Was George Washington really a drug addict?

A multitude of myths and legends surround first US president George Washington. Some of these turn out to be true - but surely the first American president wasn’t a drug addict? Simone Flynn assesses how George Washington used drugs and drank alcohol to determine the myth and the reality…

Washington as Farmer at Mount Vernon by Julius Brutus Stearns, 1851. But did Washington's activity on his Mount Vernon estate include excessive drug or alcohol consumption?

My name is George Washington and I’m a laudanum addict – maybe.

In a spoken word section of The Fugs song “Wide, Wide River” (from the 1968 album “It Crawled Into My Hand, Honest), the singer/speaker bemoans, a “supposedly democratic system, where you end up always voting for the lesser of two evils? I mean, was George Washington the lesser of two evils? Sometimes I wonder...”

By modern standards we’ve long known that Washington, the father of the US, was not perfect. For one thing, he was a slave owner. He may have been an adulterer. And, according to some sources, he may have been a drug addict or an alcoholic. The tricky aspect of assessing these claims are that, like much of his life, it’s sometimes hard to separate the reality from the myth - although the well-known cherry tree myth seems unequivocally to be the latter!

The evidence pointing to Washington as being a possible addict is:

1.     Washington grew hemp, which like marijuana contains THC (but much less)

2.     After his two terms as president, he opened a whiskey distillery at his plantation home at Mount Vernon

3.     Washington seemed fond of Madeira, a fortified Portuguese wine, and complained that he thought his servants were drinking it up

4.     Washington was known to consume laudanum, an addictive substance

Scant evidence?

While Washington was upset about how much Madeira his servants might be drinking, it was the outrage of a rich person upset over being taken advantage of by the help, not an alcoholic worried about his stash. The distillery, too, wasn’t for personal consumption (at least not primarily) but as a moneymaking enterprise.

And while he drank a lot, at alcoholic levels to modern sensibilities, so did the other Founding Fathers. At the last meeting of the Continental Congress, enough alcohol was consumed for each delegate to have more than two bottles apiece to themselves. And alcohol such as hard cider was served with most meals, including breakfast, in part because water often wasn’t safe.

The hemp use isn’t particularly damning either, as hemp then was used mainly for rope, paper and other commercial purposes, not recreational drug use, and there’s no documented and little circumstantial evidence that Washington smoked its flowers.

Washington’s laudanum consumption is another matter. Laudanum, a mixture of opium tincture and alcohol, was a widely used medicine at the time, an analgesic and nostrum used for many maladies and ailments. It was cheaper than simple booze because it was considered medicine, so not subject to alcohol taxes. Although it retains some legitimate uses, such as for diarrhea, laudanum is highly addictive, especially if used more often or in greater doses than prescribed. Back then, it might have been as casually abused as other opiates and opioids today. Until 1868, laudanum was pretty much unregulated, and it wasn’t until the early 20th century that its risks were well known.

Washington needed laudanum because of his famously ‘wooden’ teeth, which were actually made of real teeth, both human and animal, and carved ivory (probably from hippopotamus tusks). They were so ill fitting that they caused him constant pain. The belief that they were wooden may be because they would become stained and cracked, thus resembling wood grain. Washington had only one remaining tooth to anchor his dentures.

Many other notable people have been known for or suspected of laudanum addiction over the centuries including poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and authors Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

If Washington was addicted to laudanum, it wasn’t for the purpose of getting high, or even coping with the stress of being the Revolutionary War hero and first President of the United States (talk about pressure). Washington took laudanum for intense pain. He was at worse a high-functioning addict who accomplished a lot and lived to age 67 after suffering from smallpox, tuberculosis and other life-shortening disabilities before the invention of penicillin. That’s quite an achievement.

Please share your thoughts below…

Links

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/22/george-washington-boozehound

http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth/

http://www.projectknow.com/a-complete-guide-to-the-us-presidents-and-their-drug-and-alcohol-use/

http://georgewashington.si.edu/portrait/face.html

Simone Flynn blogs about addiction, recovery, mental health, and wellness. She has asked us to link to a rehabilitation center here.

The 10 Most Common Misconceptions about Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most published figures in history. Hundreds of books have been written regarding his most important legacies on the United States. With all of that publishing there are still many misconceptions about Abraham Lincoln that are taught today in schools and in popular culture. Some misconceptions are obviously inaccurate, while others can be intelligently argued in several directions. Here are the debates around ten of the most common ‘misconceptions’ about Abraham Lincoln as shared by Scott M. Hopkins.

A close-up of the official White House portrait of President Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln the Rail Splitter

Most students of history today are confused when they hear the term rail splitter. It had nothing to do with creating railroad tracks, but actually building rail fences. The task was difficult in the 19th century without the use of modern equipment. It was immensely important in keeping livestock managed and property lines separated. Lincoln excelled at the task as a youth and retained the skill as an adult. The chore lent itself to Lincoln’s peculiar physical attributes; tall and lanky, skinny legs, with robust arms, and mammoth hands.

What many people do not realize is that Lincoln actually hated his backwoods upbringing. Even as president he would outperform his own Union Soldiers in exercises of physical endurance, many half his age. Still his preference was for being indoors and reading. In fact he often did extra manual labor to be paid in borrowed books, then subsequently more labor in order to pay them off when he accidently destroyed the treasured texts he had borrowed. Even during the election, Republicans desperately sold the idea of Lincoln as the backwoods hero. City slickers loved the rail splitter image. Lincoln hated it.

Abraham Lincoln the Atheist

Like many Americans before and after him, Lincoln struggled with his religious faith. The traditional frontier Baptist tradition he was raised with left him with many more questions than answers. His uncertainty should not be confused with Atheism though. As a child Lincoln made great efforts to memorize passages of scripture and to orate them to his siblings and mother.

Following the demoralizing death of his mother Nancy Lincoln in 1818 to milk poisoning, Lincoln denounced Jesus as the Christ repeatedly in public settings. It was further worsened when his first love, Ann Rutledge, died in 1835. He fell into a melancholy state many today might term depression. Some even worried about him taking his own life. William Herndon, a close friend and the earliest biographer maintained Lincoln was not a Christian, though many more biographies have surfaced challenging that. However, towards the end of his life he made several public announcements for the praise of a higher power. He even attempted to contact the spirit of his dead son, Willie, in séance rituals.

Abraham Lincoln Started the Civil War

This topic is contentious in the southern half of the United States as it is commonly understood there that Lincoln was an aggressor to a peaceful separatist movement, known as the Confederate States of America. It does not help that the majority of battles took place in the South, Reconstruction was a failure, and that much of the wealth of the South was invested in slavery, which immediately put businesses, industries, and families out of business at the end of the war. At the height of the Lost Cause movement Lincoln blaming was beginning to receive immense respect among historians.

States’ rights are usually cited as one of the main reasons that Lincoln can be blamed for starting what is still sometimes known as The War of Northern Aggression. Just as states had the right to vote for or against slavery, there is the belief that they could vote to leave the Union. Lincoln held that the secession of South Carolina in December of 1860 - before he would take over the White House - was firmly illegal and pledged not to start the war, but do everything to prepare for it. Imagine today if Donald Trump were elected president. Should states have the right to leave the Union because a majority of people disagree with the candidate who won?

Ironically, Abraham Lincoln advocated for minimal punishment for the Confederacy at the conclusion of the war. His desire to return to investing in infrastructure and creating jobs in the South cannot be measured as he was assassinated before his ideas could become reality.

Abraham Lincoln: The Classic Rags to Riches Story

It is true that Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Kentucky (it’s where we get Lincoln Logs from) and that his father barely completed enough labor to provide for the sustenance of his family, let alone save much money. He also spent much of his youth in the frontier of Indiana in another log cabin.

As a teenager though he learned the importance of entrepreneurship after taking a raft to New Orleans and earning a two fifty cent silver coins from two merchants that he assisted with travel of their cargo. He applied himself to his work thereafter, managing a shop, delivering mail, surveying, and even leading a militia in the Black Hawk War of 1832. None of this gave him wealth, nor did his hard work at teaching himself law pay the dividends it does today. Wealth only came to Lincoln through chance that his wife, Nancy Todd Lincoln, came from a prominent Kentucky plantation family with money invested in land and slaves. Even so, Lincoln himself never lived lavishly.

Abraham Lincoln owned Slaves

According to historian and East Carolina University Professor Gerald J. Prokopowicz in Did Lincoln Own Slaves And Other Frequently Asked Questions about Abraham Lincoln it is one of the most commonly asked questions by all age groups, races, and creeds regarding the fourteenth president. It’s puzzling to consider why someone would have had such an inclination. It is well documented that Lincoln often supported the end to slavery, but only when he supported an end to rebellion and a return to the Constitution. Nevertheless, he never harbored any desire in owning slaves, despite his wife’s immediate family background.

The case that is sometimes made to argue that Lincoln owned slaves is that during a White House function, short on labor, the Lincolns hired a group of ex-slaves to assist with serving guests. The history suggests that they may not have been ex-slaves as the White House thought, nor were they compensated financially, leading to a slavery connotation. The hiring was handled by the White House staff and not Lincoln, and nor were his staff aware of the workers’ situation.

Lincoln detested slavery and wanted its demise ever since he experienced the sight of it on one of his riverboat trips as a teenager to New Orleans. He never owned a plantation property to necessitate slaves and preferred to do the majority of manual labor himself, even while at The White House.

Abraham Lincoln Would Vote for My Party Today

One of the most politically charged assertions is when non-historians attempt to pigeonhole Lincoln into their political party today. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, right at the time of the founding of the party and was the first Republican President of the United States. Initially Lincoln was a Whig, though the party dissolved prior to the 1861 election over the issue of slavery. The formation of the Republican Party was almost exclusively made up of abolitionist former Whigs, hell-bent on ending the spread of slavery into new states and territories.  

Still many of his efforts can be argued to be more in line with today’s Democratic Party. Most notably Lincoln introduced the country’s first income tax, spent lavishly on infrastructure and public assistance, and promoted social justice initiatives like attempting to buy all slaves and then relocate them to Liberia for freedom’s sake. Interestingly much of Lincoln’s support in the election of 1861 is today firmly Democrat, while the South, who failed to put him even on the ballot, is firmly Republican.

Lincoln would not fit conveniently into either party today as his political views were often changing as the Civil War changed. He made decisions that he knew were best for the country and its future. Although he filled his cabinet with Republicans, they were all his most fierce competitors and differed from him in many ways, as evidenced in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s essential Lincoln text, Team of Rivals. Lincoln viewed each competitor as the best at what they did and took advantage of their skills, regardless of personal relationship, social, or political persuasion. In fact, his class of politicising is rarely seen today amongst the careerists and party loyal.

Abraham Lincoln the Abolitionist

We cannot take away the magnitude of what Abraham Lincoln did to end the Civil War and end slavery. His disgust at slavery was apparent and those closest to him knew he waited for each opportunity to rid the United States of it. Ambitious steps like the Emancipation Proclamation – which didn’t actually free slaves – are not the same as the Abolitionist Movement. Abolitionists were on the front lines and often had no support or funding.

Founded in the Atlantic States, the Abolitionist Movement advocated an end to slavery and largely equal rights for black men and women of the United States. It had its roots in Evangelical churches. It was a tireless and often dangerous commitment. Not only was it unpopular prior to 1861, helping slaves through the Underground Railroad was illegal - often leading to business and political suicide. Well-off business owners, church preachers, and hardworking mothers risked everything and often lost everything hiding slaves and defending the equality of others. Many eventually made their way to Canada where slavery was expressly illegal.

Abraham Lincoln Was a Racist

Those that understand Lincoln know that he was not an Abolitionist and certainly did cooperate with slavery until he could remove it. Children of several different generations learned of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator in school. That title is largely dismissed as inaccurate today. Many in the 1960s - namely prominent black journalist Lerone Bennet Jr. - have labelled him nothing more than a typical racist of the time. That was in the heat of the Civil Rights Movement.

The claim set off a firestorm of controversy as several prominent historians arguing both sides began to take shape. Besides the political and war reasons for withholding the end of slavery, Lincoln made a number of outright racist comments during the Douglas Debates in rural Illinois. Comments like: “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” He went on to deny the possibility for intermarriage, blacks to public office, and suggested separation was the best possible outcome.

Today the belief by most historians is that Lincoln was a realist. Many of his decisions while President were motivated by aiding the Union war effort and reuniting the country as whole. They see him shaped and melded by the Radical Republicans of his party. And they recognize that many of his efforts to end slavery and granted citizenship to blacks were revolutionary and hardly necessary for the president.

Abraham Lincoln was Homosexual

One of the most important jobs for historians is to teach subsequent generations of what life was like before them.  As we are further removed from that time it becomes more difficult. In Lincoln’s time, men slept with other grown men when it was feasible. Beds were expensive and it was impractical for Lincoln to have attempted to rent his own room and own bed in rural Illinois in the 1840s.

So when Joshua Speed offered Lincoln a room to rent it was Joshua’s room that they shared. On the lawyer’s circuit, the traveling band along with the judges shared a room and bed because they could rarely find an establishment in backwoods Illinois equipped like a hotel is today. It took time for many of these communities to populate themselves and commerce was slow to adjust. Fortunately for the judge, he was so large and overweight, he had his own bed.

Besides sleeping together, those who believe Lincoln was homosexual, cite the many ‘love letters’ exchanged between Lincoln and Speed as evidence of an erotic relationship. In Lincoln’s age it was not uncommon for two men to have shared such an intimate relationship that was not based on eroticism or sexual attraction. Writing to each other in eloquence, respect, and a desire to see a friend again were quite common. Expressing it through letters was nothing to be ashamed of.

Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation Freed all Slaves

The accuracy to which Lincoln’s achievements are  taught in primary and secondary schools is haphazard, with this topic perhaps the most misunderstood and poorly taught. The Emancipation Proclamation declared all slaves in the Confederacy to be free. It did not actually make them free. That required a slave owner to acknowledge the proclamation as law. Border States such as Lincoln’s home state of Kentucky were not necessarily required to follow the new Proclamation, nor were Union states and territories like Maryland or Washington, D.C.

The Proclamation set a precedent though. Lincoln took a gamble in making it public after months of drafts and consultation with his cabinet. He wanted to only release it upon high Union morale and only when he could sell it both as the right thing to do, but also as a way to help win the war. It nullified the Fugitive Slave Act which required northerners to return runaway slaves to their masters and allowed the Union to prevent slaves from assisting the Confederacy on the battlefield with supplies and chores vital to their efforts.

Even more important to teach was that not all of America rejoiced at The Emancipation Proclamation. One more egregious error taught in our schools is that all of the North was in unison in opposition to slavery. After Lincoln’s announcement many families began to question what their husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers were fighting for. Certainly they would not fight for African Americans, who experienced segregation and black codes – prohibitive living and working laws – in big cities across the North.

Scott M. Hopkins is a personal property appraiser focusing on numismatics. Do you have a rare coin at home that you believe might make you rich? Send Scott a message on his website. He will give you a thorough understanding of what to do with your rare coins.

Links

https://www.google.ca/search?q=staircase+made+of+abraham+lincoln+books&biw=1366&bih=659&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihmt7Zp5TPAhXErB4KHTO4DEAQ_AUIBygA&dpr=1

http://history.furman.edu/benson/fyw2010/graham/grahamcharactersource4.htm

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/did-abraham-lin.html

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g60708-d108188-r263148782-Abraham_Lincoln_Birthplace_National_Historical_Park-Hodgenville_Kentucky.html

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/02/lincoln.html

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2062906.Did_Lincoln_Own_Slaves_

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-can-collapse-whig-party-tell-us-about-todays-politics-180958729/?no-ist

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0002.104/--lincoln-and-the-problem-of-race-a-decade-of-interpretations?rgn=main;view=fulltext

The Real Dracula – Not quite a Vampire…

When Bram Stoker wrote his novel ‘Dracula’ in 1897, he probably never imagined the impact his work would have on popular culture. If the book had not been written, the vampire myth would, in all likelihood, never have grown as big as it is today. But was there anything in it in the first place – or was it all just the product of a rich imagination?

Lucille Turner, author of ‘The Sultan, the Vampyr and the Soothsayer’ explains all.

An image from the 1958 film version of Dracula. Available here.

It is easy to forget that Count Dracula was in fact a real man. He lived in Wallachia, present-day Romania, in the fifteenth century, and his name was Vlad Dracula.

The name Dracula means, ‘son of Dracul’, and it was attributed to Vlad as one of at least three children born to Vlad Dracul the father. His mother is said to have died giving birth to him in 1431. His childhood was spent with his two brothers first in Sighisoara then in Targoviste from where his father ruled as Prince. So, was the family really a band of blood sucking fiends? It is true that reports exist that Vlad Dracula (the son) became a tyrant once he took the throne of Wallachia, and that he not only tortured his enemies by impalement, but also drank their blood. However, such accounts should be considered carefully before they are believed. The Dracul family had enemies, plenty of them. Saxon merchants from the north of the country may have taken pleasure in slurring the reputation of a man whose political opinions did not always coincide with their own. Such things are done all the time, and are still being done. Nevertheless Vlad Dracula probably did, at one point in his life, allow his darker side to get the better of him, and he was certainly no saint. He was also said to have been afflicted by a number of mysterious illnesses, which later came to be associated with the vampire persona. He may have been prone to seizures for instance, and could even have had a skin condition that made him allergic to daylight.

The turning point in his life certainly came when he was taken hostage by the Ottoman Turks in return for his father’s fealty. Already the Dracul family was caught between a rock and a hard place politically. The Holy Roman Empire in the north was exerting pressure on them through the Hungarians, who feared that the Ottoman armies were engulfing too many Balkan countries and fast becoming a threat to the rest of Europe. And to the south, the Ottoman Turks were likewise tightening the screws. Vlad Dracula’s father must have found himself in an impossibly tight corner, and the fact is that in the end it cost him not only the lives of his sons, but his own life too. His eldest son, Mircea, was murdered, and he never saw his other two boys again, since they were only released upon his death. Perhaps the Dracul family might be better remembered as martyrs than as vampires?

A sixteenth century painting of Vlad the Impaler.

Romanian folklore

That as it may be, they may not have been the only inspiration for Stoker, for there was plenty of other material to be found, which connected Romania to the myth of the vampire.

Romanian folklore is infused with the cult of the dead. Rituals and superstitions were, at one time, endemic in the region once known as Wallachia. Transylvania lay just on the edge of it, to the north. The belief in vampires, or strigois, as they were known, was common. These pagan beliefs go back a long way. The history of Wallachia includes the history of the Goths, and the Getae who once lived on the shores of the Black Sea. There are many legends and tales that emerge from these shores, notably connections with the wolf men of the Goths, and the ‘twice-born’ of the Getae. The myth of resurrection crops up too in the folklore, in the form of a demi-god called Zalmoxis.

Zalmoxis, Herodotus writes, was a man who became a god. Thought dead, he emerged again as living, spreading awe among his people. Such tales of resurrection are really quite widespread, although they do not always endure. Perhaps some cultures are more disposed than others to take them on board. The Persians gave report of resurrected beings in their art. To the Indians they were ghouls, returning after death to feed on the living. Only when the Christian Church emerged was the vampire myth taken by the throat. The Church used it as a warning, and made the vampire a symbol of evil. But was it one, really?

A Legacy of Hope and Fear

While he was holidaying on the Yorkshire coast of Britain sometime before 1897, Stoker discovered Whitby Abbey and the churchyard with its ruins and its bats. He is said to have visited Whitby’s library, where he fell upon some books about Wallachia and Transylvania. Perhaps it was these books that inspired him to create his infamous fictional character, Count Dracula, from a real historical figure. But whatever the inspiration, Stoker opened a door on a history that had almost been forgotten. Now he would immortalize it in such a way that it would cause a public sensation. The book became a bestseller, with its daring claim of the existence of vampires.

Some fans of history believe that Bram Stoker has a good deal to answer for in having breathed life into the vampire through his novel, ‘Dracula’. By setting his novel in Romania and using the name of Dracula, the genesis of the vampire appeared to come from a real historical figure, but of course Stoker was not really responsible for the myth of the vampire. Vampires are much older than Stoker’s book; they have been around for centuries in one form or another. Even so, although many cultures relate stories of vampire-type figures, it is in Romania that the historical vampire has made its deepest mark.

The association of the Dracula name with the vampire character has become so entrenched in Romania that ‘Dracula’ tours of Vlad the Impaler’s haunts are on offer for tourists and lovers of horror fiction. However, and paradoxically, Vlad Dracula is nevertheless perceived as a national hero in his home country. Which then, is the real Dracula, the hero or the villain, the good guy or the bad?

In the end, it is hard to say exactly why the belief in strigois and the myth of the vampire was so persistent, and why it continues to exist even today. One explanation is that the myth of resurrection gives people hope. The need to believe in life after death, regardless of the form it takes, is strong. And when this need is combined with the fear of the unknown, the myth gains a power that is almost intuitive. The sinful associations that Stoker attributes to his vampire, Count Dracula, are partly typical of the time in which he lived, and partly typical of the way the vampire myth evolved, under the influence of the Christian Church. But the folklore of the Black Sea region, where the vampire myth is most prevalent, does not necessarily paint the vampire as a villain or a figure of sinfulness, but rather as a victim, an unredeemable soul condemned to a second life of despair. The strigoi thus becomes a symbol of our deepest, darkest fears. When Stoker wrote his novel, perhaps what he was really doing was tapping into a well of anxiety almost as eternal as the vampire itself.

Lucille Turner is the author of the historical novel ‘The Sultan, the Vampyr and the Soothsayer’ which brings to life the character of Vlad Dracula and gives historical context to the powerful Dracula myths. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

About the book

1442: The Ottoman Turks are advancing through the Balkans with Vienna in their sights and Constantinople, the Orthodox Greek capital, within their grasp. Dracul, ruler of Wallachia (present-day Romania), will pay almost any price to save his country, but he will not surrender to the blackmail of the cardinals of Rome; he will not betray the Greeks.

When Vlad, his middle son, begins to show signs of the ancestral sickness, Dracul vows to deliver him into safety. But time is running short. To some, Vlad Dracula is a strigoi, the worst of all evils; to others, he is the son of a righteous man. Confrontational, charismatic and manipulative, he tests family and enemy alike. Surely he is destined for power, but of what kind?

‘The Sultan, the Vampyr and the Soothsayer’ weaves a web of intrigue in a world that will divide forever. As Eastern Europe struggles against the tide of a Muslim advance it cannot counter, Western Christendom needs only one prize to overthrow its enemies – the ancient scrolls of the library of Constantinople.

The Author

Lucille Turner has a Master’s degree in Comparative Literature and has worked as a translator, journalist and teacher.

A fan of Big History and Ancient Mythology, Lucille is inspired by myth and folklore in her writing. Fascinated by the real icons of history and legend in her works she sets out to breathe life into key historical characters.

She divides her time between Bournemouth, UK and Nice, France and blogs about historical fiction at www.lucilleturner.com.

Lucille’s first novel, ‘Gioconda’, about the life of Renaissance genius Leonardo da Vinci, was published by Granta Books in 2011. It won the Hislibris prize for historical fiction and was translated into several languages.

‘The Sultan, the Vampyr and the Soothsayer’ is her second novel. A visit to Istanbul and the chance discovery of a book on Romanian folklore brought the two inspirations for her new book together.

RRP: $19.99/£16.99

ISBN: 9781527202061

Lucille’s website: http://www.lucilleturner.com/

The truth behind Ninjas – Would you believe it?

The word ‘Ninja’ has interesting connotations in most Western countries; however, Ninjas have a long and fascinating history as secret agents or mercenaries in Japan. Here, Captain Max Virtus (aka Adrian Burrows) returns to the site and, in a light-hearted way, tells us what you don’t know about Ninjas…

PS – Max has just released a new book, Escapades in Bizarrchaeology (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

Ogata Shuma (later Jiraiya) raising his sword to kill a python attacking a large toad, Jiraiya is portrayed as being a ninja. From mid-19th century Japan.

Everyone loves a Ninja! I know that I, Captain Max Virtus, and the rest of planet Earth certainly do. But what do we really know about those Shinobi?

Not a lot. And what we do know is usually wrong. And what we don't know is mostly right.

The problem is that information is scarce due to Ninjas being so mysterious and secretive. Which was the whole point - after all they were the feudal Japanese equivalent of a Secret Agent. Each Shinobi was trained in espionage, sabotage, infiltration and assassination (although not necessarily in that order). Ninjas saw most activity during the Sengoku (or Warring States) period of Japan in the 15th century, which is when local lords vied for power and land, but had pretty much ceased to exist by the 17th century when Japan was unified. They were at the height of their powers for approximately 200 years, a drop in the historical ocean, yet we still fondly remember them today.

Now thanks to my warehouse of Bizarrchaeology, I have learnt a great deal about the ways of the Ninja. Sure, they more than likely spent a lot of time doing the things you would expect a ninja to do; setting explosives, tree climbing, making poisons, throwing shuriken and eating pizza in their sewer layer. But what are some things that you don't know about Ninjas? Glad I asked myself that question!

Ninjas love Cricket(s)

As I discovered when trying to sneak up on an owl whilst covered in bells (don't ask, I've set myself some fairly strange and highly unnecessary challenges during my time as a Captain of Bizarrchaeology) even the stealthiest of Ninja's footsteps can be heard. The best way to avoid this? Simple, bring a box of crickets with you wherever you go. Those chirp chirping chappies are heard throughout Japan, so a roaming Samurai won't be alerted by hearing their familiar stridulation (that’s a fancy word for chirp but seeing as I had already used the word chirp in the previous sentence, I thought I had better use a different word. I wouldn't want to type chirp again now would I?). A skilful Ninja can release the crickets from their containment into the wild and then continue with their sneaking, safe in the knowledge that they will not be heard.

A (possibly) Stridulating Cricket. Is it just me or would giant Crickets be freakin' terrifying? Let's all just take 12 minutes and 32 seconds out of our day and think about that. Available: here.

Ninjas had fake feet

It makes sense, after all, the last thing you want that roaming Samurai to notice is a trail of footprints belonging to a highly skilled and deadly ninja. So instead Ninja footwear would have 'ashiaro' (fake footprints) affixed upon them, making it appear that the feet belonged to an elderly woman or a young child rather than a trained Ninja carrying a deadly Kunai (which was actually a simple gardening tool, it's going to look much less suspicious if a Ninja is caught carrying some hedge clippers rather than a skull split-tingly sharp Katana and a yumi long bow). In actual fact, Ninjas rarely used the weapons that you'd expect them to.

Real Ninjas don't wear Black

Yes, I know, I was shocked and saddened by this discovery too. When I think of a Ninja I like to imagine a man of shadow, clad in the distinctive Shinobi Shizoku, dressed from head to toe in an awesome looking black onesie of death (or a giant mutant turtle, either or). But that is exactly the point - the last thing a secretive Ninja would want is to LOOK like a secretive Ninja. Instead a Ninja should look like everyone else.

What would a Ninja have most likely worn? I’m glad you asked. A loose fitting Gappa travel cape that conceals light armour worn in layers beneath it (loose parts of the clothing would be tied with rope to prevent the total embarrassment of tripping out of a tree and ending up incapacitated in front of a startled would be victim). It's still worth wearing dark colours though, the last thing you would want is a red blood stain on your chest for everyone to see.

So there you have it, several things that you probably didn't know about Ninjas. Whilst reading this escapade you have also discovered how you can be a Ninja. Because the best way to be a real Ninja is to be absolutely nothing like a real Ninja. After all that is exactly what a real Ninja would do.

We do hope you enjoyed the article! You can read another of Max’s articles on the three most bizarre tanks ever here. You can also read Max’s new book Escapades in Bizarrchaeology: The Journals of Captain Max Virtus - available in both print and electronically.

Blurb on Escapades in Bizarrchaeology

The History Book For People Who Don't Like History - Yet!

Captain Max Virtus has spent his life Excavating the Extraordinary and Unearthing the Unusual. Gathering the history of the Bizarre to exhibit in his Warehouse of Bizarrchaeology.

Now you have the opportunity to take a guided tour of his life's work, in this, his personal journal.

Discover why bats were used as bombs, how an emu can defeat a tank, the reason why guns were installed in cemeteries ... and how you can get shot with an arrow ... and survive.

All this ... and then things get really weird!

Take History To The Max.

Book available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

A Bird on Every Table: How Did Turkey Become the centerpiece of Thanksgiving?

There are a lot of things that might vary from table to table when it comes to Thanksgiving dinner. Some people prefer sweet potatoes to mashed potatoes. Others forgo the ubiquitous pumpkin pie in favor of pecan or cherry. However, there’s almost always one constant – that beautiful, golden brown, perfectly roasted turkey as the centerpiece. This is the case in regards to 88% of all American tables.

It only stands to reason that you’d have your questions as to “Why turkey?” – was turkey served at the first Thanksgiving? Even if it was, why is it so popular as to appear on nearly every menu no matter how much the other meal components might vary? Here we’ll explore everything you ever wanted to know about how turkey became the Thanksgiving superstar that it is.

Harry Parsons explains all.

The First Thanksgiving by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, early 20th century.

Was Turkey Served at the First Thanksgiving?

Most people simply assume that turkey is the staple that it is because it was served at the first Thanksgiving way back in 1621. However, while the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Native Americans most certainly did share a bountiful table in order to resolve their differences and celebrate the harvest, it’s not a given that they did it with turkey drumsticks in their hands.

According to Plimoth Plantation, most recorded accounts of the first Thanksgiving say absolutely nothing specific about a turkey being served. Most of them simply say that “fowl” was served, as well as various other proteins like wild venison. For instance, Englishman Edward Winslow had this to say:

“Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week.”

That said, we know that the very first Thanksgiving table probably featured poultry of some kind. We also know that wild turkeys were plentiful in the area, so they’re certainly a possibility. However, so were a multitude of other options, including geese, ducks, and swans. Even eagles, hawks, or cranes are a distinct possibility.

When and How Did Thanksgiving Dinner Become All About Turkey?

If the Pilgrims and Wampanoag only maybe ate turkey at the first-ever Thanksgiving feast, then how on earth did it become the unofficial mascot of the holiday? Although no one knows absolutely, there is one really strong possibility as to why and how turkey became the star of the entire show.

The whole situation dates back to an 18th century American writer named Sarah Josepha Hale. Hale was born in New Hampshire in 1788 and was a highly popular editor in her day. She is also the person responsible for penning “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” Most importantly of all, Hale was a major role model for women, so many popular choices of the time in regards to fashion, literature, decorating, and cooking could be traced right back to Hale’s writing and influence.

This is exactly how Hale probably became responsible for Thanksgiving as we know it today. She was obsessed with the holiday and hoped to eventually make it a major national observance on par with Independence Day. She also, of course, had her own unique take on how the ideal Thanksgiving table should look and what should be served. Her novel Northwood would describe it as the following:

"[It] is considered as an appropriate tribute of gratitude to God to set apart one day of Thanksgiving in each year; and autumn is the time when the overflowing garners of America call for this expression of joyful gratitude.

The roasted turkey took precedence on this occasion, being placed at the head of the table; and well did it become its lordly station, sending forth the rich odor of its savory stuffing, and finely covered with the froth of the basting.”

As you can see, Hale’s ideal picture of a Thanksgiving feast included a turkey as the centerpiece. She continued to support that standard for Thanksgiving going forward as well. That said, when she eventually (posthumously) succeeded in having Thanksgiving established as a national holiday after 17 years of lobbying, it makes sense turkey would be a given.

This idea would continue to be reinforced and strengthened over the years by popular culture, as well as traditions like Ronald Reagan’s symbolic turkey pardoning, so turkey does take center stage for historic reasons. However, it’s not for the reasons most people think.

What Else Was Served at the First Thanksgiving?

As touched on above, in all likelihood you serve and eat turkey every Thanksgiving for reasons that have nothing to do with what was on the Pilgrim’s first feast table. That leaves one question. What was served and enjoyed at the first Thanksgiving? The following are some likely probabilities.

Venison: In addition to the possibility of turkeys, ducks, or geese, there were lots of other meats served. We know for a fact that one of them was venison, as Winslow’s account expressly stated that the Wampanoag arrived bearing five deer that were then roasted over a spit.

Seasonal Produce: The first Thanksgiving was primarily a celebration of the Pilgrims’ first harvest, so there most definitely would have been a bounty of freshly harvested produce served. Local vegetables that were likely to have appeared include but are not limited to corn, peas, carrots, beans, onions, lettuce, spinach, and cabbage. Fruits included plums, cranberries, blueberries, grapes, and gooseberries.

Seafood: Seafood was a huge dietary staple in New England in the 1600s as well, so historians believe that it probably comprised most of that first meal. Lobster, oysters, clams, and bass were probably all present. There may even have been a chowder or two served.

As far as things that most likely weren’t eaten, potatoes and sweet potatoes top the list, as they weren’t popular enough food sources among the English or the colonial settlers at that time. There probably wasn’t any pumpkin pie, either, as the flour and butter necessary to make it wouldn’t have been available, nor had the settlers constructed the ovens necessary for baking. Like turkey, those staples would enter the scene and become wildly popular later on.

So there you have it – the why and how of Thanksgiving dinner as you know it today! Probably not quite what you pictured, but historically significant all the same. Which foods will be gracing your table this year?

We hope you enjoyed the article! Let us know what you think below…

References

1.     http://urbanext.illinois.edu/turkey/turkey_facts.cfm

2.     http://www.plimoth.org/learn/MRL/read/thanksgiving-history

3.     https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9781609491864

4.     https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9781609492595

In Search of El Dorado - The fascinating life of Sir Walter Raleigh

Born to a Protestant family in Devon, England in 1552, Sir Walter Raleigh was not only a prolific writer, poet and courtier of the Virgin Queen, but also a commendable explorer. Knighted by Queen Elizabeth I in the year 1585 and recognized nation-wide for his numerous talents, Raleigh is now mockingly remembered as the man who laid his cloak across a muddy pool so that Her Majesty could cross it without getting her feet dirty! Prapti Panda explains all.

Sir Walter Raleigh and his son Walter. 1602.

Raleigh had to face extreme difficulties right from his childhood. When he was a boy, his family suffered greatly, trying to outrun the Roman Catholic Church that flourished under the rule of Mary I of England. In 1569, he joined troops in subduing civil uprisings in France but eventually returned to pursue his education as an undergraduate in the well-known Oriel College, Oxford. Many such events, such as his successful abortion of the Irish rebellion, followed that showed his ambition and skills that ultimately culminated in him gaining favor with the Virgin Queen.

THE FIRST HINT OF A LIFELONG CAREER

Sailing with his half-brother Humphrey Gilbert to America in 1578 turned out to be the first of many expeditions he would undertake. Therein, after two attempts, he managed to set up a British colony on Roanoke Island under the governance of John White. But after he sailed back to England and got delayed in returning, the colonists disappeared, and today their settlement is known popularly as the ‘Lost City of Roanoke Island’, but the people of America honored him by naming the state capital of North Carolina as Raleigh. Moreover, Raleigh County, West Virginia and Mount Raleigh in British Columbia are also named after him.

But all of this hard work and gallantness of his was thrown to the wind when Queen Elizabeth found out that he had secretly married one of her ladies-in-waiting, Elizabeth Throckmorton, and imprisoned them both in the Tower of London. He regained his reputation by capturing the incredible treasure-laden ship Madre de Deus and presenting it to the Queen. Some historians believe that that was when his obsession with gold started.

THE LURE OF GOLD

In the year 1594, the first hint of the existence of a ‘City of Gold’ reached him. He read the accounts of several people including Gonzalo Pizarro, Francisco Lopez and Francisco de Orellana that described the exploration of the Amazon basin and the Lower Orinoco.  By the time he decided to embark on a voyage to Guiana, he had become sure of the existence of El Dorado, the city that contained immeasurable wealth and which he dubbed Manoa. In his book, Discovery of Guiana, Raleigh recounts that it was the account of a Spaniard by the name of Juan Martinez, who was serving at the time as master of munitions to Diego Ordas, a Knight of the Order of Santiago, which provided the final proof that he needed.

Martinez, Raleigh believed, was the first European to ‘find’ El Dorado. The story was that Martinez, fearing execution due to mismanagement of some armaments that he was supposed to be in charge of, set out in a canoe down the Orinoco and was rescued by natives who took him to Manoa, the seat of their emperor. After several months of living there, Martinez was sent back to his land, laden heavily with gifts of gold which were eventually robbed off of him.

But Raleigh was not too dogmatic in his beliefs either. He reached out to various people connected with the story and was told with solid proof that left absolutely no room for doubts - in his mind at least. Then, he set sail to the New World in 1595 in search of Manoa. In reality, he had another, more significant objective - he wanted to weaken Spanish colonization of South America and build British influence there. If there was one thing that Raleigh had no qualms about stating, it was his contempt towards the Spanish. In the Discovery of Guiana, he never forgets to insert a jab or a wry comparison to his Spanish ‘friends’.

Although he gave exaggerated reports of the gold he found in Guiana when he went back to England, he was not successful in finding Manoa. Yet, silently, his belief in its existence was not shaken. In 1600, he was appointed governor of the Channel Island in Jersey and focused on improving defenses and administration.

Once again, Raleigh was struck by a bout of bad luck when Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. Her successor, King James I, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, was not quite ready to be favorably disposed towards him. In fact, King James was of a platonic nature, eager to amend relations with the Spanish. His first step was accusing Raleigh of treason and throwing him once more into the Tower of London - his only concession being that he was spared his life. During his imprisonment, Raleigh penned the popular Historie of the World.

A ray of hope appeared for Raleigh in 1616, when King James allowed him to travel a second time to Guiana in search of El Dorado in exchange for a massive fortune and strict orders to not attack the Spanish. But as ill luck would have it, one of his long-time friends and confidante Lawrence Keymis’ troops attacked a Spanish outpost on the banks of the Orinoco River, defying Raleigh’s orders and resulting in the untimely death of his son Walter.

On his return to England, again empty-handed, the Spanish Ambassador was angry, wanting King James to punish Raleigh for breaking the peace treaty. With no other way out, King James ordered Raleigh’s execution. So it was that on October 29, 1618, the world saw the last of a valiant man who traversed dangerous waters and explored uncharted lands, a man who was not afraid of going after what he believed in. Now he lies in a grave in St Margaret’s Church, Westminster, London, known mainly as a name that history students remember. 

Did you find this article interesting? If so, tell the world by sharing it, tweeting it or liking it!

The author: Prapti Panda has a deep interest in history - especially colonization and the Industrial Revolution. She spends her days researching and reading about the Royal Family and is a compulsive writer. Her first book, based on the European colonization of Latin America, will be out soon.

REFERENCES

The Discovery of Guiana, Walter Raleigh- 1595

BBC UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/raleigh_walter.shtml

WEB- https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/THE-DEATH-OF-RALEIGH-Elizabeth-I-The-Golden-Age

Was Spain Neutral or a Nazi Ally in World War Two?

Of the many officially neutral countries in World War Two, Spain was perhaps the country closest to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Here, Laura Kerr follows up on her article on Switzerland in World War Two, by considering whether General Franco’s Nationalist Spain was a friend of Hitler, or actually neutral between the Allies and Axis Powers.

Francisco Franco is the figure second from the right. Nazis Karl Wolff and Heinrich Himmler, and Spanish minister Ramon Serrano Suner also feature.

Non-belligerent - A nation or person that is not engaged in a war or conflict.

Neutral - An impartial or unbiased state or person.

Spain’s official stance of non-belligerence during World War Two is best taken with a pinch of salt. While its reasons to stay uninvolved appear legitimate, in reality Spain was arguably the most involved out of all “neutral countries”.

“Non-belligerent” normally refers to a state or country that does not get involved in a war, normally resulting in their neutrality. Spain’s reason for not officially getting involved was, of course, the Spanish Civil War.

This was a bloody civil war fought from 1936-1939 between the Republicans and the Nationalists. From an ideological perspective, the Spanish Civil War could be considered a precursor to World War Two and almost foreshadowed the end to the fragile equilibrium established in Europe.

On one side you had the Republic government. They were largely liberals and fought against the conservative Nationalist rebels. The Soviet Union provided the Republicans with significant military assistance, although France and Britain were more wary about supporting them. The Republic also received volunteer International Brigades from Western Europe and the U.S. More broadly, many in Europe saw the Spanish conflict as a threat to the peace that had settled in Europe and wanted to prevent the spread of the Nationalists’ fascist-linked ideology.

The Nationalists’ rebellion started off as a failed military coup but resulted in their leader, General Francisco Franco, becoming dictator of Spain. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany both provided military aid, not only to support the Nationalists but also as a military testing ground for new weapons they hoped to later use.

The rebels won in 1939 and General Franco was made Head of State. While General Franco leaned heavily ideologically to Nazi Germany and the Axis countries, he was careful to appease the Western allies for trading reasons.

Volunteers

The main way in which Spain entered World War Two was through volunteers. The side with which each man volunteered largely paralleled the side on which they had fought during the Spanish Civil War. Over 18,000 nationalist men volunteered to fight for the Axis Powers, on the condition they would be fighting on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union rather than against the Western Allies. By doing this, General Franco assisted and repaid Hitler while maintaining peace with Western Europe and the U.S.

Conversely, as a result of losing the civil war, many of the Republicans went into exile and fled to refugee camps in southern France. At the outbreak of the Second World War, they joined French forces to fight against the Axis Powers. It is estimated that over 60,000 Spaniards joined the French resistance alone. Just over 1,000 Spaniards (largely the communist leaders) fled to the Soviet Union and fought alongside the Red Army after the invasion in 1941.

Non-belligerence

Diplomacy is where the term ‘non-belligerency’ is distinguished from absolute neutrality. While volunteers technically assisted both the Allies and Axis during World War Two militaristically, General Franco also provided the Axis Powers with both economic assistance and useful intelligence. In 1940, Franco signed the Protocol of Hendaya, which provided for close cooperation among the governments of Spain, Italy and Germany.

Furthermore General Franco and Hitler engaged in numerous talks discussing the possibility of active involvement in the war and the issue of Gibraltar. This was an area of Spain in British control that Hitler was keen to seize. However General Franco repeatedly refused entry to German soldiers, arguing that the United Kingdom and its colonies still posed a major threat to Spain. In these discussions, General Franco often demanded too much in return for active entry into the war. Whether this was simply desperation considering Spain’s war-torn state, or a way of delaying irreversible actions, it resulted in a lack of official action. Among his other demands, General Franco asked for a large supply of grain to feed its population, which Germany could not provide. Pressure to invade Gibraltar was only relieved in 1941 when Hitler focused his attention on the Eastern front by invading the Soviet Union.  After a meeting on October 23, 1940 to discuss details about the alliance between Spain and Germany, Hitler was famously quoted telling Mussolini: "I prefer to have three or four of my own teeth pulled out than to speak to that man again!” This suggests that despite ideological similarities, the two leaders had a hard time making definite agreements.

Allied Trade Pressure

Like most countries during World War Two, Spain was struggling economically. People were starving and it relied heavily on trade and imports to support itself. The Allies worked hard to ensure Spain could not afford to actively enter the war and used trading blockades and economic incentives to enforce that.

Portugal and Spain had long had an alliance, therefore Portugal provided Spain with the much needed grain to ease its food shortages. However, to put pressure on Spain, America and Britain reduced Spain’s access to oil. All told, considering its economic and social depression after the Civil War, entering World War Two would have led to economic pressure which could have effectively brought the country to a halt.

Great Britain also followed a policy of "building a network of mutual interests and creating the conditions, thanks to which any breakup between the two countries would mean a key loss for Spanish trade and industry.” This largely dictated Spanish movements towards the Western Allies during the war.

As a result of tactical trade blockades and other agreements, over the war Spain was inescapably dependent on the United States and Great Britain.

A cowardly ending

Despite its seemingly favorable views towards the Axis Powers in the early years of the war, General Franco changed his tune as Hitler’s indestructible façade began to slip and victory for the Allies seemed inevitable. It was only when this happened that Spain reverted back from ‘non-belligerence’ to true neutrality and began to act that way.

However, this quick change of tact didn’t mean they could escape the consequences of favoring the Axis. As a result of their cooperation with Nazi Germany, not only militaristically but also economically, Spain was isolated by the major powers in the immediate aftermath of World War Two. Although Roosevelt had promised Spain would not suffer sanctions from the United Nations as a result of their alliance, the U.S. president died in April 1945, leaving Truman to take power, who was less forgiving of General Franco. That being said, with the onset of the Cold War in the late 1940s, the US later saw conservative Spain as more of an ally against the rise of communism, rather than a threat.

In conclusion, while it is clear that Franco’s Spain did favor the Axis Powers of the war, it did not technically become involved in the war. Its conduct during World War Two combined flexibility on who her allies were with a desperation to survive. After such a damaging Civil War, Spain was not in the position to wholly side with either the Allies or Axis Powers. It begs the question, therefore, that if they had been a fit state, who would they have chosen? And does that make them any better?

Did you find this article interesting? If so, you can read about the Spanish Civil War in our book – find out more here.

George Washington & Spy Rings in the American Revolution

Today we have an excerpt from George Washington’s Secret Spy War: The Making of America’s First Spymaster by American Revolution historian, John A. Nagy (available here US) | (here UK).

This is the story of how America was really won. Using George Washington’s diary as the primary source, historian John A. Nagy uncovers the never-before-known history of how Washington was not just the first president but also America’s first spymaster. Nagy reveals how Washington first dabbled with espionage in the French and Indian War. Ultimately, it is this expertise that leads to the defeat of the British - they weren’t just outplayed, they were out spied: from double-crosses to doubly shady characters. Nagy unearths the surprising true stories behind numerous spy rings on both sides of the war.

Below we share an excerpt from the book.

Chapter 4: Pools of Blood

Washington was always concerned about spies. They were a constant problem except when the armies were on the move. He knew he could not stop all of them, so feeding them false information was his next best defense. With that in mind on December 12, 1776, he told Colonel John Cadwalader of the Philadelphia Associators of the Pennsylvania militia, “Keep a good look out for spies; endeavor to magnify your numbers as much as possible.” It was a ploy he would use over and over again in creating false troop information, inflating the size and giving the wrong location of his forces for spies to discover and take back to enemy headquarters.

Washington in December of 1776 was desperate to know what the British were doing. Spare no pains or expense to get intelligence of the enemy’s intentions, Washington told Cadwalader. He had also told General James Ewing, “Spare no pains nor cost to gain information of the enemy’s movements and designs. Whatever sums you pay to obtain this end I will cheerfully refund. “He also advised Brigadier General Philemon Dickinson to spare no pains or expense to obtain intelligence, and all promises he made or monies advanced would be acknowledged and paid. Three days later Washington was still desperate for information and again was encouraging Cadwalader to get intelligence of the enemy’s intentions.

Dickinson, who was at Yardley’s farm in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, advised Washington on the 21st of the information he was able to collect from two people who had come out of New Jersey on what was going on in New Brunswick, and from a person from Crosswicks regarding boats at Lewis’s Mill. A slave from Trenton told of boats being built a mile from town. Dickinson told Washington he was going to increase the amount he was offering to $15 or $20 for someone to go as a spy to Trenton and return. “People here are fearful of the inhabitants betraying them.” On the 24th he was able to secure someone to take the risks and he got him across the river into New Jersey. He was due back the next morning, at which time he was going to be provided with a horse to get to Washington.

On the morning of December 31, 1776, while at Crosswicks, one of Cadwalader’s spies, who was identified only as “a very intelligent young gentleman,” had just returned from the British camp at Princeton some sixteen miles distant. He identified the number and locations of British and Hessian forces in the town. He said “there were about five thousand men, consisting of Hessians and British troops—about the same number of each. . . . He conversed with some of the officers, and lodged last night with them.” As part of a disinformation campaign, Washington had previously instructed that the numbers of American troops were to be magnified. The spy complied with these instructions by saying that Washington had 16,000 men. However, they would not believe that Washington had more than 5,000 or 6,000. The spy reported, “They parade every morning an hour before day [break]—and some nights lie on their arms—An attack has been expected for several nights past—the men are much fatigued, and until last night [were] in want of provisions—when a very considerable number of wagons arrived with provisions from [New] Brunswick.” He provided a crucial piece of information: the enemy was not expecting an attack from the east, as there were “no sentries on the back or east side of the town” facing the water, thus leaving the town unguarded. The spy also provided enough detailed information for a map, which was made by Cadwalader, showing the enemy’s positions at Princeton.

Washington and the army re-crossed the ice-choked Delaware and returned to New Jersey on December 29. The artillery was unable to cross till the 31st due to the ice. When assembled at Trenton, Washington’s forces numbered 6,000 men and forty cannons. However, enlistments were expiring and soldiers would be going home. The army was going to evaporate before his eyes. Washington appealed to his men to stay in service for some promised bonus money. On December 31, Robert Morris in Philadelphia sent Washington the sum of 410 Spanish milled dollars, 2 English crowns, 10½ English shillings, and one half a French crown, amounting to 155 pounds, 9 shillings, 6 pence in Pennsylvania currency, or 124 pounds, 7 shillings, 8 pence lawful money, which is the value in gold and silver. Buoyed by the combination of victory at Trenton and money from Morris, most men stayed.

After Washington’s victory at Trenton, British General Cornwallis returned to New Jersey from New York City. He assembled a force of 8,000 at Princeton, leaving 1,200 at Princeton under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Mawhood of the 17th Regiment of Foot. On January 2, he took his remaining forces, which included twenty-eight cannons, and marched toward Trenton and Washington’s army. When he reached Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville), he detached Colonel Alexander Leslie of the 64th Regiment of Foot with 1,500 men. He ordered them to stay there until the next morning. As soon as Washington heard that Cornwallis was on his way to attack him, he detached men to skirmish with the approaching British forces in a delaying action. Due to the American resistance it was not until late in the day when the British army finally reached Trenton. It was the second time in eight days that the Americans would engage the enemy.

The Americans were encamped on the east side of a bridge across the Assunpink Creek. The British advanced in solid columns onto the bridge. The Americans fired in unison and the British fell back. The British regrouped and charged the bridge again. This time the Americans fired a cannon into the redcoats and they fell back once more. After regrouping they moved onto the bridge. This time the American cannons fired antipersonnel canister shot, which is like a shotgun blast of small pellets. The bridge was littered with the dead. A soldier described the scene: “The bridge looked red as blood, with their killed and wounded and their red coats.” The firing and the killing continued till sunset when Cornwallis called off the attack. He planned to take the bridge the next morning and then crush Washington and the Continental Army. Both sides were exhausted and the soldiers on both sides were ordered to rest.

It was brought to Washington’s attention that the British could cross the creek farther down at Philip’s Ford and turn his flank. He would have been caught between the British forces and the Delaware River. It would have been a repeat of the Battle of Long Island. This time he could not escape by crossing the Delaware, as he had crossed the East River before, as his vessels were farther upstream. He did not have the time for them to be brought to his rescue. Later the British quietly, under the cover of darkness, began moving 2,000 men in the woods into position to cross Philip’s Ford in the morning.

Washington had received Cadwalader’s spy’s intelligence on the enemy situation at Princeton. The unknown spy provided great detail of the British fortifications. This would be the rare occasion that Washington acted on a single spy’s intelligence, as there was no time to get corroborating intelligence. Because of the desperate situation, he could not stand pat. He had to do something or be destroyed.

He hurriedly called a council of war. It was decided to slip away during the night and surprise the British at Princeton. The Continental Army’s military and personal baggage was sent south to Burlington. The artillery was wrapped in heavy cloth to quiet the noise. Five hundred soldiers were left at Trenton with two cannons. Some were assigned to tend the campfires to keep them burning. Others were to make noise digging with picks and shovels to convince the British that the American army was going to make a stand and was reinforcing its position preparing for the British attack at Philip’s Ford. The soldiers who were left as a distraction were to sneak away during the night and catch up to the Continental Army before dawn. The army, as silently as possible, slipped away beginning at 2 a.m. while the British watched the light from the American camp- fires. For some of the men it would be their third night march in a row in the cold and extreme darkness. They were slowed by the task of getting the artillery over stumps in the frozen, rutted road. After crossing the new bridge, Washington split the army into two units just as when he approached Trenton a week earlier.

Unfortunately, just like a week earlier, they were arriving later than intended and lost the cover of darkness.

Thirty-four-year-old Rhode Islander General Nathanael Greene took the smaller column of soldiers and went west to take control of the main road from Princeton to Trenton. They were to keep the enemy at Princeton from escaping and block any reinforcements coming to the aid of those at Princeton. General John Sullivan of New Hampshire commanded the main body of the army of 5,000 men. They went to the right along the Saw Mill Road.

Cornwallis had ordered forty-seven-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Charles Mawhood to bring the 17th and 55th British Regiments of Foot along with some artillery to Trenton to join his army in the morning. Mawhood marched out from Princeton at about five in the morning. While on the march he sighted the main American army under General Sullivan. He immediately sent a rider to warn the 40th Regiment of Foot in Princeton of the advancing Americans.

Mawhood decided to attack with 450 men the main American army. Brigadier General Hugh Mercer’s 1,500 men of Greene’s division made the first contact with Mawhood’s men in William Clark’s orchard. Lieutenant William John Hale of the 45th Regiment of Foot wrote that the American volley was “a heavy discharge, which brought down seven of my platoon at once, the rest being recruits, gave way.” He continues, “I rallied them with much difficulty, and brought them forward with bayonets.” The two sides matched volley for volley. Pools of blood glistened on the ice-covered field. Mawhood saw an opportunity and ordered a bayonet charge against the American riflemen, who did not have bayonets. Brigadier General Mercer’s horse was hit and down Mercer went as he ordered a retreat. His men safely retreated but Mercer fell into British hands. He fought with his sword and was bayoneted many times and would die several days later. His men retreated right into Colonel John Cadwalader’s Pennsylvania Associators as they were trying to deploy. Washington came on the field and rallied the men, riding on a white horse within seventy-five feet of the British line. He made a very easy target but somehow came through the battle without a scratch. More American units came onto the field, some with bayonets drawn.

The British fired a volley that went over the heads of the Americans. Washington with the army under control then ordered a platoon to fire as it marched forward. Washington was turning their flank and was about to attack the British rear as well as the front and flank. The circle was closing. The British decided their only course of action was either to fight and be cut to pieces or retreat through the only way still available. Mawhood sent the artillery back to Princeton in an effort to save them. The 55th Regiment of Foot took up position south of the town at a place called Frog Hollow. They were outnumbered 10 to 1. They did some delaying actions, falling back to new defensive positions. This bought the British some time to remove as much of their supplies and artillery out of Princeton as possible and take them to safety in New Brunswick. When the American army was within fifty or sixty feet of the British defenses and ready to charge, a British officer with a white handkerchief on the point of his sword asked for a truce in order to surrender. General Sullivan accepted his surrender.

Some of the British forces that were in the town took shelter in Nassau Hall, which was the main building for the College of New Jersey (now Princeton). Alexander Hamilton had some cannons brought to the front of Nassau Hall and fired at the building. When some Americans broke open the front door, the British waved a white flag through one of the windows and surrendered. The Americans had defeated the British regulars and were now in control of the town. As soon as Cornwallis realized the Americans had slipped away during the night, were now behind him, and he was in an unsupported position, he and his troops headed back to Princeton.

The British payroll chest of £70,000 lay just sixteen miles up the road in New Brunswick guarded by a skeleton force. It was a great prize but Washington’s men were exhausted. Some had not had any rest for two nights and a day. From the best intelligence Washington was able to get, the British were so alarmed at the possibility of an attack at New Brunswick that they immediately marched there without halting at Princeton. This al- lowed Washington to take his men unmolested another thirty miles past New Brunswick to the safety of an encampment in the Watchung Mountains in and around Morristown.

The increase in the morale of the public and the troops was meteoric. The mood went from the despair of expecting Philadelphia to fall to the British juggernaut, which had ridden rough- shod over New York and New Jersey, to euphoria over the two American victories. William Hooper, a Continental congress- man from North Carolina, best described the change in the public morale and the heady confidence in Washington and the Continental Army after the victories at the Battle of Trenton over the Hessians and the Battle of Princeton over the British.

Excerpted with permission from George Washington’s Secret Spy War: The Making of America’s First Spymaster by John A. Nagy. Published by St. Martin’s Press. Copyright 2016. Book available here US | here UK.

The Language of the Unheard - Martin Luther King and the Impact of Star Trek

Star Trek was one of the most important television programs of the 1960s. Here Christopher Benedict explores why through the many fascinating characters and plots. It was also a show that Martin Luther King, Junior enjoyed – and one that broke boundaries on race in one very important way.

Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner as Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk on Star Trek. Source: here.

Strange New Worlds

Martin Luther King, Junior was, still is, and always shall be remembered and revered for the myriad roles and responsibilities he assumed during a life which was as astonishing for its historical and cultural impact as it was appalling for the barbaric manner in which it was often disturbed and ultimately terminated.

Among his assumed or accepted capacities were preacher, teacher and practitioner of nonviolent resistance, writer, agitator, community organizer, civil rights leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner. And Trekkie?

Even Nichelle Nichols, who played the groundbreaking part of Lieutenant Uhura - Communications Officer aboard the USS Enterprise on the short-lived but beloved original series of Star Trek - could hardly believe it. She would learn of Dr. King’s affinity for Gene Roddenberry’s visionary science fiction program when she found herself at a professional and existential crossroads, acting eventually upon-and revitalized by-personal counsel originating from a most unexpected source. Her peace-keeping mission was no longer relegated simply to the distant and abstract galaxies of Uhura’s 23rd century “where no man has gone before”, but in the very real here and now of the turbulent 1960s where Ms. Nichols could and would have a more direct, forceful, and noble influence.

To Boldly Go

Star Trek was not an easy sell. Having signed a development deal with Desilu Productions (started by, and named for, Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball) Gene Roddenberry submitted a proposal to executives at CBS for an episodic drama modeled after the popular western Wagon Train, transporting the consequent adventures from the American heartland to outer space. Though they were not necessarily contemptuous of science fiction as a genre with prime-time viewership potential, CBS did dismiss Star Trek as “too cerebral” in favor of the more sanitized and banal Lost in Space, a sort of interstellar Leave it to Beaver.

Roddenberry then pitched his concept to NBC which agreed to move forward after overhauling the show’s cast (Spock being the only character retained) due to the dismal reception of the pilot episode called The Cage. Unlike the creators of Lost in Space, Rodenberry was uninterested in formulaic, obtuse entertainment depicting a gentrified cast acting out pointless hijinks for the dubious benefit of injudicious audiences. Indeed, he was hell-bent on crafting an audaciously philosophical and tirelessly optimistic vision of the future which would be both brain-teasing and gut-checking, defiantly challenging racial prejudices, social constructs, and political xenophobia of the day.

“Gene was a man of ideas and ideals,” explains original cast member turned social media sensation George Takei. “Our human past may not have been all good, and neither had the history of his creation, Star Trek. But he had the boldness of spirit to go into a medium-television-famous for mediocrity and uplift it and succeed, against all odds, with idealism.”

To scratch the surface of what Takei describes as Roddenberry’s “world of infinite diversity in infinite combinations”, you need only examine a snapshot of the team gathered aboard the bridge of the Enterprise.

A Constellation of Rising Stars: Leonard Nimoy as Spock

Second in command and dogmatically contrary to the swashbuckling James Tiberius Kirk, whose heroics were almost always reactionary and emotion-driven, was Leonard Nimoy’s Mr. Spock, the ship’s Science Officer. His mother an Earth woman and his father Sarek a green-blooded Vulcan, Spock is denigrated as a “half-breed” by an android version of Kirk in the episode What Are Little Girls Made Of? Spock inherited not only Sarek’s pointed ears and perennially arched eyebrows but the predominant Vulcan trait of thinking and acting strictly within the logical boundaries of mathematics and science.

The wrestling match between sensible reason and deliberate speculation which the partly-human Spock must occasionally participate in is reminiscent (as is his physical appearance in a vague fashion) of Abraham Lincoln who grappled with similar ideological conflicts in his speechwriting, policy making, and personal thinking. What later turns out to be a carbon-based copy of Lincoln beams aboard the Enterprise in the Savage Curtain episode (third to last of the original series) and encounters Lt. Uhura to whom he refers as “an enchanting Negress”. Uhura takes no offense, assuring a properly chagrined ‘Lincoln’ that “in our century, we’ve learned not to fear words.” The replicated Emancipator replies, “The foolishness of my century had me apologizing where no offense was given.”

Nichelle Nichols as Uhura

The visually striking and multi-talented Nichelle Nichols had modeled, danced in Hugh Heffner’s Playboy Club, traveled extensively as a singer in the ensembles of Duke Ellington and Lionel Hampton, and appeared variously onstage and onscreen. She was featured in Gene Roddenberry’s first series titled, appropriately for the soon-to-be Communications Officer of the Enterprise, The Lieutenant. Interestingly, because Uhura’s makeup swept her hair atop her head and accentuated Nichols’ naturally almond-shaped eyes, she was often mistaken for Asian by people viewing the program on black and white television sets.

George Takei as Sulu

The role of Helmsman Hikaru Sulu was filled by George Takei, who was very involved in several early plot lines alongside the show’s central triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy (“Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor…”) played memorably by DeForest Kelley. Born Hosato Takei in Los Angeles to Japanese parents, he (at the age of four) and his family were rounded up along with more than 120,000 other Japanese Americans in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack and interred for five years in a perpetual state of “chaos and confusion” among “rows upon rows of black tar paper-covered Army barracks aligned in military parade precision”, first in Alabama’s Rohwer Relocation Center then Camp Tule Lake back in California.

Prior to navigating the Enterprise out of a succession of hazardous situations among the stars, one of Takei’s first film appearances was an uncredited role as the Japanese steerer who pulverizes Lt. John F. Kennedy’s torpedo boat in PT-109.

Walter Koenig as Chekov

Takei’s prolonged absence while filming The Green Berets opposite John Wayne was responsible for the increased screen time given to Walter Koenig, introduced as Ensign Pavel Chekov in Star Trek’s second season. His parents, Isadore and Sarah Koningsberg, were Russian Jews who fled Lithuania for Chicago and ultimately New York where Isadore, a former Communist, found himself subject to scrutiny beneath the red-tinted lens of Joseph McCarthy’s un-American activities microscope. Koenig compared the McCarthy witch-hunts of the 1940s and 50s to “our version of the Spanish Inquisition or Robespierre’s Committee on Public Safety or the shadow councils of South American dictatorships.”

Roddenberry’s addition of a Russian to the cast was a further controversial brushstroke of brilliant multiplicity just as the successful missions of Sputnik and Vostok had given the Soviets the lead in the jingoistic space race, throwing further fuel onto the fire of the still-simmering Cold War. Beyond giving the prematurely balding actor a mop-topped toupee, drawing favorable comparisons among female Trekkers with Davey Jones of the Monkees, and requesting that Koenig over-enunciate an already cartoonish Russian accent (such as swapping W’s for V’s), Roddenberry’s public relations department concocted another puzzling fabrication.

The character of Chekov, according to a press release which was every bit a work of fiction as Star Trek itself, was created to satisfy the call for a Russian cast member proposed by the Soviet newspaper Pravda, a publication which pre-dated the October Revolution but had enjoyed its most immense readership under Lenin’s rule along with the Bolsheviks’ other propaganda sheet of choice Izvestia.       

James Doohan as Scotty

James Doohan confessed that he was Canadian with “some Scottish blood in me, but that’s three hundred years ago.” He recalled being asked by Gene Roddenberry during his audition to judge for himself“which of the eight different accents I’ve just done for him would best fit the role of the Chief Engineer. It had better be a Scotsman,” Doohan decided. “They’ve built all the great ships around the world. The Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, the Titanic…”

That last example notwithstanding, the Enterprise’s Transporter Engineer adopted the guise of Montgomery Scott, still associated today with the catchphrase “Beam me up, Scotty”. Like “Play it again, Sam”, it is one of those peculiar anomalies of the pop-culture lexicon for having never actually been spoken as quoted. Much to Doohan’s regret, the aforementioned Lincoln-related episode Savage Curtain would be the only opportunity for Scotty to don the traditional Scottish kilt.

MLK Rescues Uhura    

Star Trek did not become the mainstream cultural phenomenon that it remains today until after its 1969 cancelation and subsequent network syndication in the 70s. The series suffered, during its inaugural season, from lukewarm critical reaction and poor viewership ratings. It was also nearly altered drastically and for the worse by the potential departure of one of its major cast members.

Nichelle Nichols was routinely given a difficult time by certain security guards on the Paramount lot who pretended not to recognize the unmistakable actress with the intention of denying her access to the show’s soundstage. One afternoon, she was approached covertly by two mailroom employees who apologized for withholding the bulk of her voluminous fan correspondence - which rivaled that of either Leonard Nimoy or William Shatner - at the request of their supervisor who himself was acting on orders handed down from above.

Worse still, she was verbally accosted by a Desilu executive who told her in no uncertain terms following a first-season cast reduction that “If anyone was let go, it should have been you, not Grace Lee,” referring to Grace Lee Whitney who had played Captain Kirk’s personal assistant and hopeful love interest Yeoman Janice Rand until her role was deemed redundant. “Ten of you could never equal one blue-eyed blonde,” was his bigoted analysis.

These events proved the breaking point of the frustration already weighing heavily upon her at being little more than a prop on the ship’s bridge (with the notable exception of getting to sing in two early episodes), exhibiting her shapely legs in a red mini-dress and interminably intoning the line, “Hailing frequencies open, sir.” The last episode of the season having wrapped, Nichelle went to Gene Roddenberry’s office and tendered her resignation, effective immediately.

She attended an NAACP fundraiser the following evening where a fellow guest asked if she could take some time to meet with a big fan. Anticipating a short cordial chat followed by an autograph request or photo opportunity, Nichols was astounded to turn and stand face to face with Martin Luther King, Junior. “Yes, I am that fan,” King beamed, “and I wanted to tell you how important your role is.” He revealed to her that Star Trek was the only television show that he and Coretta allowed the children to stay up late and watch as a family and was completely taken aback by Nichele’s revelation that she was departing the program.

“You cannot and must not,” demanded King. “You have opened a door which must not be allowed to close. You have created a character of dignity and grace and beauty and intelligence. For the first time, people see us as we should be seen, as equals, as intelligent people, as we should be. Remember, you are not important there in spite of your color. You are important there because of your color. This is what Gene Roddenberry has given us.”

Nichols returned to Roddenberry on Monday morning to relay Dr. King’s message and retract her resignation. “God bless that man,” Gene said while fighting back tears. “At least someone sees what I’m trying to achieve.”

The Kiss

Before the series wound down to its fateful and unfortunate third season conclusion, it would shock the world with a provocative episode titled Plato’s Stepchildren. It begins in a manner not dissimilar from The Squire of Gothos (wherein Uhura is identified by the French-obsessed alien presence Trelane as “a Nubian prize”) as a landing party consisting of the crew’s principal players is manipulated for the amusement of their nefarious hosts. Here, a Utopian society has been founded on the planet Platonia by its leader Parmen based on the teachings of the ancient Greeks, namely Plato and Socrates.

Lt. Uhura and Nurse Chapel (Roddenberry’s wife Majel) are involuntarily beamed down to Platonia for inclusion in a stage play-equal parts dramatic, romantic, and sadistic-along with Kirk and Spock, all in Greek costume and under the influence of Parmen’s psycho-kinetic control. After Spock and Nurse Chapel have already done so, Kirk and Uhura have no choice but to comply with Parmen’s wish to see them kiss. This is commonly and mistakenly referred to as television’s first inter-racial kiss but the truth of the matter is that the British soap opera Emergency Ward 10 beat Star Trek to the lip-smacking punch four years earlier.

Furthermore, the sequence, as aired, features the second alternate take shot at the insistence of Paramount executives where Shatner pulls a struggling Nichols toward him and their lips do not make direct contact. This measure was taken to placate southern network affiliates who threatened to black out the entire hour based solely on the presentation of ‘the kiss’.

“And even when we shot this compromised version of the scene, I can clearly recall the network suits standing on the set watching us intently,” remembers William Shatner, “making sure that before the two of us performed our simulated kiss, we fought against it intently, making it absolutely clear that in the case of Kirk and Uhura, this was an ‘against their will’ coupling. Completely devoid of any passion, romance, or sexuality.” Nichelle Nichols raged that “It was bullshit! Bullshit! It was simply and clearly racism standing in the door…in suits. Strange how a twenty-third century space opera could be so mired in antiquated hang-ups.”

Regardless, it was a mountain-moving moment in American television and one can only imagine that writer Meyer Dolinsky anticipated the furor this scene would arouse when he scripted the lines of dialogue beginning with Uhura saying, “I’m so frightened, Captain. I’m so very frightened.”

“That’s the way they want you to feel,” Kirk reassures her. “It makes them think that they’re alive.” Uhura then declares affirmatively and defiantly that “I’m thinking of all the times on the Enterprise when I was scared to death…and now they’re making me tremble. But I’m not afraid. I am not afraid.”

Down to Earth and Back to Space  

Many cast members happily accepted the challenge to “seek out new life and new civilizations” after they had shed their Starfleet insignia, tri-corders, communicators, and phasers (set to stun, of course).

Nichelle Nichols would use her sci-fi credibility to recruit engineers and astronauts for NASA, specifically appealing to females and minorities. Augmenting the encouragement she had received from Martin Luther King back in 1966, she would be further touched by the words of Whoopi Goldberg who would appear as Guinan on the last four seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Whoopi excitedly conveyed the story to Nichelle of how she had turned on the television as a child and seen Uhura featured prominently on the bridge of the Enterprise, screaming to her mother, “Come quick! Come quick! There’s a black lady on tv and she ain’t no maid.”  

Leonard Nimoy campaigned for the dovish Eugene McCarthy and worked on behalf of the ACLU, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers, and Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. One of the songs that appeared on Nimoy’s 1974 double-LP Outer Space/Inner Mind was a track entitled Abraham, Martin, and John, a musical tribute to Lincoln, King, John and Bobby Kennedy.

George Takei, an openly gay man with a decidedly wicked sense of humor, proudly uses his frequent appearances on the Howard Stern Show as well as his various social media platforms to advocate for LGBT rights and same-sex marriage legislation along with his husband Brad. The hit musical Allegiance, starring Takei and based on his experiences in the Japanese internment camps, opened at the Old Globe Theatre in San Diego and has played to great acclaim in several major cities with a recent run at Broadway’s Longacre Theatre.

Suffering terribly from a hellish combination of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and pulmonary disease, James Doohan was honored shortly before his 2005 death with a convention called Beam Me Up One Last Time, Scotty. The keynote speaker was Neil Armstrong who made a rare public appearance to express his gratitude for the inspiration that Star Trek had given him in his quest toward the moon. “I want a Chief Engineer like Montgomery Scott,” Armstrong mused on a hypothetical return to the stars, “because I know Scotty will get the job done and do it right. Even if I often hear him say, ‘But, Captain, I dinna have enough time!’ So, from one old engineer to another, thanks Scotty.” Doohan was cremated after passing away, his ashes successfully beamed up into near-earth orbit in 2012-after two previously failed attempts-aboard the Falcon 9 rocket.

Live Long and Prosper!

Did you find the article interesting? Let us know why below…

Sources

Beyond Uhura: Star Trek and Other Memories by Nichelle Nichols (1994, Putnam)

To the Stars: Star Trek’s Mr. Sulu by George Takei (1994, Simon & Schuster)

Warped Factors: A Neurotic’s Guide to the Universe by Walter Koenig (1997, Taylor Publishing)

Beam Me Up, Scotty by James Doohan with Peter David (1996, Pocket Books)

Star Trek Memories by William Shatner with Chris Kreski (1993, Harper Collins) 

I Am Not Spock by Leonard Nimoy (1975, Celestial Arts)

The Trial of the Twentieth Century – And its relevance for tensions in modern America

The Scopes Trial was very possibly the most important of the twentieth century in the US – and has many considerations for today. Here, Edward J. Vinski returns and shares his reflections on Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter in present-day America in the context of the Scopes Trial. You can find out more on the Scopes Trial in Edward’s previous articles over three parts here, here and here.

The Anti-Evolution League at the Scopes Trial. Source: Mike Licht, available here.

I write this on July 10, 2016, ninety-one years to the day since the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial began. This court case has fascinated me for well over a decade.  I read every book and article I can find about it. I have seen several documentaries. I have watched the dramatization "Inherit the Wind" so often I can almost recite it verbatim. I have thought about it and written about it. I follow new attempts at removing the theory of evolution from the public school classrooms with great interest. Nevertheless, it is only today that I came to a momentous conclusion: We, all of us in the United States of America, may have been wrong about William Jennings Bryan.

Not from a scientific perspective, mind you, because Bryan was no scientist and he often showed his ignorance. He valued scientific achievement for its benefits to humankind, but he had very little understanding of scientific principles. In some instances, his ignorance was nothing short of laughable as in this section from his famous "Prince of Peace" address:

I was eating a piece of watermelon some months ago and was struck with its beauty. I took some of the seeds and dried them and weighed them, and found that it would require some five thousand seeds to weigh a pound; and then I applied mathematics to that forty-pound melon. One of these seeds, put into the ground, when warmed by the sun and moistened by the rain, takes off its coat and goes to work; it gathers from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight, and forcing this raw material through a tiny stem, constructs a watermelon...[u]ntil you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that you can set limits to the power of the Almighty and say just what He would do or how He would do it. I cannot explain the watermelon, but I eat it and enjoy it (Bryan, 1909).

The argument appears to be, in essence, that science is faulty and God exists because William Jennings Bryan did not know where watermelons come from.

Bryan’s ignorance

Nowhere was his ignorance more evident than in the Scopes Trial itself. In an astonishing development, defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, called Bryan to the witness stand to answer questions about the Bible. Darrow, however, chose his questions carefully from biblical events that pressed up against the boundaries of science. Thus, Bryan stumbled badly when asked questions about such things as the age of the earth, the length of the days in the Genesis account of creation and how these stories contradicted accepted scientific facts. At best, he did nothing to help his cause. At worst, he played directly into the defense's hands.

Bryan was clearly wrong about evolutionary theory. How, then, have we misunderstood him?

Present events

You see, I am also writing this in the wake of a tense week for America. The shooting deaths of black men by police officers in Louisiana and Minnesota were followed a few days later by the shooting deaths of five police officers in Texas. Social media is currently undulating between prayers for the victims, sadness, outrage and anger. In addition, the all too familiar battle lines are once again drawn between Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter.

The names of these movements, however, give a hint of something that Bryan foresaw over nine decades ago: Dehumanization. When we see only the dark skin and the blue uniform, we cannot help but lose sight of what inhabits both - an individual human being. One of Bryan’s greatest arguments for the banning of evolution had nothing to do with science per se. Rather, it was that while science clearly had produced the mechanical marvels of the twentieth century, it had produced no code of morality to keep these marvels in check. Bryan feared that the "survival of the fittest" interpretation of Darwin would lead to eugenics, sterilization, euthanasia and wars of aggression.

For evidence of this, we need look no farther than the textbook under scrutiny at the Scopes Trial, George William Hunter's "A Civic Biology". In a lengthy passage, Hunter describes precisely what Bryan feared most:

Hundreds of families [...] exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country (Hunter, 1914).

It is noteworthy that Hunter's book was published in 1914, the very year in which a Great War broke out that would eventually see some smaller, weaker nations swallowed up by larger, stronger ones.

War without a moral code?

Bryan worried that the proliferation of evolutionary theory without a proper moral balance would lead humanity to make judgments about those who are fit for life and procreation and those who are not. Those in positions of power could use evolutionary theory as a justification to eliminate those deemed parasitic, troublemakers, or just unpleasant. Had not such philosophies already affected the way we conduct our wars?  Science, Bryan wrote:

Has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plan-the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above (Scopes Trial Transcript).

No less an authority than the secular evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould seemed to think that Bryan was on to something, writing, "when [Bryan] said that Darwinism had been widely portrayed as a defense of war, domination, and domestic exploitation, he was right" (p. 163). Within a few years of the Trial, Adolf Hitler would show, just how right Bryan was.

Understanding others

We see this same Dehumanization in our day when we look at the tragedies of Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas. Depending on which side we find ourselves supporting, we see either black skin or a blue uniform, but not the person inhabiting them. Even the reasonable-sounding All Lives Matter perspective, while certainly true in the broadest sense, dehumanizes as it removes all traces of personal identity from the equation and ignores the reality faced by individuals of color and of law enforcement on any given day. For all of our advancements as a society, we have never been able to understand the world clearly from the perspective of another. There are those who cannot see how the actions of a white police officer against a black person could possibly be viewed as racist. There are those, on the other hand, who cannot see how such actions could be anything but. I may be able to sympathize with someone else, celebrate with them in triumph and commiserate with them in sorrow, but I can never truly see how they operate in the world and how the world reacts to them. If I cannot do this among my most intimate of friends, how then, can I ever hope to do so with those I know only through the broadest of generalities, which, by their very definition, dehumanize even further? The "you" and "me" of intimacy become the "them" and "us" of separation. Rodney King, the subject of another period of racial tension a generation ago once asked, "can we all get along?" Until we are able to view the world from the perspective of others, to understand them as individual human beings bound up in a history that is both of their own making and also beyond their control, the answer to that question is likely to remain a sad and resounding "no".

William Jennings Bryan did not understand evolutionary theory. His grasp on the scientific method was sketchy at best. He understood people, however. This skill enabled him to become a three-time candidate for President of the United States and one of the most popular public speakers of the twentieth century. His performance at the Trial led to his being labeled a villain, a bully, a buffoon. Maybe his insight went further than we thought, however. Maybe he knew what we would do to each other given only the slightest provocation and with only the slightest scientific justification. Maybe, just maybe, he was more right than we knew.

What do you think of the article? Tell us below…

References

• Bryan, W.J. (1909). The Prince of Peace. New York: Fleming H. Revel Company.
• Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
• Hunter, G. W. (1914). A Civic Biology Presented in Problems. New York: American Book Company.
•  Scopes Trial Transcript, 1925