in western Virginia during the final years of the war, and in particular J.E.B. Stuart, the famous cavalry officer whom General Robert E. Lee called "the eyes of the army".

Union Spies: Allan Pinkerton’s Secret Service

Allan Pinkerton, the founder of his own detective agency in Chicago, had gathered intelligence for Union General George B. McClellan during the early months of the civil war, while McClellan headed the Ohio department. The operation soon grew and Pinkerton soon set-up a Union spy operation in the summer of 1861, working under McClellan. 

Calling himself EJ Allen, Pinkerton built a counterintelligence network in Washington and sent undercover agents to the Confederate capital of Richmond. Unfortunately, Pinkerton's intelligence reports on the ground during the 1862 peninsula campaign systematically miscalculated the Confederate numbers at two or three times their actual strength, fueling McClellan's repeated calls for reinforcements and reluctance to act.

Although he called his operation the United States Secret Service, Pinkerton actually only worked for McClellan. Union military intelligence was still decentralized at the time, as generals (and even President Lincoln) employed their own agents to seek and report information. Lafayette C. Baker, who worked for former Union General-in-Chief Winfield Scott and later for War Secretary Edwin Stanton, was another important Union intelligence officer. 

The courageous but ruthless Baker was known to have gathered Washingtonians suspected of having sympathies with the South; he later led the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth, the Confederate sympathizer who shot and killed Lincoln at Ford’s Theater in April 1865.

Prominent civil war spies

One of the first Confederate spies targeted by Allan Pinkerton was Rose O’Neal Greenhow. Shortly after the southern victory in the First Battle of Bull Run, Pinkerton placed Greenhow under surveillance and then arrested her. Imprisoned in Old Capitol Prison, she was released in June 1862 and sent to Richmond. Belle Boyd, another famous southern spy who became a Confederate, helped pass information to General Stonewall Jackson during his campaign in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862. Like the Confederacy, the Union also had female spies: Elizabeth Van Lew of Richmond, risked her life running a spy operation from her family's farm, while Sarah Emma Edmonds disguised herself as a black slave to enter into Confederate camps in Virginia.

Born in Britain, Timothy Webster, a former New York police officer, became an early double agent in the Civil War. Sent by Pinkerton to Richmond, Webster pretended to be a courier and managed to gain the trust of Judah P. Benjamin, the Confederate Secretary of War (later Secretary of State). Benjamin sent Webster to deliver documents to the Baltimore secessionists, which Webster quickly passed on to Pinkerton and his staff. Webster was eventually arrested, tried as a spy, and sentenced to death. Although Lincoln sent a message to President Jefferson Davis threatening to hang the Confederate spies captured if Webster was executed, the death penalty was carried out in late April 1862.

What do you think about spying in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Ancient History and the Fall of Man

The ‘Fall of Man’ is the Christian concept related to how people transitioned from innocent obedience of God to disobedience of God. Here, Mark Graham shares his thoughts on ancient history and the Fall of Man.

The Fall and Expulsion from Paradise, by Michelangelo.

What is the subject of Ancient history and when does it start?  Ancient history is the time period from the Fall of Man or even before this time.  Some people would believe that ancient history begins with the 'Creation story' as there was a particular order that God followed and set the rules for all society.  The subject of ancient history is really learning about how to 'inquire' or 'ask questions' (McGregor, 2007).  It is all about building our various foundations to future generations (McGregor, 2007).  

Ancient history is the beginning of us all to learn what started our cultural identities from our present religious beliefs to our present day current affairs.  We all learn about the past and figure a way to make it 'useful' to what we need to do to make ourselves safe.  This is a period in history that is the beginnings of learning about what makes civilizations civil for today's world of poverty, racism, and other kinds of deviance and how learning about the past will improve the present and hopefully the future.

What is the value of learning the beginnings of all history?  We must all remember what has occurred.  Ancient history is mainly shown through the various artifacts, traditions, and written records that are found and teaches us all about the culture and background along with the traditions we all find important (McGregor, 2007).  Actually, it is how we make the various interpretations of what has happened and what is happening in the world today, such as the events related to the Black Lives Matter movement along with the related.

The Fall of Man

In learning about the first historical event that really affected the study of ancient history, 'The Fall of Man', people wonder and questioning the various philosophies of us living today (McGregor, 2007).  The big question that really defines ancient history and even just history in general is “Why?” did this event and all the other events occur.  These events and ideas have a way of bringing about an understanding of our limitations of the events and their judgments that are made even today.  This first event, the 'Fall of Man', was the one that brought forth government, economics, and even philosophy to solve various kinds of issues from performing an actual crime to finding redemption for a crime committed (McGregor, 2007).  'Man's Fall Into Sin' forms the concept of human depravity, which is what some seem to think is currently happening with the topic of racism in our and other communities.  We just need to figure a way to understand how body, mind and soul are connected (McGregor, 2007).

Ancient history is to be learned from and not repeated, even if that seems to be what is happening with current world events.  Are we learning from the past?  This is the question we should be asking ourselves.  Ancient history is the beginning of learning how to hope and live through history.  After Creation and God's divine sovereignty or authority over all history and the world that there is a purpose for all citizens.  It was at the beginning of history that our true purpose was to be proposed for we were to go out 'to be fruitful and multiply' and then learn to prove dominion over the land and forming a culture through our thoughts and labors and achieve a civilization. Indeed, we all have our talents and need to follow all the rules and regulations of society that must be held accountable for what may occur and what is currently happening (McGregor, 2007). We must strive for understanding of others that are around us even if they are only around us for even a few minutes. 

Remembering the past

Another version of the 'Fall of Man' could be the Adam and Eve story and the ideas they had when Eve offered Adam a bite of the apple.  Thanks to this couple we all now have to learn things the hard way and hopefully make the right decisions and choices that are offered to us in all the various areas of our society (community) whether it is science and technology, art, politics, religion and philosophy to ask and answer all the many questions we have to help us to survive our lives (McGregor, 2007).  We have to learn how to live with conflicts that have happened and see how events were solved then and if they were not, we will continue to work on these issues today, even if there are changes needed to fit the current issue that is presenting to us as individuals and/or the community.

'The Fall of Man' is a misunderstanding – from ancient times until today, people have struggled to overcome all the wrongs that were committed and to create a nation where we all obey and learn and praise God as well as others.  That is what can be learned from the era of 'The Fall of Man'.  If we do not learn from the past and pay attention to what is taught in our history and social studies classes we are doomed to repeat, repeat and repeat all the same mistakes.  At times events are connected even if they do not seem to be. We all need to think and remember the past.

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

Reference

McGregor, Maureen & Koontz, Terri.  2007   World History Teacher's Edition; Chapter One  Foundations of World History; Third edition; Greenville, SC.

The 1916 Proclamation that Helped to Create an Independent Ireland

In 1916, Irish republicans led the Easter Rising that sought to end British rule and create an independent Ireland. As part of this they read the 1916 Proclamation or Easter Proclamation, a document that proclaimed Irish independence. Here, Jenny Snook explains the events and their lasting importance.

Birth of the Irish Republic by Walter Paget.

In 1949, Ireland was officially declared a republic. In 2008, an auction of independence memorabilia took place in Dublin, with sales reaching over €2 million (around $2.3 million). One of the pieces sold was an original copy of the 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic, selling for €360,000 (c. $410,000).[1] This was a declaration read out over a century ago by a member of the Irish Volunteer Force. Although not an official declaration, it is now seen as a symbolic gesture which motivated the Irish people to stand up for their right to obtain independence and is still celebrated today.

The country was first captured by the British in 1169 and Republican ideas immerged centuries ago from people willing to use force to free Ireland from the British Empire. The 1798 Rebellion is known as one of the most disturbing, violent events in Irish history, significantly inspired by French republicanism. The Easter 1916 Rising is commonly recognized as the turning point in the development of modern Ireland.

The Irish Volunteer Force (IVF)

The Irish Volunteer Force (IVF) was a military republican organization first founded in 1913 and was the group most significantly involved in the Rising. They were formed as a direct response to the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), established in 1912. The UVF opposed any republican ideas and wanted to remain part of the British Empire. The Irish Citizen Army (ICA) were a smaller force that took part in the Rising, set up as the armed wing of workers on strike during a labor dispute known as the “Dublin Lock Out”.

The Easter 1916 Rising displayed a willingness to resort to violence to make Ireland a republic. While the British were more concerned with the problems of World War One, a popular slogan that became linked with the IVF was:

England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.

Conscription was never implemented in Ireland, but over 200,000 Irishmen still chose to enlist in the British army during the war. Members of the UVF were willing to stand up for their country but many members of the IVF had no desire to support a country that they did not want to be a part of.

It was their plan to take control of the General Post Office (GPO) on O’Connell Street in Dublin City Center, while taking over some other sites to block the main routes into the city. It was outside the GPO that Padraig Pearse would stand up and read the Proclamation of the Irish Republic.

Most of the actions taken involved rebels taking possession of buildings along these routes and then defending themselves from the British soldiers. It does not appear as though they expected victory but it seems more of a symbolic action that people still admire today. A famous statement made by Padraig Pearse, on 25th April was:  

Victory will be ours, even though victory will be found in death.[2]

Problems from the Beginning

Although members of the IVF all had the same goal of turning Ireland into a republic, they held vastly different views over whether the Rising was a good idea. Some thought that more time was needed to assemble followers and plan mass resistance. There were others who believed the best thing to do was strike, there and then, without worrying about the risks. Sean MacDermott was one of the leaders of the Rising who supported this view.

Opposing MacDermott, Eoin MacNeill felt this was a reckless and counter-productive idea that held no real benefits. One of the reasons MacNeill finally agreed to support the Rising was the reassurance that Germany would be sending over a shipment of weapons. The Aud carried 20,000 rifles, 3 machine guns, and ammunition over to Co. Kerry in southwest Ireland. Unfortunately, this ship was intercepted by the Royal Navy and the captain decided to scuttle the ship, rather than letting it be seized by the enemy. When MacNeill found out what had happened but realized that the Rising was still going ahead, he issued a ‘countermanding order’ to cancel their plans.

While he sent an order to cancel the rebellion beginning on Sunday, the Military Council met, agreeing to change the day until Monday, causing confusion. This disagreement was one of the main reasons why a lot of the people who had planned to attend on Sunday did not even turn up the next day.

None of the leaders were professional officers and they did not have enough support or sufficient artillery to seize power. There were about 1,300 members of the IVF involved and 219 from the ICA,[3] with a central meeting point outside the headquarters of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union at Beresford Place. Under Padraig Pearse and James Connolly (founder of the ICA), a force was sent out to take control of the GPO on O’Connell Street.

Four battalions were set up to occupy different parts of the city. The first of these battalions was led by Ned Daly and took possession the Four Courts, home of the country’s law courts. Under Thomas MacDonagh, the second battalion met at St. Stephen’s Green, before taking control of the Jacob’s Biscuit Factory. Eamon de Valera oversaw the third battalion, occupying Boland’s Bakery and under Eamonn Ceannt, the fourth battalion focused on a workhouse, ‘the South Dublin Union.’

Although their defensive locations were strong, these groups were positioned too far apart and there were not enough people involved to offer support if another was attacked. Although the initial British reaction was shock, martial law was quickly declared, leading to the gradual isolation and surrender of these rebel positions.

The Reading of the Proclamation

After taking control of the GPO, it was here that Padraig Pearse read out the Proclamation of the Irish Republic on April 24th, 1916. This was signed by James Connolly and 6 members of the IVF: Thomas J. Clarke, Eamonn Ceannt, Thomas MacDonagh, Joseph Plunkett, Padraig Pearse, and Sean MacDermott, written primarily by Pearse and Connolly.

A supporter of the Gaelic League (dedicated to protecting Irish language and culture), Pearse was also an educational reformer. He described the national school system as a ‘murder machine’ set out to destroy the Irish language.[4] Responsible for setting up several experimental, Irish speaking schools, he stated:

A country without language is a country without soul.[5]

There was only a small crowd present to listen to the reading of the proclamation. They did not show much enthusiasm when he tried to justify what the rebels were doing and what they hoped to achieve from it. The opening sentence read:

In the name of God and the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

He tried to assure the crowd that becoming a republic:

Guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally.[6]

Pearse may not have succeeded in motivating the crowd at the time, but was correct when he said later that week that:

When we are all wiped out, people will blame us. In a few years they will see the meaning of what we tried to do.[7]

Lasting Effects of the 1916 Rising

By Friday, it was clear they could not last much longer at the GPO. Pearse ordered female volunteers to leave and by 7pm was forced to evacuate himself. At 8pm, the remaining rebels gathered to sing Ireland’s national anthem: “The Soldier’s Song”. After their surrender, 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested and while about 2,700 prisoners had been released by August 1916, there was no escape for the leaders.  [8]

Between May 3 and May 12 all of the 14 leaders were shot dead, except for Eamon de Valera, who was officially a US citizen, moving over to Ireland at the age of two. The British might have sentenced these men to death to try and restore law and order, but all they really succeeded in doing was to turn most of the Irish public against them. Even though the majority of those arrested were released within a few months, there was still much resentment shown by those believing these people should not have been locked up in the first place. In 1917, support for Sinn Féin (Ourselves), a political party dedicated to Irish independence, grew rapidally.  After his release, De Valera became a national icon. Serving as Taoiseach from 1937-1948, 1951-1954, and 1957-1959, he went on to serve as president of Ireland between 1959 and 1973.

Unlike the small crowd that first listened to Padraig Pearse read out the proclamation in 1916, on March 27, 2016, hundreds of thousands listened to it being read out again outside the GPO by Captain Peter Kelleher, to mark the 100-year anniversary of the 1916 Rising. This is probably the most celebrated scene in Irish history which Irish people today are proud to celebrate. Well-known and passionate supporters of the Rising include Irish poet W. B. Yeats, named one of the greatest poets of the 20th century. The last lines of his poem ‘Easter 1916’ (1921) read:

MacDonagh and MacBride   

And Connolly and Pearse

Now and in time to be,

Wherever green is worn,

Are changed, changed utterly:   

A terrible beauty is born.[9]

How important do you think the 1916 Proclamation was to achieving Irish independence? Let us know below.

[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/proclamation-copy-sells-for-360-000-1.913576

[2] Pritchard, p42

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po14.shtml

[4] Townshend, p71

[5] Pritchard, p8

[6] https://irishrepublican.weebly.com/proclamation.html

[7] https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po11.shtml

[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/aftermath/af01.shtml

[9] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43289/easter-1916

Bibliography

·       Kenny, Michael: The 1798 Rebellion (1996). Town House and Country House. Dublin.

·       Killeen, Richard: A Short History of the 1916 Rising (2009). Gill & Macmillan Ltd. Dublin

·       Pritchard, David: A Pictorial Guide to the 1916 Easter Rising (2015). Real Ireland Design. County Wicklow, Ireland.

·       Townshend, Charles: Ireland: The 20th Century (1999). Hodder Arnold. London.

·       https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43289/easter-1916 Easter 1916, by William Butler Yeats.

·       https://irishrepublican.weebly.com/proclamation.html Copy of Proclamation.

·       https://www.irishtimes.com/news/proclamation-copy-sells-for-360-000-1.913576 Proclamation Copy Sells for €360,000. (Apr 16th, 2008).

·       https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2016/0327/777698-easter-rising/ Massive Crowds Line the Streets of Dublin for 1916 Parade (March 28th, 2016).

·       https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po11.shtml 1916 Easter Rising Profiles: Patrick Pearse: 1879-1916.

·       https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po14.shtml  The Irish Citizens Army

·       https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/aftermath/af01.shtml The Executions

The Fascinating History of Lahore Fort in Pakistan

Lahore Fort is located in the city of Lahore in north-eastern Pakistan. The fort has a rich and varied history, and the basis of the current fort came in 1566 under the Mughal Empire. It was later altered during the Sikh and British eras. Khadija Tauseef explains.

Lahore Fort in 1870.

Jahangir’s Quadrangle 

Jahangir’s Quadrangle is the largest quadrangle, which occupies the northeast corner of the fort. It was originally made by Emperor Akbar but a fire destroyed it, later it was repaired and completed by his son, Jahangir in 1617-18 AD. Along the northern wall lies the Bari Khawabgah (sleeping chamber) of the Emperor Jahangir; the warm climate caused the buildings to be made with large pillars, open from all sides. Curtains were all that provided privacy to the Khawabgah. The British saw no use for such an opulent structure, so they sealed up its sides and whitewashed the exterior. Turning it into an arms store, used to keep the soldier’s weapons. The quadrangle is surrounded on both sides, east and west, by a row of dalans (doorways). The dalans were converted into a single residential unit, for military units. The pillars that had been decorated with motifs and animals were removed and dalans made into very simple living quarters. Even the passages that led to the underground chambers were sealed away. 

In the middle of the courtyard were fountains that were said to shoot water up to the sky. The British completely altered the landscape - the gardens and fountains were filled in. By leveling the ground, they were able to turn the area into a badminton court for recreational activities. It is hard to imagine that the place where once dancers and musicians had performed for the Mughal emperors was now buried under the ground. This process damaged the fountains and it would take many years before they would be restored. 

The Diwan-e-Khas-o-Aam, stood opposite the Khawabgah. It was here that the British were able to erect a small hospital and dispensary. This was just one section. The Sikh era’s contributions, Haveli’s of Kharak Singh and Mahrani Jinda, were left as they were.

The Diwan-i-Khas. Source: Muhammad Ashar, available here.

Shah Jahan’s Quadrangle

Shah Jahan is known as the great ‘architect king’, the buildings that he had commissioned are scattered throughout the Indian subcontinent. It thus goes without saying that he contributed some of the most elegant structures to the fort. This quadrangle of the fort only contains two buildings and a garden; Shah Jahan’s Khawabgah, the Diwan-e-Khas and the Char Bagh. Starting with the Diwan-e-Khas or the hall of private audiences, this was the last Mughal addition to the Lahore Fort by Shah Jahan. Its construction was over seen by Wazir Khan; square in plan having three sides with lobed arches. Its northern façade has delicate jail screens that once overlooked the River Ravi. In the center of the pavilion sits a shallow fountain. This was the place where the emperor would sit and meet with dignitaries and ministers. The Diwan was completely made of white marble. Such a structure would have had an appeal for the British residents. It is only natural that the British needed a place of worship within the compound. And so, they converted the Diwan-e-Khas into a garrison church in 1904 AD. In order to do so, they once again had to close the openings, but unlike Jahangir’s sleeping chamber, they used glass. They also filled in the elegant fountain with concrete and blocked the jail screens. One can only imagine how it may have felt, sitting reading hymns in the same location where the Mughal King once sat conducting his business in the presence of ministers and nobles.

The opposite side of the Diwan-e-Khas has the Khawabgah-e-Shahjahani, Shah Jahan’s sleeping chambers, which was also made with marble. In contrast with the Diwan-e-Khas, this was one of the earliest buildings commissioned by Shah Jahan - as naturally a king required a grand room for his slumber. In its heyday, it truly was a sight to behold; decorated with mirrors and ornaments. The candlelight would dance off the mirrors, illuminating the entire quadrangle at night. In front of the rooms are fountains, which would cool the wind during the hot summer nights, an ingenious cooling system that the Sikhs also made use of. Unfortunately the original finishing and designs of the building were seriously compromised during the Sikh era. The British saw no use for this place, so it fell to ruin.

Conclusion

The British made use of the fort as they saw appropriate. Both quadrangles help to propel the understanding that buildings were made to suit the needs and purposes of its inhabitants, even revealing the personality of the people who ordered their construction. The Mughals built grandiose buildings and decorated them with gems and motifs. These structures were constructed to add to the appeal of the fort and be pleasing for the eyes. On the other hand, the British saw no need for such huge buildings, therefore it only made sense to minimalize them to fit their own wants. Architecturally Lahore Fort is very diverse, it allows us a window into the past. Even though much of its monuments have been changed, the majesty remains.

What do you think of Lahore Fort? Let us know below.

References

Rehmani, Anjum. Lahore: History and Architecture of Mughal Monuments. Oxford University Press.

Ahmad, Nazir. Lahore Fort (A Witness to History). Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, 1999.

Nadiem, Ihsan H. Lahore: A Glorious Heritage. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publishing, 2006.

Qureshi, Tania. Jahangiri Quadrangle – the emperor’s footprints in Lahore Fort. Daily Times. November 24, 2018.

The Man who Risked his Life to Save Thousands of Works of Art in World War II

World War Two led to the destruction of too many monuments or artifacts of great historical interest; however, some people played important roles in keeping many such artifacts safe. Here, Charlotte Davies explains how Kurt Seeleke (1912-2000) helped to keep thousands of pieces of art safe in the north German city of Braunschweig in World War Two.

The devastation from World War Two: Braunschweig on May 12, 1945.

The other day I was sitting on a bench in a little square in Braunschweig, Germany, where I live, attempting to do a watercolor painting of a romantically ruined old building. A well-turned-out older lady walked past and I smiled at her, and then immediately thought better of it, since smiling at strangers isn’t really the done thing here. But the next thing I knew, she had stopped and said “Braunschweig hat schöne Ecken”, nodding towards the scene – Braunschweig has its nice little corners. I agreed and pointed out the ruined building. This prompted the lady to begin recounting her wartime memories: she told of how her family’s house in the city center had been destroyed by a bomb, an incident which she could remember despite being only three years old at the time. I was all ears, particularly because I had been doing the research for this article and had wartime Braunschweig on the brain. Now here was someone in front of me who had actually experienced those times. We chatted for about 15 minutes, and when I thanked her for sharing her memories with me, she said in rather heartfelt tones that no one had ever asked them, meaning her generation, about their experiences. I was glad to have been an interested audience for her story.

Wartime destruction and post-war rebuilding

Braunschweig was once the largest half-timbered town in Germany, but lost 90% of its city center to bombing raids in 1944. A list of the German cities that were bombed shows that destruction of this magnitude was fairly common, with many town centers being all but wiped out. This obviously had long-term consequences for the appearance of German townscapes. If I go down the hill into the town center from where I live, I come to a Bohlweg, where the unfortunate aesthetic choices of post-war architects are all too apparent – what used to be a street of timber-framed buildings is now lined with drab blocks, including some real eyesores. Thankfully, however, not all of the city center looks like this. There are several squares surrounded by pretty buildings that evoke times of yore, including the Burgplatz with its medieval-style castle, or the cobbled expanse of the Altstadtmarkt bordered by the atmospheric arches and turrets of the gothic town hall.

Whether or not they are aware of it, all Braunschweigers owe a debt of gratitude to the subject of this article, Kurt Seeleke, for the fact that their city contains these pockets of quaintness. In his position as Head of Conservation for the region and together with the architect Friedrich Wilhelm Kraemer, he developed a plan to preserve and restore buildings after the Second World War. The aim was to create five heritage areas, each centered around one of the city’s churches. He called these areas the Traditionsinsel. In some cases, buildings were moved from other locations to fill gaps and thus create a unified whole.

Seeleke’s vital influence on shaping the post-war cityscape was something I had been aware of for a while. But when I started looking into him a bit more, I discovered that, prior to this, he had achieved other great feats of preservation, getting into some dramatic situations in the process: whether that was watching bombing raids from the top of a church tower, or pleading with a Wehrmacht general who apparently threatened to have him shot. I soon realized I had to dedicate an article to this remarkable man.

Saving art and cultural heritage from the firestorms

Kurt Seeleke came from a Braunschweig family who ran a long-established business producing gingerbread and honey cake. The young Kurt showed an aptitude for cultural conservation work, possessing a combination of practical skill and an artistic sensibility, and went on to study art history in Berlin and Munich, before being put in charge of monument preservation in Braunschweig. However, he had only been in the role a short time when the Second World War broke out. By the end of 1939, the museums had been closed and the collections moved to the cellars for safety. These included the renowned collection of the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum which included works by many big names including Cranach, Rembrandt, van Dyke, Rubens, and Vermeer.

Seeleke was called up in early summer 1940 and sent to France, only to be discharged due to illness in 1941 and sent to Italy to teach at German academies there. He was ordered to return to Braunschweig in August 1943 amidst growing concern for the safety of Germany’s cultural heritage following the bombing of Lübeck in March of that year. It was the first German city to be heavily bombed by the RAF, with the resulting firestorms wiping out large parts of the town’s historic center. Back in his home city, he returned to the task of getting as many movable art treasures as possible out of the city center and into underground storage, in case a similar fate awaited Braunschweig.

On February 10, 1944, heavy bombing raids did indeed reach Braunschweig. When Seeleke came out of the bunker he had been sheltering in, he discovered that one of the city’s historic buildings was burning to the ground. He decided that on future occasions, he could not wait around in an air-raid shelter whilst irreplaceable cultural heritage was destroyed. Instead, he would climb up to the top of the spire of the St. Martinikirche, which gave him the best vantage point to watch for fires. When he saw flames, he would race down to get in his car or on his bike so that he could reach the scene and support the small voluntary fire service in trying to put out the fire. In order to be better prepared for this role, he got himself trained up as a fireman. Poignantly, it was from his high vantage point that he saw the timber-frame headquarters of his family’s honey cake business be blown to pieces.

The moving of paintings and other works of art continued in this period when possible. But the bombs were falling more and more frequently. The worst night came on October 15, 1944. Seeleke wrote simply “destruction of Old Braunschweig at 2:30 by English planes” (1). The firestorm lasted two and a half days, and afterwards, the city was a wasteland, with church towers rising up out of the smoldering ruins.

Devastating as this must have been for him, Seeleke at least had the comfort of knowing that the city’s most valuable paintings were still safely in the bunker where they had been stowed at the start of the war. But then came the order from the local chief of police to remove these artworks in order to free up the space for civilians. Appalled at the thought of exposing the paintings to danger, he initially ignored the order, which was of course a dangerous business in Nazi Germany. Finally, he arranged to have the bunker emptied, and the paintings transported to the cellars of Blankenburg Palace in the Harz mountains – although due to the risky nature of these trips and a lack of transport vehicles, Seeleke secretly left the most valuable paintings in the bunker.

A visit to the Wehrmacht general

Shortly afterwards, it emerged that he could not have picked a worse place to move the artworks to. In early April 1945, Heinrich Himmler declared Blankenburg to be the center of the "Harz Fortress", which would be defended to the last man against advancing Allied forces. The artworks would surely not survive. Seeleke was almost in despair. But he wasn't prepared to give up yet. A delegation including Seeleke went to the local mayor to plead for a change of plan. Seeleke then proposed that they go directly to the general in charge to plead their case. But the others in the delegation were aware that any attempt to persuade a military commander to be “unfaithful to his duty” could be punishable by death. The next morning, Seeleke set off accompanied only by Prince Welf Heinrich, son of the former Duke of Braunschweig, apparently encouraged by the latter’s “youthful foolhardiness” (2). Both men took leave of their families in case the worst happened.

When the two men entered the general’s office, Seeleke was carrying a curious object. It was an onyx vase from the museum collections. Ingeniously, he had invented a history for it that was designed to target the pompous nationalistic pretensions of a Nazi general: he claimed that for a thousand years, it had held a balm used to anoint the German emperors. It is said that he challenged the general to “hold it, hurl it against the wall! If you’re certain of winning this war, then everything must be sacrificed. But if you aren’t…” (3), at which point he trailed off, and there was an oppressive silence. The general is supposed to have told them during this meeting that he “could have them shot on the spot” (4). But he didn’t carry out his threat. The men were told to leave, and that they would get an answer the following day.

Whether it was the onyx vase that tipped the balance, we will never know, but on April 13, 1945, the German troops did indeed move out of Blankenburg and form a new front deeper in the Harz mountains. The thousands of paintings and objets d’art were safe. Seeleke must have breathed an almighty sigh of relief. But that still wasn’t the end of the story. After the war was over, Blankenburg was made part of the Soviet occupation zone, and once again, the paintings had to be saved, this time from the clutches of the advancing Red Army; British troops provided assistance.

The Braunschweig lion. Source: Heribert Bechen/HerryB, available here.

The Braunschweig lion

There is another of Kurt Seeleke’s daring feats that should be mentioned, and that concerns the Braunschweig lion, symbol of the city since Henry the Lion’s time. In 1943, in the midst of the war, the bronze statue from 1166 was still standing unprotected at the center of the Burgplatz. Seeleke then received orders to have it sent away to safety. But there was no way he was allowing this iconic creature to be transported to far away Silesia, perhaps never to return. So he mounted a top-secret operation to have the original statue replaced by a copy that had been created a few years earlier. He successfully hoodwinked his Nazi superiors – the original lion was spirited away to a mine tunnel in the region.

Following the end of the war, Braunschweig became part of the British occupation zone and a British army captain was installed in the city to assist in the task of retrieving and restoring artworks. Robert „Rollo“ Lonsdale Charles was one of the “Monuments Men”, a group of volunteers (both men and women) who took on the mission of “saving cultural treasures from the destructiveness of war, and theft by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis” (4).  Rollo and Seeleke got on well and formed a close working relationship. In the diary he kept at the time, Rollo recorded the retrieval of the lion as follows (not his exact words as I only had access to a German translation):

Tuesday, 23. October 1945. Went to Goslar with Seeleke and Kump to get the lion… the workers in the fields uncovered their faces as we drove past, and I could see their lips moving as they pointed towards us, laughed and cried “Der Braunschweiger Löwe!”. Around five o’clock, we arrived in Braunschweig… a crowd of people gathered around him and stroked him, mothers held up their children so that they could see… it was all very touching … an excellent animal. One feels like he might wag his tale at any moment!” (5)

Seeleke had many successes, but there was one thing he didn’t manage to save, despite his best efforts, and that was the Braunschweiger Schloss. The former ducal palace was demolished in the summer of 1960, following which Seeleke left Braunschweig in disgust and took up a post in Berlin. He didn’t return until his retirement in 1990, and was awarded a Citizen’s Medal for his services to conservation and historical restoration. Kurt Seeleke lived to be a ripe old age, dying in 2000.

The next time I go into a museum and look at paintings, I will try to bear in mind that their survival over the centuries is by no means a given. It requires the knowledge and dedication of experts who conserve and restore, it requires societies that deem their cultural heritage to be important and worthy of preserving, and governments that allocate funding accordingly. And sometimes, in the worst times when war is raging and reeking destruction on all sides, it requires great ingenuity, resourcefulness and astounding acts of bravery.

Charlotte Davies writes the blog https://braunschweigportraits.blogspot.com/ which takes a light-hearted look at various characters from German history.

Now, what do you think of the article? Let us know below.

1) Quoted in Friemuth, Cay, Die geraubte Kunst. Der dramatische Wettlauf um die Rettung der Kulturschätze nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, 171

2) Quoted in ibid., 174

3) Quoted in ibid.

4) https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/chronologie/kriegsende/Kunstretter-mit-Loewenherz-trotzt-selbst-Bombenhagel,seeleke100.html

5) https://www.monumentsmenfoundation.org/

6) Quoted in Friemuth, Cay, Die geraubte Kunst. Der dramatische Wettlauf um die Rettung der Kulturschätze nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, 279–281

Sources:

https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/chronologie/kriegsende/Kunstretter-mit-Loewenherz-trotzt-selbst-Bombenhagel,seeleke100.html

Friemuth, Cay. Die geraubte Kunst. Der dramatische Wettlauf um die Rettung der Kulturschätze nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Georg Westermann Verlag GmbH, 1989)