Hancock asks viewers to consider his ideas with an open mind.  So, let’s do that.  I watched the entire 8-part series with my 10-year-old son while researching the sites Hancock visited.  I am not an expert on ancient history but have read and taught this subject and have written about ancient history on this site.  After watching the series, I also reviewed Hancock’s previous books watching some of his YouTube presentations including the recent podcast with Joe Rogan.  Finally, I read and listened to criticisms from archaeologists.  My conclusion is that Ancient Apocalypse is entertaining and informative to a degree.  However, Hancock’s theory of a lost Ice Age civilization that seeded its knowledge in later cultures is unfounded.    

That said, I do believe this series is worth watching which I will explain in the Conclusion. For those interested in why I concluded Hancock’s theories are wrong, I will lay out the reasons below.  There are plenty of experts who have gone through the series pointing out factual errors and omissions.  Instead, I will focus on specific and fatal problems with the logic of Ancient Apocalypse.  

Neolithic Revolution Theory 

To understand the issues raised in Ancient Apocalypse, it is helpful to have some background of the emergence of civilization in the Neolithic Era.  Over the years, archaeologists have developed a timeline of events and innovation known as the Neolithic Revolution, sometimes also referred to as the Agricultural Revolution.  For the sake of brevity, I offer a simplified summary.  After the last Ice Age ended, rising temperatures increased the availability of edible grains, fruits and vegetables leading to larger animal herds.  The new abundance of edible vegetation and wild herds allowed neolithic hunter gatherers around the world to flourish.  These Neolithic people gradually recognized they could rely on wild grains and other plants exchanging their nomadic existence for a more sedentary agrarian lifestyle.   

This change occurred at different times around the world but is believed to have first started in and around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, a region known as the Fertile Crescent in about 10,000 BC.   As agriculture took hold, towns and walls began growing around fields.  Farming led to more sophisticated tools (including metals), domestication of animals, and other innovations which produced food surpluses.  With excess food, some began specializing in manufacturing tools, pottery, baskets and other products which led to the development of a bartering economy.  Towns grew into cities as social hierarchy and organized religion matured.  Neolithic merchants developed a written form of numbers to record economic transactions which ultimately led to a written language.  The ability to write down thoughts, events, laws, religious beliefs, stories, etc. heralded a new era: recorded history, which can be considered the final element of what we call civilization. 

In oversimplifying this theory, I should add that there was never a single unified agreement about the timeline.  Debates continued over important issues such as when domestication of animals began and whether farming fostered the development of towns or whether settlements led to farming.  Prevailing ideas about the Neolithic Revolution have recently been thrown into doubt, however, by the discovery of Gobekli Tepe in the northern region of the Fertile Crescent (modern Turkey) which will be covered in more depth below.   

Ancient Apocalypse: Theory and Analysis

Hancock is offering a radically new theory on how the Neolithic Revolution began.  Over the course of 7 of the 8 episodes, he visits different ancient sites, sometimes speaking with archaeologists or others he presents as experts. Each site is filmed with HD cameras along with computerized simulations of these sites as they appeared when inhabited.  That part is great and very interesting.  However, what follows is more controversial.  

Hancock asserts that the cultures that built these sites around the world did not do so independently.  Instead, he claims cataclysmic flooding and prolonged comet showers destroyed a previously unknown, advanced civilization by 11,600 BC.  Survivors dispersed around the globe sharing their knowledge with hunter gatherers in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.  

An obvious question arises here.  Where is the evidence of this Ice Age civilization?  Hancock’s answer is that unprecedented flooding and comet impacts during the Younger Dryas (12,900 BC to 11,600BC) destroyed all direct evidence.  

The first major problem can be summed up in the phrase argumentum ad ignorantiam (translated as “appeal to ignorance”) or restated as “the lack of evidence is not evidence.”  Archaeologists have uncovered plenty of animal bones, stone tools, artifacts, and Neolithic human remains from the recent Younger Dryas era.  So why is there nothing remaining from a more advanced civilization that built megaliths and was technologically sophisticated enough to engage in trans-oceanic travel?  Did they not build their own towns and cities or make metal and/or stone tools?  There is absolutely no direct evidence of an advanced Ice Age civilization whatsoever.

Asserting that the lack of evidence supports a conclusion is a logical fallacy.  With no proof, Hancock’s fundamental theory is fatally flawed.  It cannot be proven or disproven because there is nothing to support or refute it.  An unprovable theory is nothing more than that, unproven.   Offering a theory is not problematic by itself but if one is attempting to radically alter the understanding of ancient history, the burden lies with the proponent.  To do that Hancock needs to make a strong case, which cannot be done when there is no supporting evidence.   

Hancock does attempt to demonstrate that there is indirect evidence at every site, but those assertions are either contradicted by available evidence or are unprovable.  I won’t attempt to refute every one here.  Others with much more expertise have done so.  Instead, I offer one illustrative example.  Hancock traveled to a fascinating underground city in Turkey called Derinkuyu in Episode 7.  

Though archaeologists have theorized the first work on the city dates back to 800 BC, Hancock notes that part of the site was chiseled by stone axes which he suggests could have been cut thousands of years earlier.  Chisel marks cannot be dated so he could be correct.  But what Hancock leaves out is that these marks could be from 800 BC, or 100 years earlier– they could be more recent. 

Additionally, the chisel cuts are only in one small area which does not support the conclusion that the entire site is as old as the rest or that these marks were made for the purpose Hancock claims. This analysis and reliance on conjecture reveals the flaw in Hancock’s theory, it cannot be proven or disproven.  However, there is a separate and larger flaw.  

Hancock fails to note extensive archaeological work in the Derinkuyu region has not uncovered any trace of human habitation prior to 800 BC.  That omission tends to support the established timeline contradicting Hancock’s assertion that the site could be thousands of years older.  Hancock uses the same flawed methodology at every site.  Netflix describes Ancient Apocalypse as a “docuseries” implying it is objective.  The description is misleading.  Ancient Apocalypse is an argument, not a balanced presentation of facts.  Claiming objectivity while only presenting one side is nowhere close to being persuasive enough to overturn the archaeological consensus.  

I also take issue with the overall tone of Ancient Apocalypse.  To the extent Hancock discusses alternative possibilities, he does so only to dismiss them as incorrect, often claiming “mainstream” archaeology is inflexibly refusing to consider “new” evidence.  He argues elitist archaeologists are stubbornly clinging to a narrative they created to maintain a monopoly on their reputations and interpretations of history.  

The personal animus against “mainstream” archaeology often appears more important to Hancock than his overall theory.  He discounts those who disagree with him as engaging in an academic conspiracy.  Resorting to ad hominem attacks damages his credibility.  Hancock seems more interested in pursuing a vendetta against his critics which is distracting.  His presentation is argumentative not objective and ultimately is not convincing.  

Archaeology is an empirical discipline based in the scientific method.  Hypotheses are developed on existing evidence and then modified as more information becomes available. The “mainstream” theories are based on decades of painstaking excavation, study and research of ruins and artifacts.  Archaeologists write reports of their findings which are shared and debated allowing for more broad conclusions to be drawn.  The research and theorizing never ends.  It changes in small ways as new sites and artifacts are discovered which gradually leads to new theories and consensus.  Hancock skips the arduous long-term evidence-based process in favor of his conclusory speculation relying on future discoveries to confirm his theory.  

Gobekli Tepe: Modifying the Neolithic Revolution to Civilization Theory

Hancock highlights Gobekli Tepe, in Episode 5.  The site defies previous theories about the capabilities of hunter gatherers.  The megaliths at Gobekli Tepe are huge, complex and feature detailed carved imagery of animals and human figures.  Moving and placing megaliths weighing up to 20 tons required a lot of human muscle (there is no evidence our ancestors had developed the wheel or domesticated beasts of burden).  The intricate and diverse number of carved animals and human figures required skilled stonecutters who would have needed a lot of time to finish their work.  These figures, their placement, and the orientation of the buildings probably had great significance to the people who created this work implying sophisticated spiritual beliefs.  The necessary organized labor and skilled craftsmen needed to build this site had not previously been thought possible for hunter gatherers.

This episode serves as a prime example of how Hancock misstates the archaeological consensus on Neolithic Revolution Theory.  Contrary to Hancock’s frequent assertions throughout the series, “mainstream” archaeologists were never inflexibly locked into a single, unalterable hypothesis.  Neolithic Revolution Theory developed over decades altered and refined as new sites and artifacts were unearthed.  With the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, archaeologists have acknowledged that there will be fundamental changes.   

Klaus Schmidt did the initial work at Gobekli Tepe (he died in 2014 after working on the site for 18 years).  Schmidt echoed the views of many when stating:  “Gobekli Tepe upends our view of human history.  We always thought that agriculture came first, then civilisation: farming, pottery, social hierarchies.  But here it is reversed, it seems the ritual centre came first, then when enough hunter gathering people collected to worship – or so I believe – they realised they had to feed people.  Which means farming.”  (Most-read 2022: Is an unknown, extraordinarily ancient civilisation buried under eastern Turkey? | The Spectator)

Gobekli Tepe is such an interesting find.  This discovery has already caused an ongoing rewrite of the prevailing theories on the development of civilization.  However, the changes will be slow as a new timeline gradually emerges with new discoveries.  Currently, 95% of the Gobekli Tepe site is still unexcavated.  Additionally, similar sites have been discovered nearby that contain similar structures and artifacts.  

Hancock denies that these skills and beliefs could have developed overnight by nomadic peoples and therefore the source must have been a much older and more advanced society.  Maybe he is correct, but there are two problems.  First, as previously mentioned, there is no evidence of an older civilization– no tools, ruins, graves, etc.  Second, many of the skills present at Gobekli Tepe were not new.  Humans had been making stone tools and figures of animals and humans for thousands of years before Gobekli Tepe. Even the megaliths are not unique.  Other T shaped megaliths and stone carved animals have been discovered in nearby sites– some are older than Gobekli Tepe. (see Karahan Tepe: Is an unknown, extraordinarily ancient civilisation buried under eastern Turkey? | The Spectator).  There is clear evidence hunter gatherers in the area were developing skills, beliefs and sophistication to build Gobekli Tepe without outside assistance.  

Graham Hancock’s Prior Works 

In assessing the credibility of current claims, it is useful to examine Hancock’s prior writings which date back to the mid-1990s.  Hancock has been pursuing the lost civilization theory for a long time and has made assertions that are unorthodox to say the least.  There are too many to describe in detail here, but two are illustrative.  The Mars Mystery (1999) postulates that an advanced civilization existed on Mars that influenced ancient human culture.  Hancock also wrote a book in 1995 called Fingerprints of the Gods contending that 10,000 years ago an ice-free Antarctica was home to an advanced civilization he referred to as Atlantis.  

In both books, Hancock claimed that there was growing evidence for his alternative theories that “mainstream” experts refused to consider.  In The Mars Mystery, Hancock claimed features on the surface of Mars resembled prehistoric human sites whereby there could only be one conclusion, there was a Martian civilization that influenced societies on Earth.  Since publication of that book, robotic probes and satellites have conclusively demonstrated that no such civilization was possible.  It is well established that Antarctica has been covered in ice continuously for hundreds of thousands of years).

These theories have been exposed as impossible.  Instead of acknowledging error, Hancock simply creates a new source.  Ancient Apocalypse claims the Amazon basin as the home of his advanced culture.  This is an important detail which undermines Hancock’s credibility.  While arguing that “mainstream” archaeology is too conservative and lacking imagination, Hancock takes the opposite tack.  His theories are pure flights of fancy.  If he can be so radically wrong about the origins of this alleged lost civilization, it’s not hard to conclude he is equally off-base on current claims– for which by his own admission he cannot support with actual evidence.  

It is here that we can understand why Hancock is not taken seriously by many archaeologists.  First off, he has offered some truly wacky theories.  Because of these wild assertions, Hancock is frequently accused, with good reason, of engaging in pseudoscience.  Citing Martian cultures and Atlantean civilizations certainly qualifies as pseudoscientific, so it is no surprise he is dismissed as unserious.  Many archaeologists actually agree with Hancock that there is likely a previously unknown process by which civilization developed.  However, they recognize better understanding of a new culture requires decades of work turning up evidence, not speculating via unsupported conclusions.  

So, I think it is fair to say that hypothesis of a lost Ice Age culture advanced in Ancient Apocalypse is unproven. Most importantly, there is no supporting evidence.  Not only is the tone of the presentation one sided, a little research debunks much of what is claimed.  Hancock’s tone also undermines his theories. His continual attack on “mainstream” archaeology comes across as far too personal, overly broad and inaccurate.  Finally, Hancock has undermined his credibility by throwing out numerous unfounded and debunked theories.  

Conclusion

I laid out the reasons this series should not be considered as a worthy alternative interpretation of ancient history above but that does not mean Ancient Apocalypse is without merit. 

The series has really high production values.  It is filmed in HD which makes for very interesting viewing of some truly fascinating historical sites not otherwise readily available.  Ancient Apocalypse provides high quality reconstructions of how the sites appeared while still inhabited which helps one understand the Neolithic landscape.  

Elements of Ancient Apocalypse are educational even if one disagrees with Hancock’s main argument about a lost Ice Age civilization.. He provides good summaries of the sites and is very good at highlighting mysteries and unanswered questions.  The unexplained makes the sites far more intriguing.  The development of civilization before recorded history is a “hot” topic these days and new discoveries seemingly come to light every month.  It’s a really interesting subject worth following.  

My 10-year-old son watched every episode and asked a lot of questions.  His interest carried over to the research we did on the individual sites as well.  Keeping a 10-year old’s attention in ancient civilizations for 8+ hours is no small feat.  Many Americans, especially the young, do not take much interest in history and this series definitely raised my son’s interest.  To the extent Ancient Apocalypse brings these subjects to a wider audience, I am all for it.  

So in conclusion, my recommendation would be to watch Ancient Apocalypse and look up the sites Hancock presents as you go.  Learn about them, they are fascinating.  Weigh what Hancock says against what archaeologists theorize and decide what you think is correct with the proviso that you follow up over time as new discoveries come to light and remain open minded. 

A final postscript:  It has been alleged by a number of critics that Graham Hancock and/or his theories are racist/white supremacist.  I find this criticism ludicrous and unfair.  I listened to hours of Hancock in Ancient Apocalypse and from other sources and there is not even a hint of racism.  As a society, we have to get past demonizing those we disagree with via character assassination.  Claims of racism are sometimes calculated to muzzle ideas and speakers who have different views.  It is wrong and frequently lazy.  We should be debating theories with facts and reason, not name calling.  Living in a free society means we have to allow advocacy of all sorts of ideas, including bad ones.  Theories without merit will fall by the wayside.  Even if Hancock’s ideas are totally wrong, they are worth hearing and considering.  There is value in wrong answers.  They help eliminate false paths, making the truth more clear.  Sometimes, the wrong theory can cause us to think about things a different way that may lead to enlightenment. 

The post Review: Graham Hancock’s Netflix Series Ancient Apocalypse– Deeply Flawed but Worth Watching appeared first on History Arch.

I have also posted a two minute recording of Weldon’s first experience in coming under fire, a German air raid in Bizerte, North Africa accessible in this link:

Another Veteran’s Day Remembrance from my Uncle Weldon Reynolds

I am writing a little more background on Mussolini and the events that led to what Weldon described below.

In 1943, the Allies invaded Italy at Salerno. Dictator Benito Mussolini delivered a two hour harangue to the ruling Fascist Grand Council calling for continued resistance but to no avail.  The Italian Government voted to surrender. The next day, King Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Mussolini remarking “At this moment you are the most hated man in Italy.”   The Italian government arrested and imprisoned Mussolini shortly thereafter.

The people of Italy had never been enthusiastic about fighting against the United States and Britain and began rejoicing.  The celebrations were short lived.  The Germans invaded Italy and put up a determined resistance in the mountains of central Italy.  They also organized a daring raid commanded by Otto Skorzeny who kidnapped Mussolini on September 12, 1943 and whisked him to Germany by plane.  Though shaken, and a shell of his formerly bombastic self, Mussolini returned to northern Italy heading a dissident Fascist government.

By spring of 1945, German resistance was finally collapsing.  The Allies captured Rome and moved into Northern Italy.  Mussolini, his mistress Clara Petacci and an entourage of lackeys began driving towards the Brenner Pass to enter Switzerland.  On April 28, 1945, near Lake Como, Italian partisans stopped the car and roughly removed the passengers lining them up against a wall.  Petacci flung her arms around Mussolini screaming “No, he mustn’t die.”  The partisans were unmoved and shot Petacci.  Mussolini tore open his coat exclaiming ‘Shoot me in the chest!’  Partisan Walter Audisio complied.  Still breathing and prostrate on the ground, Audisio finished Mussolini with another bullet.

The partisans shot the other Fascists and loaded the bodies in trucks for transport to Milan.  Upon arrival, the partisans displayed the bodies at the Piazzale Loreto, the site of a mass execution of Italians a year earlier.  A crowd gathered to see the bodies and some resorted to beating and kicking the corpses.  Finally they began hanging the bodies by their feet on the steel beams of a still incomplete gas station.

About this time, Sergeant Weldon Reynolds and other US army men arrived.  Reynolds joined the National Guard in 1940, before the war began and by 1945 had participated in four amphibious operations: North Africa, Sicily, and twice in Italy at Salerno and Anzio.  He commanded a unit of radio/telephone linesmen and frequently found himself in the front of the Allied advance.  In Italy, he helped liberate Florence and Rome and was now part of US forces pursuing the retreating Germans as they tried to escape Italy through the Brenner Pass.

Reynolds happened upon the scene in Milan as Mussolini and his party laid in the street and witnessed Italian partisans hanging them the steel scaffold if an unfinished building.  He took pictures with a Zeiss camera he had previously taken off a dead German soldier.  Sadly, over the years, someone removed the photos Weldon took of Mussolini on the ground and hanging upside down.  I am posting what was left.

Weldon Reynolds is my great uncle. Growing up I heard several stories of his war experiences that inspired this interview.  With the exception of the years in the Army, Weldon lived his entire life in or near Eden, North Carolina.  To me, he was a larger than life figure, literally.  Weldon was a big man, 6’4 with broad shoulders and I recall his huge, powerful hands and deep, gravely voice.  Early on someone nicknamed him “Rock” a fitting moniker.  He had a twin named Robert who passed away in infancy and two brothers who lived full lives, Arnold and Harry.  Weldon also had three sisters, Edna, Margie and my grandmother Mary.  Harry was also a large man, though very different.  He was one of the gentlest and kindest men I have ever met.  He served in World War II as well though his experiences traumatized him to the point that he rarely discussed his service.  Weldon and his siblings have all passed away but these recordings ensure they are not forgotten.

The post Weldon Reynolds Remembers the Death of Mussolini appeared first on History Arch.

Yesterday, I read a distressing account of deteriorating conditions one of the most revered of American landmarks, St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia.  Time and weather are ravaging the 18^th century building and I want to amplify the call for help.  In case you do not know the history, the congregation was founded at Henricus near Richmond in 1611 and is one of the oldest in America.  Of greater importance, St. John’s served as a temporary meeting place for the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1775 where Patrick Henry delivered one of the most important speeches in American History.  It is there he implored the audience to take up arms against England saying “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” (For more on the speech, see: March 23, 1775: A Call to Arms: “Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death!”).  The speech has since come to symbolize American resolve to win independence in the Revolutionary War, memorized by generations of schoolchildren.  St. John’s Church is one of the most important shrines for American Liberty and today it is in danger.

An old coat of red paint has trapped moisture in the brick base which is eroding the very foundation of the church.  Rotting wood lintels, beams and joists threaten to undermine the church structure as well.  The damage requires immediate action to shore up St. John’s foundation.  The Cabell Foundation has contributed up to $50,000 but requires matching funds be raised to reach to full pledge.  The Roller-Bottimore Foundation donated $25,000 to get things started.  The rest is up to us.

We all have a collective obligation to preserve this landmark for future generations.  St. John’s is a living monument to our past and present as a free people.  Time is of the essence.

Please take a moment and make a contribution to Project Redcoat via this link: https://www.historicstjohnschurch.org/project-redcoat

St. John’s is also the final resting place for 1,400 or more early Americans, including George Wythe, Governor John Page, Edgar Allan Poe’s mother Eliza Poe, Revolutionary War and War of 1812 veterans and many others.  The exact number is unknown but approximately 400 stone markers remain.  Of those, 117 are in critical condition (such as the one pictured to the left) and another 107 are also in bad shape.  Restoration efforts are ongoing.

A reader pointed out that I have neglected to bring proper attention to the fact that St. John’s has an active congregation and I am amending this entry to correct that oversight.

Originally named Henrico Parish Church, the congregation is one of the oldest in America forming in the Cittie of Henricus, the second settlement in Virginia after Jamestown.  When Samuel Argyll captured Pocahontas in 1613, she came to Henricus where she converted to Christianity attending services at the church.  Opechancanough’s braves razed the settlement in 1622 as part of their effort to wipe out the English colony.  The congregation re-formed at Varina where it remained until William Byrd II began the effort to found a settlement at the fall line of the James River named Richmond.  Byrd donated land and construction materials while Thomas Jefferson’s great uncle Colonel Richard Randolph oversaw construction in 1741 atop one of the several hills dominating the new town.

Thus, St. John’s was an important part of the founding of Richmond and the first neighborhood that grew up around the church took the name Church Hill.  Like most Anglican churches, St. John’s shifted to the Episcopalian denomination during the Revolutionary War.  Following Patrick Henry’s famous speech, the congregation thrived and grew throughout the following decades through the Civil War.

De-population of the urban center of Richmond in the mid-20^th century resulted in a decline in the neighborhood. Since the early 1990s though, Church Hill has experienced a resurgence of homeowners which has allowed the congregation to rebound as well.  Today, St. John’s has an active and growing Episcopalian congregation with a full range of functions including a choir, Sunday schools, weddings, and adult Christian classes.  The church also performs outreach within the community and has active and varied charitable initiatives

To the extent that I unintentionally depicted St. John’s as a museum, I issue a heartfelt apology.

Sources:

https://www.wtvr.com/i-have-a-story/big-problems-at-historic-st-johns-church-in-richmond-we-cant-let-it-go-any-longer?fbclid=IwAR2f1v62x6c-xJxd3ZrPYlYfMMdxRnKLD9m7-xtPUc_7YyaShPxFOkF6eKU

https://www.historicstjohnschurch.org/project-redcoat

https://www.historicstjohnschurch.org/cemetery

The post A Call to Save Historic St. John’s Church appeared first on History Arch.

The election of 1800 pitted John Adams against Thomas Jefferson and was perhaps the most divisive election in American History.  Adams represented the Federalist Party set on continuing the policies begun in George Washington’s Administration.  Jefferson led the Democratic Republican Party (hereinafter the Republican Party), who campaigned on making fundamental changes to America’s economic and foreign policy courses.  Upon winning, Jefferson embarked on a tour to qualm the bitterness.  One of his first stops was Mount Vernon.  Martha Washington graciously received Jefferson in a call that lasted a little over an hour.  However, she was not pleased.  Afterwards, she supposedly said “that next to the loss of her husband, [Jefferson’s visit] was the most painful occurrence of her life.” [1]  A year later, Martha told Reverend Manasseh Cutler that Jefferson was “one of the most detestable of mankind” adding that his election was “the greatest misfortune our country had ever experienced.” [2]

So just why was Martha so unhappy about meeting Jefferson?  As it turns out, Washington and the president-elect were no longer on speaking terms, their once friendly relationship shattered by disparaging remarks Jefferson made maligning Washington’s character and patriotism.  Martha Washington’s expression of hers and her husband’s sentiments reflect a great deal about the politics of the early American Republic and the split that divided once unified American Founders over how to put revolutionary ideals into practice.

Founding a New Nation

Winning the Revolutionary War presented a unique opportunity to form a new government and Americans seemed well prepared.  They had long experience in self-governance via colonial legislatures.  Their education emphasized classical history and literature with extensive exposure to prominent philosophers and politicians of Athens and Rome.  Further, the Enlightenment produced groundbreaking writings on natural law and governance put into action through the Glorious Revolution.  From these influences, Americans established a common set of beliefs based on individual rights and limited government.  As with all human endeavors, transforming ideals into practice proved difficult.

The first attempt produced the Articles of Confederation.  The weak federal government proved unworkable in solving the problems that arose after the Revolutionary War.  To fight the war, states undertook debts that were difficult to repay due to the shortage of gold and currency.  Many states fell behind or simply failed to make payments at all.  The financial problems that arose created insecurity and strife exemplified by Shay’s Rebellion exposed the Articles government as totally inadequate (see: Shays’ Rebellion: A Little Revolt with Big Repercussions).  It became clear that a stronger federal government was necessary to prevent the new American nation from splintering to pieces.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and a few others convinced George Washington to leave retirement to participate in a convention in Philadelphia addressing problems with the Articles.  One convened, the delegates did much more than reform a flawed instrument.  Instead, they produced a new form of government framing the Constitution.

The states called conventions to consider whether to ratify the Constitution.  Ratification was relatively easy at first, but over time, two factions emerged.  The Federalists supported enacting the Constitution. Another group, the Anti-Federalists, spoke out against the new government.  The Anti-Federalists viewed new powers to tax, regulate interstate commerce and disputes, and maintain a standing army as unacceptable encroachments on local autonomy, creating the potential for a distant and tyrannical federal government.  Ultimately, Washington’s support for the Constitution and an implied promise to serve as president proved decisive.  Americans accepted a more potent central government headed by a man universally trusted to not abuse his power or usurp authority.

Implementing the New Government

Forming a government presented newly elected President Washington with obstacles and opportunities.  The Constitution did not specify how the president should set up his administration.  As general of the Continental Army, Washington preferred a staff of advisors who offered opinions allowing him to make an informed decision.  Accordingly, he created a cabinet to oversee important executive functions.  Washington chose cabinet members based on their qualities and abilities favoring intelligence and character without consideration of individual political views.

Alexander Hamilton received appointment to head the Treasury Department based on talents demonstrated in his long service in the Revolution.  Washington recruited Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State because of his authorship of important documents like the Declaration of Independence and practical experience as Governor of Virginia and as ambassador to France.  These two men embodied two very different positions on governance and economics which would shape the direction of Washington’s two terms.

Economic Turmoil in Early America

As challenging as forming a new government was, managing the economy would be much more difficult.  Washington had to find a way to address the problem of potentially crippling state debt while building institutions to create prosperity.  Hamilton came into office having already given these problems much thought.  In one of his first acts Hamilton proposed a comprehensive plan to bring the debt under control, raise revenue, and establish financial institutions to manage the economy.

First, the federal government would assume all state debt to ensure obligations were paid off in a timely fashion.  Second, Hamilton offered several proposals to raise revenue. Instead of extensive domestic taxation, the government would impose tariffs on imported goods which would solve part of the problem.  To generate the rest, the government would issue long term bonds.  These instruments allowed the government to take out loans that could be paid off over 30 years. Bonds would also bring in cash from outside the US via foreign investors.

Third, to manage the US economy, Hamilton proposed establishing the Bank of the United States (BUS).  The bank would oversee the issuance of bonds and make interest payments.  The BUS charter authorized loans to the federal government when necessary.  To increase investment in factories, commercial shipping, businesses and infrastructure the BUS offered private loans.  As an additional tool to regulate economic activity, the BUS could issue bank notes as currency.

Hamilton’s ambitious financial plans did not receive universal approval.  Assumption created the first controversy.  Northern states carried much of the outstanding debt.  Southerners had largely paid off their obligations and were not enthusiastic about retiring another region’s debts.  Assumption would benefit northern commercial interests at the expense of the nation’s large population of farmers who had little interest in imports and exports or in building factories.

Farmers also disliked the more powerful federal government.  They preferred a weaker national government that would not interfere with local autonomy.  Banking and credit ran against their natural tendencies towards self-reliance.  They saw public debt as a mechanism for taxing farmers to fund northern businesses. 

Former Anti-Federalists in Congress began coalescing behind James Madison over debt assumption.  Jefferson returned to the US as Congress took up the assumption issue.  The new Secretary of State knew little of Hamilton’s plans and at Washington’s request tried to broker a compromise.  Jefferson invited Hamilton and Madison to a dinner to work out an accord.  Madison agreed to support the assumption and in exchange Hamilton acquiesced to establishment of the permanent capital on the Potomac River.

As bills for the BUS and other financial measures matured for congressional consideration, Jefferson became concerned with the implications of Hamilton’s plans.  Jefferson found himself in agreement with Madison’s preference for a weaker federal government more attuned to an agrarian economy.  Washington’s support for Hamilton’s initiatives put Jefferson in a difficult position.  He could not openly oppose Hamilton as a member of Washington’s administration.

Foreign Policy Complications

For Hamilton’s reforms to work, the US needed to engage European powers, with France and Britain being of primary importance.  American sympathies lay with the French for providing arms and troops that made the Revolutionary War victory possible.  Much had changed in France since the war ended though.

In 1789, the French people overthrew Louis XVI’s monarchy establishing a republic by 1792.  However, the transition was far from smooth.  The unrest and struggle for power created the Reign of Terror, a chaotic situation with widespread repression and frequent executions.

Other European monarchies feared the spread of the French Revolution’s radical rhetoric and a coalition declared war on France to restore the monarchy.  Surprisingly, the war went well for the French who gained territory.  In order to preserve their gains, France declared war on Britain in early 1793.  Both France and Britain wanted the US to join their side.

In addition to feelings of amity towards France, the US had a formal treaty that tied the two nations together.  However, the US was still recovering from the last war and could not afford a new one.  British imports and the income generated from tariffs dominated the American economy and war with Britain would be devastating.  Even worse, the British could invade the US from Canada or one of its other New World colonies.

To navigate a difficult course between the two ancient rivals, Washington held to a simple but practical guide in formulating foreign policy: “nations have no friends, only interests.”  In other words, all nations act according to their best interests without regard to sentiment.  The disadvantages of siding with France or Britain far outweighed any advantages.  Shortly after France declared war on Britain, Washington made a pragmatic decision issuing a formal declaration of neutrality in April of 1793.

Jefferson did not favor taking France’s side, but he strongly opposed dependence on Britain economically, politically and/or culturally.  He feared a commercial economy that would increase American interaction with Europe.  Instead, the US should rely on a limited government promoting individual liberties and a self-reliant agrarian economy.  Jefferson resented Hamilton’s increasing interference in foreign policy to promote economic ties with Britain.  It seemed that the declaration of neutrality served as cover to favor Britain over France.

The Genet Affair

Genet’s blatant violations of American neutrality outraged Washington and the Federalists who demanded the French recall their ambassador.  Jefferson had little choice but to comply.  Genet’s actions damaged American goodwill towards France further marginalizing Jefferson in Washington’s cabinet.  Just after Washington’s re-election, Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State.

The Jay Treaty

After Jefferson left office, Washington took affirmative steps to avoid war by cementing commercial ties with Britain sending Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate a treaty.  Jay succeeded returning with favorable terms.  The US received most favored status with Britain, expanding US trade rights to British Caribbean colonies.  The treaty also resolved some issues left open in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

When Republicans learned of the treaty, they viewed it as a betrayal of France believing the US would be forever beholden to the British crown and merchants.  Even though the Reign of Terror and Genet’s overbearing activities tempered support for France, the Jay Treaty was unpopular with the American people.  Republican opposition hardened and became more organized.  The Jay Treaty intensified the debate over America’s place in the world and came to define US politics for the next 20 years.

Newspapers supporting each side evolved in the early 1790s. John Fenno published the Federalists’ leading paper, The Gazette of the United States featuring the writings of John Adams, Noah Webster, Hamilton and others.  Philip Freneau opened The National Gazette for Republican writers.  Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, published The Aurora which eventually replaced the Gazette as the leading Republican mouthpiece.

Both sides used the newspapers and pamphlets to advocate for policies and attack their political opponents.  Early on, Republicans avoided criticizing Washington directly, focusing instead on Hamilton and other Federalists.  A few mild complaints over Washington’s penchant for pomp appeared which critics claimed smacked of monarchism.  These exchanges were relatively mild when compared with those that erupted with the Jay Treaty.

As debates over the Jay Treaty began, Republicans sparked a war of words through newspapers and pamphlets.  The vitriol grew more and more bitter, often with little regard for facts, frequently descending into character assassination.  Both sides believed the other intended to destroy democracy with European tyranny.  Republicans charged Federalists with attempting to replicate English monarchy in America.  Federalists claimed Republicans sought to import the French Reign of Terror to the US.

Though unsuccessful in blocking ratification in June of 1795, Republicans would not let the issue die and the rancor continued into 1796.  Embittered Republicans found a new target for their anger in George Washington.  Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Aurora ran numerous articles denigrating Washington’s conduct, intelligence, education and character.  One writer named “Pittachus” even called for Washington’s impeachment claiming the Jay Treaty violated the Constitution and for other specious causes. [4]

Scipio summarized Republican criticisms pretending to be a friend offering advice:

Scipio’s commentary is revealing in what Republicans hoped to accomplish.  Calling the president ignorant, incompetent, greedy, unpatriotic, and even a traitor was intended to force Washington to retire.  Criticism of his character and patriotism stung Washington deeply and there is little doubt the unrelenting stream of vitriol made retirement eminently preferable to a third term.

Jefferson may not have written any of the invective, but he was actively communicating with allies with complaints about the Jay Treaty and other Federalist policies.  By 1796, he had emerged as undisputed leader of the Republican Party and was running for president against Federalist incumbent John Adams.

Amongst the many diatribes against Washington, one stood out as especially problematic for Jefferson.  On June 9, 1796, Bache printed a letter from an anonymous writer named “Paulding” which included confidential details from a 1793 cabinet meeting.  Washington frequently formulated questions for his cabinet to consider.  Paulding listed the questions Washington submitted regarding the merits of declaring neutrality; the legal status of the 1778 treaty of alliance with France; and how to deal with Citizen Genet.  He included his own commentary: “The text . . . [is] a stupendous monument of degeneracy.  It will almost require the authenticity of holy writ to persuade posterity, that it is not a libel ingeniously contrived to injure the reputation of “the father of his country.” [6]

For Washington, an invitation to serve in his cabinet was akin to joining his political family.  He did not mind dissent, but did expect the inner workings of his “family” to remain confidential.  Disclosure of those deliberations would undoubtedly be seen as a personal betrayal.

Jefferson must have been keenly aware that Washington would be angry and immediately wrote to disclaim any involvement.  In a June 19, 1796 letter, Jefferson denied releasing the confidential document in the strongest possible terms: “I attest every thing sacred and honorable to the declaration, that it [Washington’s policy questions] has got there neither thro’ me nor the paper confided to me.” [7]

Jefferson then turned to matters of agriculture.  Both men valued their status as farmers and this language was code intended to re-affirm common bonds as gentlemen planters and friends.  Jefferson had good reason to forestall anger.  Washington was still revered by many and a public accusation of betrayal might have crippled Jefferson’s presidential campaign.

Washington, as usual, took the high road writing back on July 6^th: “If I had entertained any suspicions before, that the queries Which have been published in Bache’s Paper proceeded from you, the assurances you have given of the contrary, would have removed them; but the truth is, I harboured none.” [8]  Washington went on to identify the parties he believed passed the confidential questions to Bache.  Next, Washington acknowledged rumors that Jefferson may have spoken against him, but he assured Jefferson: “My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions, in my mind, of his insincerity.” [9]

Like Jefferson, Washington never responded publicly to anonymous criticism he endured.  However, in the following paragraph, he defended his actions and confided the pain it caused: “while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, . . . and wished . . . to preserve this Country from the horrors of a desolating war, that I should be accused of being the enemy of one Nation, and subject to the influence of another; and to prove it, that every act of my Administration would be tortured, and the grossest, and most insiduous misrepresentations of them be made . . . in such exagerated, and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero; a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pickpocket.” [10]

Washington seemed to accept the denial at face value and concluded his letter with friendly discussion of his farming endeavors, a further sign that he still considered Jefferson a friend.  However, one might easily conclude Washington did not believe Jefferson.  Making an extensive defense of his conduct may have been Washington’s way of responding to the source of anonymous criticisms.

Jefferson avoided a public rift with Washington, but still lost the Election of 1796 to Adams.  He had no idea that he had already written a letter before Bache’s publication of the confidential questions that would destroy what was left of his relationship with Washington and do him lasting damage.

The Mazzei Letter

Italian born physician and merchant Philip Mazzei came to Virginia in 1773.  He and Jefferson became close friends and neighbors in Charlottesville.  In an April 24, 1796 letter with the controversy over the Jay Treaty still raging, Jefferson vented his spleen to his Italian friend writing:

“In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro’ the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government. . . . It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” [11]

Mazzei, for reasons unknown, made the letter public in Europe.  Eventually knowledge of the letter reached the US and Federalist Noah Webster published the text on May 7, 1797.  Federalists seized on the line “Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England” as an obvious insult directed at Washington.  Jefferson never publicly acknowledged the letter, but the damage was done.  Calling Washington an “apostate” who subverted American liberty to “the harlot England” ended the relationship forever.

Jefferson would later claim that Washington never spoke of the letter as if to imply he did not take the contents personally.  However, Jefferson conveniently avoided acknowledging that Washington never spoke to him again on any subject.  Martha Washington’s comments about Jefferson confirm Washington’s feelings on his former Secretary of State by the end of his life.

Conclusion

The Mazzei Letter haunted Jefferson the rest of his life.  Like many important men of his day, Jefferson fretted constantly about his reputation amongst his peers and future generations.  No other Founder wrote as much about his recollections and opinions as did Jefferson.  He was fortunate to outlive most of the Founders and structured his writings to vindicate himself and shape history to his favor.  Jefferson, for example, thoroughly trashed his old rival Patrick Henry inventing a slanderously false profile of Henry as poorly educated, unwise and lazy that tarred Henry for two centuries (see Revolutionary Slander: A Personal Grudge in Early American History and the Damage Done).

Jefferson could not do the same to Washington.  Knowing Washington was too popular, the “Sage of Monticello” tended to be gracious and positive in his later assessments.  However, a letter by his hand harshly criticizing Washington tarnished Jefferson for posterity and he knew it.  Decades later, he was still protesting his innocence with unconvincing claims his letter was mistranslated. [12]  Washington stood above rancor and partisanship as a near mythological hero.  The Mazzei letter reduced Jefferson to a partisan squabbler, below Washington’s Olympian perch.  That is probably a fitting punishment.

Martha Washington’s words reveal much about the tumultuous first decade of the American Republic and the conflict between founding titans struggling to establish their visions of the course and character of the United States.

Footnotes:

[1] Higgenbotham, Don. Virginia’s Trinity of Immortals: Washington, Jefferson, and Henry, and the Story of Their Fractured Relationships. Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), p. 541

[2] Ibid, p.

[3] Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.,(1946), p. 319

[4] Pittachus, the Aurora, November 18, 1795. The false claim Washington overdrew his salary first appeared in a letter written under the pseudonym “A Calm Observer” on October 29, 1795 in the Aurora. The baseless claim was repeated subsequently.

[5] Scipio, the Aurora, November 20, 1795. The individual editions of the Aurora can be found by date at this site: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=t_XbbNNkFXoC&dat=17950930&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

[6] Paulding, the Aurora, June 9, 1796

[7] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington dated June 19, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0091

[8] Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson dated July 6, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0107

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei dated April 24, 1796. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-philip-mazzei-0

[12] see Jefferson’s 29 June, 1824 letter to Martin Van Buren: https://wallbuilders.com/defending-thomas-jefferson-john-birch-society-v-jefferson/

Sources:

Adams, Donald R. “American Neutrality and Prosperity, 1793-1808: A Reconsideration.” The Journal of Economic History 40, no. 4 (1980): 713-37. www.jstor.org/stable/2119997.

Anonymous, “A Letter of Jefferson on the Political Parties, 1798”. The American Historical Review. 3 (3): 488–489. 1898. doi:10.2307/1833690. JSTOR 1833690

Anonymous, “The Founding Trio: Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton.”

https://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/FoundingTrio.html

Anonymous, “Jefferson’s Letter to Philip Mazzei—Editorial Note.” The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 29: 1 March 1796 to 31 December 1797, (Princeton University Press, 2002), 73-88

Davis, Joseph H.; Irwin, Douglas A., “Trade Disruptions and America’s Early Industrialization, The Vanguard Group and NBER, Dartmouth College and NBER, January 5, 2005, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/ip.pdf p. 3.

Jefferson, Thomas, The Anas of Thomas Jefferson, 1791-1809. http://www.archive.org/stream/completeanastho00sawvgoog/completeanastho00sawvgoog_djvu.txt

Jefferson, Thomas to George Washington dated June 19, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0091

Jefferson, Thomas to Philip Mazzei dated April 24, 1796. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-philip-mazzei-0

Pay, Bernard, Benjamin Franklin Bache, A Democratic Leader of the Eighteenth Century. American Antiquarian Society, 277-304. https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44806871.pdf

Peterson, Merrill D. “Thomas Jefferson and Commercial Policy, 1783-1793.” The William and Mary Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1965): 584-610. doi:10.2307/1922911.

Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.,(1946).

Scherr, Arthur. “”Vox Populi” versus the Patriot President: Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Philadelphia Aurora and John Adams (1797).” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 62, no. 4 (1995): 503-31. Accessed January 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27773848.

Sheridan, Eugene R. “The Recall of Edmond Charles Genet: A Study in Transatlantic Politics and Diplomacy.” Diplomatic History 18, no. 4 (1994): 463-88. Accessed January 29, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/24912307.

Simpson, Stephen, The Lives of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: With a Parallel. Philadelphia, Henry Young (1833), p. 137.

Tagg, James D. “Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Attack on George Washington.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, no. 2 (1976): 191-230. Accessed January 30, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20091053.

Various Authors, the Aurora, (1795-1796) https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=t_XbbNNkFXoC&dat=17950930&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Washington, George, Farewell Address. 1796, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Washington, George to Thomas Jefferson dated July 6, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0107

All images are in the public domain and subject to Fair Use Laws.

The post The Rupture of George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s Friendship and Its Importance [Abridged] appeared first on History Arch.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson won an historic victory in the Election of 1800.  The campaign was one of the most bitter and divisive contests in American History and Jefferson began trying to mend fences even before his inauguration.  One of the first things he did was to visit Mount Vernon.  Though George Washington died a year earlier, he remained the most revered figure in America.  Martha Washington cordially received the president-elect on January 3, 1801 but later allegedly said “that next to the loss of her husband, [Jefferson’s visit] was the most painful occurrence of her life.” [1]  A year later, Martha told Reverend Manasseh Cutler that Jefferson was “one of the most detestable of mankind” adding that his election was “the greatest misfortune our country had ever experienced.” [2]

These comments may come as a surprise today.  The success in establishing the United States has eclipsed personal relationships of the founding generation.  Though often forgotten today, those interactions frequently became rivalries which impacted important events and debates.  Martha Washington’s comments were not merely her opinions, they reflected those of her husband.  Washington and Jefferson knew each other for over 40 years and maintained a cordial relationship until the last few years.

That said, for the last two years of Washington’s life, the two men became totally estranged, no longer on speaking terms.  Political differences contributed to the split, but the proximate cause lay in a matter of personal honor; namely publication of Jefferson’s disparaging remarks about Washington’s competence and character.  Washington and Jefferson were not the only Founders whose relationships soured, there were many others.  Understanding how this once close relationship became irrevocably broken provides great insight into early American politics and the complicated relationships of the Founders themselves in forging the early republic.

Forming a New Government and Planting the Seeds of Discord

Creating a democratic republic might have seemed straightforward at the outset.  Americans had essentially governed themselves for over a century in locally elected colonial legislatures.  Added to their governing experience, the Founders possessed a deep understanding of classical Athenian democracy; Roman Republican values; Enlightenment theory on natural rights and law; and British concepts of liberty expressed in the Glorious Revolution.  Out of these common influences, came generalized principles based on individual rights and limited government granted sovereignty by the people.  Putting these ideas into action after the Revolutionary War though proved difficult.

The first effort at applying shared principles of liberty and government produced the Articles of Confederation during the Revolution.  The de-centralized nature of the national government caused problems from the outset.  After the war, the Articles proved fatally inadequate.  Debts accrued from eight years of fighting and internal dissent manifested in events like Shay’s Rebellion (see: Shays’ Rebellion: A Little Revolt with Big Repercussions) exposed the Articles government as feeble and impotent.  Visionaries like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others recognized that the US needed a stronger central government to remain intact and viable.

With George Washington’s support, the states sent delegations to Philadelphia in 1787 to reform the Articles.  Instead, the delegates formulated a new governing document, the Constitution.  Each state convened conventions to consider whether to ratify a new direction.  Controversy soon arose between previously united leaders.

Factions grew out of the debates: advocates of the Constitution, known as Federalists, and Anti-Federalists who spoke out against the new government.  Ratification became increasingly difficult as the Anti-Federalists became aware of the provisions.  The Constitution created a more powerful federal government with the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce and disputes, while maintaining a standing army.  Opponents like Patrick Henry, George Mason, James Monroe, Elbridge Gerry and others began forming cogent arguments objecting to what they viewed as unacceptable encroachments on local autonomy and the potential for tyranny. Ultimately, Washington’s backing and his implied promise to serve as president proved the decisive factor. Americans accepted a more potent central government headed by a man universally trusted to not abuse his power or usurp authority.

As Washington came into office, he faced an unprecedented situation. The Constitution laid out only a general framework for the executive branch. Washington knew the offices and procedures he established would shape governmental practices for generations to come.  The new president led in a deliberative manner.  He liked hearing different opinions before reflecting and reaching a decision.  Accordingly, Washington selected cabinet secretaries whom he believed held high intelligence, ability and character without regard to their personal views on the issues.  Among his first secretaries, Washington recruited Alexander Hamilton to head the Treasury Department and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State.  These two men differed widely the on the proper role of government and the direction the US should take.  Their disagreements shaped the early debates on policy issues.

Economic Turmoil in Early America

The US economy was in bad shape in 1789.  The states undertook heavy debts during the Revolutionary War.  Some paid off their obligations, but many fell behind.  Some states either declined to make regular payments or issued de-valued paper currency which European creditors refused to accept.  In short, the debts of some states negatively affected the credit of the US as a whole to the point the federal government might not be able to secure future loans.  The lack of mechanisms to generate revenue and manage the economy made the situation worse.

Hamilton studied the situation extensively in the 1780s and came to the Treasury with plans to solve these potentially crippling problems.  He proposed a detailed and systematic solution to address debt, raise revenue, and establish financial institutions to manage the economy.  First, the federal government would assume all state debt to ensure all obligations were paid off in a timely fashion.  Addressing Americans’ poor credit rating gave the US government legitimacy in the eyes of foreign governments.  Additionally, assumption would make whole wealthy Northerners who had taken out loans to finance the war effort.  If their debts were not retired, these powerful Northern interests may not support the union in the future.  Hamilton believed their continued willingness to invest in the union was critical to economic success.

Second, the US government required sources of income.  Taxes in the form of tariffs on imported goods, arriving mostly from Britain, would generate significant revenue.  However, tariffs would not be enough.  Hamilton opted to raise the rest through public debt which he envisioned as a management tool.  Debt structured as long-term interest payments allowed for longer-term payoffs instead of large, unpopular tax hikes.  Bonds allowed speculators to invest in the US, gambling that the government and economy could become stable enough to pay interest and principle.  Bonds would also attract cash from outside the US via foreign investors.

Third, Hamilton proposed establishing the Bank of the United States (BUS) to manage the US economy.  The BUS would be capitalized with $10 million, 20% provided by the government, the rest from speculators.  The bank held responsibility for overseeing bond issuance and interest and principal payments while also managing currency levels and offering loans.  The BUS could loan money to the federal government when necessary and incentivize merchants to invest in factories, commercial shipping, businesses and infrastructure through private loans.  The charter included the power to issue bank notes as a currency as well.

Hamilton’s ambitious financial plans widened the rift originating during the ratification debates over the power and purpose of the federal government.  Much of the outstanding state debt existed northern states.  Southerners had largely paid off their obligations and were not enthusiastic about retiring another region’s debts.  Even more distasteful, it was apparent northern investors would profit disproportionately.  This favoritism was intentional.  Hamilton needed speculators to buy government bonds to pay off the debt.  These same investors would also build factories, fleets and infrastructure fostering a commercial economy.

The more powerful and activist government required to build a commercial economy with vibrant financial markets made the nation’s large farming population uneasy.  Outside of a few northern cities most Americans were small farmers.  They favored a smaller, more passive national government that would not interfere with local autonomy.  Banking and credit ran against farmers’ natural tendency towards self-reliance.  They saw public debt as a mechanism for taxing farmers, to fund northern businesses while filling the pockets of northern speculators.  Not surprisingly, these proposals generated opposition in more agrarian regions.

Out of the loosely organized Anti-Federalists, James Madison slowly formed a cohesive faction in the House of Representatives over assumption of debt.  Jefferson agreed to head the State Department while still serving as an ambassador in France.  By the time he returned to New York in 1790, Congress was already debating assumption.  Jefferson had not yet considered Hamilton’s plans as he later admitted: “I arrived in the midst of it. But a stranger to the ground, a stranger to the actors on it, so long absent as to have lost all familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object, I took no concern in it.” [3]  With no strong opinions yet formed, Jefferson convened a dinner with Hamilton and Madison to work out a compromise.  Madison agreed to support the assumption of state debts and in exchange Hamilton acquiesced to the establishment of the permanent capital on the Potomac River.

Even though he had brokered the deal, Jefferson became concerned with Hamilton’s plans for the national economy and an activist federal government.  As bills for the BUS and other financial measures matured for congressional consideration, Jefferson increasingly sympathized with Madison’s agrarian faction.  Washington’s support for Hamilton’s initiatives made Jefferson’s position difficult.  He could not openly oppose the ambitious financial plans as a member of Washington’s administration.

Foreign Policy Adds Complications

As his apprehensions grew, so too did Jefferson’s antagonistic relationship with Hamilton.  The rivalry that developed between the Secretaries of State and Treasury took on a personal and philosophical dynamic.  Both men were talented, brilliant and equally certain in the rectitude of their differing visions for America.  Disagreements over domestic initiatives bled into foreign policy.  The US did not exist in a vacuum and the need for foreign loans and trade to sustain and grow the economy meant engagement with Europe.

Two powers in particular loomed large: France and Britain.  For over 700 years, the French and English fought in European wars bound up in larger continentwide struggles for dominance.  With the advent of New World colonies, these battles expanded into Western Hemisphere and elsewhere.  Americans had a unique place in the conflict having fought with the British for control of North America and then with the French to end British rule in the US.  Throughout the 18^th century, the French lost badly though they achieved some measure of vengeance in the Revolutionary War.

The French paid a high price for revenge.  By the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, France’s treasury was empty.  Insolvency led to the toppling of the hereditary French monarchy in 1789.  Americans had high hopes for the French Revolution as a European continuation of the American Revolution.  Jefferson had a personal stake in the outcome. As ambassador to France (1783-1789), he developed an affinity for the French.  He even participated in the French Revolution helping to draft the Rights of Man, a manifesto of liberty intended to transform France from monarchy to democracy.  However, events quickly spun out of control as radical Jacobins seized control imposing a dictatorial oligarchy that descended into the Reign of Terror marked by bloody riots and mass executions by guillotine.

War broke out in 1792 with several European powers attempting to restore the French monarchy.  The French declared war on Britain in 1793 reviving the age-old Anglo-French struggle.  Both sides wanted the US to join them which presented real threats.  Americans held warm feelings of gratitude towards their Gallic allies and had a legal bond of alliance by virtue of the 1778 Treaty.  However, from a practical perspective, aligning with France was problematic. 

Some have attributed the quote “nations have no friends, only interests” to George Washington.  Whether he actually said it or not, the quote accurately describes his guiding principle in foreign affairs.  In his Farewell Address, Washington reviewed his thought process while in office: “There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.  It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.” [4]

European nations had their own prerogatives, many of which did not coincide with American priorities: “Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation.  Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.  Therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” [5]  Washington then pointed the folly of a sentimental preference for France: “a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists.” [6]

Siding with the French offered few advantages while fighting the British could have cataclysmic consequences.  For starters, the vast majority of US imports and exports came through Britain and the French lacked the capacity to match the output.  A war with Britain would severely disrupt income flowing from tariffs, wrecking the economy while pitting the tiny US Navy against the British Empire’s powerful fleets.  British colonies in Canada and Caribbean could also serve as bases for invasion.

Additionally, the violence of the French Revolution motivated Washington to maintain a safe distance.  The President feared a close alliance might unleash the radical ideas that subverted French democracy.  He had no desire to see guillotines erected in American town squares.  Economic and military considerations made siding with France foolhardy and dangerous.  Washington had to maintain a delicate balance to avoid being drawn into another war with a European power while still recovering from the last one.  These considerations resulted in Washington’s formal declaration of neutrality in April of 1793.

Jefferson did not wish to side with France in war, but he believed the American Revolution should be true independence including shedding British traditions and reliance.  Jefferson described his version of the foreign relations: “I would wish [the US] to practice neither commerce nor navigation but to stand, with respect to Europe, precisely on the footing of China.” [7]

In examining Washington’s and Jefferson’s views on international relations, the wording of their principles is remarkably similar.  Both favored neutrality and following Americans’ best interests in formulating policy.  The difference lay in their perception of what those best interests were.  Jefferson believed close ties with Britain would create a disproportionate advantage for Britain.  As the more powerful partner, Britain could use its influence to re-conquer the US.

Jefferson’s time as ambassador and involvement in the early stages of the French Revolution instilled a pro-French preference.  France was one of the few republican governments in the world and was fighting for its life against the combined forces of European monarchy. Jefferson shared agrarian dislike for bankers and credit.  Republicans merged their opposition to Hamilton’s financial programs, a commercial economy and close ties with Britain with a pro-French foreign policy.

Jefferson asserted Hamilton was overstepping his bounds in advocating a stronger relationship with Britain.  Foreign policy should be within the purview of the State Department, not Treasury.  Hamilton believed Jefferson’s pro-French preferences threatened American democracy.  Hamilton averred that strengthening ties with France invited war with Britain threatening carefully constructed domestic financial plans.  Domestic and foreign policy could not be compartmentalized, therefore both men were correct in claiming interference by the other.  With such widely divergent worldviews, Hamilton and Jefferson could not get along or agree on a course of action.

The Genet Affair

The French did not help matters by sending Edmund Charles Genet serve as ambassador to the US.  Brusque and uncompromising, Citizen Genet sailed to Charleston on April 8, 1793 shortly after the French declared war on Britain.  His arrival far from the US capital in Philadelphia was intentional.  Genet spent a month trying to raise forces to capture Louisiana for France, commissioning American privateers to raid British shipping and otherwise pushing for the US to take France’s side by any means.  Jefferson backed Genet’s efforts behind the scenes.

In June, the French warship L’Embuscade captured the British merchantman Little Sarah and brought it to Philadelphia to be outfitted as a privateer.  Renamed Petit Democrate, Genet oversaw the addition of 14 cannon and 6 swivel guns.  The Petit Democrate eventually returned to sea and began taking British prizes in or near American waters.

Even the most ardent Republicans could no longer support Genet’s unrepentant belligerence.  Within months of his arrival, the US made a formal request that Genet be recalled.  In the end, Genet sole “success” came in wasting American goodwill towards France.  His overbearing conduct confirmed the sagacity of adherence to neutrality.

With the emergence of factions came newspapers closely tied to one party or the other.  Debates over finance and foreign policy within the halls of government spilled into the public realm in the early 1790s.  John Fenno published the Federalists’ leading paper, The Gazette of the United States featuring the writings of John Adams, Noah Webster, Hamilton and others.  Philip Freneau opened The National Gazette for Republican writers.  Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, published The Aurora which eventually replaced the Gazette as the leading Republican mouthpiece.

Both sides used the newspapers and pamphlets to advocate for policies and attack their political opponents.  Reluctant to criticize Washington directly, Republicans mostly focused on Hamilton and other Federalists.  A few mild complaints over Washington’s penchant for pomp appeared which critics claimed smacked of monarchism.  These exchanges were relatively mild when compared with those that erupted with the Jay Treaty in 1795.

The Jay Treaty

Washington’s support for Hamilton’s financial plans; fostering the economic relationship with Britain while maintaining distance from France were views also shared by most of the cabinet.  A frustrated Jefferson found himself increasingly marginalized within the administration.  He felt there was little choice but to resign as Secretary of State at the end of 1793.

After Jefferson’s departure, Washington sought to prevent war with Britain by cementing commercial ties.  The timing was good for the US.  At war in Europe, the British had no desire to overstretch limited resources fighting another enemy and US consumers generated much needed revenue in a time of war.  Canada and other British colonies would be vulnerable to American invasion as well.  In other words, the US and Britain had common interests in avoiding war.

Chief Justice John Jay sailed to Britain to negotiate a treaty.  Though Jay did not settle all outstanding matters, he came back with fairly generous terms.  The US received most favored status with Britain, expanding US trade rights to British Caribbean colonies.  The treaty also resolved some issues left open in the 1783 Treaty of Paris such as settling western borders, removal of British troops in US territories and settlement of outstanding debts.

Dismay ran high amongst Republicans when they learned of the treaty terms.  For Republicans, the Jay Treaty meant abandoning the French at the cost of making the US a puppet of the British.  Though the Reign of Terror and Genet’s activities tempered American enthusiasm for the French cause, the Jay Treaty was unpopular with the American people.  The debates that followed hardened the positions of both factions into two camps that came to define American politics for the next decade.  In the long run the treaty’s unpopularity increased the number of Republican voters which would aid Jefferson in 1800.

Opposition to the Jay Treaty led to a more organized Republicans Party.

Republican opposition through newspapers and pamphlets intensified sparking a war of words.  The bitter vitriol often descended into character assassination, straying from fact into conspiracy theory.  Both sides believed the other intended to destroy American democracy with European tyranny.  Republicans charged Federalists with attempting to replicate English monarchy in the US. Federalists claimed Republicans sought to import the French Reign of Terror.

As the Senate considered the Jay Treaty, Republicans ratcheted up the pressure setting their sights on Washington specifically.  Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Aurora ran numerous articles denigrating Washington’s character, intelligence, competency and conduct.  A few excerpts provide a flavor of what Bache printed on a daily basis:

“You seem to have entered life with a mind unadorned by extraordinary features or uncommon capacity. . . [that] emitted none of the sparks of genius, however irregular and inconstant, which mark the dawn of your future eminence. . . . nature had played the miser when she gave you birth; and education had not been lavish in her favors.” [10]

“[Washington’s Administration] is thus the monarch of Great Britain, with some trifling differences . . . with the trappings of royalty, unworthy of any but a lilliptian mind” [11]

Washington introduced pageantry to dazzle the American people to conceal “robbery and . . . foul murder with a glittering veil of tinsel.” The President replaced republican virtues with the “Deity” of money [12]

“[Americans should not give] blind confidence in any man who have done services to their country, [the President] has enslaved and ever will enslave, all nations of the earth.” [13]  

“[Washington] meant to avail himself of the popularity he acquired to strip the people of the rights which they contended for . . . . he ought to be denounced as an ingrate, and held up to public detestation.” [14]

Peppered into these wild invectives were specious calls for impeachment. For example, Pittachus wrote that Washington should be removed from office for making the Jay Treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate; false claims he overdrew his salary in 1793; and for enlisting troops to be stationed in western counties without Congressional approval to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. [15]

Scipio summarized Republican criticisms pretending to offer friendly advice:

“Your situation is like that of a player who has mistaken or lost his part, the longer he persists, the longer he is pelted by the audience, and who would be wiser to retreat behind the curtain at the first instance of general disgust, than to be hissed off the stage.” . . . 

“An immediate resignation, however, might save your country.  The heavy charges of vanity, ambition, and intrigue might lose some proportion of their force” . . . 

“You will never carry this instrument [the Jay Treaty] into effect, unless you call on Great Britain to aid you against the nation.  If you do this your name will forever be classed with [Benedict] Arnold, Dumourier [sic Dumouriez, the French revolutionary general who defected to the royalists and ended up as an advisor to the British] and Robespierre.” . . . 

“Retire immediately; let no flatterer persuade you to rest one hour longer at the helm of state.  You are utterly incapable to steer the political ship into the harbour of safety.  If you have any love for your country, leave its affairs to the wisdom of your fellow citizens . . . there are thousands of them who equal you in capacity and who excel you in knowledge.” [16—see note for additional quoted attacks on Washington]

Jefferson’s role is not entirely clear but he was certainly involved.  He had emerged as undisputed leader of the Republican Party by 1796 and was preparing for a presidential run.  Amongst the cascade of criticism, one stood out as especially problematic for Jefferson.  On June 9, 1796, Bache printed a letter from an anonymous writer named “Paulding” which included confidential details from a 1793 cabinet meeting.  Washington frequently formulated questions on important matters for his cabinet to consider.  Paulding listed the questions Washington submitted regarding the merits of declaring neutrality; the legal status of the 1778 treaty of alliance with France; and how to deal with Citizen Genet. Paulding included his own commentary:

“The text needs no commentary.  It has stamped upon it’s front in characters brazen enough for idolatry itself to comprehend, perfidy and ingratitude.  To doubt in such a case was dishonorable, to proclaim those doubts treachery.  For the honor of the American character & of human nature, it is to be lamented that the records of the United States exhibit such a stupendous monument of degeneracy.  It will almost require the authenticity of holy writ to persuade posterity, that it is not a libel ingeniously contrived to injure the reputation of ‘the father of his country.’” [18]

For Washington, an invitation to serve in his cabinet was akin to joining his political family.  He did not mind dissent, but did expect the inner workings of his “family” to remain confidential.  Disclosure of those deliberations would undoubtedly be seen as a personal betrayal.

Jefferson must have been keenly aware that Washington would be angry and immediately wrote to disclaim any involvement.  In a June 19, 1796 letter, Jefferson denied releasing the confidential document in the strongest of terms: “I attest every thing sacred and honorable to the declaration, that it [Washington’s policy questions] has got there neither thro’ me nor the paper confided to me.” [19]

In case there be any thought he might have contributed to the rampant vilification in Republican papers, Jefferson made the broadest possible claim of innocence: “I have formerly mentioned to you that, from a very early period of my life, I had laid it down as a rule of conduct never to write a word for the public papers.  From this I have never departed in a single instance.” [20]  Jefferson then turned to matters of agriculture.  Both men valued their status as farmers and this language was code intended to re-affirm common bonds as gentlemen planters and friends.

Jefferson’s letter is remarkable in the lengths to which he went to deny any culpability.  He had good reason to forestall Washington’s anger.  He was running for president against John Adams in the coming Election of 1796.  Many still revered Washington and a public accusation of betrayal might cripple Jefferson’s campaign.

As usual, Washington took the high road.  He wrote back on July 6^th: “If I had entertained any suspicions before, that the queries Which have been published in Bache’s Paper proceeded from you, the assurances you have given of the contrary, would have removed them; but the truth is, I harboured none.” [21]  Washington went on to identify the parties he believed passed the confidential questions to Bache.  Next, Washington acknowledged rumors that Jefferson had spoken out against him, but he assured Jefferson: “My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions, in my mind, of his insincerity.” [22]

Like Jefferson, Washington never responded publicly to anonymous criticism.  However, in the following paragraph, he defended his actions and confided the pain it caused: “while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, . . . wish[ing] . . . to preserve this Country from the horrors of a desolating war, that I should be accused of being the enemy of one Nation, and subject to the influence of another; and to prove it, that every act of my Administration would be tortured, and the grossest, and most insiduous misrepresentations of them be made . . . in such exagerated, and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero; a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pickpocket.” [23]

Washington seemed to accept Jefferson’s denial at face value and concluded his letter with friendly discussion of his farming endeavors, a further sign that he still considered Jefferson a friend.  However, historian Don Higgenbotham posed an interesting interpretation: “It is possible, however, to read Washington’s reply differently—to see it as Washington saying to Jefferson, ‘I am on to your machinations.  I don’t believe you, but I am going to hold my temper and behave as a gentlemen, notwithstanding all the provocation from you and your political lieutenants.’” [24]  One might easily conclude Washington did not believe Jefferson.  He may have considered this exchange an opportunity to answer criticisms he knew originated with Jefferson.

Jefferson avoided a public rift with Washington, but still lost the Election of 1796.  Due to the unusual provisions of the Constitution, coming in second made Jefferson vice president even though he ran against Adams.  Jefferson found himself again in the uncomfortable position of holding office in an administration he opposed.  He had no idea that he had already written a letter before Bache’s publication of the confidential questions that would destroy what was left of his relationship with Washington and do him lasting damage.

The Mazzei Letter

Italian born physician and merchant Philip Mazzei came to Virginia in 1773.  He and Jefferson became close friends and neighbors in Charlottesville.  Mazzei helped Jefferson establish the first vineyard in Virginia and in the Revolutionary War, he procured arms for Virginia during Jefferson’s terms as governor.  In an April 24, 1796 letter with the controversy over the Jay Treaty still raging, Jefferson vented his spleen to his Italian friend writing:

“In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro’ the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government. . . . the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all of the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, . . . assimilating us in all things, to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model.  It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” [25]

Though intended to be private, Mazzei, for reasons unknown, made the letter public in Europe.  Eventually knowledge of the letter reached the US and Federalist Noah Webster published the text in his New York paper Minerva on May 7, 1797.  Federalists seized on the line “Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England” as an obvious insult directed at Washington.  Jefferson never publicly acknowledged the letter, but the damage was done. Calling Washington an “apostate” who subverted American liberty to “the harlot England” ended the relationship forever.

Jefferson later claimed that Washington never spoke of the letter as if to imply he did not take the contents personally.  However, Jefferson conveniently avoided acknowledging that Washington never spoke to him again on any subject.  Martha Washington’s description of her meeting with Jefferson confirms Washington’s feelings on his former Secretary of State by the end of his life.

Conclusion

As a postscript, it is worth noting that Washington’s foresight proved sage.  Hamilton’s financial system succeeded in spades in bringing the debt problem under control and in establishing financial institutions to fuel economic growth.  By 1814, even James Madison recognized the value of the BUS when as president he backed extending the bank’s charter for another 20 years.

Further, Washington’s insistence on neutrality and the dangers of war turned out to be correct.  As president, Jefferson allowed the Jay Treaty to expire entering into the Treaty of Ghent with France.  When Madison declared war on Britain initiating the War of 1812, the US was unprepared and the war went badly for the most part.  The British blockaded American ports severely damaging the economy.  To add insult to injury, invading Redcoats captured and burned Washington DC in 1814.  In the long run, the British victory over Napoleon served US interests far better than a French victory would have in opening sea trade routes to American merchants and in fertilizing the American Industrial Revolution. (See: Reassessing the War of 1812).

In spite of the wisdom of Washington’s decisions, they served to strengthen Republican opposition and shift popular support away from the Federalists.  The lingering unpopularity of the Jay Treaty and resulting bitter criticism gave rise to the even more unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts and other events that made John Adams’ re-election untenable.

The Election of 1800 signaled a shift away from Washington and Hamilton’s vision for a pro-British commercial economy supported by an activist government while contributing to the decline and dissolution of the Federalist Party.  Jefferson’s rise to power heralded a new course: Jeffersonian Democracy which favored agrarian interests and a weaker federal government.  The Republican victory was not complete or permanent.  Creating a commercial economy and financial markets laid the foundations for the Industrial Revolution in the northeast.  In the long run, the US has come to resemble more closely Washington’s and Hamilton’s vision.

The Mazzei Letter haunted Jefferson the rest of his life.  Like many important men of his day, Jefferson fretted constantly about his reputation amongst peers and future generations.  No other Founder wrote as much about his recollections and opinions as did Jefferson, mostly after his retirement.  He was fortunate to outlive most of the Founders and structured his writings to vindicate himself and shape history to his favor.  Jefferson thoroughly trashed his old rival Patrick Henry inventing a slanderously false profile of Henry as poorly educated, unwise and lazy that tarred Henry for two centuries (see: Revolutionary Slander: A Personal Grudge in Early American History and the Damage Done).

The “Sage of Monticello” could not do the same to Washington though.  Knowing Washington was too popular, Jefferson tended to be gracious and positive in his later assessments.  In truth, time may have mellowed his opinion as well.  However, a letter by his hand harshly criticizing Washington tarnished Jefferson for posterity and he knew it.  Decades later, he was still protesting his innocence with unconvincing claims his letter was mistranslated. [26]  Washington stood above rancor and partisanship as a near mythological hero.  The Mazzei letter reduced Jefferson to a partisan squabbler, below Washington’s Olympian perch.  That is probably a fitting punishment.

Martha Washington’s words reveal much about the tumultuous first decade of the American Republic and the conflict between founding titans struggling to establish their visions of the course and character of the United States.

Footnotes:

[1] Higgenbotham, Don. Virginia’s Trinity of Immortals: Washington, Jefferson, and Henry, and the Story of Their Fractured Relationships. Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), p. 541

[2] Ibid, p.

[3] Thomas Jefferson, The Anas of Thomas Jefferson, 1791-1809. p. 82. http://www.archive.org/stream/completeanastho00sawvgoog/completeanastho00sawvgoog_djvu.txt

[4] Washington, George, Farewell Address. 1796. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Peterson, Merrill D. “Thomas Jefferson and Commercial Policy, 1783-1793.” The William and Mary Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1965): 589. doi:10.2307/1922911.

[8] Simpson, Stephen, The Lives of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: With a Parallel. Philadelphia: Henry Young (1833), p. 137.

[9] Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.,(1946), p. 319

[10] Valerius, the Aurora, October, 23, 1795

[11] Ibid.

[12] Pittachus the Aurora, November 5, 1795

[13] Political Creed of 1795, Unsigned, the Aurora, November 23, 1795

[14] Pittachus, the Aurora, September 26, 1795

[15] Pittachus, the Aurora, November 18, 1795. The false claim Washington overdrew his salary first appeared in a letter written under the pseudonym “A Calm Observer” on October 29, 1795 in the Aurora. The baseless claim was repeated subsequently.

[16] Scipio, the Aurora, November 20, 1795. The individual editions of the Aurora can be found by date at this site: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=t_XbbNNkFXoC&dat=17950930&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Some other choice quotes:

“The President began his political career as if he had inherited a kingdom—Instead of the deportment and manners of the first Magistrate of a free people.” [Pittachus, the Aurora November 5, 1795]

“[Washington resorted to secret proceedings which were] “secret attempts to cheat the governed [with] dishonesty that shuns the light.” [Political Creed of 1795, Unsigned, the Aurora, November 23, 1795]

“If gratitude alone was to determine our actions, things unjust, and indeed criminal, would be rob’d of their iniquity, and their moral sense would be made to bow.” [Pittachus, the Aurora, September 26, 1795]

“Americans beware how you weaken the force of moral obligation, and give livery to crimes.” [Pittachus, the Aurora, September 26, 1795]

[17] Tagg, James D. “Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Attack on George Washington.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, no. 2 (1976): 194. www.jstor.org/stable/20091053.

[18] Paulding, the Aurora, June 9, 1796

[19] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington dated June 19, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0091

[20] Ibid.

[21] Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson dated July 6, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0107

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Higgenbotham, p. 536.

[25] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei dated April 24, 1796. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-philip-mazzei-0

[26] see Jefferson’s 29 June, 1824 letter to Martin Van Buren: https://wallbuilders.com/defending-thomas-jefferson-john-birch-society-v-jefferson/

Sources:

Adams, Donald R. “American Neutrality and Prosperity, 1793-1808: A Reconsideration.” The Journal of Economic History 40, no. 4 (1980): 713-37. www.jstor.org/stable/2119997.

Anonymous, “A Letter of Jefferson on the Political Parties, 1798”. The American Historical Review. 3 (3): 488–489. 1898. doi:10.2307/1833690. JSTOR 1833690

Anonymous, “The Founding Trio: Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton.”

https://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/FoundingTrio.html

Anonymous, “Jefferson’s Letter to Philip Mazzei—Editorial Note.” The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 29: 1 March 1796 to 31 December 1797, (Princeton University Press, 2002), 73-88

Davis, Joseph H.; Irwin, Douglas A., “Trade Disruptions and America’s Early Industrialization, The Vanguard Group and NBER, Dartmouth College and NBER, January 5, 2005, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/ip.pdf p. 3.

Jefferson, Thomas, The Anas of Thomas Jefferson, 1791-1809. http://www.archive.org/stream/completeanastho00sawvgoog/completeanastho00sawvgoog_djvu.txt

Jefferson, Thomas to George Washington dated June 19, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0091

Jefferson, Thomas to Philip Mazzei dated April 24, 1796. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-philip-mazzei-0

Pay, Bernard, Benjamin Franklin Bache, A Democratic Leader of the Eighteenth Century. American Antiquarian Society, 277-304. https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44806871.pdf

Peterson, Merrill D. “Thomas Jefferson and Commercial Policy, 1783-1793.” The William and Mary Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1965): 584-610. doi:10.2307/1922911.

Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.,(1946).

Scherr, Arthur. “”Vox Populi” versus the Patriot President: Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Philadelphia Aurora and John Adams (1797).” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 62, no. 4 (1995): 503-31. Accessed January 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27773848.

Sheridan, Eugene R. “The Recall of Edmond Charles Genet: A Study in Transatlantic Politics and Diplomacy.” Diplomatic History 18, no. 4 (1994): 463-88. Accessed January 29, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/24912307.

Simpson, Stephen, The Lives of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: With a Parallel. Philadelphia, Henry Young (1833), p. 137.

Tagg, James D. “Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Attack on George Washington.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, no. 2 (1976): 191-230. Accessed January 30, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20091053.

Various Authors, the Aurora, (1795-1796) https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=t_XbbNNkFXoC&dat=17950930&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Washington, George, Farewell Address. 1796, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Washington, George to Thomas Jefferson dated July 6, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0107

The post The Rupture of George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s Friendship and Its Importance appeared first on History Arch.

Today is the birthday of Khaled al-Asaad (aka Khaled al-Assad). He was a remarkable Syrian archaeologist and scholar though many Americans and other westerners may not know who he was.  In 2015, Al-Asaad found himself caught up in a horrific nightmare and in a dark moment displayed unflinching courage in the face of a great evil.  Soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) were advancing on al-Asaad’s home, the ancient city of Palmyra.  Many fled, but Al-Asaad remained behind removing and/or hiding as many artifacts from the city’s museum as he could.  His fears proved well founded.  Shortly after ISIS captured the area, they began destroying ancient ruins with explosives and defacing inscriptions and statuary with sledgehammers.  The invaders eventually seized and tortured the 82-year-old archaeologist trying to force him to reveal the location of hidden artifacts.  When al-Assad refused to cooperate, his barbaric captors publicly beheaded him and hung his corpse from a street light with the labels “apostate” and “director of idolatry.”  To ISIS, al-Assad was a criminal, but to us he should be remembered as a hero and a defender of civilization.

A Brief history of al-Asaad’s hometown Palmyra

Like many Middle East cities, Palmyra, Syria has ancient roots.  Neolithic farmers built the first settlement which later became a Bronze Age town.  First called Tadmor in the 18^th century BC, perhaps a reference to the palm trees that surrounded the settlement.  The city gradually grew in importance as part of many of the empires that crossed the Middle East including the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and finally Rome.  The Greeks gave Palmyra the name by which we know it today.

Palmyra emerged first as an oasis stop for caravans from Mesopotamia’s Euphrates River to Damascus and later as the terminus for the Silk Road for Mediterranean ports.  Stone reliefs and artifacts from the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians attest to the interaction of traders and empire builders.  With the unification of east and west under the Roman Empire, Palmyra reached full flower as a trade conduit between the Mediterranean, Middle East, China and India.  Even after centuries of conflict, Palmyra boasted some of the most intact Roman ruins in the Middle East.  The variety eastern and western traders generated a uniquely mixed culture.  Local merchants and officials retained eastern religious practices but embraced Roman economic, political and funerary traditions.

The Temple of Bel (also Baal or Temple of the Sun) constructed in 32 AD and rebuilt and re-dedicated over the centuries remained one of the best emblems of the ancient world as did the Roman colonnade from the 300s AD.  Surviving tax and trade records provided a significant source of economic interaction amongst ancient merchants.  Tombs often provide the most concentrated wealth of archaeological information and Palmyra’s crypts and graveyards became a vital resource: “These monuments provide us with some of the best evidence for jewelry in the Greco-Roman world. There are few cities in the Roman Empire that provide such an abundance of evidence for cultural change and negotiation.”  [2]

[See image gallery at historyarch.com] Above, a gallery of Borra’s influential drawings including model of Diocletian’s Colonnade which Thomas Jefferson suggested be incorporated into the US Capitol.

After Rome fell, the city became part of the Byzantine Empire and later the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate, but never recovered its glory as a Roman outpost.  Though the ancient part fell into ruins, it still retained much evidence of thousands of years of cultures from east and west.  Irish antiquarian Robert Wood re-discovered the site publishing The Ruins of Palmyra in 1757 complete with 57 drawings by Italian artist Giovanni Batista Borra.  The book generated a sensation across Europe, especially in England, then in the midst of the Neo-Classical Era.  Borra’s almost photographically accurate drawings influenced European and even American architects.  Thomas Jefferson, for example, suggested the Portico of Diocletian as the model for the East Portico of the US Capitol.

Khaled al-Asaad and his Life’s Work

Khaled al-Asaad was born in modern Palmyra in 1932.  Even as a youth, al-Asaad assisted archaeologists in their excavations, translations and interpretations of artifacts.  He graduated from the University of Damascus with a degree in history receiving an appointment to direct several exhibitions at the museum in Damascus.  As one of the few professionally trained Syrians, al-Asaad rose quickly becoming director of the newly founded museum in Palmyra in 1963.  Believing that Palmyra held historic and worldwide importance, he opened the ruins to the public inviting American, European and Middle Eastern archaeologists to study the site.  Al-Asaad directed excavations in a systematic and orderly fashion working hand in hand numerous international teams of academics to dig up artifacts, translate parchments and tablets and reconstruct the ruins of his home town.  He was always careful to note subtle changes and nuances that reflected the convergence of multiple cultures to better understand their interaction.

As a result, Palmyra emerged as one of the most significant archaeological sites in the Middle East.  Al-Asaad also learned Aramaic and other ancient languages becoming one of the foremost translators of ancient texts and inscriptions from Palmyra.  He continued translating until 2011, long after his retirement in 2003.  In keeping with his beliefs in the importance of the site, al-Asaad published many of his translations and interpretations in at least 20 papers and books.  His writings greatly increased understanding of Palmyra’s place in the ancient world revealing much about the cultures that interacted there. 40 years of tireless and groundbreaking work paid off in 2004 with the elevation of Palmyra as a UNESCO World Heritage site.

ISIS Invades in 2015

One can only imagine the fears al-Asaad and other Palmyrenes must have confronted as ISIS forces approached in 2015. ISIS had already left a path of destruction demolishing the ruins at the ancient Assyrian capital Nimrud among other ancient sites.  These barbarians would certainly destroy a lifetime of conservation work.  Though 82, al-Asaad did not flee, he remained behind working feverishly to remove artifacts of the museum to Damascus.

Even after ISIS took full control of his home, al-Asaad remained trying to convince the terrorists of the value of the ruins and artifacts.  It was to be in vain, ISIS fighters consider ancient statuary and depictions of ancient gods to be idolatry banned by their twisted and anachronistic interpretation of the Koran.  They also saw the capture of artifacts as a means of making a profit. That which they did not destroy, they sold on the black market.

After three months of occupation, ISIS officials detained al-Asaad and tortured the 82 year old to ascertain where he had hidden artifacts they wanted to destroy or sell. When he refused their interrogations, ISIS took al-Asaad to a public square and beheaded him.  They then displayed the body in a public crossroad with the aforementioned signs calling the scholar an “apostate” and “director of idolatry.”

Syrian forces recaptured Palmyra in 2016 finding extensive damage caused by ISIS forces who dynamited prominent ruins and took sledgehammers to priceless statuary.  They left thousands of mines and explosive boobytraps that had to be painstakingly removed.

[See image gallery at historyarch.com] Above: A gallery of the destruction of Palmyra’s historic ruins and artifacts wrought by ISIS

We must acknowledge ISIS for what it is, a fundamentalist Muslim faction bent on the very destruction of civilization in its misguided belief that all must kneel to its flawed and repressive theological worldview.  However, it must also be remembered that ISIS does not represent most Muslims and indeed many who stand up to ISIS are Muslims including Khaled al-Asaad.  He died gruesomely at the hands of a dangerous faction bent on tearing down human culture; an undeserved fate for scholar who dedicated his life to preserving history and culture.

The Syrian government and others have undertaken re-construction of those remains that could be salvaged though the damage was so extensive numerous ancient structures are lost forever.  There was another cost that is harder to define and as difficult to replace.  Prominent professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Shawnee State University Amr al-Azm , “You can’t write about Palmyra’s history or anything to do with Palmyrian work without mentioning Khaled Asaad.” [3] “Because [al-Asaad] spent so many years working on this site, he was so familiar with the archaeology of the area and the city, he was a huge repository of knowledge, all acquired first hand just by being there, and working it.  And really this vast repository of information has now been lost to us. And it’s not the kind of information you can acquire by reading a book or attending a lecture, it’s all very practical knowledge and information.  And it’s all gone now.” [4]

Despite the great loss at Palmyra at the hands of vicious and vulgar vandals, we should remember Khaled al-Asaad.  In this dark moment we find a ray of light in his bravery and sacrifice in the face of repression and terror. He possessed some of the finest principles of humanity and the courage to risk his life for those rare and laudable beliefs. Al-Asaad gave his life to preserve monuments of our shared past. In doing so he made an enormous contribution to retaining our history as builders and artists which an evil faction like ISIS cannot diminish.

Above- The Lion of al-lat in 2010, after destruction by ISIS and then reconstructed.  In spite of the extensive damage caused by ISIS, Palmyra can be partially recovered.

Footnotes:

[1] Jain, Raghav, Khaled al-Assad. Digital Encyclopedia of Archaeologists.   https://msu-anthropology.github.io/deoa-ss16/al-assad/al-assad.html

[2] Romey, Kristen, Why Palmyra, Recently Liberated, Is a Historical Treasure. National Geographic, March 28, 2016. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/160328-Palmyra-Syria-Islamic-State-ISIS-archaeology-Rome/ quoting Maura Heyn.

[3] Hassan Hassan, “Beheading of Khaled al-Asaad, keeper of Palmyra, unites Syria in condemnation.” The Guardian, August 22, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/22/beheading-of-khaled-al-asaad-keeper-of-palmyra-unites-syria-in-condemnation

[4] Jain, Raghav, Khaled al-Assad. Digital Encyclopedia of Archaeologists.   https://msu-anthropology.github.io/deoa-ss16/al-assad/al-assad.html

Sources:

Anonymous, “Model of the Ancient Portico of Diocletian at Palmyra. Sir John Soane’s Museum Collection Online.” http://collections.soane.org/object-mr23

Campion, Kristy. “Blast through the Past: Terrorist Attacks on Art and Antiquities as a Reconquest of the Modern Jihadi Identity.” Perspectives on Terrorism 11, no. 1 (2017): 26-39. www.jstor.org/stable/26297735.

Hassan Hassan, “Beheading of Khaled al-Asaad, keeper of Palmyra, unites Syria in condemnation.” The Guardian, August 22, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/22/beheading-of-khaled-al-asaad-keeper-of-palmyra-unites-syria-in-condemnation

Jain, Raghav, Khaled al-Assad. Digital Encyclopedia of Archaeologists.   https://msu-anthropology.github.io/deoa-ss16/al-assad/al-assad.html

Johnson, Daniel, “Why Palmyra Should Matter to the West”. Standpoint Magazine Online, Sept. 22, 2015. https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/october-2015/features-october-2015-palmyra-daniel-johnson-should-matter-to-the-west/

McKrum, Kristie, “ISIS’ true assault on Palmyra revealed in heartbreaking before and after images of the ancient city” Irish Mirror, April 5, 2016. https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/isis-true-assault-palmyra-revealed-7693673

Romey, Kristen, “Why Palmyra, Recently Liberated, Is a Historical Treasure”. National Geographic, March 28, 2016. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/03/160328-Palmyra-Syria-Islamic-State-ISIS-archaeology-Rome/

The post Khaled al-Asaad, Historian, Scholar and Defender of Civilization appeared first on History Arch.

As with many poems, there probably is not a single, definitive interpretation.  We can learn about the poet and his influences but The Rider’s Song leaves a lot of room to speculate about Lorca’s intent.  Does the poem relate to something specific in the poet’s life or to more generalized fears?  Was Lorca referring to himself or is he recounting a story he heard about a traveler from long ago? Questions to ponder as you read the poem itself:

“The Rider’s Song”

Córdoba

Far away and alone.

Small black horse, large moon,

and olives in my saddle bags.

Although I may know the roads

I never will arrive in Córdoba.

Through the plains, through the wind,

small black horse, red moon.

Death is looking at me

from the towers of Córdoba.

Oh that the road is so long!

Oh my valiant pony!

Oh, that death awaits me,

before arriving in Córdoba.

Córdoba

Far away and alone.

(Spanish version available at the bottom)

This poem was part of a body of work that established the multi-talented Lorca as one of Spain’s most influential writers and poets of the 20^th century.  As someone who not especially well versed in poetry, I decided to learn about the poet and the times in which he lived to try to decipher his words.

History of Andalusia

Garcia Lorca was born in southern Spain in a region called Andalusia which is the seat of much of Spanish culture we know today.  Those traditions reflect centuries of migrations and invasions by numerous peoples from three continents who have made contributions to a continually evolving culture dating back thousands of years.

Andalusia stretches from Portugal to the Mediterranean encompassing a varied geography including the Sierra-Nevada Mountain range, steep valleys cut by the Guadalquivir River and coastal cities.  The climate varies from snowy mountain peaks to arid desert to warmth and rich soils characteristic of the northern Mediterranean rim allowing for vineyards and olive groves.

Like other European nations, the origins of Spanish culture precede written history.  Nomadic tribes homos sapiens appeared in Spain circa 50,000 BC.  Nomadic clans evolved into an agrarian Bronze Age population by about 4,000 BC.  Southern Spain began experiencing an influx of outside cultures when Phoenicians traders (from modern Lebanon) settled on the Atlantic coast circa 900 BC in what is now Cadiz.  Greek and Carthaginian adventurers built coastal trading colonies beginning in the 500s BC.  Rome began asserting itself by defeating the Greeks in the mid 3^rd century BC.  Spain, or Hispania as it was then known, came under Carthaginian rule.

Soon Hispania became a focal point in the Roman-Carthaginian struggle for control of the Mediterranean.  The great Roman General Scipio Africanus captured the Iberian Peninsula on his way to defeating Hannibal at Carthage. From about 200 BC until chaotic 5^th century AD, Hispania thrived as a Roman province.  Germanic tribes began disrupting and weakening the Western Roman Empire in the 4^th century AD.  As Rome tottered, Germanic tribes, first the Vandals, then the Visigoths, conquered southern Spain.

In 711 AD, the powerful Umayyads spread from the Middle East across North Africa crossing Gibraltar to absorb Spain as part of a large and powerful Muslim caliphate.  They advanced into France where Frankish King Charles Martel halted the Umayyad advance pushing the invaders back to the Pyrenees Mountains.  Spain remained firmly in Muslim hands, but not without opposition.

Christian forces began the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula which would take over 700 years to complete.  In that time, Arabic cultural influences took root.  The Caliphate led the world in the sciences, math, literature and other intellectual pursuits building beautiful mosques, fortresses and palaces.   A royal library in Córdoba amassed over 500,000 works including classical Greek translations and other important texts on medicine, science, astronomy, literature, mathematics and history.  The University of Córdoba emerged as a leading Medieval European learning center open to Muslim, Christian and Jewish students.  Arabic words became part of the Spanish lexicon appearing in place names such as Al-Andalus, Arabic for “Land of the Vandals” and Guadalquivir meaning “the great river.”  

Architectural monuments such as the Great Mosque of Cordoba and the Alhambra fortress in Granada testify to the lasting Arabic influence.  Arabic music, poetry, architecture and learning intermixed with a Spanish culture that had already absorbed much from invaders and merchants of Middle Eastern, African and European descent.

Other peoples entered Spain as well. Several million Berbers migrated from North Africa during the Caliphate era.  As Spain transitioned from Islam to Catholicism, large numbers of gypsies migrated onto the Iberian Peninsula with many settling in Andalusia.  Originally a nomadic tribe from the Indian subcontinent, gypsies entered Europe in the Middle Ages arriving in Spain in the 1450s.  Berbers and gypsies added their cultural influences to the mix.

By the 1400s, the Caliphate had broken up into several rival Muslim principalities facing increasingly powerful Christian kingdoms to the north.  Aragon and Castile finally managed to oust the Muslims from their last Spanish strongholds in 1492.  Once they consolidated power, Spanish Catholics forced Muslims and Jews to either convert to Christianity (conversos) or be exiled.  The Spanish drive to purify the nation further manifested itself in the Inquisition.  Through all the changes, Andalusia somehow managed to retain enclaves of Jews, gypsies and other non-Christian groups.

Spain emerged as the dominant European power in the 16^th century as part of the Holy Roman Empire.  At the height of his power, Hapsburg ruler Charles V and his successor and son Philip II claimed one of the world’s largest empires stretching from Spain, central Europe, Italy to vast colonies in Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

The failed Spanish Armada of 1588 initiated a slow decline in Spain’s international status and fortunes.  By the 19^th century, Spain was a relatively poor and politically unstable country.  Those supporting a more democratic constitutional monarchy faced off against royalists intent on retaining an absolutist Spanish crown.  The struggle bled into the 20^th century with a series of military dictatorships who dominated the government until 1931.  Elections brought republicans to power but the Great Depression left the government weak.  Frequent violence marked this long see-saw battle for power between a leftist conglomeration of republicans, communists and anarchists and a rightwing nationalistic/royalist faction.-

Ferderico García Lorca (1898-1936)

Federico Garcia Lorca was born to Jewish parents near Granada in the midst of this turmoil.  By the dawn of the 20^th century, Lorca’s native Andalusia was a poor region, populated by farm workers, laborers and gypsies.  Lorca demonstrated exceptional musical abilities at an early age, learning to play piano.  By his late teens, he began composing poetry that he read in local restaurants and stages.  Not content with one form of expression, Lorca went to college in Madrid in 1919 becoming part of the “Generation of ‘27” which included prominent Spanish artists and writers such as Salvador Dalí.  These associations exposed him to surrealism and symbolism. Later, Lorca traveled to New York City spending two years studying literature and writing.  

Lorca began staging theatrical productions, writing poetry and composing songs that reflected modern artistic influences combined with Arabic, Catholic and gypsy traditions from Andalusia set to a musical rhythm.  He described his work as a “carved altar piece” of Andalusia with “gypsies, horses, archangels, planets, its Jewish and Roman breezes, rivers, crimes, the everyday touch of the smuggler and the celestial note of the naked children of Córdoba.” [1]  His poetry and plays highlighted turmoil in modern Spain with frequent references to unrest and death.

As the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Nationalist right-wing forces arrested Lorca because of his leftist political views.  He was never seen again and was undoubtedly executed shortly after his detention.  Nationalists burned his books outlawing his plays and poetry for decades.  Nevertheless, Lorca’s work survived and he is widely regarded today as one of the most influential writers in Spanish history.

The Rider’s Song

The Rider’s Song appeared in the late 1920s.  In thinking about how to present the poem to 8^th graders with limited experience interpreting poetry, I formulated basic questions to break down the sentiments and images before trying to better understand how Lorca assembled them into the text of his poem.  The first lines open innocuously describing a long journey.  Just a few words conjure an image of an isolated destination, Córdoba, in the distance amidst a spare terrain.

The narrator never identifies himself giving the reader only four details: he is riding a small black horse at night on a familiar course and has olives in his saddlebag. Thus far, the journey seems pleasant enough, a leisurely ride on a long but well-lit road with food to sustain the trip.  The stanza ends on a dark note though: the rider will never arrive at his destination.

The next stanza sets a very different tone.  The moon is now red, a clear allusion to death. The setting is now much darker, reddish lighting on a road with winds that impede progress—especially for a small horse.  The trip will not be leisurely after all, but a struggle.  Death is personified as a predator watching from the towers of Córdoba waiting to pounce.

Thus far the narrator has offered a dispassionate description.  The third stanza introduces emotion.  The exclamations add a note of desperation and hopelessness.  The purpose of the trip remains a mystery, but there is an air of inevitability with no thought of turning back.  Just as the rider must make his journey, death will most certainly take him before he arrives at Córdoba.

The poem ends with the same words with which it opened.  However, now that the reader knows death is imminent, the tone and meaning of “Córdoba, alone and far away” has a much different connotation.

The structure and form of The Rider’s Song draws from numerous sources and Lorca’s musical background.  The short repetitive lines came out of a musical tradition: the cante jondo, an old Andalusian form of song with roots dating back to the Phoenicians, modified by Greeks, Arabs, and gypsies.  Cante jondo inspired and is contained in Andalusia’s distinctive flamenco music and dance.  Use of “Ay” in the third stanza in particular is a frequent feature of canto jondo lyrics.

Lorca expanded on the subject:

“‘cante jondo’ approaches the rhythm of the birds and to the natural music of the black poplar and the waves; it’s simple in oldness and style.  Then it is a rare example of primitive song, the oldest of all Europe, where the ruins of history, the lyrical fragment eaten by the sand, appear live like the first morning of its life. . . .

The adoption of the Spanish church of the Lithurgic songs, the Saracen [Muslim] invasion, which for the third time brought to the Spanish Peninsula a new flood of African blood, and the arrival of many gypsy groups.  These are the nomadic and enigmatic people who give form to the ‘cante jondo.’” [2]

There is a timeless sense to the poem.   His words seems to spring from “the ruins of history” to “appear live like the first morning of life.”  The narrator is travelling by horse to Córdoba, the center of Arabic Spain which implies this story took place in Medieval times. However, Córdoba first appears in history through Hannibal who named the settlement Kartuba, or Kart-Juba after the place where one of his allies, Juba, King of the Numidians died.  The Romans later established the city a provincial capital renaming it Corduba.  Additionally, in an impoverished 20^th century Andalusia, small horses or donkeys served as the most common form of transport.  Conflict marked much of Spain’s history whether it be a clash between Carthaginians and Romans, rival Muslim principalities, Catholic-Muslim conflict or Nationalist-Republican tensions.  Thus, the rider could have been one of several nationalities from different eras facing dangers endemic to his times.

The poem could have also been an allusion to Lorca’s own life.  He may have been writing an allegory for a particularly difficult challenge he faced that seemed insurmountable.  Personally, I support the view of many critics who hold that the poem reflects Lorca’s fears about the political upheaval in Spain.  As a prominent artist with far-left views and, he was a likely target of nationalist forces.  His fears were well founded.  The Rider’s Song foreshadows Lorca’s real-life fate.

Because of the lack of detail and timeless quality, the poem still speaks to a contemporary audience.  Further, the poem humanizes individuals from the past facing fears and uncertainties.  I hope you enjoyed reading The Rider’s Song as much as I did and welcome any thoughts on the meaning of the poem.

Here are two performances of The Rider’s Song. The differing presentation affects our perception of the poem and its themes.

Spanish poet Alberto Sanchez de Puerta:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDV5AQohcy0

Spanish musician Paco Ibanez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPQKuS6F1dc

My research also revealed a great deal about flamenco music.  Lorca’s thoughts demonstrate a strong link between canto jondo and flamenco music:

“There is no doubt that the guitar has given form to many of the Andalusian songs, because they had to apply to its tonal constitution, an evidence of this is with the songs that are sung without it, like the “martinetes” and the “jelianas”, the melodic form changes completely and acquires a greater freedom and impetu, more direct or less constructed.  The guitar in the “cante jondo”, has to be limited to mark rhythm and follow the singer; its a filling for the voice and must be subordinated to the singer.

Flamenco music came from dance and musical traditions that began with the Phoenicians in Cadiz and was gradually altered by the influences of subsequent cultures.  Malagueña has long been a favorite of mine.  It is a flamenco composition that demonstrated how music can spread over great distances.  Cuban musician Ernesto Lecuona composed the song, but the melody came from American Romantic Classical composer Louis Moreau Gottschalk’s “Souvenirs d’Andalousie.” [3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT-O4utNPI0

Gottschalk’s tune is unmistakable in Lecuona’s Malagueña:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTXa6FFnPI0

Footnotes:

[1] Wolfman, Ursula Rehn, “Federico García Lorca – Manuel de Falla – The Andalusian Heritage in Poetry, Music and Art.” Interlude, 7/13/2012, https://interlude.hk/federico-garcia-lorca-manuel-de-falla-the-andalusian-heritage-in-poetry-music-and-art/

[2] Lorca, Federico Garcia, “Cante Jondo.” 1931, https://archive.is/20011224172622/http://www.laguitarra.net/ICanteJondo.htm#selection-241.0-241.37

[3] Ibid.

Sources:

Anonymous, “What is Flamenco?” Northwest Folklife, https://www.nwfolklife.org/flamenco/

Anonymous, “History of Andalusia.” Andalusia-web, http://www.andalusia-web.com/history_details.htm

Lorca, Federico Garcia, “Cante Jondo.” 1931, https://archive.is/20011224172622/http://www.laguitarra.net/ICanteJondo.htm#selection-241.0-241.37

Rodriguez, Vincente, “Andalusia Region, Spain.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Andalusia-region-Spain

90. Herrera Y Sánchez. “Cante Jondo: The Soul of Andalusia.” Hispania 36, no. 1 (1953): 88-90. doi:10.2307/334747.

Wolfman, Ursula Rehn, “Federico García Lorca – Manuel de Falla – The Andalusian Heritage in Poetry, Music and Art.” Interlude, 7/13/2012, https://interlude.hk/federico-garcia-lorca-manuel-de-falla-the-andalusian-heritage-in-poetry-music-and-art/

Wolfman, Ursula Rehn, “New Concepts in Music and Art – Flamenco – Picasso – Gaudí – Dalí.” Interlude, 6/12/2012, https://interlude.hk/new-concepts-in-music-and-art-flamenco-picasso-gaudi-dali/

En español:

Canción del jinete               

Córdoba 

Lejana y sola.

Jaca negra, luna grande,  

Y aceitunas en mi alforja.                                                                                 

Aunque sepa los caminos                                                                                 

yo nunca llegaré a Córdoba                                                                             

Por el llano, por el viento        

Jaca negra, luna roja.       

La muerte me está mirando     

desde las torres de Córdoba.   

¡Ay qué camino tan largo! 

¡Ay mi jaca valerosa

¡Ay que la muerte me espera,  

antes de llegar de Córdoba!  

Córdoba 

Lejana y sola.

All images and videos are in the public domain and subject to Fair Use Laws

The post The Rider’s Song, Foreshadowing Death in Spain appeared first on History Arch.

Today is the anniversary of the birth in 1443 of Giuliano della Rovere who is better known as Pope Julius II.  He is one of the most unique and influential pontiffs in Church History.  Nicknamed the “Warrior Pope,” Julius won significant military victories while emerging as one of the most influential patrons of the arts in European History.  In addition to extending the size and power of the Papal States, he commissioned some of the most renowned works of the Renaissance by three of the era’s greatest artists: Michelangelo, Raphael, and Bramante.  Julius also had a notoriously bad temper which earned him another less flattering moniker: “Papa Terribile”.

In 2011, my wife and I toured the Vatican and our guide told a most interesting story relating to that second nickname.  Julius commissioned the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and two years into the project, he was impatient for work to be completed.  He accosted Michelangelo asking when the project would be completed to which the artist responded: “When I can.”  Unsatisfied with the answer, Julius rapped Michelangelo on the forehead with his staff admonishing him to hurry up.  Michelangelo ultimately exacted a crafty revenge.  He placed a secret message in the ceiling preserved for the ages which will be revealed below (a tease I know, but I promise it’s a good one).  I have wondered about the veracity of this story ever since and in honor of Julius’ birthday I decided to find an answer.

Italy in the Early 1500s

In 1503, the Sacred College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, to succeed Pope Alexander VI.  Della Rovere took the name Julius II supposedly in honor of Pope Julius I but his rivals claimed he really meant it as a tribute to Julius Caesar.  Whether this assertion is true or not, Julius followed Caesar’s example in expanding the influence of Rome.  Popes of this era were not just spiritual leaders, they were also secular rulers of a political entity, the Papal States.  In the 15^th and 16^th century, two great European houses: the Hapsburgs (Spain and the Holy Roman Empire) and the Valois (France) vied for control of Italy the long-lasting Italian Wars.

The conflict drew much of Europe into a complicated web of shifting alliances, political intrigue and military campaigns.  Without getting mired in the details, Julius at least twice led armies into battle adding the Romagna region in northern Italy, Naples, Parma, and Piacenza to Papal State territories.  He also wrested Milan and Florence from foreign control restoring the Sforzas and de Medici to their traditional power bases.  In the process Julius earned the nickname of “Warrior Pope” for riding into battle complete with armor and a sword.

The Warrior Pope as Patron of the Arts

The successful military campaigns generated great wealth that Julius used to celebrate his status as a latter-day Julius Caesar.  He recruited some of the world’s greatest artists to restore Rome to its former glory.  Among many building and beautification projects, Julius laid the cornerstone for a new St. Peter’s Basilica in 1506 designed by Donato Bramante. Combining many ancient influences including the Pantheon, Hippodrome and others, St. Peter’s holds the distinction of being the world’s largest Christian Church and is a masterpiece of Renaissance architecture.  It also boasts a world-class art collection and a collection of Greek and Roman statuary that rivals or exceeds any other.

Julius also employed prominent artists.  Raphael created most of his famous works in the Vatican at the Pope’s behest including the Raphael Rooms.  As an older man when elected to the papacy, Julius contemplated his death early in his reign and hired the well-known Florentine sculptor Michelangelo in 1504 to create his tomb to be placed in St. Peter’s.

Michelangelo had just completed of one of his greatest works, the colossus of David, and Julius undoubtedly had high hopes.  However, the project quickly bogged down into a contest of wills between the Pope and the sculptor.  It seems Michelangelo could easily match Julius’ bad temperament and stubbornness.  The two argued over designs and payment for two years until Julius threw Michelangelo out of his palace in 1506 causing the latter to return to Florence in a rage.

Painting the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

Julius recalled Michelangelo in 1508 with a surprising and unwelcome proposal.  Instead of completing his tomb, the Pope wanted Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the modestly decorated Sistine Chapel.  At first, Michelangelo refused claiming to be a sculptor, not a painter.  Julius prevailed though with a promise that Michelangelo could return the tomb after completing the ceiling.

Painting a 12,000 square foot composition in fresco on a vaulted ceiling with rounded corners 68 feet above the floor presented a great challenge.  Michelangelo had to distort the images to make them appear realistic from the ground.  Completing the project took four years of determined work, an impressive feat in a short timeframe.  Nine stories from the Book of Genesis decorate the space with God extending His finger to grant Adam life as the centerpiece.  Around the scenes, Michelangelo painted important biblical characters.  In all, 323 figures appear in the composition.  The figures are twelve feet tall and fittingly resemble statuary.  They are symbolic pillars for important Old Testament stories portrayed as the foundation of the modern Church.  They imply a powerful base for the creation of the universe and of Man.

It was customary for an artist to incorporate his sponsor into a large art piece of this nature and Michelangelo followed tradition.  Michelangelo depicted Julius as he prophet Zechariah reading with two children or angels looking over his shoulder.  As the prophet who predicted Christ’s founding of the Catholic Church, Zechariah held immense importance to Renaissance Christians.  Zechariah foretold Christ entering Jerusalem and becoming: “The BRANCH; [who] shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD” [1]  The reference to Christ as “the Branch” held significance for Julius as his family crest included oak branches.  Associating Julius with Zechariah’s prediction connected Christ as the founder of Christianity and Julius as the founder of a new Roman state.  Michelangelo placed Julius/Zechariah directly above the door of the eastern entrance with the della Rovere crest resting directly below.

The prominent depiction and placement implies that Michelangelo gave his sponsor a fitting and central place in his great work.  It was no surprise that Michelangelo reported to his father in a letter that the Pope was “well-pleased” with the final product.  As with the tomb though, work on the ceiling did not proceed smoothly.  Julius frequently harassed Michelangelo over the pace of work.  With his health failing, Julius had a pressing interest in seeing the project completed (he died in 1513, less than a year after completion of the ceiling).

I found the tour guide’s story in Giorgio Vasari’s 1550 biography of Michelangelo.  Vasari’s account is brief but confirms that after being told the painting would be done “When I can,” Julius struck Michelangelo saying “When I can, indeed; when I can!”  [2]  Vasari did not record where Julius struck Michelangelo, but it must have been quite a blow.  An hour after the incident, Vasari relates that a papal envoy found the artist in his workshop preparing to return to Florence.  The envoy brought a payment of 500 ducats and an apology from the Pope which assuaged Michelangelo.  From other sources, I found frequent references to the “Papa Terribile’s” quick temper and brutish behavior.  He had a bad habit of striking messengers who brought bad news for example.  Even when in a good mood, Julius was known to treat others roughly.  It seems likely the event occurred substantially as claimed.

The Revenge

I mentioned that Michelangelo took revenge for Julius’ frequent abuse.  The children behind Zechariah/Julius imply innocence and purity.  But go back and look again, there is a devilish detail.  One child has his arm around the other in what appears to be a fist.  On closer examination, one can see the thumb inserted between the fore and middle fingers.

So what?  Well, this thumb placement is actually an Italian Renaissance gesture known as the fig, the modern-day equivalent to the middle finger.  An elderly and dying Pope Julius II understandably did not notice the gesture, it is one of thousands of small details in a sea of unrivalled artistic expression.  But there it is, Michelangelo’s private revenge, an obscene gesture directed at his nemesis.

I hope this was not too long and the payout was worth the read.  That little private joke was not Michelangelo’s only secret message in his work.  There are many others, but that is a tale for another post.

Footnotes:

[1] Vasari, Giorgio, The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti. Project Gutenberg, 2004, p. 47. http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/pdf/4760.pdf

[2] Zechariah 9:12; King James Version

Sources:

Anonymous, “Fresco Painting.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/art/fresco-painting

Baumgartner, Frederic J., Behind Closed Doors, A History of the Papal Elections. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003.

Shaw, Christine, Julius II, The Warrior Pope. England: Crux Publishing, 2015.

Vasari, Giorgio, The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti. Project Gutenberg, 2004. http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/pdf/4760.pdf

All images are in the public domain and thus subject to Fair Use Laws.

The post A Secret Message for the Warrior Pope in the Sistine Chapel Ceiling appeared first on History Arch.

Tradition holds that about 50 Pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts invited 90 Wampanoag Indians to celebrate surviving their first winter in New England (half of the original 102 Pilgrim colonists died within a year) and their first successful harvest. The feast included deer, lobsters, oysters, corn, grapes and plums. William Bradford and Edward Winslow attended the event and wrote separate accounts. Winslow wrote:

“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 fruits of our labor. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which we brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor.” [1]

However, the Pilgrim Thanksgiving was not the first in America. In 1619, The Berkeley Company of London received a patent for 8,000 acres of land (25 miles south east of modern Richmond, Virginia) and recruited 35 colonists set sail from England for America aboard the Good Ship Margaret. Arriving in late November in Virginia, the Margaret visited Jamestown briefly before sailing up the James River. On December 4, 1619, settlers landed at the site of their patent. The Virginia Company had issued a list of instructions for the colonists to implement upon arrival. The first instruction required “We ordaine that this day of our ships arrival, at the place assigned for plantacon, in the land of Virginia, shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.” [2] Accordingly, as the colonists gathered on the shore, the Margaret’s Captain John Woodlief knelt and led the colonists in a prayer of thanksgiving for a safe voyage.

According to historical sources, the annual prayer of thanksgiving was repeated for several years thereafter. Thus, the new Virginians celebrated the first Thanksgiving in America two years before the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. So why did the real first Thanksgiving in Virginia fall into obscurity?

In 1622 Opechancanough led the Powhatans in a coordinated attack on every English settlement in Virginia. The Indians killed between a third and a half of the colonial population including at least nine people at Berkeley.  At that time Berkeley was on the frontier and deemed unsafe so the remaining settlers abandoned the site and the Thanksgiving celebration ended and was largely forgotten.

Judeo-Christian Thanksgiving celebrations have ancient origins dating back to the Old Testament. The Hebrews developed a tradition, berakah, or “thanks-offering for a successful harvest (Psalm 66) or to commemorate a special event such as one of King David’s victories over the Philistines (2 Samuel 22). Christians adopted a form of barakah through Holy Communion or Eucharist (from the Greek word Eucharistia meaning “thanks giving”) which remains a central rite for both Catholic and Protestant believers. Communion is a reminder and a symbolic homage to Christ for sacrificing His body and blood for all Christians. Americans have developed a unique practice of mixing secular and religious spheres in many ways and Thanksgiving includes both elements.

The Continental Congress passed the first Thanksgiving Proclamation by an American governing body after the victory at Saratoga in 1777. George Washington issued the first official Thanksgiving Proclamation for the new US Government in 1789 stating that Congress had requested that he:

“recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” [3]  

Washington went on to state:

“That we may then all unite in rendering unto [God] our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed” [4]

The Proclamation concluded:

“and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed . . . To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.” [5]

Thus, Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation followed a religious theme thanking God for success in the Revolutionary War, in establishing the Constitution and praying for the government to be wise and judicious in overseeing a prosperous nation.

Several subsequent presidents issued thanksgiving proclamations for specific events. From time to time, individual states made similar proclamations as well. Among the American people, informal thanksgiving meals took place following the harvest celebration tradition both before and after the Declaration of Independence.  

By the early 19^th century, the US had two national holidays, Washington’s Birthday in the spring and the and the Fourth of July in the summer. Sarah Josepha Hale initiated an unrelenting campaign to recognize Thanksgiving as a third national holiday for fall. Beginning in 1827, she wrote books, articles, and petitions calling for a national holiday citing the Pilgrim’s feast of 1621. Hale’s conception of Thanksgiving combined religious and secular traditions as a means of creating a day of unity for all sections of the US which by the 1850s were being torn apart by increasing tensions over slavery. Hale was a committed abolitionist, but hoped a day of unity would serve as a catalyst to finding a way to end slavery peacefully.

Once the Civil War broke out, Hale implored President Abraham Lincoln to declare Thanksgiving a national holiday. Lincoln was receptive to the idea and established the last Thursday in November a National Day of Thanksgiving in 1863 to celebrate the victory at Gettysburg and the capture of Vicksburg, Mississippi. After the Civil War, modern Thanksgiving traditions took root through popular literature such as Jane Austen’s Standish of Standish: A Story of the Pilgrims. Since then American culture has grown and reinforced the grand event: family, fellowship, friendship at a cornucopia of turkey and the sides we all love.

I normally keep my personal opinions out of my articles as much as possible. However, I found Sarah Hale’s efforts to create a sense of American unity under nearly impossible circumstances inspiring. So I will offer my own Thanksgiving message.

As we all sit down at our family tables this year, perhaps we can set aside the modern controversies that divide us to celebrate all that for which we have to be thankful. For better or worse, we are all part of the same nation and we share far more commonalities than differences. Our ancestors: those 35 intrepid Englishmen who landed in Virginia in 1619, the Pilgrims and Puritans in the North, the first Africans who arrived 400 years ago and the many others of all races and nationalities who came since were all Americans. They suffered travails, hardships and death to help forge a free nation with many blessings we enjoy today. Let us pray that their sacrifices were not in vain and that we can find common ground.

And of course: GO LIONS!

For a really excellent oral account of the establishment of the Berkeley Plantation settlement, I highly recommend the Virginia History Podcast. This site also offers great entries for other early Virginia History and I highly recommend the site as a whole: https://vahistorypodcast.com/2017/11/17/special-episode-the-first-thanksgiving-virginia-1619/

Footnotes:

[1] Dexter, Henry Martin, (ed.), Mourt’s Relation or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth. Boston: Press of Geo. Rand & Avery, 1865, p. 133.

[2] Woodlief, H. Graham, History of the First Thanksgiving. http://www.berkeleyplantation.com/first-thanksgiving.html

[3] Washington, George, Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/thanksgiving-proclamation-of-1789/

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

Sources:

Blitz, Matt, The First Thanksgiving Took Place in Virginia, Not Massachusetts. The Washingtonian, 11/18/2015. https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/11/18/the-first-thanksgiving-took-place-in-virginia-not-massachusetts/

Dexter, Henry Martin, (ed.), Mourt’s Relation or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth. Boston: Press of Geo. Rand & Avery, 1865.

McFarland, Ronald E. “Thanksgiving in Seventeenth-Century Poetry.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 6, no. 4 (1974): 294-306. doi:10.2307/4048200.

Smith, Andrew F. “The First Thanksgiving.” Gastronomica 3, no. 4 (2003): 79-85. doi:10.1525/gfc.2003.3.4.79.

Salam, Maya, Everything You Learned About Thanksgiving is Wrong. New York Times, 11/21/2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/us/thanksgiving-myths-fact-check.html

Washington, George, Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/thanksgiving-proclamation-of-1789/

Woodlief, H. Graham, History of the First Thanksgiving. http://www.berkeleyplantation.com/first-thanksgiving.html

The post The Real First Thanksgiving appeared first on History Arch.

For Veteran’s Day, I wanted to highlight an oft overlooked conflict: World War I. Today also happens to be the 101^st anniversary of the end that brutal war. I have a friend named Chuck whom I have known for years. His father commanded a Sherman tank in Italy in World War II and my Great Uncle Weldon Reynolds was an infantryman who landed at Salerno (Operation Avalanche) ending the war near Milan. Our mutual interest in history and the connection to the Italian Campaign has led to many interesting conversations. Earlier this year, Chuck showed me a picture of his maternal grandfather, 1^st Lieutenant Byron Goodes Cook, a pilot in the American Expeditionary Force in World War I. Chuck did not know much about Cook other than some family lore. He believed Cook flew in the 94^th US Aero Squadron with the famous American ace Eddie Rickenbacker and wanted to prove it. The photo of Cook in a biplane cockpit is cropped revealing only a small part of the plane’s insignia. Chuck wondered if the insignia in the photo might be the “hat in ring” same one made famous by Rickenbacker’s squadron.

I told Chuck I would try to find out more about his grandfather and try to confirm the family stories if I could. Records for World War I veterans are hard to find online and even then not as thorough as desired. Fortunately, I was able to find out quite a bit about Lt. Cook because of his unusual and important role. In the course of research, I realized Cook’s exploits were not as a fighter pilot, but his impact was still historically significant .

Today, the United States possesses the world’s most powerful military. One of the most potent features is an air force deploying a range of the world’s most advanced aircraft: jets, helicopters and drones. These aircraft are often the tip of the spear for the projection of US power today. All of that began developing in World War I. Lt. Cook participated in forming the modern American air forces and evidence of his importance is proven by the fact that he is mentioned not once but several times in the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) Final Report.

As was the case with many things in the 20^th century, aerial capabilities were virtually non-existent in 1917 when America entered the Great War. The US lagged so far behind it could never catch European combatants in the final year of World War I. However, the Great War became a training ground for American advocates of air power. Lessons learned in World War I produced leaders and theoreticians who developed doctrine and tactics that led to innovations and technical knowhow. By 1945, the US emerged as the world’s leading air power. As it turns out, the stories about Chuck’s grandfather were not entirely accurate, but they lead to an unexpected result, Lieutenant Byron G. Cook was a founding member of the American air forces.

Formation of the US Air Service

Sadly, World War I history is badly neglected in the US. The war was short and overshadowed by World War II. However, just as the outcome of World War I laid seeds for the next major conflict, the experiences from 1917-1918 influenced American air doctrine and aircraft development that emerged in World War II.

Americans invented powered flight in 1903 when the Wright Brothers first took wing in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. It was not exactly an auspicious beginning. The Wright Flyer remained aloft for just 120 feet travelling 10-20 feet off the ground at about 7 mph. In 1909, the US Army invested in two Wright built airplanes establishing the US Air Service (later re-named the US Army Air Force) but only had one trained pilot by 1911. Efforts to build an air corps began in 1915, but by 1917, the Air Service consisted of only 131 officers, 1,087 enlisted men in seven squadrons with only 55 aircraft. US manufacturer Curtiss Aeroplane Co. developed the JN-1 through JN-4 “Jenny” bi-planes in 1915. Capable of an air speed of only 75 mph with a ceiling of 6,500 feet the Jenny was could not compete with more modern European designs by 1917.

Events in Europe led to greater and faster innovation. Britain, France and Germany began rapidly improving the capabilities of airplanes with the outbreak of World War I in 1914. With the immediate needs created by war, European aviation manufacturers built airplanes that rendered the Jenny obsolete. European manufacturers tinkered with designs constantly receiving practical feedback from combat pilots throughout the war. By 1917, only 14 years after the Wright Brothers’ historic flight, fighter planes on both sides could fly at speeds of 100-140 mph, with a ceiling of 20,000+ feet and ranges of over 200 miles.

While still neutral in World War I, the US found an opportunity to deploy planes to the Mexican border after Pancho Villa raided and burned a border town in New Mexico killing 17 American civilians. Eight Jennys joined a small expeditionary force led by General John J. “Blackjack” Pershing with orders to capture Villa. The wide, arid southwestern spaces should have provided excellent opportunities for airplanes to track Villa’s raiders. However, the technology was not mature. In less than a month, mechanical problems eliminated six of the eight biplanes from service. Inadequate to the US Army’s needs, Pershing relegated the remaining Jennys to flying messages between command posts in the unsuccessful pursuit of Villa.

The United States Enters World War I

The US entry into World War I on April 6, 1917 generated a frenzy of activity. President Woodrow Wilson’s Administration had a momentous task in building up an army of over 1.2 million men with all the necessary supplies and equipment in less than a year. To complicate matters, this new force had to be re-located to Europe.

Transporting over a million soldiers across an ocean had never been attempted before. The effort required a huge transport fleet the US did not have. World War I has been called the first Industrial Revolution conflict. That can be seen in the previously unheard-of mass production of arms, ammunition, equipment, uniforms, boots and other necessities. The impact goes far beyond production of war materials. Training, supplying and moving such a large force required implementation of schedules and timetables, both products of factory management. French and British officials met with their American counterparts and came up with timetables and projections for producing trained soldiers and equipment coupled with a tight schedule of quotas to ship men across the Atlantic all constrained by a limited number of vessels.

It was an ambitious and diverse plan that proved unrealistic from the beginning. The US created a large army fairly quickly with a draft but that was only part of the equation. In World War II, the US earned the nickname “Arsenal of Freedom” for its ability to build and supply a 10 million man military complete with air forces; a powerful carrier based navy (and transport fleets); while also equipping and supplying other Allied nations. The American industrial sector was growing exponentially in the early 20^th century, but was still insufficient for the huge demands of a major war. The US could not able to produce the broad array of equipment necessary for fighting in Europe. American doughboys would not have many basics including machine guns, artillery, aircraft and other necessities. About the only thing the US produced for the First World War was manpower. French and British industry supplied the rest.

Cutting edge, fully matured technological industries of 1941 were still in their infancy in 1917. For example, in World War II, the US produced a broad array of fighters and bombers, specialized for different uses such as carrier-based Hellcat and Corsair fighters specifically designed to defeat Japanese Zeroes. The P-51 Mustang had the long range, firepower and maneuverability characteristics to escort long range bombing missions and neutralize German fighter defenses. American long-range bombers outmatched any Axis bombers and the B-29 was an engineering wonder. In 1917, only a few small aircraft companies existed with limited capacity, lacking experienced engineering departments and workforces capable of designing advanced and lethal aircraft.

The aircraft quotas set by Allied negotiators proved impossible to meet. The Allied plan called for the production of 22,000 aircraft per year with spare parts and two engines per plane. To understand just how unrealistic this goal was, the French had not produced that many aircraft in the three years of war combined. The obsolete Jennys only use came in training pilots in basic flight. With no plans or prototypes able to match European planes, the British and French lent American manufacturers plans for building more powerful aircraft. Even with this aid, American production was exceedingly slow. American made De Haviland fighter planes (DH-4s) equipped with American Liberty engines did not begin appearing on the Western Front until August and September of 1918, only a few months before war’s end.

In spite of these difficulties, producing planes was the easy part. Recruiting and training pilots, ground/repair crews while constructing sufficient facilities required far more. In 1917, had only three or four small military airbases. Few Americans owned automobiles or had any experience with engines. Even fewer had even seen a plane much less had the ability to fly one. Planners cast a wide net accepting pilot candidates on very loose criteria.

As the year progressed and the US fell behind in nearly all quotas, the Allies began improvising. Originally pilots would receive basic and advanced flight training in the US. Very quickly, it became apparent that the US lacked pilots to train new aviators in basic flight instruction. No stateside pilot had any experience in the complicated tactics and maneuvers necessary for combat. The British and French sent pilots to the US to jumpstart the training program. There were myriad other complications such as a critical shortage of airfields and airplanes. The plan had to be altered over and over.

Under a revised plan, pilots would receive very basic training on flying in the States and then complete advanced instruction in France. The Allies agreed to construct a huge aerodrome exclusively for American flyers at Issoudun. This small village in western France offered flat ground, proximity to a rail line and lay safely out of range of German planes. Described by one American as “the worst mud hole in France,” delays prevented construction from beginning until the fall of 1917.

Byron Cook Enters the War

The first set of US pilots recruited in 1917 included Byron G. Cook. The Army organized these new cadets into a squadron, the 3^rd Aviation Instruction Center (AIC). Cook worked before the war at the Curtiss-Wright factory in Buffalo, New York while serving as a private in the New York National Guard (Curtiss and Wright merged after 1915). Cook had probably never actually flown a plane but his employment with Curtiss-Wright was enough to be selected under the very broad selection criteria.

Due to delays and shortages, when the 3^rd AIC came into service, the Army had not yet established basic flight training programs stateside. The first Air Service cadets graduated from Ground School which involved only classroom instruction on the basics of aviation. The 3^rd AIC set sail on October 10, 1917 from Quebec to France aboard the SS Megantic with no flight time at all.

By the end of the war, Issoudun would boast fifteen airstrips as the largest pilot training base in the world. However, when Cook arrived in France, Issoudun remained incomplete. The cadets went to work building the base. With only three airstrips, Issoudun had capacity to train only a few cadets so the French disseminated idle cadets to several French bases. Private Cook and 79 other cadets began their training on or about December 1, 1918 at Chateauroux under French instruction.

After two months, Cook took a comprehensive multistage test. To qualify he had to have 25 flight hours and successful completion of 50 solo landings. The French devised a technical written test and several flight tests. In the Spiral Test, a cadet had to cut his engine at 600 feet and land on a spot directly below which required spiraling the aircraft to the ground. Cadets had to complete two straight line voyages of 60 km from Chateauroux to Civray. The Triangle Test required cadet pilots to fly a course with three 200 km legs and land successfully. Finally, the cadets had to fly above 2,000 meters for one hour which could be completed independently or as part of the Triangle Test.

Records indicate that Cook and Kenneth W. Matheson were the first cadets from Chaveroux to pass the tests. They received a brevet promotion to first lieutenant on February 11, 1918 and on February 23^rd were among the first five cadets returned to receive advanced instruction at Issoudun. Thus, Byron Cook became one of the first US cadet pilots to receive a flight rank in World War I.

These first sanctioned pilots would never see combat. They remained at Issoudun and on or about March 15, 1918 became “testers” or flight instructors for untrained American cadet pilots arriving from the States. By mid-March Issoudun was functioning with six airfields. The Air Service handpicked the best new American flyers to train future pilots. West Point graduate Colonel Edgar Gorrell, himself one of America’s first pilots dating back to 1912, wrote the following on what was expected of a flight instructor:  

“only the best pilots, who possessed the following qualities were at all considered for this duty: a tester must be a cool, finished and accomplished flier. He must possess the flying instinct; in short, he must be able to feel out his plane. . . . He must possess a large amount of practical common sense. He must study the theory of airplanes whenever the opportunity affords itself. He must be a hard worker. He must have absolutely no fear of the air.” [1]

In addition to these rigorous standards, a tester held primary responsibility for ensuring the program and aircraft were safe. The tester: “must learn to determine by visual inspection of the entire plane, whether the plane is properly rigged, properly put together for flight.   . . . it was the policy of the test line . . . that no ship should leave the testing line unless it was absolutely safe in every way for the student pilot.” [2]

Cook and the other testers fulfilled their roles magnificently. Their primary role was to train fighter and observation pilots. From March of 1918 until the end of the war on November 11, 1918 1,751 pilots graduated from Issoudun and went on to shoot down 753 German planes and 71 balloons while losing 357 American fighters. Even though novices, American pilots achieved an impressive 2:1 kill ratio against more experienced German pilots. Observation pilots flew 35,000 hours over front lines, taking 18,000 photographs (made into 585,000 prints). The observer planes were actually more important to the war effort as they tracked German troop concentrations which foretold a coming attack and photographed German trenches and defenses helping Allied soldiers better prepare their attacks and artillery bombardmaents.

Additionally, over the nine months of operation, the program suffered only 80 fatalities among cadets and four testers or a mortality rate under 5%. Though new to the battlefield, the US lost a lower percentage of pilots per month than the other combatants. The US lost an average of 34 pilots per month while France suffered 157, Britain 88 and Germany 154 fliers killed per month. These statistics can be explained in part because France, Britain and Germany had more planes in the air, but part of the American success came with good training and effective leadership.

World War I biplanes were inherently dangerous to operate especially because of the heavy rate of usage. Built on a wooden frame with a canvas skin and supported by wires, tears in the fuselage skin, broken wires and cracked frames were just a few of the potential threats. Engines frequently broke down, sometimes in flight. Landing gear might be compromised, and propellers could be broken by dirt and mud kicked up by the tires on landing or take off (Eddie Rickenbacker, while still a mechanic at Issoudun added mud flaps which significantly cut down on broken propellers). Airplanes required constant maintenance of every part of the craft from the skin to the engines. Even with the tireless efforts of the ground crews, the fragile nature of the planes and heavy wear and tear left large numbers of aircraft under constant repair. Testers like Cook undoubtedly saved many lives just by making thorough pre-flight checks that required thorough knowledge of the aircraft and proficiency in recognizing potential problems.

Despite the emphasis on safety, crashes still occurred regularly. Cook himself suffered a severe injury in a flying accident. The injury was serious enough to ground him and he spent the remainder of the war in the Major Repair Shops. Cook’s experience at the Curtiss-Wright factory undoubtedly served him well in keeping aircraft serviceable.

The Photograph

Once I was able to establish Lt. Cook’s assignment, the cropped numbers became clear. Training planes had large numbers emblazoned on the side.  Just visible in the lower left corner is the top of a “3” which appeared on training planes to indicate they were part of the 3rd AIC. The Allies utilized more than 30 different types of aircraft at Issoudun. However, analyzing the structure of the cockpit and low-slung upper wing, it is apparent that Cook is sitting in a Neuport 24 or Neuport 27. Testers commonly employed both models at Issoudun.  I found the above photo of Cook in an archival source.  It identifies the plane as a Neuport 27, but the Neuport 24 and 27 were so similar, the photo may be mislabelled.  Nevertheless, the caption matched what I could see in period photographs of both planes.

I was not able to discover exactly what Lt. Cook’s duties were as a tester. The apparatus in front of the cockpit in the photo is telling. To a novice (including me) the apparatus appears to be a machine gun but from speaking with enthusiasts on a World War I blog, I realized that it is a camera gun.*  A camera gun would be useful in training to assess a pilot’s accuracy. Observation planes did not have a machine gun in front. For defense, the observer had a rear facing, pivoting machine gun. The presence of the gun camera implies Cook instructed pursuit pilots. Cameras played an important role in training. Ammunition is heavy so a bi-plane’s supply would be limited. Dogfights were frequently a matter of intense maneuvering to line up a few bursts of fire. Every shot counted.

Cook and Rickenbacker

Obviously if Lieutenant Cook never saw combat, he never flew with Eddie Rickenbacker and the 94^th Aero Squadron. Rickenbacker was a famous race car driver before the war. In those days, drivers had to be proficient with engines. Rickenbacker’s mechanical expertise shunted him first as an officer’s chauffeur and then into an aircraft mechanics unit at Issoudun. Not content with serving on the ground crew, Rickenbacker began flying and was allowed to become a pursuit pilot when he found another mechanic to replace him. Rickenbacker completed his advanced flight training at Issoudun in January of 1918 and joined the 94^th Pursuit Squadron for combat duty in February, 1918. Thus, Rickenbacker and Cook were at the French base at the same time in the Fall of 1917, but the two never flew together in training or combat.

Lt. Cook served until the end of World War I and was mustered out in 1919. As a result of the flying accident, he was discharged with a disability rating. The injury must not have been too serious. Cook served in the US Army Air Force Reserve in World War II retiring as a major. He died in 1971 leaving a wife and three children. His daughter married a World War II Sherman tank sergeant and eventually ended up in Richmond, Virginia with her son, my friend Chuck.

Even if Lieutenant Byron Cook never saw combat and never flew with the glamorous ace Eddie Rickenbacker and the 94^th Aero Squadron, he played a more important role. He risked his life every day in a contraption that was still a new and largely untested technology. With the frequent mechanical failures and crashes, one did not need to face German fighters to risk life and limb.

Cook trained many US aviators giving them the tools to take on more experienced German pilots with a good chance of surviving and prevailing. Cook was a pioneer, part of the first wave of brave airmen who made up the founding generation of America’s air forces. He helped build a legacy for one of the most important military services that provides a protective shield for all Americans today. Like many Americans who served, Cook played a small role in a big effort. Though he took to the air hundreds of times while training and as a tester, Cook probably never received the credit or thanks he deserved for risking his life on a daily basis. Today on Veteran’s Day though perhaps we can take a moment to remember Lt. Byron Cook and others.

Obituary (including inaccurate information):

Cleveland Plain Dealer, 27 Dec 1971

Services for Byron G. Cook, an Army pilot in World War I and a member of a distinguished Lakewood family, will be at 3 pm today in Saxton funeral home, 13215 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood.
Mr. Cook, a retired major in the Air Force Reserve, was the son of a Lakewood mayor and the father of the present Lakewood fire chief.
He died at the age of 77 Wednesday. Between active duty in both wars, he had been an inspector in the White Motor Co, Crucible Steel Co and Iron Fireman Co. He also taught auto repair at East Tech and West Tech high schools in the 30s.
He was graduated from Case Institute of Applied Science in 1915 and went to work with Curtis Wright Co, an airplane firm, in Buffalo the following year.
He then joined a New York National Guard unit and when the US entered World War I was sent to Issonden, France as a flying member of the Army Signal Corps, the forerunner of the Air Force.
Other members of his unit were Eddie Rickenbacker and Quentin Roosevelt, the son of former President Theodore Roosevelt, who was later shot down over France.
Mr. Cook retired from the Air Force Reserve in 1964.
He is survived by his wife, Kathryn, sons, Byron C, the chief, and Robert, daughter, Mrs. Richard E. Bagby of Richmond, Va, a brother and sister.

* Author’s Note:  I wish to thank members of the aerodomeforum.com for helping me identify Lt. Cook’s plane and for providing usefu background information and sources.  Additionally, one of Lt. Cook’s relatives was most helpful in providing fmily background.  I have retracted her name in the interests of privacy. 

Footnotes:

[1]   Gorrell, Colonel Edgar, The US Air Service in World War I. Vols. 9 Maxwell AFB AL: Office of Air Force History, 1978 (re-print from 1920), p. 273.

[2] Ibid., p. 274.

Sources:

I utilized ancestry and geneology pages which I have omitted in the interests of privacy.

Frank, Sam Hager, American Air Service Observation in World War I. Gainesville, FL: Dissertation presented at the University of Florida, University of Florida Press, 1961.

Gorrell, Colonel Edgar, The US Air Service in World War I. Vols. 1-10 Maxwell AFB AL: Office of Air Force History, 1978 (re-print from 1920).

Ross, John, Enduring Courage: Ace Pilot Eddie Rickenbacker and the Dawn of the Age of Speed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015.

Schrader, Lt. Col. Karl R., A Giant in the Shadows: Major General Benjamin Foulois and the Rise of the Army Air Service in World War I – Beginnings of Military Aviation, War Department Buys Aeroplane, Foulois on Western Front. Maxwell AFB AL: Air University Press, 2016.

Tynan, John E. “U. S. Air Service: Emerging From Its Cradle.” The Air Power Historian 10, no. 3 (1963): 85-89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44513444.

All images are in the public domain and subject to Fair Use laws.

The post Lt. Byron Cook World War I Veteran and Aviation Pioneer appeared first on History Arch.