The 3 most bizarre Tanks ever

Tanks have been integral to armies since World War One. But over the years a number of prototype designs have been made that never quite worked. Here, Adrian Burrows tells us about the most bizarre tank designs…

Since the Great War the mighty tank has formed the mainstay of any skilled (or unskilled) military commander’s army. The tank started its military career from fairly inauspicious beginnings.  Originally called ‘Landships’ - this name didn’t stick as military bods were concerned that such an overly descriptive title might give away what their secret weapon was to the enemy, so the name ‘tank’ was instead adopted - the tank really hasn’t changed a great deal in its design or function since its first use in battle. Yes, advances in technology have rendered a modern tank a distant relative to the first tank prototype (fondly named as ‘Little Willie’ by the British Military) but it still remains a relative nonetheless.

The classic image of a tank is of a hulking and box like central chassis, the twin caterpillar tracks either side in order to propel its vast form forward over any and all terrain, and a rotating turret to provide a 360 degree field of fire. Perhaps the core tenants of tank design haven’t changed because the initial concept was just so effective. Why try to fix what isn’t broken? Well, that didn’t stop people from trying. Allow me to present to you the top three weirdest tank prototypes of all time.

3. The Russian Tsar Tank

Caterpillar tracks are brilliantly effective at moving big heavy tanks across difficult terrain. Indeed, they were initially designed in order to allow tanks to climb up and over the trench-laden terrain of the Western Front. Yet, as thought by the Russian boffins Nikolai Lebedenko, Nikolai Zhukovsky, Boris Stechkin and Alexander Mikulin, if caterpillar tracks are great then surely two giant bicycle wheels would be awesome.

That was the primary design decision behind the Russian Tsar Tank - and what a sight it must have been. Each giant spoked wheel attached to the central hub of the chassis was a massive 27 feet in diameter, the idea being that such a vast wheel would be able to plough through any obstacles in its path (and the two 250 horse power Sunbeam engines would certainly help with that). The tank was ready for war armed with a giant 8-meter high cannon turret and plans for further cannons to be attached to the tank’s frame. The central casing itself was a massive 12 meters wide with thick armor to protect the soldiers inside. So far so good? Why on earth didn’t the Russian Tsar Tank take off?

Its Achilles heel turned out to be the small stabilizing wheel at the rear of the tank (giving it its tricycle appearance). During the first test run through a field the stabilizing wheel became firmly entrenched in a patch of mud. The entire mighty form of the Tsar Tank became rooted to the spot, making it a major target that resembled a giant penny-farthing. After the abysmal test run the tank never saw active service and remained stuck exactly where it was until the end of the war.

2. Ball Tank

Texan Inventor AJ Richardson had a noble goal, how best to ensure men could quickly and safely cover the distance of a mud and crater strewn No Man’s Land in order to close in on an enemy position? The answer he came up with? A giant metal ball. This mighty metal ball of death could not only protect the troops within it, but being spherical it could also outmaneuver anything else on the battlefield. The project was never developed due to one small problem that scientists at the time could not overcome… there was no way that the troops within could see outside of the tank. In theory though, it would have been amazing.

1. Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka (Tank Wings)

Tanks are big and powerful but slow and cumbersome. If somehow their maneuverability could be increased then surely nothing could stand in their path as they rapidly out flanked the enemy’s position. The logical conclusion to this quandary? Invent a tank that can fly.

And that’s exactly what Oleg Antonov set about doing in 1942. A T-60 Light Tank (light being 5.8 tons) went on a crash diet under Antonov’s watchful eye by removing the vehicle’s armor, weaponry and headlights. The T-60 was also provided with a limited amount of fuel in order to decrease its total weight yet further. What was the next step? Attach some wings to the tank of course. Yes, they were literally stuck to the side of the tank, transforming it into the world’s most unlikely glider. The final step was to utilize a Tupolev TB-3 plane to lift the tank gently in to the air; once the plane had reached a sufficient height and speed, the prototype could be released, allowing it to glide majestically into battle.

Did it work? I would love to say yes, but no, no it didn’t.

Remarkably no one died in the experiment. The TB-3 had to ditch the tank in mid-flight due to the massive drag it caused, but apparently the T-60 did glide back down to earth before being driven back to base. This initial set back didn’t put off the Soviet Union. Over the next twenty years the country was able to develop the necessary techniques and equipment to para-drop BMD-1 vehicles with its crew on board.

So, that’s my top 3 most bizarre tank prototypes of all time. Tanks with bicycle wheels, ball tanks, tanks that can fly… the weird and the wonderful. Perhaps your list would differ? If so I would love to read your top 3. There’s plenty to consider after all. Those that just missed out on a place in my top three include the Russian Screw Drive Tank that couldn’t go in a straight line and the British Praying Mantis Tank intended to shoot over obstacles. Both fine ideas ruined by issues of common sense. But then that’s what makes them so brilliantly barmy. Until next time!

Adrian Burrows works at Wicked Workshops, an organization that prepares great history workshops. Find out more about a World War One related workshop here.

Do you know a weird and wonderful tank? If so, let us know below...

What really happened in the Wild West? The Gunslinger Myth

The Wild West of nineteenth century America was at times a chaotic and unruly place, not helped by the lack of law enforcement officials. Even so, many myths have arisen about the period. Here, Robert Walsh debunks the myths and shares what really happened.

The Wild West was the home of many colorful (often disreputable) characters. Native Americans, gold prospectors, gamblers, cattle ranchers, miners and immigrants scrambled to extend the new frontier. They spread further West in search of their fortunes. With law-abiding, hard-working citizens came criminals. The most notorious were gunslingers, hired guns who would rob a bank one month, protect a cattle baron the next and then be hired as a town marshal the month after that. Being a gunslinger didn’t automatically make a man a criminal; some of the best known were both law enforcers and lawbreakers at different times.

A stylized version of a Wild West gunfight.

Gunslingers in popular culture

The popular image of gunslingers comes from cheap novels and films and it is far more fiction than fact. Hollywood would have us believe that hired guns were either all good (like Gary Cooper’s portrayal in the classic film ‘High Noon’) or all bad (like Michael Biehn’s portrayal of Johnny Ringo in ‘Tombstone’). This black-and-white idea doesn’t reflect reality. Pop culture’s image is often a slow-talking, fast-drawing lone gunman riding into town, taking on several men at once while wearing one or two pistols in low-slung hip holsters and, naturally, letting them draw first before instantly killing all of them. He’ll probably indulge in a drawn-out, climactic gunfight, standing opposite his opponent in the middle of a street for several minutes, each waiting for the other to make the first move. The ‘good guy’ lets the ‘bad guy’ draw first but still wins, naturally.

This portrayal is, frankly, grossly inaccurate. Gunslingers weren’t even called gunslingers during the ‘Wild West’ period. They didn’t wear the standard ‘gunfighter’s rig’ of a low-slung hip holster tied to their thigh for a faster draw. Many didn’t favor the pistol as their primary weapon. Drawn-out standoffs were almost non-existent, as were single gunslingers choosing to fight multiple opponents single-handed unless they absolutely had to. Few made public show of their skills with trick shooting or fancy pistol twirling in saloons or on street corners (notable exceptions were ‘Wild Bill’ Hickok and the infamous John Wesley Hardin). They were seldom always lawmen or outlaws and frequently both at different points in their careers (some even managed to hold public office as sheriffs or marshals while operating as vigilantes, assassins, extortioners and general criminals). Pop culture’s version of the gunslinger hasn’t made them more interesting; it has dumbed down who these men were, what they did and how they did it while ignoring the more complex aspects.

‘Shootists’ – The reality

According to etymologist Barry Popik the word ‘gunslinger’ didn’t come into use until the 1920 movie ‘Drag Harlan’ and then in the novels of famed Western author Zane Grey who first used it in his 1928 novel ‘Nevada’. The word ‘gunfighter’ first appeared in the 1870s. Wild West gunmen were more commonly known as ‘shootists’, ‘badmen’, ‘pistoleers’ or ‘pistoleros’ (a Spanish word for ‘gunman’). Granted, the word ‘gunslinger’ sounds good, but it first appeared long after gunslingers themselves ceased to exist. Feared gunman Clay Allison is believed to have coined the most popular term of the period when asked about his occupation by replying “I’m a shootist.”

Pop culture would also have us believe that gunmen wore customized gunbelts and holsters, the standard ‘gunfighter’s rig’. They didn’t. The stereotypical ‘gunfighter’s rig’ beloved of movie directors the world over didn’t exist during the period. It came into being in the 1950s when ‘quick draw’ contests with blank-firing revolvers became a competitive sport. The low-slung holster tied down to a man’s thigh simply didn’t exist.

Also almost non-existent was the idea of two fighters walking out into a street, facing each other and then fighting a ‘quick draw’ duel. If a real gunfighter drew quickly it was usually because an opponent had tried to ambush him. Most one-on-one gunfights resulted from personal disputes such as over women or during card games where insults were exchanged and guns drawn immediately. The idea of Wild West gunfights having any resemblance to European dueling is best left in dime novels and movie theaters where it belongs. Only two such face-to-face duels are on record as having actually happened, between ‘Wild Bill’ and Davis Tutt (Hickok killed Tutt with a remarkable single pistol shot at a range of over fifty meters) and between Jim Courtright and Luke Short (Short killed Courtright with a volley of four bullets, not a surgically-delivered single shot). Gunfights like those in the ‘Spaghetti Westerns’ directed by Sergio Leone are wonderful viewing, but bear almost no relation to reality.

Gunfighters of the time were also far more sensible than to tackle multiple opponents single-handed unless they absolutely had to. One extremely rare example was the notorious ‘Four dead in five seconds’ gunfight in Austin, Texas. Gunfighter Dallas Stoudenmire (employed as town marshal at the time) used his two pistols to kill four men, three of whom had ambushed him. Unfortunately the fourth was an innocent bystander already running for cover when the shooting started.

Tools of the trade

Another myth is that gunfighters all preferred revolvers. In films they draw one or two pistols, empty them without seeming to aim and, naturally, kill every opponent without missing or accidentally shooting anybody else. Any pistol marksman will tell you that holding a revolver with one hand and fanning the hammer with the other is the worst way to shoot accurately. In reality, most gunmen favored the ‘coach gun’ (a short-barreled shotgun used by stagecoach guards, hence the phrase ‘riding shotgun’) or rifles like the 1873 Winchester. Legendary gunman Ben Thompson was a firm devotee of the shotgun, as was John ‘Doc’ Holliday’ of OK Corral fame. Billy the Kid always preferred a Winchester rifle. The reason was simple. Shotguns and rifles are more accurate than pistols so killing with the first shot was more likely. It was pointless drawing a pistol quickly if you couldn’t hit your target before they hit you. As Wyatt Earp once put it: “Fast is fine. Accurate is final.”

Some gunfighters bucked that trend. Clay Allison, Dallas Stoudenmire and Frank and Jesse James all preferred pistols, but they were exceptions. Small pistols like the Derringer were tiny, often firing only one or two shots instead of the six rounds in a typical revolver. They were easily concealed ‘hideout guns’ often hidden in waistcoat pocket or by gamblers for use at a poker table. Similar guns were made for women and nicknamed ‘muff pistols’ because they were often carried in the fur-lined hand-warmers fashionable among women of the time. Whether picking a fight over a poker game or trying to rob a female stagecoach passenger, these small guns often fired large-caliber bullets, much to the distress of many an outlaw.

As time went on single-shot, muzzle-loading weapons were replaced by ‘repeating’ guns like the revolver, shotgun and breech-loading rifles such as the 1873 Winchester. Gunfighters now had weapons enabling them to deliver greater firepower with less time spent reloading their weapons. Samuel Colt’s ‘Peacemaker’ revolver was accurate, powerful and instantly outdated other revolvers by being the first to use all-inclusive metal cartridges. The new cartridges rendered old-school ‘cap and ball’ revolvers obsolete almost overnight. These require the user to fill each individual chamber with gunpowder, add a lead pistol ball and some wadding, ram the ball, powder and wadding into each chamber using a lever under the barrel and then fit a percussion cap over each chamber. Only then is a ‘cap and ball’ revolver fully loaded. The ‘Peacemaker’ could be reloaded simply by shaking out the spent metal cartridges and replacing them. Improved weapons meant increased firepower. Increased firepower was essential in the evolution of the gunslinger.

‘Wild Bill’ Hickok, the first legendary gunslinger, in the 1870s.

Rise of the hired gun

So what created the gunslinger? Why was there a need for hired guns rather than the police forces we know today? In a word, necessity. Law enforcement was at best basic. Individual US marshals could find their territory extended over hundreds of square miles. County sheriffs had the same problem. There was simply too much ground containing too many people for such limited law enforcement to deal with. Outlaws could easily evade even the most persistent marshals and sheriffs simply by crossing State lines, putting themselves beyond the legal jurisdiction of their pursuers. The court system on the frontier consisted largely of ‘Circuit Judges’ (a term still used today). Individual judges were allotted a ‘circuit’ of towns and rode round and round conducting trials and any other legal business that had amassed since their last visit. Jails were insecure and their staff often corrupt, so even when criminals were arrested they often easily escaped. Authorities could also offer rewards for wanted outlaws on a ‘dead or alive’ basis, encouraging many gunslingers to work as bounty hunters. With rewards offered ‘dead or alive’ many bounty hunters found it safer to simply kill wanted outlaws, deliver their bodies and collect their reward. It was safer than the additional risks associated with delivering live outlaws into custody for the same amount of money. Bounty hunters of the time were sometimes referred to as ‘bounty killers’ because, to them, fugitives were worth the same alive or dead.

The gunfighter - Hero or villain?

With the vastly inadequate official systems available, many towns hired their own sheriffs and marshals. Naturally, the job required men who were expert with guns and bold enough to fight when necessary. Not every expert marksman was also prepared to face ruthless criminals for a sheriff’s wage. So townsfolk often turned to whoever was prepared to do the job, often hiring gunfighters based on their fearsome reputation rather than their regard for the law. Notorious outlaws ‘Curly Bill’ Brocius (later killed by Wyatt Earp) and William Bonney (known as ‘Billy the Kid’) were also sheriff’s deputies at one time. Even the infamous John ‘Doc’ Holliday, one of the most feared gunmen of the Wild West, was deputized by his long-time friend and Deputy US Marshal Wyatt Earp after the famed ‘Gunfight at the OK Corral’ in Tombstone, Arizona. Equally notorious killer Ben Thompson became Chief of Police in Austin, Texas, despite having previously served a sentence for murder.

Businessmen also hired groups of gunslingers to protect their lives and their interests. Famed cattle baron John Chisum once employed ‘Billy the Kid’ as a gunman to protect his livestock against cattle rustlers. Mining companies often employed notorious gunmen such as Butch Cassidy to escort shipments of newly minted bullion and payrolls, ensuring their safe arrival by hiring gunmen who might otherwise try robbing those very shipments. In the absence of adequate official law enforcement many people sought their own version by employing as sheriffs and marshals exactly the kind of people they hoped to be protected from. Famed marksman Tom Horn (later hanged for murder) was a sheriff’s deputy and a Pinkerton detective while performing contract murders at the same time. Jim Courtright was a town marshal when he fought his famous duel with Luke Short. Being town marshal hadn’t stopped Courtright from trying to extort Short. It didn’t stop Courtright killing him, either. Wyatt Earp was heavily involved in gambling (and, some say, pimping) while also serving as a Deputy US Marshal.

Men of dubious reputations weren’t everybody’s first choice as law enforcers, but then they were often the only men available to do the job. The frontier territories, with their cattle ranches, mining towns, railroads and various other lucrative businesses and limited law enforcement, offered rich pickings for outlaws prepared to rob, extort and kill anybody opposing them. Law-abiding citizens had to hire their own gunmen and sometimes resort to vigilante justice through lynch mobs. Until the law was fully established the gun took precedence.

One last thought on the gunslinger myth is that pop culture isn’t entirely to blame. To develop and keep their credibility gunmen had to be regarded as people to both respect and fear. The more feared they were, the fewer challenges they were likely to face. With that in mind, many gunfighters built myths around themselves and made themselves seem as skilled (and therefore deadly) as they could get away with. John Wesley Hardin was a notorious braggart. Clay Allison was the same. If gunfighters are so badly misrepresented in the modern world then they are also to blame.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Like it, share it, or tweet about it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

References

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/gunslinger_or_gun_slinger/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHt6i5Wi02s

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-outlaws.html

http://www.historynet.com/wild-west-outlaws-and-lawmen

http://www.elpasotimes.com/125/ci_3767809

http://www.historynet.com/dalton-gang

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-BatMasterson5.html

Image sources

http://www.modernmythmuseum.com/m%20saga%203%2055%20holliday.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bill_Hickok#mediaviewer/File:Wild_Bill.jpg

A personal journey with a pirate

Peter Cornelius Hoof was taken captive by pirates nearly three centuries ago. But Laura Nelson has an intriguing connection to him. Here, she tells Hoof’s intriguing story of capture and life on the high seas.

My interest in Peter Cornelius Hoof began when I attended the Real Pirates Exhibit in Denver, Colorado, in June 2011. (1) Like many people, found the exhibit fascinating and came away with two books about piracy and what I thought, at the time, was a new interest in pirates. While reading these books, I became conscious of Peter Hoof and began to have a particular interest in him. Why his name leapt out at me from the pages of these books, I do not know. I may never know. All I know is that it happened, and my life has been enriched ever since.

At one point in the exhibit, there was a display where visitors could actually touch coins from the wreck of the Whydah. While touching them, I felt a whooshing sensation and a drain of energy. I put it down to having been in the exhibit for a long time with no food or water. I just figured I must be really hungry and, once I got something to eat, I would feel better.

During the next month, I did a lot of research on pirates. They were definitely a new obsession. Not only was I doing a lot of research, I wrote about them, too! I had done some writing while in college, but following graduation I never seemed to write for more than a paragraph or two. After attending the exhibit, my dreams involved sequences of events surrounding pirates. When I wrote down the most recent sequence, the events in the dreams moved forward. Neither the writing nor the dreams was sequential. There was, however, one common theme: a pirate with brown hair and eyes, who either sought me out or appeared out of nowhere to protect me from a dangerous situation.

A month after my first visit, I returned to the exhibit. The second visit was in some ways more amazing than the first. When I approached the coin display, I discovered that, conveniently, no one else was around. I closed my eyes, took a deep breath, and asked if I had a connection to the wreck. I touched all of the coins, one or two at a time. Toward the end, a voice told me I was not on the Whydah, but that I lost a lover in the wreck. (2) Then I experienced the same whooshing sensation and drain of energy I had felt the first time I touched the coins.

About a month after my second visit to the exhibit, I chanced to run across a medium, who did past life regression, at a county fair in Denver. I told her what had been happening to me, and she confirmed I was not a pirate myself, but that I did know many of them. Several members of my immediate family left with the pirates, which angered me because I was a female in that past life and thus could not go with them.

During a second session with the medium in December 2011, Peter asked me to tell his story. His soul was stuck and telling his story would help him to move forward and go on. So I told his story to several people, but had a feeling while doing so that this was not the way to go. One friend said that even if it wasn't a best seller, I had to get his story out there. On that day, the idea for this article was born. Peter was not a captain among the pirates, but he was hanged for piracy, and for that reason his name is recorded in the record books.

As part of his interrogation before his trial, on 6 May 1717, Peter stated:

That he was born in Sweden, is about 34 Years old, and left his Country 18 Years ago. He Sail’d for the most part with the Dutch on the coast of Portobello, and has been with the Pirates fourteen Months. When he was taken by Bellamy in a Periaga, he belong’d to a Ship whereof one Cornelison was Master . . . (Trial, 318) (3)

At the time Peter was taken captive, Sam Bellamy still sailed with a pirate named Benjamin Hornigold, who sailed in consort with the French pirate, Louie Labous (also known as Olivier Levasseur or La Buse). La Buse got the nickname of "The Buzzard" for the swift and merciless way he had of attacking his victims.

Peter was considered to be “[a]mong the most prized of the new recruits.” (Clifford, 137) His previous seventeen years of sailing along the Spanish Main provided him with extensive knowledge of the southern Caribbean, and greatly added to the pirate’s navigational knowledge.

A lot of you are fairly familiar with how pirates in the Golden Age took captives. They came upon a boat swiftly and used methods calculated to instill the maximum amount of fear in their targets. Imagine the scene: A large number of armed, screaming pirates come pouring over the side of your vessel after firing a shot across the bow of the ship. The captain of your ship has only put up a paltry defense and stopped his ship based on the theory that giving in to the pirates will prevent them from doing any more damage than is necessary to passengers and crew. You are forced into a corner and made to kneel to reduce the chance of you retaliating.

Sailors in these days were poorly paid, some as little as a few shillings a month, so you have next to no personal possessions to speak of. Now the little that you own is in jeopardy of being taken away by the pirates.

Then the captain of your vessel is forced to relate the skills and marital status of each member of the crew. Some volunteer to join the pirates, wanting a life of lawlessness and plundering.

But not all go willingly. You are forced to accompany the pirates because of your knowledge and experience. You do not wish to join them, but your feelings in the matter are not considered. On the pirate vessel you are considered a prisoner. All of the status you spent your life working for is now gone. These people are not your friends. You have left behind the life you knew and the friends you made.

That night, you are lifted to your feet, blindfolded, and marched to you know not where. When the blindfold is torn off, you face a sort of tribunal of the most senior of the pirates. Keep in mind that on the old sailing vessels the areas below decks were poorly lit, so you cannot see well.

You face this tribunal alone. They sit behind a table. The rest of the pirates are amassed behind you, so there is no escape. If you refuse to sign the articles, you will be shot and your body will be summarily disposed of in the sea. So you sign, because you wish to live and have no alternative. After you sign, you realize that your life as you have known it is over and you feel as though you have made a deal with the devil.

During interrogation before their trial in Boston, Massachusetts, one of the Whydah pirates, John Brown, testified that Peter “was once whip’d for attempting to Run-away . . .”. (Trial, 318) In his examination, Simon Van Vorst relates that while on the island of St. Croix, “ (3) of their Men Ran away, and one of them being brought back was severely whipped.” (Trial, 319) But he did not give specific names.

The impression I got from Peter was that he felt this was his last chance to escape the pirates and return to his normal life. I also got the impression that at the "advanced" age of thirty-four, he wanted to return to a relationship with someone he had met in the past.

Flogging (whipping) in Peter's time was done with a cat-o'-nine-tails, a device with a handle and nine ropes, usually with a piece of lead at the end of each one to tear the skin. All descriptions I have seen of this punishment describe it as being excruciatingly painful.

During my next session with the medium, Peter described some of the ordeal: " After they were through whipping me, I could not move on my own. I slumped to the deck, helpless, tears streaming from my eyes, my throat raw from screaming, my body shaking uncontrollably with the pain. Eventually, someone took pity on me and picked me up, taking me to a dark quiet place where I was lucky that there was a doctor on board who cared enough to clean and stitch me up. My hands continued trembling for a long time; the pain is tremendous. I laid there nearly unmoving for three days. I had to be helped to the head and brought food. It was agony to eat. Eventually I was able to move on my own again, slowly at first, to keep the wounds from opening. I was lucky and my wounds did not become infected."

According to Thomas Trotter’s observations of flogging victims, "such whipped patients were so psychologically disturbed that they frequently went into fits of hysteria, weeping, and delirium, while the other men in the wards silently looked on and wept in sympathy, and finally turned their heads away." (Friedenberg, 31) (4)

Peter told me that he eventually became a pirate, but he did not torture or beat any prisoners or captives and did not approve of the pirates' treatment of women. The lesson he wished for me to take away from his experience was that you can do something bad, but not necessarily participate in every aspect of the bad thing.

Some pirate historians doubt that men were pressed into serving on pirate ships. Some insist they only pretended to be forced to hide the fact that they actually wanted to go with the pirates and share in the booty and freedom of the pirate lifestyle. Claiming to have been pressed was a common plea by those accused of piracy at their trials. During his interrogation, Peter stated that "[n]o married men were forced" (Trial, 319), which to me means that some men must have been pressed, otherwise why be concerned about whether or not a man was married? Unfortunately, the transcript gives only his responses, and not what the actual questions were. Also, the interrogations were written down after the fact.

In further defense of the idea that men were pressed into piracy, John Brown said, "there were about 50 Men forced, over whom the Pirates kept a watchful eye . . . ." He then goes on to say that "[t]he names of the forc[e]d Men were put in the watch Bill and fared as others"; meaning they were on the ship's duty roster and did the same shipboard tasks as the pirates. (Trial, 318)

But consider the situation: you have a person, forcibly taken from his job and his friends. He is threatened with death if he does not "sign on" as a pirate, and bullied and belittled by nearly everyone aboard. Peter testified during the trial, "Bellamy’s Company Swore they would kill him unless he would joyn with them in their Unlawful designs." (Trial, 306) (5)

When Peter was taken captive, Sam Bellamy was sailing as a member of Benjamin Hornigold's crew. Bellamy had joined Hornigold to learn the ropes of piracy. At the time of Peter's capture, Sam had taken it upon himself to attack Peter's ship while Hornigold was away getting supplies.

Three weeks after Peter was taken, a difference arose amongst Hornigold's crew about whether or not to attack English ships. Hornigold did not wish to attack them, but Sam and others felt they were missing out on too many potentially lucrative targets. Following pirate tradition, the entire crew voted. Sam was elected captain and sailed away with half of the crew and some captives. Hornigold went his own way with the dissenting pirates, including a man named Edward Teach, who would later become known as Blackbeard.

Bellamy and his crew of pirates traveled through Baya Honda, Cape Corrientes, and the Isle of Pines, then around to the eastern tip of Cuba. From June to August 1716, they were on the north coast of what is now Haiti. In September, they were in the area of present-day Puerto Rico. In October, they sailed from Samana Bay to Cape Nicholas, Hispaniola.

Around November or December 1716, Bellamy captured a galley called Sultana in the vicinity of St. Croix. With a few "piratical" alterations, he made her his new flagship. In January 1717, La Buse and his crew decided to leave Bellamy's company and head in another direction. Their parting was friendly.

Early in March, Bellamy was made aware of, either by unknown sources or by spotting, the Whydah, which was setting out on her return voyage to England after making the trip from Africa and the Caribbean (the "Middle Passage") to buy and sell slaves. Bellamy, who was seeking a "Ship of Force" so he could take larger prizes, pursued her. (Trial, 319) Peter's extensive knowledge of the South Caribbean was instrumental to the success of this pursuit, which lasted three days.

Once they caught up to the Whydah, Bellamy only had to fire one or two shots across her bow to make Captain Lawrence Prince surrender. After taking over the ship, Bellamy allowed Captain Prince and some of his men who did not wish to become pirates to sail away in the Sultana with a few provisions and some silver and gold. After taking a few days to re-fit the Whydah to suit the purposes of pirating, Bellamy continued sailing, turning towards the east coast of America.

Around 9:00 a.m. on 26 April 1717, Bellamy and his crew captured a ship called the Mary Anne. Seven names, including Peter's, were read off the watch bill and these were the men sent to board the prize. Five were armed with pistols and cutlasses. They took charge of the ship while sending five of her crew and captain to the Whydah to show Captain Bellamy their papers and be held as prisoners. The remaining crew members were kept on board Mary Anne to help sail the ship.

The pirates soon learned that her hold was loaded with casks of Madeira, however the hatch was covered with heavy cables, making it too difficult for them to get into right then. The pirates had to content themselves with some wine they found in the cabins. A second small boat came over from the Whydah to get some wine to take back there. They also took some of the crew's clothes.

Around 3PM, fog started to settle around the flotilla. This, in addition to being drunk, caused the pirates to have trouble following Bellamy's order to follow the Whydah and keep the vessels together. During the course of the evening, as the weather deteriorated, seven of the eight pirates aboard the Mary Anne worked on moving the cables off of the hatch to get at the Madeira in the hold. Once inside, they broke open the first barrels while taking turns at the helm.

Realizing the Mary Anne was falling behind, Bellamy slacked off long enough to allow them to catch up. He yelled at the pirates to "make more haste." In response, John Brown swore he would make the vessel "carry Sail till she carryed her Masts away." (Trial, 303)

The pirates then ordered their captives to help handle the sails and man the pumps, because the hull of the Mary Anne was leaking. By the time darkness fell, the helm was completely turned over to one captive, Thomas Fitzgerald. The storm was in full force by 10:00 p.m. Twenty to thirty-foot seas battered the Mary Anne. Eventually they lost sight of the Whydah, and found themselves among the breakers where the ship ran aground.

At this point, one or several of the pirates (unnamed), cried out, "For God's sake let us go down into the Hould & Die together." (Trial, 304) The pirates and their captives did spend the night in the hold. Thomas Fitzgerald, in response to a request from the pirates, read from the “Common-Prayer Book, which he did about an Hour . . . ." (Trial, 304)

On the morning of 27 April 1717, the men found that one side of the ship was on dry land and they could walk on to what proved to be an island without having to get their feet wet. They broke open a chest and ate sweetmeats (sugared fruits) and other food they found and drank more wine. A local named John Cole spotted them and, mistaking them for shipwrecked mariners, came across in a canoe to bring them ashore just outside Eastham, Massachusetts. (6) According to local folklore, while at Cole’s house, Peter gazed out the south window of the great room and saw men approaching the house. This posse was led by Cole's son, who had snuck out of the house to inform the authorities about the pirates. Justice of the Peace Joseph Doane finally went with him to check out the situation.

The pirates fled, but stopped at a tavern in Eastham. Legend says that Mr. Doane and the posse caught up to them at the tavern. He used liquor to loosen the pirates’ tongues. Later both the posse and the pirates went to sleep in the taproom. During the night, the pirates woke up and snuck out of the tavern.

Continuing to stick together, they struck out for Rhode Island, which was known to shelter pirates. Before noon, the posse overtook them. They were taken to Boston under a heavy, mounted guard. There they remained in Boston's hot, foul prison until Friday, 18 October 1717, when they were led into the Admiralty Court. (Reynard) They wore the same clothes they had worn the night of the shipwreck.

We shall continue the intriguing story of Peter Hoof in a blog post that will be published very soon.

This article is provided by the Pirates and Privateers blog here.

If you have questions about Peter, you can contact Laura at PeterandLaura55@yahoo.com, or you can visit her blog via: PeterCorneliusHoof.blogspot.com.

Copyright 2013 by Laura Nelson.

Notes

1. Real Pirates tells the story of the Whydah and how she went from being a slave ship to a pirate ship. It’s a traveling exhibition sponsored by National Geographic with artifacts from the Whydah Pirate Museum in Provincetown, Massachusetts and established by Barry Clifford, the underwater explorer who discovered the wreck of the Whydah off Cape Cod.

2. Peter Hoof is not the lover that is mentioned here. That person’s name is Andre.

3. A periaga, more commonly spelled piragua or pirogue, was a canoe favored by Caribbean pirates during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Both Alexandre Exquemelin and William Dampier described them in their books. Benerson Little provides more details on these favored boats in A Sea Rover’s Practice on pages 49-52.

4. Appointed chief physician to the Haslar Naval Hospital in 1797, Thomas Trotter observed young patients who were despondent. “He attributed this to the horror of the patients whose next bed neighbor might be a seaman hospitalized because of brutal lacerations and festering sores at the draining sites of whiplash wounds on his back and buttocks.” (Friedenberg, 31) The United States Navy abolished flogging in 1840.

5. Nowadays we call this phenomenon the Stockholm Syndrome, where hostages or captives identify with their captors and perhaps even to defend them. The name derives from a 1973 hostage incident in Stockholm, Sweden. At the end of six days of captivity in a bank, several kidnap victims actually resisted rescue attempts and afterwards refused to testify against their captors. The behavior is considered a common survival strategy for victims of interpersonal abuse. Two of the most famous examples are Patty Hearst and, more recently, Elizabeth Smart. See "Understanding Stockholm Syndrome" by Nathalie de Fabrique, Stephen J. Romano, Gregory M. Vecchi, and Vincent B. Van Hasselt in the July 2007 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, US Dept. of Justice, FBI, 76:7, 10-15.

6. Eastham is on Cape Cod.

Further information

Burgess, Robert F. Finding Sunken Treasure: True Story of the Pirate Ship Whydah. Spyglass Publications, 2012.

Clifford, Barry. Expedition Whydah: The Story of the World's First Excavation of a Pirate Treasure Ship and the Man Who Found Her. Cliff Street Books, 1999.

Clifford, Barry, and Kenneth J. Kinkor. Real Pirates: The Untold Story of the Whydah from Slave Ship to Pirate Ship. National Geographic, 2007.

Cordingly, David. Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates. Random House, 2006.

Dana, Richard Henry. Two Years Before the Mast. Penguin Books, 1840.

Dethlefsen, Edwin. Whidah: Cape Cod's Mystery Treasure Ship. Seafarer's Heritage Library, 1984. Friedenberg, Zachary B. Medicine under Sail. Naval Institute Press, 2002.

Lee, Robert E. Blackbeard the Pirate: A Reappraisal of His Life and Times. John F. Blair, 1974. Mather, Cotton. "Instructions to the Living, from the Condition of the Dead" in British Piracy in the Golden Age edited by Joel H. Baer. Pickering & Chatto, 2007, 4: 129-144.

Mather, Cotton. “Warnings to Them that Make Haste to be Rich, in British Piracy in the Golden Age edited by Joel H. Baer. Pickering & Chatto, 2007, 4: 145-153.

The Pirate’s Pocket-Book edited by Stuart Robertson. Conway, 2008.

Rediker, Marcus. Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age. Beacon Press, 2005. Reynard, Elizabeth. "The ‘Pyrats’ and the Posse," in The Narrow Land: Folk Chronicles of Old Cape Cod. Chatham Historical Society, 1993.

"The Trials of Eight Persons lndited for Piracy" in British Piracy in the Golden Age edited by Joel H. Baer. Pickering & Chatto, 2007, 2: 289-319. Vallar, Cindy.

 "Cotton Mather, Preacher to the Pirates" at Pirates & Privateers [http://www.cindyvallar.com/mather.html], 2009.

Vanderbilt, Arthur T. Treasure Wreck: The Fortunes and Fate of the Pirate Ship Whydah. Schiffler Publishing, 2007.

Woodard, Colin. The Republic of Pirates: Being the True and Surprising Story of the Caribbean Pirates and the Man Who Brought Them Down. Harcourt, 2007.

Special thanks to Bonnie Cormier of the Eastham Historical Society and Jessy Wheeler of the Boston Public Library for research help. Also to Cefton Springer for the stories of the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails in Barbados (his home country). 

“Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know” - The inimitable and intimate life of Lord Byron

Lord Byron has become an icon in history and literature, and not just thanks to his beautiful and unparalleled command of the English language. Throughout his 36 years, Lord Byron infamously acquired a litany of lovers, some of whom caused controversy, and some who inspired a handful of the most important and beautiful poems ever written. Georgie Broad explains more…

George Gordon Noel Byron was born in 1788 to a small aristocratic family that was rapidly losing its luster. As a whole, Byron’s family life was the epitome of dysfunctional. His father left the family while Byron was a young boy, his mother suffered from schizophrenia and he was put under the care of an abusive nurse. The only place where the young Byron could find familial respite was with his sister Augusta… but more on that relationship a little later.

In 1803, at the tender age of fifteen, Byron fell in love with his distant cousin Mary Chaworth. This love was not reciprocated however, and as is often the nature with unrequited love, his feelings for Mary inspired several of his earlier poems. A few years later Byron began his intermittent studies at Trinity College, Cambridge. While there, studying wasn’t exactly at the forefront of his mind; instead he turned his attentions toward sports, gambling (which forced him deeper into debt) and a great many sexual escapades thanks to how naturally handsome he was.

Lord Byron.

EARLY CONNECTIONS

During his time at Cambridge, though, Byron made some of his first important steps to becoming the man we know so well today. He met John Cam Hobhouse, a lifelong friend who aided his induction into the ideals of liberal politics that remained with him for the rest of his life,and during his last year at Cambridge, he wrote Hours of Idleness, a compilation of poetry. Upon its publication, it received harsh and damning reviews, though they couldn’t have been better for Byron’s success. As a reaction to these scathing reviews, Byron published English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, a satirical piece that openly attacked the literary community with wit and without fear that actually earned him high acclaim throughout the very community he criticized.

At the age of 21, Byron began an intrepid journey around the Mediterranean with his friend Hobhouse, and continued to indulge his two passions on the trip: poetry and a fair few lustful tristes; however his adventure was cut short when he had to return home following the death of his mother. Although in his childhood the two never had a picture postcard relationship, the passing of his mother plunged Byron into a period of deep and desperate mourning. As was characteristic of Byron, he was pulled out of his despair through praise of his work from respected London critics and another string of lovers.

One such lover was the novelist and aristocrat Lady Caroline Lamb who uttered the infamous description of Lord Byron as “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”. Caroline and Byron had a whirlwind romance; passionate, intense, and short lived. Caroline had no qualms about making their love affair very public, and wouldn’t shy away about being demonstrative about her feelings. After their affair ended, Caroline was plunged into depression and turned to drinking to deal with the loss of her love. She also wrote a book, Glenarvon, which detailed their tempestuous romance.

It was at this time, amid the love of Lady Caroline and Lady Oxford, rumors began to circulate about the relations between Byron and his married half-sister, Augusta. To dispel the gossip and to seek a little respite from his Lothario-like ways, Byron proposed marriage to Annabella Millbanke. The marriage was something of a train-wreck from start to finish, and crumbled rapidly due to financial debts, the persistent rumors of incest surrounding Byron and Augusta, and gossip about his sexuality. (Today, it is widely accepted that Lord Byron was bisexual given the accounts of his sexual exploits during his time at school and university with men and women). Although Byron and Millbanke had a daughter, after the ending of their marriage, Byron saw neither his ex-wife nor his daughter again. It was around this time that Byron penned the immortal poem She Walks in Beauty, supposedly about a married woman he met at a ball. The poem has since become an iconic piece of literature and a cornerstone of romantic poetry.

SAILING AWAY

In 1818, Byron set sail for Europe, never to return to England. He saw the European attitude as more romantic, liberal, and accepting of the way he conducted himself. True to form, Byron carried on his womanizing ways while he travelled around with the mother of sci-fi, author Mary Shelley, her husband and her sister - with whom Byron fathered another daughter, Allegra. During these travels, the infamous Don Juan was written, arguably one of Byron’s most successful and important works, a witty and satirical poem that detailed many romantic encounters and was remarkably similar to his own life.

The last and most enduring of his romantic affairs was that with Teresa Giuccioli, a married countess of only nineteen, compared to his 30 years of age at the time. He described her “as fair as sunrise – and as warm as noon” and the two, unlike many affairs of Byron’s before, carried on their relationship unconsummated until Teresa separated from her husband. Although by today’s standards, the relationship seems unconventional, Teresa’s father actually liked Byron, and initiated him into the Carbonari, a group of Italians who sought the independence of Italy and helped bring about the Risorgimento (the process of Italian unification).

Byron died in 1824, aged 36, and was buried in a family vault. He was, and remains, a legend of the literary world, having penned some of the most iconic verse in English literature. He was the king of sharp wit and satire and defined a genre of writing that is still revered to this day. His private life was as turbulent and passionate as his writing, and he can truly be considered one of the masters of romance.

You can read Georgie’s previous article on why King George IV may have been the worst king of England by clicking here.

References

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/romance-passion/great-lovers-a-celebration-of-true-romance-1895508.html?action=gallery&ino=5

http://www.biography.com/people/lord-byron-21124525#last-heroic-adventure&

http://www.bl.uk/people/lord-byron?ns_campaign=disco_lit&ns_mchannel=ppc&ns_source=google&ns_linkname=Lord%20byron&ns_fee=0

An alternative Founding Father – Theodore Roosevelt and the American Conservation Movement

Theodore Roosevelt was an impressive president for a number of reasons, but in many ways he is still quite hard to pin down. In this article, Wout Vergauwen looks at Roosevelt and his presidency through the prism of his one his more unknown policy areas, that of conservation.

There can nothing in the world be more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children’s children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.

 - Theodore Roosevelt, twenty-sixth President of the United States

Ever since Theodore Roosevelt left office in 1909, politicians, historians and naturalists have debated who the twenty-sixth president really was, and how he should be remembered: as a politician, a cowboy, a soldier, a historian, an author, a conservationist, or a hunter. However, Theodore Roosevelt could not be pigeonholed, and that is why he is now remembered as one of most versatile presidents since Thomas Jefferson. Though many aspects of his multi-faceted presidency have been covered by historians, his conservation efforts remain largely underexplored. 

Theodore Roosevelt when in the Rough Riders during the 1898 Spanish-American War. From Harper's Pictorial History of the War with Spain, Volume II. Published in 1899.

The key is to understanding Roosevelt’s conservation policy is that his efforts were not strictly political, but also personal. From his youth onwards, Roosevelt always felt passionate for the nature in which he found comfort while battling illness.[1] As a result, he entered Harvard on the brink of adulthood “intending to become […] a scientific man of the Audubon, or Wilson, or Baird, or Coues type – a man like Hart Merriam, or Frank Chapman, or Hornaday, to-day.”[2] Disappointed in the way science was practiced at university - through the microscope and in the laboratory with little field work - he decided to pursue his fascination for nature elsewhere. In 1888, he founded the Boone and Crockett Club, a foundation concerned with the preservation of big game species and their habitat that quickly became one of the most effective conservation organizations of its day.[3] Prior to his arrival in the White House, several other efforts followed, but the scale of his efforts drastically enlarged once he succeeded William McKinley as president. In his first annual message to a joint Congress, Roosevelt used McKinley’s assassination as a political opportunity to set the domestic agenda of his administration. He indeed managed to get hold of Congress’ attention and shifted it toward what he thought was important - conservation. After that, it was not long before he created his first - and the country’s sixth - national park: Oregon’s Crater Lake.[4]

PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS

Creating a national park, however, was not as simple as one might think, especially since Roosevelt had to create a new mindset. Indeed, Roosevelt did not only need to persuade Congress, but he also needed to invent a whole new policy domain that was understood by the people. Public support was almost nonexistent, or as Roosevelt noted himself in his autobiography: “the relationship between the conservation of natural resources and the ‘national welfare’ had not yet ‘dawned on the public mind’.”[5] The establishment of his conservationist ideals as the hallmark of his presidency was no easy task. Therefore, one should ask how he accomplished what he did and how he profiled himself as the founder of the conservation movement, even though he did not create the first national park, and neither did he establish the National Park Service, Woodrow Wilson’s accomplishment in 1916. Thus, the area that really needs to be addressed first is about the source of his powers, the way he obtained them, and the way he used them. Be sure, these powers were needed. From the beginning onwards, Roosevelt faced fierce opposition, not only from Congress, but also from ranchers, mine operators, loggers, power companies, and the Western states who protested his conservation efforts because they limited the exploitation of natural resources.[6] Even so, within the boundaries of the law, Roosevelt continued to protect the environment and resources for the generations to come, although he dealt rather creatively with Congress and legislation.

A remarkable though interesting way to approach the power issue is through one of the nation’s most popular historical myths: The Frontier Myth. Unlike other rhetorical presidents however, Roosevelt did not just use it, he altered the myth so it could serve his purposes.[7] Being perceived as a frontiersman himself, he used this image to rearticulate the myth and link it to his conservation purposes, thereby promoting his policies. Roosevelt thus needed to persuade his audience and confronted two rhetorical challenges to do so: “First, he had to create a sense of exigency, an urgency to resolve the environmental crisis. Second, he had to formulate a nexus between conservation and values and attitudes that his audience embraced.”[8] In doing so, Roosevelt did not only use the altered Frontiers Myth, but linked his alterations to both the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson. Although, these cannot be seen as “values and attitudes” in a literal way, they serve the purpose perfectly.

The Jefferson link becomes clear when reviewing the first alteration, that of the frontier’s hero. Once perceived as a Jeffersonian yeoman farmer, the myth’s hero had evolved toward the Old West cowboy whose brutal character and limitless exploitation of nature had been turned into virtues by the end of the century. Roosevelt linked the then contemporary farmer to his Jeffersonian counterpart, thereby restoring the “American hero that could symbolize the conservation of the nation’s resources”[9] and thus revitalizing the ‘original’ Frontier Myth. A second alteration dealt with the finite character of the Frontier, where Roosevelt played the commercial, rather than the environmental, card: “if you do not want to preserve nature for nature itself, at least support it for commercial interest.”

STRUGGLES WITH CONGRESS - A BATTLE FOR POWER

After signing the Crater Lake Bill, Roosevelt did not take the time to enjoy the creation of his national park, but started looking for another natural gem worth saving.  He found many, and continued his efforts to create national parks in order to protect them against human exploitation and to save them for the children of the future. In his fourth annual message to Congress, he announced the creation of a National Forest Service: “[…] neither can we accept the views of those whose only interest in the forest is temporary; who are anxious to reap what they have not sown and then move away, leaving desolation behind them […] The creation of a forest service in the Department of Agriculture will have […] important results”[10] Two months later, under the governance of Gifford Pinchot, the Forest Service was indeed put in place. Soon after its creation, the Forest Service accumulated power, so becoming independent from Congress.[11] Because of this, lawmakers were not very accommodating to the president’s following conservation policies and saw an opportunity to make this clear by delaying Roosevelt’s efforts to gain Federal protection for Wyoming’s Devils Tower - often described as the strangest molten rock configuration in North America - the Grand Canyon, and several other sites. Although Roosevelt tried to push this through, Congress did not approve it and the body adjourned for the summer in June 1906.

NATIONAL MONUMENTS - A SMART MOVE

Roosevelt, however, held the upper hand and revealed himself as an even stronger defender of nature. During the spring of 1906 he had gathered a team of preservationists to draft a bill declaring: “that the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments.”[12] The language of the legislation was carefully chosen and sounded inoffensive. Without realizing what they had approved, Senators passed the bill on May 24, 1906, and the House, also not fully understanding the impact of the bill on the floor, followed suit on June 5. Roosevelt signed the bill on June 8, and before apprehending that they were outsmarted by the president, Congressmen went home on June 30 - not to return before the start of their next session on December 3, 1906.  A lot of irony is to be found in this situation since Congress granted, unknowingly, their president the power they tried to hold on to. The newly ‘invented’ National Monuments did not need Congressional approval - as opposed to the National Parks - and gave the president free reign to protect whichever natural site he wanted to, something that he did. Wyoming’s Devils Tower was proclaimed the first national monument on September 24, and before the end of the year three others – El Morro (NM), Montezuma Castle (AZ) and the Petrified Forest (AZ) – would be added to that list. When Roosevelt left office in 1909, fourteen additional national monuments were created; whereas no new national parks were added to the list until Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, added Glacier National Park to the list in 1910.

This circumvention of Congress was only one example of what Theodore Roosevelt tried to accomplish: making the presidency more powerful. He never made an effort to hide his belief that the executive should be the most powerful branch of government and accomplished this in many ways.[13] Accusations that he usurped congressional powers were publicly ridiculed which made Congressmen yearn openly “for the day when [Theodore Roosevelt] would no longer lead – when [Congress] would have again a President in the mold of McKinley.”[14]

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

[1] D. Brinkley, The Wilderness warrior. Theodore Roosevelt and the crusade for America, New York (NY), Harper Perennial, 2010, p. 22.

[2] O.H. Orr, Saving American Bird: T. Gilbert Pearson and the Founding of the Audubon Movement, Gainesville (FL), University Press of Florida, 1992, p. 74

[3] S. Marvinney, “Theodore Roosevelt, Conservationist” In: New York State Conservationist, 50 (1996), 6, [retrieved from: web.ebscohost.com on November 23, 2013]

[4] Already existing national parks were: Yellowstone, Sequoia, General Grant, Yosemite, and Mount Rainier.

[5] L.G. Dorsey, “The Frontier Myth in Presidential Rhetoric: Theodore Roosevelt’s Campaign for Conservation” In: Western Journal of Communications, 59 (1995), 1, p. 2.

[6] D.O. Buehler, “Permanence and Change in Theodore Roosevelt’s Conservation Jeremiad” In: Western Journal of Communications, 62 (1998), 4, p. 446.

[7] L.G. Dorsey, art. cit., p. 3.

[8] D.O. Buehler, art. cit., p. 441.

[9] L.G. Dorsey, art. cit., p. 8.

[10] T. Roosevelt, Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1904 [retrieved from: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu on November 29, 2013]

This is part of a larger excerpt: “The forest policy of the government is just now a subject of vivid public interest throughout the West and the people of the United States in general […] The forest reserve policy can be successful only when it has the full support of the people of the West. It can not safely, and should not in any case, be imposed upon them against their will. But neither can we accept the views of those whose only interest in the forest is temporary; who are anxious to reap what they have not sown and then move away, leaving desolation behind them […] The creation of a forest service in the Department of Agriculture will have for its important results: First. A better handling of all forest work […] Second. The reserves themselves […] will be more easily and more widely useful to the people of the West than has been the case hitherto […] Third. Within a comparatively short time the reserves will become self-supporting.”

[11] W.H. Harbaugh, op. cit., p. 323.

[12] “An Act For the preservation of American antiquities.” In: US Statutes at Large, Volume 34, Part 1, Chapter 3060, p. 225.

[13] L.G. Dorsey, art. cit., p. 2.

[14] W.H. Harbaugh, op. cit., p. 333.

The Great War and Prussia’s Early Beginnings

Many reasons and paths led to the outbreak of World War One. One of these paths was the growth of Prussia, the state that became the most important part of Germany. In this article, Robert Van Ness tells us of Prussia’s role in the Crusades.

The Great War, perhaps better known today as World War One, turns 100 this year. It has been overshadowed for some by events happening after 1918, which is understandable. Yet a travesty all too often occurs when history teachers or students skip over this watershed historical moment in favor of studying World War Two or events thereafter. World War One was a beginning and ending at the same time. It was a culmination point of nineteenth century nationalistic idealism, but by 1918 that nationalist pride had been all but shattered. Indeed, World War Two would put the final nails in the nineteenth century’s coffin, but World War One created the coffin, and put the corpse therein. How did such a war come about? By 1914, man was supposed to be in a belle epoque, a time when war was unthinkable, especially in highly civilized Europe. But that’s just where the war was centered. Many theories have been postulated such as anti-god philosophies, imperialist expansion, economic blunders, and arms races. None of those theories are wrong, but when any of those theories stand alone, they miss the broader spectrum. This article cannot paint the entire picture alone, but it would like to trace events leading up to June 1914 through one of the major players, Prussia.

Prussia by 1914 was wholly incorporated into the Second German Reich (Empire). Its rise to power was nothing short of breathtaking considering the relatively short period in which the province rose from nothing to world power. And this rise can be traced back to the Crusades.

Pope Honorius III.

THE CRUSADES

Prussia’s fight for existence actually begins in part with the Catholic Crusades. Many Germans answered the Pope’s call for a Holy Land adventure in which killing infidels was favorably viewed by God. Germany during this era was part of the Holy Roman Empire, thus when God’s man came calling for help, loyal soldiers came willing to serve. Many knightly orders were founded in the Holy Land such as the Hospitallers and Templars. Their goals included protecting pilgrims, offering medical care, and establishing Christian states. The Teutonic Order, though small, was one of the most important orders in accomplishing these many ambitions.

The Ordo Domus Sanctae Mariae Theutonicorum Hierosolymitanorum was established around 1190 in Acre, one of the main crusading kingdoms, but their time in Acre was quite short lived. After controlling import/export tolls for the region for about 20 years, the Teutonic Knights, as well as other Crusaders, were pushed out of the region by a stern Islamic backlash. The Teutons fled mostly to Transylvania, where they were invited by King Andrew II. While there, the Knights participated in campaigns against the Cumans. The Knights, however, began organizing plans to establish a state of their own.

IN HUNGARY

Hungarian King Andrew II would not tolerate such a force in his lands unless it obeyed him. The Knights stated that their cause was a Christian cause, not solely Hungarian. That being the case, they refused to submit to Andrew, who foolishly expelled his greatest fighting force. Invading Islamic armies would soon overrun a rather hapless Hungary, and remain close by for about 400 years. The Teutons, though, were invited to invade a here-to-for ‘pagan’ region by Pope Honorius III, Emperor Frederick II, and Duke Konrad I of Masovia.

The Golden Bull of Rimini, issued by Frederick II, formally established set lands for the Order at Culm (Chelmo). The Knights simply had to wage war against the pagan inhabitants and win. Many Imperial and Church officials signed the Bull, including Konrad, who churlishly attempted to take the promised lands for himself. His actions almost undid the entire operation, and even threatened to destroy his very own Imperial Duchy of Masovia.

Emperor Frederick II called for Teutonic Crusades into the Baltic.

Amid such instability, the Teutonic Knights made light work of the campaign. By 1230, after four years of fighting, the Teutonic Knights forced Konrad into signing the Treaty of Kruszwica. Grand Master Hermann von Salza then assumed control of Chelmo and all lands won during the Prussian Campaign. Four years later Pope Gregory IX sent out the Golden Bull of Rieti, restating the order’s claims that they were subject only to the Pope. Thus the newly established Prussian kingdom was subject to no one but God, and the region became a province of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Teutonic Knights organized their new lands into a monastic state soon after the lands were secured. As such a state, the Teutonic purpose was to stage crusades into pagan northeastern European lands such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, and Poland.

To further aid the cause, the Knights brought the Order of Dobrzyn and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword under their sway. Both groups had been unsuccessfully crusading against the pagans for decades. Their inclusion into the Teutonic state added considerable lands along the Baltic coast, thus ensuring Teutonic, and later Prussian, conflict with Poland and Russia for centuries to come.

Much work was done during this period. The Knights drew from their Germanic homelands, and an influx of German immigrants from all over the Holy Roman Empire migrated into rapidly fortifying cities all along the region’s rivers and Baltic coastline. Together, the immigrants and Knights irrigated the swamplands, built new cities, and began forging a solid, productive state in what was a foreign, unwelcoming land.

These medieval Germans laid the foundation for modern Prussia and Germany. What they did not know at the time was that they were doing much more than that. They were also laying the foundation for future wars including World Wars One and Two.  But to get to that point one must walk through the events leading to the Great War of 1914 - of which Prussia played a huge part.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

Balloon Busters. The daredevils of World War One?

Airplanes evolved at a rapid pace during World War I. With this evolution, came a growing number of daredevil pilots who took great risks. Possibly the most daring of them all were the balloon busters, fearless pilots who did an often forgotten task.

The First World War was unusual in many ways. One was that, for the first time in military history, the air became a battlefield. No longer were combatants confined to land and sea, now they could exploit the military potential of what in 1914 was a relatively new invention – the aircraft.

The sheer speed at which aircraft evolved from barely more than powered gliders into fully-fledged weapons was staggering. In 1914 aircraft were so fragile and underpowered that carrying even the weight of a machine gun was usually beyond them. By 1918 there existed fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance aircraft, while the weapons and tactics had evolved. In 1914 a typical dogfight often consisted of one aircraft from either side with pilots firing their service pistols at each other. By 1918 aircraft were stronger, faster, more agile and carried machine guns, bombs, and rockets. In only four years combat flying evolved from two pilots with pistols using the same aircraft for any and every purpose into fully-fledged air forces with custom-designed aircraft flying and fighting in huge numbers. It was a common theme among those veterans who survived that, by 1918, if there weren’t at least fifty or sixty aircraft involved in a dogfight, it wasn’t a proper dogfight.

Belgian pilot Willy Coppens, balloon buster of the First World War.

BALLOON BUSTERS

The fighter aces became heroes overnight, but seldom lived to enjoy their celebrity. Men who became household names at the time are almost entirely forgotten today. Manfred von Richthofen (the famous ‘Red Baron’) lives on as the most famous fighter pilot of all time, but few remember Edward ‘Mick’ Mannock, James McCudden, Rene Fonck or Werner Voss. But one elite group of fighter aces are especially neglected today, the ‘balloon busters’.

So who were they, what did they do, how did they do it and what military value did they have? Simply, they specialized in flying high-risk missions behind enemy lines to destroy enemy observation balloons. So high were the risks that many balloon busters attacked either alone or with only one or two fellow pilots. Squadron commanders recognized the extreme risks by making balloon busting missions largely voluntary, although pilots could be ordered to attack balloons if they were proving particularly troublesome to friendly ground troops.

Balloons were highly valued for several reasons. They could hover at high altitudes and monitor enemy behavior, spotting troop movements, new supply and munitions dumps, whether the enemy were stockpiling supplies and munitions, and if they were moving fresh troops forward to defend against an upcoming offensive or mount one of their own. Their other standard purpose was artillery spotting. Gunners often lacked a direct view of the enemy due to distance, weather conditions and geographical factors like ridgelines and hills. To accurately shell enemy targets they needed balloons to literally ‘call the shots’ by spotting where shells landed and directing gunners accurately on to important targets. Balloons were immensely valuable for intelligence gathering and artillery spotting. Protecting friendly balloons while destroying enemy balloons became increasingly important as the war ground on.

The targets, enemy observation balloons.

DANGEROUS REWARDS

Balloon busters attacked balloons in addition to flying regular combat missions. Nowadays, people thinking of First World War aces usually think about those destroying enemy aircraft, the dogfighters. One thing separating most balloon busters from regular fighter aces was that many of the war’s most famous aces actively refused to attack balloons at all. Manfred von Richthofen never attacked a balloon. Top-scoring British ace Edward ‘Mick’ Mannock scored his first ‘kill’ by destroying a balloon, but found the job so dangerous that he never attacked another. French ace Rene Fonck, top-scoring Allied ace of the war with 75 confirmed kills, never shot down a balloon.

It could also be readily argued that hindering enemy intelligence gathering and artillery spotting was often of greater value than dogfighting, shooting down one or two enemy aircraft if they were lucky and then returning to base. Granted, deaths of famous aces such as Richthofen, Major Lanoe Hawker (himself killed by Richthofen) and American balloon buster Frank Luke caused some damage to enemy morale, but the vast majority of aircrew killed died with little recognition outside of their squadrons, families and friends. Destroying observation balloons had genuine influence on the local progress of the war. Shooting down novice enemy fighter pilots and very occasionally killing a leading enemy ace simply didn’t have the same value.

So how did they do it? They checked reports of balloons sighted behind enemy lines, examined intelligence on enemy defenses, plotted the least-dangerous route to their target and attacked. Fortunately, pilots had some specialist weapons to assist them. These were designed to take advantage of the chronic German shortage of helium, the non-flammable gas often used by Allied balloons. In the absence of helium, German balloons usually used hydrogen but, while hydrogen is lighter than air and as good as helium for lifting a balloon, it is explosive when mixed with air and any kind of flame. Even a cigarette end could cause a hydrogen-filled balloon to explode. The first of these specialist weapons was the Le Prieur rocket designed by French officer Yves Le Prieur in 1915. This was simply a larger form of firework rocket containing a charge of gunpowder and tipped with a sharp iron spike to pierce a balloon just before the gunpowder detonated. Le Prieur rockets were unguided and woefully inaccurate at more than 120 feet from their targets, but they were also the first air-to-air missiles in military history and cutting-edge weapons for their time.

Pilots on both sides also used special incendiary bullets containing phosphorous. The incendiary bullets gradually replaced rockets owing to their greater accuracy and range. Using them, however, carried a particularly nasty risk. Downed pilots whose aircraft were found carrying incendiary ammunition were likely to be summarily shot by their captors rather than taken prisoner. Some pilots carried written orders from their commanders explicitly stating incendiary ammunition was exclusively for use against balloons and not for strafing runs on trenches, infantry columns or other human targets, but this didn’t stop balloon busters risking summary execution - assuming that they survived being shot down to start with. Another specialist weapon, equally likely to incur summary execution, was the phosphorous canister used by flying over a balloon and dropping the canister like a normal bomb. Ground troops had particular loathing for phosphorous canisters and especially for pilots who used them. They carried 20 pounds of white phosphorous and could easily miss a balloon entirely, landing instead among defending ground troops with horrifying results.

TACTICS FOR ATTACK

Pilots also developed specialized tactics. They never flew straight and level when attacking balloons, usually preferring a shallow dive at high speed, making a single pass and escaping rather than risk a second attempt. Enemy defenses were usually too heavy for any pilot wanting to survive to attack a balloon more than once. Some pilots favored flying deep behind enemy lines before circling round and attacking from within enemy territory. Enemy gunners often opened fire much later rather than risk a friendly fire incident and pilots could make a single high-speed pass while headed for their own lines, making a successful escape much more likely. On larger-scale raids often involving multiple aircraft and multiple targets, one group would attack the balloons while another remained as ‘top cover’, circling at higher altitude to defend against enemy fighter patrols. Enemy fighters were often assigned specifically to patrol balloons, providing both physical defense and a deterrent to all but the bravest or most reckless enemy pilots.

The frequent fate of would-be aces. Balloon buster Heinrich Gontermann’s Fokker Triplane, destroyed on a balloon busting mission.

You might think that balloon busting was already dangerous enough without any additional risks. Unfortunately for balloon busters the job of enemy defenders was to make it as dangerous as humanly possible. Balloons were connected to the ground by a winch allowing them to an agreed height and no higher. Heavy anti-aircraft guns used clockwork shells designed to explode at altitudes set by their gunners and gunners always set them to explode at roughly the same height as the balloons they protected. As if heavy guns weren’t bad enough, balloons were almost always held below 3,500 feet, the maximum accurate range of light and heavy machine guns. Balloons were invariably protected by a half-dozen or more machine guns of varying calibers. Infantry were also encouraged to fire rifle volleys at any enemy aircraft diving within range. One weapon particularly feared by Allied pilots was the Hotchkiss 37mm gun firing five shells at once. The shells glowed bright green as they came up in clumps, leading Allied pilots to nickname them ‘flaming onions’.

One particularly nasty weapon was the booby-trapped balloon. These were used by both sides and deliberately left at a tempting altitude for enemy fighters. Instead of a human observer a straw dummy dressed in uniform was placed in the basket. The remainder of the basket was filled with a 500-pound explosive charge detonated from the ground. First World War fighters were immensely fragile by today’s standards and being anywhere near such large explosions frequently proved fatal. The booby traps did occasionally backfire on their users, literally in the case of Belgian ace Willy Coppens. Coppens attacked a balloon that was strangely unprotected by ground fire and, like many pilots before him, didn’t realize the balloon was manned by a dummy until it was too late. Unfortunately for the Germans, the bomb failed to explode while Coppens shredded the hydrogen-filled balloon with incendiary bullets. The bomb-laden basket, now itself thoroughly alight, promptly descended into the middle of the German positions where the impact and fire finally detonated it causing considerable casualties on the ground. Coppens, the highest-scoring balloon ace of the war, regarded it as one of his luckiest escapes while the opinion of the defending Germans is unrecorded. This is probably just as well.

The grave of Frank Luke, probably the First World War’s most famous balloon buster.

​A DANGEROUS LIFE

Despite the undoubtedly extreme risks, many ambitious young pilots tried their hand at balloon busting. Given its extreme danger and spectacular nature balloon busting was the quickest route to fame and medals for young fighter pilots wanting to make their name. Many died. Some tried it once or twice before sticking to conventional dogfighting and a few made it their specialty. Belgium’s Willy Coppens was the highest-scoring balloon buster of the war. France’s Henri Bourjade, the Royal Flying Corps’ Anthony Beauchamp-Proctor and German pilots like Erich Lowenhardt and Heinrich Gontermann destroyed hundreds of balloons between them. Most famous of all was the American Frank Luke, whose career lasted only eighteen days before his death, during which he destroyed fourteen balloons and also shot down four German aircraft. For ambitious young pilots wanting fame and rapid promotion, balloon busting seemed like the fast track to immortality. For most of them it was really the fast track to their graves.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/balloon_busters.php

Guttman, Jon; Dempsey, Harry. Balloon-Busting Aces of World War 1. Osprey Publishing, 2005

Shores, Christopher; Franks, Norman; Guest, Russell. Above the Trenches: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the British Empire Air Forces 1915-1920 Grub Street, 1990.

Hart, Peter: Aces Falling: War Above The Trenches, Phoenix Books, 2008.

Lee, Arthur Gould; Open Cockpit, Grub Street, 2012.

Lewis, Cecil; Sagittarius Rising, Pen And Sword Books, 2009.

Image Sources

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3878426

http://www.sabix.org/bulletin/b28/kerisel.html

http://www.pourlemerite.org/wwi/air/gontermann.html

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9233

History has arrived! The Summer issue of History is Now Magazine…

In the northern reaches of our world, summer is well under way. So what better way to enjoy it than to read a bumper edition of your favorite history magazine, History is Now? The new issue features a wide range of articles, including the tragic story of Mary Todd, the wife of Abraham Lincoln.

The new issue of History is Now magazine is out now.

To find out more, take up a free trial of the magazine for up to 2 months and download your free copy of our interactive digital magazine for iPad, iPhone and Android today!

Click here for information on the iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on Android

Here is what our editor has to say…

It has arrived! Summer is here and to celebrate we have a bumper issue for you that features a wide variety of amazing events and topics in history. Perfect while you’re on the beach.

We start with a fascinating look at the life of Mary Todd, Abraham Lincoln’s wife. She suffered great loss and in many ways her life was like a Greek Tragedy. We’re then going to keep the magazine’s international focus and look at a very personal memoir from somebody who visited Berlin in the days after the Berlin Wall fell down in 1989. The article features a history of the Berlin Wall too. After that, we have the tale of the travelling executioner. Sound odd? Well it is an intriguing tale of how the state of Mississippi executed people in the 1940s and 1950s, with an even more intriguing executioner.

The focus then remains on American history with an article about the death of Mormon Saint Joseph Smith in 1844, followed by a look at the history of the naming of the US Civil War. There were a variety of debates until very recently around the name for the conflict that this article considers. The Civil War plays a part in the article after that too as we take a rather unique look at slavery in the Northern states of America.

Moving on, we arrive to a conflict between Pancho Villa of Mexico and the American Army, specifically General Pershing’s Punitive Expedition of 1916. To complement that piece, we include a podcast on World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower. The penultimate article considers how European and American fur-traders interacted with third gender Indigenous people in the Pacific Northwest region. This well-researched article is certainly thought provoking. And finally, in our photo-essay, we take a personal look at how the Vikings have influenced a modern-day woodcarver.

Click here for information on the iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on the Android

With all of that, I’m sure that you will enjoy this month’s History is Now magazine.

Click on one of the links below to enjoy the magazine today for free…

Click here for information on the iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on the Android

George Levrier-Jones

How Hollywood blurred the facts of one of the trials of the century

The trial of the century? In this article Edward Vinski looks at a famous 1925 trial between religion and science. And how later Hollywood and Broadway depictions blurred the truth of events.

Perhaps twentieth century America’s most famous clash between religion and science occurred in Dayton, Tennessee. Science teacher John T. Scopes stood trial for teaching the theory of human evolution by natural selection to a class of high school students. Over the course of eleven days in July 1925, news reporters from all around the United States crowded into the small town to cover what was called “the trial of the century”. Much of the interest in the case stemmed from the fact that Scopes was defended by Clarence Darrow, perhaps the country’s most famous trial attorney, while William Jennings Bryan, the former Secretary of State and three-time Presidential nominee, aided the prosecution. The trial peaked when Darrow put Bryan on the witness stand to answer questions about the Bible, and culminated with a guilty verdict that was ultimately and anti-climactically overturned on a technicality. That Bryan died in Dayton a few days after the trial ended only added to its drama.

John T. Scopes in 1925

FROM TENNESSEE TO BROADWAY

The story, however, did not end in Dayton. In 1955, Inherit the Wind, a play based on the events of the trial, opened on Broadway. Written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee, the play used the trial as a metaphor for McCarthy-ism with the Scopes character representing those blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Five years later, the play was turned into a film starring Academy Award winners Spencer Tracey and Frederic March in the Darrow and Bryan roles respectively. Both the play and the film were well received and have been remade several times over the ensuing decades.

The popularity of these fictionalized accounts has, though, produced an interesting by-product. Many people have come to believe that the film/stage versions are accurate depictions of what occurred in 1925. Easterbrook (N.D.) suggested that “many Americans know the Scopes trial not from history books but from ‘Inherit the Wind’.” Unfortunately, Inherit the Wind distorts the facts of the trial, and while I think most of us expect a certain amount of Hollywood-izing where ‘based on a true story’ films are concerned, we run into great dangers if we treat such fictionalized accounts as historical documents.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

As we approach the 90th anniversary of the Scopes Trial, I would like to set some of the record straight. In doing so, I will avoid discussing minor instances of creative license, and keep my focus on the aspects of the 1960 film that can cause misunderstanding of the facts of the case.

We begin with the arrest and indictment of the defendant, John T. Scopes. The film opens with the Scopes character teaching his biology class when the lesson is interrupted by the authorities placing him under arrest. The truth was somewhat less dramatic. Following the passage of Tennessee’s anti-evolution law in May 1925, the ACLU offered to assist any schoolteacher who challenged the law. Upon hearing this, local business leaders, school board personnel and attorneys concocted a scheme in which a local teacher would be tried for violating the statute. The resulting trial would not only challenge the controversial law, but it would also serve as a publicity stunt for the town which had fallen on hard times (Moore, 1999). Scopes, 24-years-old at the time, was the local high school’s general science teacher and football coach. He was tracked down not in his classroom, but on a local tennis court and brought to a Dayton drug store where the conspirators were scheming over breakfast. Upon his arrival, he was asked whether he would be willing to let his name be used in the case. Scopes was opposed to the anti-evolution law although he knew very little about it, being primarily a physics and math teacher. In fact, there is some question as to whether or not he ever actually taught an evolution lesson while substituting for the regular biology teacher (Benen, 2000). His uncomplicated life also made the young, unmarried, childless Scopes an attractive candidate as he would have little to lose from this scheme. After some discussion, Scopes accepted (Larson, 2006).

A nearby justice of the peace swore out an arrest warrant, handed it to a police officer who promptly served the papers to Scopes. While the conspirators made phone calls to newspapers announcing the upcoming trial which would help put their town “on the map”, the accused left the drug store to resume playing tennis (Larson, 2006). Within days of the announcement, Bryan volunteered his services to the prosecution, Darrow agreed to aid the defense, and the trial of the century was set to begin.

MORE ERRORS

This, however, brings us to another point of comparison between Inherit the Wind and the actual trial: Scopes’ treatment while in custody. The film shows the Scopes character languishing alone in a jail cell, being taunted and threatened with lynching by his fellow townspeople, and intimidated by prosecutors who were out for blood. Again the truth tells a different story. As one might gather from Scopes’ post-‘arrest’ tennis match, he never spent one minute in jail. The crime was, in fact, a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of “not less than One Hundred $(100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred $(500.00 ) Dollars for each offense” (1925 Tennessee House Bill, 185).

In addition, far from being hated by the populace, Scopes was generally well liked by his fellow townspeople and this opinion seems to have been shared by members of the prosecution (Larson, 2006). In fact, during the noon recess on one particularly hot day, Scopes went swimming with two of the prosecuting attorneys, Wallace Haggard and William Jennings Bryan, Jr. They enjoyed themselves so much that they lost track of time and were late returning to the courthouse. Upon their arrival, they found that the trial had proceeded without them, and they had difficulty squeezing through the crowded courtroom to take their places.

We have begun to get a flavor for how Inherit the Wind helped to establish the Scopes Trial myth at the expense of its facts. One would expect that Scopes would be the central figure of his own trial. The personalities that dominated it, though, were such that the defendant became an afterthought.

Edward Vinski is Associate Professor of Education at St. Joseph's College in New York.

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world! Like it, share it, or tweet about it by clicking on the buttons below!

References

Benen, S. (2000). Inherit the Myth: How the movie version of the Scopes trial monkeyed with the facts. Church and State, 53, 15-16.

Easterbrook, G. (N.D.). The Scopes trial vs. “Inherit the Wind”. Retrieved from http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/The-Scopes-Trial-Vs-Inherit-The-Wind.aspx

Larson, E. J. (2006). Summer for the gods: The scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York: Basic Books.

Moore, R. (1999). Creationism in the United States: The lingering impact of Inherit the Wind. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 246-250.

1925 Tennessee House Bill, 185.

A Founding Father in London. John Adams’ troubles

John Adams was one of the Founding Fathers of the USA. After US independence was achieved, he served in a number of positions, including as the US Minister to Britain, a crucial role at the time. Here, Steve Strathmann looks at how Adams fared while in London.

After the American Revolution and throughout the nineteenth century, Anglo-American relations saw many highs and lows. While the United Kingdom and the United States only went to war once during this period (War of 1812), tensions were always close to the surface. This situation made the position of United States Minister to the Court of St. James’ one of the most important in the US State Department. Among the many men who held this post (including five future presidents), three members of the Adams family served in London at points during or after times of war. John, his son John Quincy and his grandson Charles Francis all faced challenges during their terms, but each contributed to the slow but steady strengthening of bonds between the British and their former American colonies. This first of three articles will deal with the first American minister to London, John Adams.

A portrait of John Adams, circa 1792. By John Trumbull.

Meeting George III

At the time of his appointment to London in 1785, John Adams had been in Europe for about three years. During that period, he had served as ambassador to the Netherlands (a post he would continue to hold while in England) and served on the committee that negotiated the Treaty of Paris, which ended the war with Britain.

He presented his credentials to King George III on June 1, 1785. In his speech to the king, Adams stated that he hoped that he could help restore the “good old nature and good old humor between people who... have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood.”

John Adams later reported that George III seemed very affected by the meeting. In his response, the king stated that he was the last person to agree to the breakup between Great Britain and the American colonies. On the other hand, since it was now fact he “would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power.”

Public Reception of Minister Adams

The choice of Adams as the chief American representative in Britain was widely scorned by the London press. This was no surprise, given Adams’ roles in promoting American independence and negotiating the treaty which achieved that end. According to historian Joseph J. Ellis, the press reaction to Adams was “much like the Vatican would have greeted the appointment of Martin Luther”. Adams took the way that some people acted towards him during his term as showing guilt and shame, as opposed to anger. He wrote in his diary after one awkward party in March 1786: “They feel that they have behaved ill, and that I am sensible of it.”

John’s wife, Abigail, had joined him in Europe. She helped fortify him against the attacks, but also had to deal with slights of her own. For example, the wife of an MP once asked her, “But surely you prefer this country to America?” John Adams’ official relations with British authorities were more cordial than with the press and some of the public, but that didn’t necessarily show up in any kind of diplomatic results.

Diplomatic Standoff

John Adams’ primary goals while in London were to settle violations of the Treaty of Paris and arrange a trade agreement between the two nations. Among the violations, British troops continued to occupy posts along the Great Lakes. When this was brought up to Foreign Minister Lord Carmarthen, he countered that prewar debts owed by American farmers to British creditors had yet to be paid, also a treaty violation. This is one example of the stalemate on treaty issues that Adams was unable to break during his tenure.

Adams also made no progress on a trade agreement with the British. The trade balance was firmly in London’s favor at this time. They felt no need to make concessions on items such as opening their West Indies ports to American ships. Unfortunately for Adams, he had just as many problems dealing with his own government as with Lord Carmarthen and the British.

This was because of the rules set forth under the Articles of Confederation. Congress had no power over foreign trade, so it could not help in arranging any trade agreement with Great Britain. The military was so weak under this system that it could do nothing about British forces on the Great Lakes even if it wanted to. Congress also proved slow in providing instructions to its ambassadors. In fact, when Adams requested to be relieved of his European posts in order to return home on January 24, 1787, Congress didn’t approve his request until October 5. Due to the slow pace of communications across the Atlantic Ocean, Adams didn’t receive this news until mid-December, almost a year after sending his request.

Progress Elsewhere

Though John Adams may have struggled in his negotiations with the British, this period was not unproductive for him. He, along with Thomas Jefferson, did finalize deals with several other nations. Prussia signed the only trade agreement that the Americans were able to complete during Adams’ term on August 8, 1786. A treaty with Morocco was signed in early 1787, in which the United States agreed to pay for the protection of American shipping. They also secured additional loans for the United States from the Dutch.

John Adams also made his thoughts known back home over the future of the United States government. The weakness of the Confederation Congress had led many to call for changes to, or an entire replacement of, the Articles of Confederation. Adams’ contribution to this debate was A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, which he had published in London and shipped to America. In this book, Adams argued for a bicameral legislature (as opposed to the single Confederation Congress) and an executive branch empowered to carry out the laws and defend the nation. The book was well received in the States, and James Madison wrote that it would be “a powerful engine in forming the public opinion.”

Return to America

John Adams made so little headway during his three years in London that his post would remain vacant for the next four years. In his final meeting with George III, the king assured him that when the Americans met their treaty obligations, his government would as well. After Adams left London on March 30, 1788, the Westminster Evening Post reported that he “settled all his concerns with great honor; and whatever his political tenets may have been, he was much respected and esteemed in this country.”

No one knew at the time, but this would not be the last time an Adams would represent his nation in the Court of St. James. In 1815, following another Anglo-American war, John Quincy Adams would assume his father’s former position in the diplomatic corps.

Read more about John Adams and why Independence Day may not actually be on July 4. Click here now!

References

Butterfield, L.H. et al., eds. Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Belkamp Press of Harvard University Press, 1962.

Ellis, Joseph J. First Family: Abigail Adams & John. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.

Holton, Woody. Abigail Adams. New York: Free Press, 2009.

Madison, James. Volume 1 of Letters and Other Writings of James Madison. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1865. Accessed June 21, 2014. http://books.google.com/.

McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

United States Department of State. “The United Kingdom-Countries-Office of the Historian.” http://history.state.gov/countries/united-kingdom. Accessed June 15, 2014.