dignity, repose, and mercy

If he had lived, Abraham Lincoln would be 211 years old today. In its February 26, 1870 issue Harper’s Weekly pictured a new statue of Abraham for Union Square in New York City and recounted the story of President Lincoln pardon of the “sleeping sentinel,” William Scott.

Saved the Union

Harper’s Weekly February 26, 1870

asleep at the Chain Bridge

reprieve

According to Wikipedia, Carl Sandburg debunked part of the William Scott story: no dramatic last words, no dramatic presidential ride to the execution site. But more modern research indicates that Mr. Lincoln was aware of the case and did intervene (as General McClellan’s order implied).

pre-Hollywood treatment

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Month, Monuments and Statues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

live from dry square

Not exactly lively, not exactly dry

better hurry

The 18th amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes,” went into effect nationwide on January 17, 1920. That might have been bad enough, but Prohibition reportedly even affected the prior New Year’s Eve in New York City. The big night had been a subdued affair according to the January 1, 1920 issue of the The New-York Times, which headlined a New Year’s Eve “Gay in Hotels, Quiet on Streets,” “Abundance of Liquor in Dining Rooms, Brought in Packages by the Guests,” … “Revenue Agents Vigilant,” “Mingled in Restaurant Crowds in Evening Dress, Some Accompanied by Their Wives”:

A sober city gave tacit notice to the world that prohibition and the attendant fear of beverages tainted with wood alcohol had caused it to abandon forever its time-honored custom of greeting the New Year by turning its Broadway and Times Square into a Mardi Gras, where good-natured throngs took part in revels and bantering until the cold morning mists drove them home.

New Year’s Eve as an institution and as a great expression of a community psychology, a psychology that caused thousands in other years to gather into a great Broadway maelstrom, has passed into the city’s history. Hard hit by the war and overshadowed by the great Armistice Night celebration, the riotous New Year’s Eve of a year ago failed to return to its haunts last night under the most favorable weather conditions. Cause: Prohibition!

Little Gayety in Streets.

could you please direct me to the Mardi Gras?

Only in the hotels and the restaurants along Broadway was there any hint last night of the old prewar New Year’s Eve, with its ear-rending, noise-making machines, its feather ticklers, its confetti, its trumpets, its immovable crowds, and its good cheer. There the last precious drops of good old bonded stuff were used up by diners who sought to bring back the oldtime New Year’s Eve and to make themselves believe that they at least for this one year could outwit prohibition.

Although an insidious rumor had bed spread far and wide that some of the hotels would open their hearts and their wine cellars at the stroke of midnight and carry forth casks of the good cheer which they were forbidden by law to sell, no such theatrical munificence was carried out, save, to a limited extent, in the hotels of the du Pont-Boomer group. Hoping against hope, hundreds of patrons placed themselves in receptive positions in all hotels, but at midnight the managers came around and shook hands. Nothing else! …

The same front page described a raid on a shop in Brooklyn that manufactured poison wood alcohol that “caused many deaths in Hartford, Chicopee, and other places in New England …”

on the wagon,
Uncle Sam’s wagon

bathtub gin?

dry cabaret
August 1919???

__________________________________

The Volstead Act, passed in October 1919, specified how the eighteenth amendment was to be carried out, but I still didn’t understand how enforcement of prohibition seemed to begin before January 17, 1920 until I found a picture at the Library of Congress and then found information about the Wartime Prohibition Act at chronozoom: the act “banned the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcohol content of greater than 2.75 percent. (This act, which was intended to save grain for the war effort, was passed after the armistice ending World War I was signed on November 11, 1918.) The Wartime Prohibition Act took effect June 30, 1919, with July 1, 1919, becoming known as the “Thirsty-First”.”

last call for (full-strength) alcohol

An American history textbook viewed Prohibition as a victory for rural America against the cities. The temperance movement had been a strong force since Andrew Jackson’s administration and during the Progressive Era many reformers wanted to ban alcohol entirely. “(P)rohibition was a typical progressive reform, moralistic, backed by the middle class, aimed at frustration ‘the interests’ – in this case, the distillers.” World War I was a boon to the movement – the Food and Fuel Control Act also controlled alcohol because it “banned the production of “distilled spirits” from any produce that was used for food.” Apparently it reduced the permissible alcohol content in legal beer. Prohibition had good and bad results. The amendment did reduce average alcohol consumption and resulted in fewer alcohol-related deaths. Since beer and wine were also banned, many citizens opted to break the law. Smuggling increased and saloons were replaced by speakeasies. The legal production of wine for religious services increased “800,000 gallons during the first two years of prohibition.” Pharmacists could legally prescribe alcohol for medicinal purposes. Overall prohibition led to a lot of societal hypocrisy.[1]

British author G.K Chesterton had quite a bit to say about Prohibition in his 1922 What I Saw in America (at Project Gutenberg). Here are a few excerpts:
I went to America with some notion of not discussing Prohibition. But I soon found that well-to-do Americans were only too delighted to discuss it over the nuts and wine. They were even willing, if necessary, to dispense with the nuts. I am far from sneering at this; having a general philosophy which need not here be expounded, but which may be symbolised by saying that monkeys can enjoy nuts but only men can enjoy wine. But if I am to deal with Prohibition, there is no doubt of the first thing to be said about it. The first thing to be said about it is that it does not exist. It is to some extent enforced among the poor; at any rate it was intended to be enforced among the poor; though even among them I fancy it is much evaded. It is certainly not enforced among the rich; and I doubt whether it was intended to be. I suspect that this has always happened whenever this negative notion has taken hold of some particular province or tribe. Prohibition never prohibits. It never has in history; not even in Moslem history; and it never will. Mahomet at least had the argument of a climate and not the interest of a class. But if a test is needed, consider what part of Moslem culture has passed permanently into our own modern culture. You will find the one Moslem poem that has really pierced is a Moslem poem in praise of wine. The crown of all the victories of the Crescent is that nobody reads the Koran and everybody reads the Rubaiyat.
Most of us remember with satisfaction an old picture in Punch, representing a festive old gentleman in a state of collapse on the pavement, and a philanthropic old lady anxiously calling the attention of a cabman to the calamity. The old lady says, ‘I’m sure this poor gentleman is ill,’ and the cabman replies with fervour, ‘Ill! I wish I ‘ad ‘alf ‘is complaint.’ …
Now Prohibition, whether as a proposal in England or a pretence in America, simply means that the man who has drunk less shall have no drink, and the man who has drunk more shall have all the drink. It means that the old gentleman shall be carried home in the cab drunker than ever; but that, in order to make it quite safe for him to drink to excess, the man who drives him shall be forbidden to drink even in moderation. That is what it means; that is all it means; that is all it ever will mean. It tends to that in Moslem countries; where the luxurious and advanced drink champagne, while the poor and fanatical drink water. It means that in modern America; where the wealthy are all at this moment sipping their cocktails, and discussing how much harder labourers can be made to work if only they can be kept from festivity. This is what it means and all it means; and men are divided about it according to whether they believe in a certain transcendental concept called ‘justice,’ expressed in a more mystical paradox as the equality of men. So long as you do not believe in justice, and so long as you are rich and really confident of remaining so, you can have Prohibition and be as drunk as you choose. …

sine qua non

class consciousness

verboten

Now my primary objection to Prohibition is not based on any arguments against it, but on the one argument for it. I need nothing more for its condemnation than the only thing that is said in its defence. It is said by capitalists all over America; and it is very clearly and correctly reported by Mr. Campbell himself. The argument is that employees work harder, and therefore employers get richer. That this idea should be taken calmly, by itself, as the test of a problem of liberty, is in itself a final testimony to the presence of slavery. It shows that people have completely forgotten that there is any other test except the servile test. Employers are willing that workmen should have exercise, as it may help them to do more work. They are even willing that workmen should have leisure; for the more intelligent capitalists can see that this also really means that they can do more work. But they are not in any way willing that workmen should have fun; for fun only increases the happiness and not the utility of the worker. Fun is freedom; and in that sense is an end in itself. It concerns the man not as a worker but as a citizen, or even as a soul; and the soul in that sense is an end in itself. That a man shall have a reasonable amount of comedy and poetry and even fantasy in his life is part of his spiritual health, which is for the service of God; and not merely for his mechanical health, which is now bound to the service of man. The very test adopted has all the servile implication; the test of what we can get out of him, instead of the test of what he can get out of life. …
Nobody in his five wits will deny that Jeffersonian democracy wished to give the law a general control in more public things, but the citizens a more general liberty in private things. Wherever we draw the line, liberty can only be personal liberty; and the most personal liberties must at least be the last liberties we lose. But to-day they are the first liberties we lose. It is not a question of drawing the line in the right place, but of beginning at the wrong end. What are the rights of man, if they do not include the normal right to regulate his own health, in relation to the normal risks of diet and daily life? Nobody can pretend that beer is a poison as prussic acid is a poison; that all the millions of civilised men who drank it all fell down dead when they had touched it. Its use and abuse is obviously a matter of judgment; and there can be no personal liberty, if it is not a matter ofprivate judgment. It is not in the least a question of drawing the line between liberty and licence. If this is licence, there is no such thing as liberty. It is plainly impossible to find any right more individual or intimate. To say that a man has a right to a vote, but not a right to a voice about the choice of his dinner, is like saying that he has a right to his hat but not a right to his head.
Prohibition, therefore, plainly violates the rights of man, if there are any rights of man. What its supporters really mean is that there are none.

social compact?

Sometimes I get so blue because of all the gray areas in life. Alcohol is a good example. One of my memories of Gettysburg when I was a little kid [2] was visiting the Cyclorama – I heard an agonizing scream as the spotlight highlighted a near-battlefield amputation; I hope that soldier, regardless of uniform, could have had some whiskey to ease the pain a little bit. On the other hand, I’m quite certain that drinking can lead to something approaching the exact opposite of personal liberty, with an increasing likelihood of collateral damage
Apparently doctors even in the early twentieth century relied on alcohol as a medicine. The front page of The New-York Times on January 22, 1919 headlined an increase in city influenza cases of 462 in one day and a concern that because of prohibition it would be difficult to obtain enough whiskey to treat the flu and pneumonia. (the other concern was a shortage of nurses, especially for home care). The Health Commissioner planned on asking the federal government to set up liquor stations where medical professional could obtain the stuff to treat patients. Druggists were worried that they could get in trouble if they filled too many prescriptions for medicinal alcohol now that the liquid was banned nationwide.
I was surprised to read that G.K. Chesterton didn’t think Muslims read the Koran, although that was about one hundred years ago.
Kenesaw Mountain Landis served as a judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois from 1905-1922 and as Baseball Commissioner from 1920 until his death in 1944.
You can read a blog about Prohibition at the Library of Congress.
Also from the Library of Congress: the photo of the returning 11th Engineers from the May 4, 1919 issue of the New York Tribune – a couple months before the Wartime Prohibition Act took effect; also from the Trib in 1919 – August 3rd, October 19th, November 9th, December 7th, December 28th; a quiet Times Square between 1900 and 1915; “Interior of a crowded bar moments before midnight, June 30, 1919, when wartime prohibition went into effect New York City;” “No Beer-No Work sheet music from 1919; Personal Liberty sheet music also from 1919; Bottles and barrel of confiscated whiskey/a>

cellar dwellers?

down with drink

killjoys

  1. [1]Garraty, John A., and Robert A. McCaughey. The American Nation: A History of the United States, Seventh Edition. New York: HarpersCollins Publishers, 1991. Print. page 721-722.
  2. [2]many decades ago, my memory certainly could be faulty
Posted in 100 Years Ago, World War I | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

the golden character

According to documentation at Project Gutenberg, President Ulysses S. Grant sent his first annual message to Congress when it reconvened early in December 1869. It was a long report; overall things seemed pretty peaceable. Reconstruction in the Southern states was progressing. The president seemed to encourage a gradual return to the gold standard. The federal government ran a surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869. Congress should make sure that the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue received the pay and prestige it deserved. The United States shouldn’t enforce its “views upon unwilling nations.” President Grant wanted to stop citizens of foreign nations becoming naturalized U.S. citizens only as a kind of backstop – these people would continue to live and work in their home country for years until “civil discord” or being drafted into military service made them escape to the United States. It seems that the president saw trade as a way to promote the nation’s self-interest. President Grant was using Quakers to run a few Indian reservations and military officers as agents to the natives not on reservations. He thought that the best policy was to eventually get all the aborigines living on reservations. The document contained over 7600 words; here are some excerpts:

FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., December 6, 1869.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

the general in his new clothes

In coming before you for the first time as Chief Magistrate of this great nation, it is with gratitude to the Giver of All Good for the many benefits we enjoy. We are blessed with peace at home, and are without entangling alliances abroad to forebode trouble; with a territory unsurpassed in fertility, of an area equal to the abundant support of 500,000,000 people, and abounding in every variety of useful mineral in quantity sufficient to supply the world for generations; with exuberant crops; with a variety of climate adapted to the production of every species of earth’s riches and suited to the habits, tastes, and requirements of every living thing; with a population of 40,000,000 free people, all speaking one language; with facilities for every mortal to acquire an education; with institutions closing to none the avenues to fame or any blessing of fortune that may be coveted; with freedom of the pulpit, the press, and the school; with a revenue flowing into the National Treasury beyond the requirements of the Government. Happily, harmony is being rapidly restored within our own borders. Manufactures hitherto unknown in our country are springing up in all sections, producing a degree of national independence unequaled by that of any other power.

These blessings and countless others are intrusted to your care and mine for safe-keeping for the brief period of our tenure of office. In a short time we must, each of us, return to the ranks of the people, who have conferred upon us our honors, and account to them for our stewardship. I earnestly desire that neither you nor I may be condemned by a free and enlightened constituency nor by our own consciences.

Emerging from a rebellion of gigantic magnitude, aided, as it was, by the sympathies and assistance of nations with which we were at peace, eleven States of the Union were, four years ago, left without legal State governments. A national debt had been contracted; American commerce was almost driven from the seas; the industry of one-half of the country had been taken from the control of the capitalist and placed where all labor rightfully belongs—in the keeping of the laborer. The work of restoring State governments loyal to the Union, of protecting and fostering free labor, and providing means for paying the interest on the public debt has received ample attention from Congress. Although your efforts have not met with the success in all particulars that might have been desired, yet on the whole they have been more successful than could have been reasonably anticipated.

In Richmond (Harper’s Weekly November 20, 1869)

Seven States which passed ordinances of secession have been fully restored to their places in the Union. The eighth (Georgia) held an election at which she ratified her constitution, republican in form, elected a governor, Members of Congress, a State legislature, and all other officers required. The governor was duly installed, and the legislature met and performed all the acts then required of them by the reconstruction acts of Congress. Subsequently, however, in violation of the constitution which they had just ratified (as since decided by the supreme court of the State), they unseated the colored members of the legislature and admitted to seats some members who are disqualified by the third clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution—an article which they themselves had contributed to ratify. Under these circumstances I would submit to you whether it would not be wise, without delay, to enact a law authorizing the governor of Georgia to convene the members originally elected to the legislature, requiring each member to take the oath prescribed by the reconstruction acts, and none to be admitted who are ineligible under the third clause of the fourteenth amendment.

The freedmen, under the protection which they have received, are making rapid progress in learning, and no complaints are heard of lack of industry on their part where they receive fair remuneration for their labor. The means provided for paying the interest on the public debt, with all other expenses of Government, are more than ample. The loss of our commerce is the only result of the late rebellion which has not received sufficient attention from you. To this subject I call your earnest attention. I will not now suggest plans by which this object may be effected, but will, if necessary, make it the subject of a special message during the session of Congress.

boys will be boys

At the March term Congress by joint resolution authorized the Executive to order elections in the States of Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas, to submit to them the constitutions which each had previously, in convention, framed, and submit the constitutions, either entire or in separate parts, to be voted upon, at the discretion of the Executive. Under this authority elections were called. In Virginia the election took place on the 6th of July, 1869. The governor and lieutenant-governor elected have been installed. The legislature met and did all required by this resolution and by all the reconstruction acts of Congress, and abstained from all doubtful authority. I recommend that her Senators and Representatives be promptly admitted to their seats, and that the State be fully restored to its place in the family of States. Elections were called in Mississippi and Texas, to commence on the 30th of November, 1869, and to last two days in Mississippi and four days in Texas. The elections have taken place, but the result is not known. It is to be hoped that the acts of the legislatures of these States, when they meet, will be such as to receive your approval, and thus close the work of reconstruction.

Among the evils growing out of the rebellion, and not yet referred to, is that of an irredeemable currency. It is an evil which I hope will receive your most earnest attention. It is a duty, and one of the highest duties, of Government to secure to the citizen a medium of exchange of fixed, unvarying value. This implies a return to a specie basis, and no substitute for it can be devised. It should be commenced now and reached at the earliest practicable moment consistent with a fair regard to the interests of the debtor class. Immediate resumption, if practicable, would not be desirable. It would compel the debtor class to pay, beyond their contracts, the premium on gold at the date of their purchase, and would bring bankruptcy and ruin to thousands. Fluctuation, however, in the paper value of the measure of all values (gold) is detrimental to the interests of trade. It makes the man of business an involuntary gambler, for in all sales where future payment is to be made both parties speculate as to what will be the value of the currency to be paid and received. I earnestly recommend to you, then, such legislation as will insure a gradual return to specie payments and put an immediate stop to fluctuations in the value of currency.

The methods to secure the former of these results are as numerous as are the speculators on political economy. To secure the latter I see but one way, and that is to authorize the Treasury to redeem its own paper, at a fixed price, whenever presented, and to withhold from circulation all currency so redeemed until sold again for gold.

The vast resources of the nation, both developed and undeveloped, ought to make our credit the best on earth. With a less burden of taxation than the citizen has endured for six years past, the entire public debt could be paid in ten years. But it is not desirable that the people should be taxed to pay it in that time. Year by year the ability to pay increases in a rapid ratio. But the burden of interest ought to be reduced as rapidly as can be done without the violation of contract. The public debt is represented in great part by bonds having from five to twenty and from ten to forty years to run, bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively. It is optional with the Government to pay these bonds at any period after the expiration of the least time mentioned upon their face. The time has already expired when a great part of them may be taken up, and is rapidly approaching when all may be. It is believed that all which are now due may be replaced by bonds bearing a rate of interest not exceeding 4-1/2 per cent, and as rapidly as the remainder become due that they may be replaced in the same way. To accomplish this it may be necessary to authorize the interest to be paid at either of three or four of the money centers of Europe, or by any assistant treasurer of the United States, at the option of the holder of the bond. I suggest this subject for the consideration of Congress, and also, simultaneously with this, the propriety of redeeming our currency, as before suggested, at its market value at the time the law goes into effect, increasing the rate at which currency shall be bought and sold from day to day or week to week, at the same rate of interest as Government pays upon its bonds.

The subjects of tariff and internal taxation will necessarily receive your attention. The revenues of the country are greater than the requirements, and may with safety be reduced. But as the funding of the debt in a 4 or a 4-1/2 per cent loan would reduce annual current expenses largely, thus, after funding, justifying a greater reduction of taxation than would be now expedient, I suggest postponement of this question until the next meeting of Congress.

It may be advisable to modify taxation and tariff in instances where unjust or burdensome discriminations are made by the present laws, but a general revision of the laws regulating this subject I recommend the postponement of for the present. I also suggest the renewal of the tax on incomes, but at a reduced rate, say of 3 per cent, and this tax to expire in three years.

With the funding of the national debt, as here suggested, I feel safe in saying that taxes and the revenue from imports may be reduced safely from sixty to eighty millions per annum at once, and may be still further reduced from year to year, as the resources of the country are developed.

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury shows the receipts of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, to be $370,943,747, and the expenditures, including interest, bounties, etc., to be $321,490,597. The estimates for the ensuing year are more favorable to the Government, and will no doubt show a much larger decrease of the public debt.

The receipts in the Treasury beyond expenditures have exceeded the amount necessary to place to the credit of the sinking fund, as provided by law. To lock up the surplus in the Treasury and withhold it from circulation would lead to such a contraction of the currency as to cripple trade and seriously affect the prosperity of the country. Under these circumstances the Secretary of the Treasury and myself heartily concurred in the propriety of using all the surplus currency in the Treasury in the purchase of Government bonds, thus reducing the interest-bearing indebtedness of the country, and of submitting to Congress the question of the disposition to be made of the bonds so purchased. The bonds now held by the Treasury amount to about seventy-five millions, including those belonging to the sinking fund. I recommend that the whole be placed to the credit of the sinking fund.

Your attention is respectfully invited to the recommendations of the Secretary of the Treasury for the creation of the office of commissioner of customs revenue; for the increase of salaries to certain classes of officials; the substitution of increased national-bank circulation to replace the outstanding 3 per cent certificates; and most especially to his recommendation for the repeal of laws allowing shares of fines, penalties, forfeitures, etc., to officers of the Government or to informers.

The office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue is one of the most arduous and responsible under the Government. It falls but little, if any, short of a Cabinet position in its importance and responsibilities. I would ask for it, therefore, such legislation as in your judgment will place the office upon a footing of dignity commensurate with its importance and with the character and qualifications of the class of men required to fill it properly.

Cuban insurrection

As the United States is the freest of all nations, so, too, its people sympathize with all people struggling for liberty and self-government; but while so sympathizing it is due to our honor that we should abstain from enforcing our views upon unwilling nations and from taking an interested part, without invitation, in the quarrels between different nations or between governments and their subjects. Our course should always be in conformity with strict justice and law, international and local. Such has been the policy of the Administration in dealing with these questions. For more than a year a valuable province of Spain, and a near neighbor of ours, in whom all our people can not but feel a deep interest, has been struggling for independence and freedom. The people and Government of the United States entertain the same warm feelings and sympathies for the people of Cuba in their pending struggle that they manifested throughout the previous struggles between Spain and her former colonies in behalf of the latter. But the contest has at no time assumed the conditions which amount to a war in the sense of international law, or which would show the existence of a de facto political organization of the insurgents sufficient to justify a recognition of belligerency. …

[In addition to the rebellion in Cuba, President Grant reviewed the foreign relations of the United States, including the Spanish seizure of a couple U.S. ships, “the subject of an interoceanic canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the Isthmus of Darien,” the settlement of all claims between Great Britain and the United States (probably including the CSS Alabama), and more.

… The unsettled political condition of other countries, less fortunate than our own, sometimes induces their citizens to come to the United States for the sole purpose of becoming naturalized. Having secured this, they return to their native country and reside there, without disclosing their change of allegiance. They accept official positions of trust or honor, which can only be held by citizens of their native land; they journey under passports describing them as such citizens; and it is only when civil discord, after perhaps years of quiet, threatens their persons or their property, or when their native state drafts them into its military service, that the fact of their change of allegiance is made known. They reside permanently away from the United States, they contribute nothing to its revenues, they avoid the duties of its citizenship, and they only make themselves known by a claim of protection. I have directed the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States to scrutinize carefully all such claims for protection. The citizen of the United States, whether native or adopted, who discharges his duty to his country, is entitled to its complete protection. While I have a voice in the direction of affairs I shall not consent to imperil this sacred right by conferring it upon fictitious or fraudulent claimants. …

Our manufactures are increasing with wonderful rapidity under the encouragement which they now receive. With the improvements in machinery already effected, and still increasing, causing machinery to take the place of skilled labor to a large extent, our imports of many articles must fall off largely within a very few years. Fortunately, too, manufactures are not confined to a few localities, as formerly, and it is to be hoped will become more and more diffused, making the interest in them equal in all sections. They give employment and support to hundreds of thousands of people at home, and retain with us the means which otherwise would be shipped abroad. The extension of railroads in Europe and the East is bringing into competition with our agricultural products like products of other countries. Self-interest, if not self-preservation, therefore dictates caution against disturbing any industrial interest of the country. It teaches us also the necessity of looking to other markets for the sale of our surplus. Our neighbors south of us, and China and Japan, should receive our special attention. It will be the endeavor of the Administration to cultivate such relations with all these nations as to entitle us to their confidence and make it their interest, as well as ours, to establish better commercial relations. …

On my assuming the responsible duties of Chief Magistrate of the United States it was with the conviction that three things were essential to its peace, prosperity, and fullest development. First among these is strict integrity in fulfilling all our obligations; second, to secure protection to the person and property of the citizen of the United States in each and every portion of our common country, wherever he may choose to move, without reference to original nationality, religion, color, or politics, demanding of him only obedience to the laws and proper respect for the rights of others; third, union of all the States, with equal rights, indestructible by any constitutional means.

To secure the first of these, Congress has taken two essential steps: First, in declaring by joint resolution that the public debt shall be paid, principal and interest, in coin; and, second, by providing the means for paying. Providing the means, however, could not secure the object desired without a proper administration of the laws for the collection of the revenues and an economical disbursement of them. To this subject the Administration has most earnestly addressed itself, with results, I hope, satisfactory to the country. There has been no hesitation in changing officials in order to secure an efficient execution of the laws, sometimes, too, when, in a mere party view, undesirable political results were likely to follow; nor any hesitation in sustaining efficient officials against remonstrances wholly political.

It may be well to mention here the embarrassment possible to arise from leaving on the statute books the so-called “tenure-of-office acts,” and to earnestly recommend their total repeal. It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution, when providing that appointments made by the President should receive the consent of the Senate, that the latter should have the power to retain in office persons placed there by Federal appointment against the will of the President. The law is inconsistent with a faithful and efficient administration of the Government. What faith can an Executive put in officials forced upon him, and those, too, whom he has suspended for reason? How will such officials be likely to serve an Administration which they know does not trust them?

For the second requisite to our growth and prosperity time and a firm but humane administration of existing laws (amended from time to time as they may prove ineffective or prove harsh and unnecessary) are probably all that are required.

The third can not be attained by special legislation, but must be regarded as fixed by the Constitution itself and gradually acquiesced in by force of public opinion.

From the foundation of the Government to the present the management of the original inhabitants of this continent—the Indians—has been a subject of embarrassment and expense, and has been attended with continuous robberies, murders, and wars. From my own experience upon the frontiers and in Indian countries, I do not hold either legislation or the conduct of the whites who come most in contact with the Indian blameless for these hostilities. The past, however, can not be undone, and the question must be met as we now find it. I have attempted a new policy toward these wards of the nation (they can not be regarded in any other light than as wards), with fair results so far as tried, and which I hope will be attended ultimately with great success. The Society of Friends is well known as having succeeded in living in peace with the Indians in the early settlement of Pennsylvania, while their white neighbors of other sects in other sections were constantly embroiled. They are also known for their opposition to all strife, violence, and war, and are generally noted for their strict integrity and fair dealings. These considerations induced me to give the management of a few reservations of Indians to them and to throw the burden of the selection of agents upon the society itself. The result has proven most satisfactory. It will De [be] found more fully set forth in the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. For superintendents and Indian agents not on the reservations, officers of the Army were selected. The reasons for this are numerous. Where Indian agents are sent, there, or near there, troops must be sent also. The agent and the commander of troops are independent of each other, and are subject to orders from different Departments of the Government. The army officer holds a position for life; the agent, one at the will of the President. The former is personally interested in living in harmony with the Indian and in establishing a permanent peace, to the end that some portion of his life may be spent within the limits of civilized society; the latter has no such personal interest. Another reason is an economic one; and still another, the hold which the Government has upon a life officer to secure a faithful discharge of duties in carrying out a given policy.

you, too, can become a ward of the nation

The building of railroads, and the access thereby given to all the agricultural and mineral regions of the country, is rapidly bringing civilized settlements into contact with all the tribes of Indians. No matter what ought to be the relations between such settlements and the aborigines, the fact is they do not harmonize well, and one or the other has to give way in the end. A system which looks to the extinction of a race is too horrible for a nation to adopt without entailing upon itself the wrath of all Christendom and engendering in the citizen a disregard for human life and the rights of others, dangerous to society. I see no substitute for such a system, except in placing all the Indians on large reservations, as rapidly as it can be done, and giving them absolute protection there. As soon as they are fitted for it they should be induced to take their lands in severalty and to set up Territorial governments for their own protection. For full details on this subject I call your special attention to the reports of the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. …

[Next is a summary of Cabinet Department reports]

… There are many subjects not alluded to in this message which might with propriety be introduced, but I abstain, believing that your patriotism and statesmanship will suggest the topics and the legislation most conducive to the interests of the whole people. On my part I promise a rigid adherence to the laws and their strict enforcement.

U.S. GRANT.

chalk talks

I don’t know much about the Grant Administration except that it was supposed to scandal-plagued. According to Wikipedia the first Grant Administration scandal was the Black Friday Gold Panic 1869. Jay Gould and James Fisk led a plan to manipulate the price of gold by ensuring that the federal government stopped using federally-owned gold to buy back bonds and reduce the government debt. At first, President Grant naively went along. When he realized what was going on, he and Secretary of the Treasury George Boutwell agreed to begin buying bonds again with government-owned gold. On September 24, 1869 Secretary Boutwell used $4,000,000 worth of gold to buy bonds. The artificially high price of gold collapsed and many investors were ruined:

“The gold panic devastated the United States economy for months. Stock prices plunged and the price of food crops such as wheat and corn dropped severely, devastating farmers who did not recover for years afterward. Gould had earlier claimed to Grant that raising the price of gold would actually help farmers. Also Fisk refused to pay off many of his investors who had bought gold on paper. The volume of stocks being sold on Wall Street decreased by 20%. Fisk and Gould, who could afford to hire the best lawyers, were never held accountable for their profiteering, as favorable judges declined to prosecute.”

price controls

devilish design?

occupied Wall Street

______________________________________

Harper’s Weekly began 1869 with sky-high expectations for the new year in general and the incipient Grant Administration in particular. The newspaper seemed quite a bit more muted as 1870 rolled around, but it still had a great deal of faith President Grant’s character. From the January 8, 1870 issue of Harper’s Weekly:

New York not having any

THE NEW YEAR.

The new year opens with the world outwardly at peace, except in Cuba and Paraguay. At home, the administration of General GRANT, which began with such high hopes, is stronger in public confidence than ever. The eager expectations of “a splendid administration” may have been chastened; for to compose the country after a civil tempest, to encourage the return of industry to its proper channels, and to pay the debt, are not precisely a “splendid,” although the most necessary policy. Those who anticipated splendor meant probably annexation. It was their hope that Canada and the West Indies would fall under our control. That is, perhaps, still their hope. It would not be surprising if President GRANT himself should expect or wish to signalize his administration by an extension of the national domain. Perhaps it has occurred to him that in some honorable way Canada might fall to us out of the Alabama complication. Perhaps he has supposed that Spain, no longer suspicious after the release of the gun-boats, might not be unwilling to think of selling Cuba.

gold scandal: “The President’s character was his armor”

But whatever the President’s hopes or wishes may be, his character and his conduct equally show that the country has nothing to expect but what is most fair, most reasonable, and most patriotic. After ten months’ strictest observation of General GRANT in his great office, for which it was alleged that, however good a soldier he might be, he was certainly not fitted, his sturdy honesty, his natural rectitude of feeling, his remarkable sagacity and alert apprehension, have impressed the country with a profound conviction that the public welfare is peculiarly safe in his hands, and he is trusted as President LINCOLN was trusted, and as few other Presidents have been. His Cabinet, although not composed of party leaders, is evidently a body of wise counselors; and General GRANT would not be where he is if he were not capable of selecting sound advisors and following good counsels. Undoubtedly the general feeling is that the Administration has no other purpose than the public good, and that the character of its members is an [?] earnest of its devotion to that object.

During General GRANT’S Presidency the Union will be wholly restored, equal rights secured, the debt generally reduced, taxation diminished, and the foreign questions satisfactorily adjusted. These results are foreshadowed by the experience of this year, and without territorial extension these certainly supply real “splendor” enough to any Administration. Yet to increase the national territory is always a popular policy. Unquestionably Mr. SEWARD believes that he will be as gratefully remembered for acquiring Alaska as for defending freedom in California and Kansas. But, however inevitable the extension of our limits may be, the addition of a population foreign in race, language, and traditions of every kind is not an unmixed blessing. The consciousness of this fact evidently subdues the popular impulse that demands annexation. Formerly the impulse seemed more positive, for annexation was the political policy of a faction to strengthen slavery. Now, fortunately, it has only its normal play. And, we repeat, if increase of territory is to be added to the trophies of the GRANT Administration, it will be in the most honorable and satisfactory manner.

Abroad, there is not only peace between the great states, but there is an especial friendliness towards us. If it is to be explained by the proved power of this country and certain accusing reminiscences elsewhere, let us now at least remember that as a slaveholding republic we did not conciliate other nations, and that we have as carefully avoided sentimentality in international relations as any foreign government. The Christmas sun shines upon the English war steamer bringing respectfully to America the body of a noted American who had made both countries his home; while the best known and most beloved of all our English friends during our struggle is a conspicuous member of the British government, which modifies at our wish its old doctrine of allegiance. In France LOUIS NAPOLEON speaks us fair. Spain sees that we are friendly. Germany also allows expatriation at our request. Austria gives her hand to us in freeing her schools from ecclesiastical control. Russia is our ally, and little Denmark, unwilling to be deceived, waits to see that our plighted faith be fulfilled.

“an honest chance”

So friendly and full of promise opens the new year. But for us its chief glory is that it dawns not only on the Union fully restored, but consecrated to equal liberty and pledged to its defense. If any where in the land – in Texas, in Georgia, in Mississippi – the old tyranny asserts itself to abuse a single friendless citizen, the power of the whole is bound for his protection. Let us make that the American practice as well as the American principle. Let the cabin of the most unfortunate and forlorn of our brethren feel our protecting hand – feel that they are to have an honest chance to rise as men out of the brutishness into which we suffered them to be trampled, and they will indeed feel that the light of a new year shines upon their long night, and that they hear, as the Syrian shepherds heard, the divine gospel: “Peace on Earth: Good-will to men.”

In the same issue Harper’s Weekly pictorially reviewed the decade that had just ended:

from election to emancipation

economy and education

“resist the further encroachments of slavery”

In the 1869 New York State election Democrats swept all the statewide offices and won control the state assembly and senate. Two blue-gray people were losing Republicans – Franz Sigel (Secretary of State) and Horace Greeley (Comptroller).
All the Harper’s Weekly material can be found at the Internet Archive – 1869 and 1870
From the Library of Congress: presidential portrait; Charles M. Russell’s c.1899 drawing of “The Indian of the plains as he was”; New York Gold Room bulletin board – “Photograph of the black board in the New York Gold Room, September 24, 1869, showing the collapse of the price of gold. Handwritten caption by James A. Garfield indicates it was used as evidence before the Committee of Banking & Currency during hearings in 1870.” (the handwritten caption got the year wrong); Two African American boys, photo said to be between 1867 and 1870 by “J. D. Heywood’s Photographic Art Rooms, New Berne, N.C.” I’m quite sure there were impoverished white children, too. I guess equal opportunity is the thing.
Posted in 150 Years Ago, Aftermath, Reconstruction, The Grant Administration | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“earnest and fearless”

Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War during most of the Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson administrations, died on December 24, 1869. Funeral services were held 150 years ago today in Washington, D.C. Harper’s Weekly eulogized him in its January 8, 1870 issue:

gave every thing for the Union

EDWIN M. STANTON

Since he left the War Department the health of Mr. STANTON has been so uncertain that nobody could have been very much surprised by the news of his death. But there was no patriotic household in the land whose Christmas was not saddened by it, and which did not feel the singular felicity of the President’s words in announcing the event – words that should be carved upon Mr. STANTON’S tomb. “He was unceasing in his labors; earnest and fearless in the assumption of responsibilities necessary to his country’s success; respected by all good men, and feared by wrong-doers.” A nobler epitaph for a public man could not be written, nor truer words spoken of Mr. STANTON. So true are they that there was not an honorable American who did not feel that the highest praise of the dead Secretary was the vulgar and futile abuse of the New York World, poured out unconsciously on his corpse. Had Mr. STANTON devoted his great powers and tireless energy to perpetuating slavery and destroying the government, the World would have saluted him as a constitutional hero and a Christian gentleman.

Mr. STANTON’S services to the country during the war, like Mr. LINCOLN’S, like Governor ANDREW’S, like those of all the chief men of that time, are incalculable. It can never be known, indeed, that there were not others who would have been as indomitable and efficient in the most trying and laborious of positions; but it will always be historical that his administration of his office was an inspiration to the whole country, and that every heart was stronger and every hand surer for the consciousness of the unquenchable energy at the centre [sic]. The worth of one such intelligent will at such a time is immeasurable. Happily among the most faithful and eminent of the soldiers and civilians of that tremendous hour the country cannot divide its gratitude. Its love and respect unite them. What Mr. LINCOLN thought of Mr. STANTON is well known. How General GRANT trusted and honored him the country has seen. They were worthy of each other, and the latest generation of faithful Americans will associate them in hallowed remembrance.

To the salvation of the Government Mr. STANTON gave every thing: talent, time, health, fortune, and at last life itself. He spared neither himself or others. Controlling millions of men and enormous sums of money, not a thought nor an act, however peremptory, was sullied with a suspicion of selfishness. In so vast and incessant an activity injustice was inevitable, but it was not culpable. Such men in such times are tested by purity of motive and by beneficence of results. Nor will it ever be forgotten that the man who, in a post like that of Mr. STANTON, is “earnest and fearless in the assumption of responsibilities necessary for his country’s success,” inevitably outruns a limited sympathy, and appeals to the general reason. He is in too close contact with prejudices and passions of every kind to be invested with the least personal glamour. His immediate career has, therefore, a certain undue austerity of aspect which time will touch tenderly and soften into truth.

unglamorous

Mr. STANTON was greatest upon great occasions. With personal urbanity and magnetism he would have been a great leader of men. In the crucial hour of our history, when the President was assassinated by the spirit that sought to turn this country into a slave-pen, the spirit that jeered at LINCOLN as a gorilla, and at GRANT as a butcher, and that now spits at STANTON as a bloated blackguard, the Secretary steadied the heart of the people, and showed us all that our Government, when intrusted [sic] to such men – and only then – is superior to every adverse shock. Besides the soldiers who died upon the field, the three most illustrious victims of the war are LINCOLN, ANDREW, and STANTON. They will all rank among the most famous and honored Americans. ANDREW, STANTON, LINCOLN – the conviction, the will, the benignity of the better America. In their characters we read the prophecy of our career. By their deaths let us be bound even more solemnly to fulfill it.

President Grant nominated Edwin McMasters Stanton for Supreme Court Justice on December 19, 1869. The Senate quickly confirmed the appointment.

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Christmas Wonder

a scholar and a poet

Way back in its August 14, 1869 issue, Harper’s Weekly profiled a famous American man of letters:

HENRY W. LONGFELLOW.

Now that LONGFELLOW — the most popular of American poets — is in England, the question is naturally asked, What do Englishmen
think of him? In reply it may he said that Longfellow is, in England, more popular than TENNYSON. It is also true that Tennyson is more popular in this country than Longfellow. This seems strange at the first glance; but the reason is obvious. Longfellow’s poems are cheaper in England than here; and Tennyson’s may be bought here at a nominal price as compared with their cost to an English reader. Is there not here a strong argument against an international copyright, which would exclude both TENNYSON and” LONGFELLOW from the poorest classes?

HENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW was born at Portland, Maine, February 27, 1807. He is now, therefore, nearly sixty-three years old. His father, the Hon. STEPHEN LONGFELLOW, was an eminent lawyer. He entered Bowdoin College at the early age of fourteen, and during his course he gave evidence of those abilities which have given him such high distinction both as a scholar and a poet. Among his productions at this period may be mentioned his “Hymn of the Moravian Nuns,” “The Spirit of Poetry,” “The Woods in Winter,” and “Sunrise on the Hills.” After his graduation he seems to have some vague idea of adopting the legal profession. But a more congenial occupation offered. He was appointed Professor of Modern Languages and Literature at Bowdoin College, with the privilege of residing some years abroad. In 1826 he sailed for Europe, and during that and the two following years he made a tour of France, Spain, Italy, and Germany. He returned home in 1830, and entered upon the duties of his professorship, which he held for five years, when he accepted a similar position in Harvard College, succeeding Mr. GEORGE TICKNOR. He, in 1835 and 1836, made another European tour through Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Germany, and Switzerland. In 1854 he resigned his position, and has since resided at Cambridge. …

The article went on to analyze several of Mr. Longfellow’s works and concluded that “His countrymen may well be proud of him.” I don’t specifically remember reading any of the works mentioned but have certainly heard of many of them, for example, “The Courtship of Miles Standish.” I might have read that) But my question is, “What about the big one?” – What about “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”? Just as I enjoy reading and rereading about the Civil War, I enjoy hearing the same old Christmas carols every year – like “I Heard the Bells,” which was influenced by the American Civil War. The Harper’s Weekly piece didn’t really go into Mr. Longfellow’s personal life, but, according to Wikipedia, his life experiences were crucial to the poem:

within bell range?

In 1861, two years before writing this poem, Longfellow’s personal peace was shaken when his second wife of 18 years, to whom he was very devoted, was fatally burned in an accidental fire. Then in 1863, during the American Civil War, Longfellow’s oldest son, Charles Appleton Longfellow, joined the Union Army without his father’s blessing. Longfellow was informed by a letter dated March 14, 1863, after Charles had left. “I have tried hard to resist the temptation of going without your leave but I cannot any longer”, he wrote. “I feel it to be my first duty to do what I can for my country and I would willingly lay down my life for it if it would be of any good.” Charles was soon appointed as a lieutenant but, in November, he was severely wounded in the Battle of New Hope Church, Virginia, during the Mine Run Campaign. Charles eventually recovered, but his time as a soldier was finished.

Longfellow wrote the poem on Christmas Day in 1863. “Christmas Bells” was first published in February 1865, in Our Young Folks, a juvenile magazine published by Ticknor and Fields.”

“Christmas Bells” From The Complete Poetical Works of Henry
Wadsworth Longfellow
at Project Gutenberg

war song

Charles wounded on November 27th

drowning out the carols

lots to ponder

____________________________

I think about Mr. Longfellow’s poem just about every Christmas. This year I also thought about the ending of Amanda Foreman’s book about British-American relations during the Civil War ((just ahead of the Epilogue). British-born Doctor Elizabeth Blackwell trained Union nurses throughout the American Civil War. She wrote to a friend about the suffering the war caused and how President Lincoln empathized with all the pain:

You cannot hardly understand and I cannot explain how our private lives have all become interwoven with the life of the nation’s. No one who has not lived through it can understand the bond between those who have. … Neither is it possible without this intense and prolonged experience to estimate the keen personal suffering that has entered into every household and saddened every life. … The great secret of our dead leader’s popularity was the wonderful instinct with which he felt and acted … he did not lead, he expressed the American heartbreak … it has been to me a revelation to feel such influence and to see such leadership. I never was thoroughly republican before … but I am so, thoroughly, now.[1]

“Christmas Bells” asks a couple questions that humans have been asking for millennia: Does God exist? If God exists, then why does x [something horrible] occur? Recently I’ve read a couple items that seem to have different takes those issues. From the April 1906 issue of Mother Earth:

Christmas isn’t for children

About 74 years ago Daniel Russell quoted Charles A. Beard:

I am convinced that life is not a mere bog in which men and women tangle themselves in the mire and die. Something magnificent is taking place here … and the supreme challenge … is that of making the noblest and best in our curious heritage prevail.[2]

_____________________________________________

The December 28, 1919 issue of the New York Tribune pictured an institution founded in 1869 that was still going strong fifty years later:

feeding and forming foundlings

Here’s how Harper’s Weekly pictured Christmas in 1869:

no place like it

flag-festooned

wonder and awe

from real life

Those old Harper’s Weeklies are available at the Internet Archive – 1869 and 1870. According to page 7 in 1870, placing gifts around the Christmas tree was becoming more prevalent as fireplaces were being replaced with more modern heating mechanisms – Santa Clause wasn’t finding stockings hung at the fireplace as much. The street scene was based on real homeless and hungry people gathered at a London police station in search for food and shelter. Harper’s said there was now thousands in the same dire situation in America and urged some Christian charity to alleviate the suffering and to acknowledge “the Divine Master’s saying: ‘The poor ye have always with you.'”
American Battlefield Trust provides more details about the background of “Christmas Bells” and shows a photograph of the wounded Charles. You can read much more about Charles Appleton Longfellow at the National Park Service. Henry helped nurse his son back to health in the summer of 1863 after Charley was stricken with “Camp Fever”.
You can read the entire April 1906 issue of Mother Earth at Project Gutenberg. The same issue includes an article by anarchist and publisher Emma Goldman and “M.B.” about their travels in the northeast. What they have to say about Syracuse, New York sounds so modern, especially the dislike of coal:
The city where the trains run through the streets. With Tolstoy, one feels that civilization is a crime and a mistake, when one sees nerve-wrecking machines running through the streets, poisoning the atmosphere with soft coal smoke.
What! Anarchists within the walls of Syracuse? O horror! The newspapers reported of special session at City Hall, how to meet the terrible calamity.
Well, Syracuse still stands on its old site. The second meeting, attended largely by “genuine” Americans, brought by curiosity perhaps, was very successful. We were assured that the lecture made a splendid impression, which led us to think that we probably were guilty of some foolishness, as the Greek philosopher, when his lectures were applauded, would turn to his hearers and ask, “Gentlemen, have I committed some folly?”
The image of the Foundling Hospital was published in the December 28, 1919 issue of the New York Tribune, available at the Library of Congress. According to The New York Foundling three Sisters of Charity did indeed open the doors in 1869. Over the years some of the services have changed, but the organization continues “to share our founders’ belief that no one should ever be abandoned, and that all children deserve the right to grow up in loving and stable environments.” One of the three founders was Sister Mary Irene FitzGibbon. The photograph of Sister Irene and her charges is at the Wikipedia link and is part of a group at the Library of Congress by Jacob A. Riis called Poverty and tenement life in New York City, ca. 1890

“Sister Irene and her flock”

Elizabeth Blackwell

O Pioneer!

The December 28, 1919 Trib also reported the deportation of Emma Goldman and 248 other alien anarchists on the “Soviet Ark,” the U.S. transport Buford. The December 22, 1919 issue of The New York Times reported that the ship was bound for Kronstadt and headlined that “Emma Goldman Shows Bravado—Glad to Go, She Says, Predicting Triumphant Return.” Like Mahatma Gandhi, Ms. Goldman was born 150 years ago in 1869.
The quote attributed to Charles A. Beard didn’t specifically mention a personal, Christian God. Mr. Beard was an early 20th century historian who interpreted history through an economic lens. Writing with his wife Mary Ritter Beard, he saw the Civil War primarily as the result of class conflict: “The Beards downplayed slavery, abolitionism, and issues of morality. They ignored constitutional issues of states rights and even ignored American nationalism as the force that finally led to victory in the war. Indeed, the ferocious combat itself was passed over as merely an ephemeral event. … The Beards announced that the Civil War was really a “social cataclysm in which the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South”. In their History of the United States (at Project Gutenberg) the Beards staed that bells and cannon worked together when South Carolina seceded: “As arranged, the convention of South Carolina assembled in December and without a dissenting voice passed the ordinance of secession withdrawing from the union. Bells were rung exultantly, the roar of cannon carried the news to outlying counties, fireworks lighted up the heavens, and champagne flowed. The crisis so long expected had come at last; even the conservatives who had prayed that they might escape the dreadful crash greeted it with a sigh of relief.”

Russian-born anarchist and feminist

it’s the economic conflict

Mary Ritter Beard

More from the Library of Congress: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s home in Cambridge, Mass; the poet sitting on a bench; portrait of Elizabeth Blackwell; the Confederate envelope; more portraits – Emma Goldman on a street car, Charles A. Beard, and his wife, Mary Ritter Beard, who was also a “a member of the Executive Committee of the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage.”

Hal Jespersen’s map of the Mine Run campaign is licensed by Creative Commons – Hal Jespersen, www.CWmaps.com/. Amanda Foreman’s reference for the letter she quoted: “Columbia University, Blackwell MSS, Elizabeth Blackwell to Barbara Bodichon, May 25, 1865.” As of December 19, 2019 the New York State historical marker honoring Elizabeth Blackwell stood on South Main Street in Geneva, New York.
Daniel Russell quoted Charles A. Beard in a meditation about “Veiled Meanings,” in which he begins by considering the boy who chased arrows for Jonathan and David in 1 Samuel 20 and then goes on to say: “We all live in two worlds. One is the world of daily tasks where day by day we chase our arrows. But folded around that world is the world of the divine purpose.”
Merry Christmas (New York : Published by Currier & Ives, 125 Nassau St., [1876])

Hope it’s merry, “wild and sweet”

  1. [1]Foreman, Amanda A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War. New York: Random House, 2010. Print. pages 783.
  2. [2]Russell, Daniel Meditations for Men Brief Studies of Religion and Life. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1945. Print. page 383.
Posted in 150 Years Ago, Aftermath, American Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

another flag controversy

From the December 28, 1919 issue of the New York Tribune:

capital riled

tricolors mixed

You can get a full-color view of the flag at WorthPoint. The three allies certainly didn’t make up all the world’s population, but they were fighting for all of humanity, à la Woodrow Wilson’s reason for entering World War I – to make the whole world safe for democracy. The controversy in Washington, D.C. occurred while the U.S. Senate was working out whether there was any possible way the Senate could ratify the peace treaty that created the League of Nations. The United States never joined the League; the League never had an official flag.

Nowadays Oskar Pernefeldt has proposed an International Flag of Planet Earth to represent Earth in outer space and to remind us that we all share the planet regardless of what nation we live on.

the big three +

You can see the League sheet music at the Library of Congress

.

Posted in 100 Years Ago, World War I | Tagged , | Leave a comment

world’s blessing?

On the day after Thanksgiving in 1869 The New-York Times devoted its entire front page to how the holiday had been observed the day before. This included over four columns (and counting) devoted to the services and sermons at various religious institutions in the metro area. Fifty years later the Times front pages on Thanksgiving and the day after didn’t even mention the holiday. The focus seemed to be on the coal strike, communists, and a huge meteor that plunged into Lake Michigan on Thanksgiving Day night.

However, like Ulysses S. Grant in 1869, President Woodrow Wilson had proclaimed a national day of thanksgiving and prayer to God. Besides being (unsurprisingly?[1] longer than Grant’s, President Wilson’s proclamation was much more involved with the world. While both presidents were thankful for abundant harvests, Mr. Wilson saw the harvest as good for the whole world: “Our harvests have been plentiful, and of our abundance we have been able to render succor to less favored nations.” Americans had a duty to mankind to ensure that the war victory was complete: “we should strive to aid by our example and by our cooperation in realizing the enduring welfare of all peoples and in bringing into being a world ruled by friendship and good will.”

From Pilgrim Hall Museum

THANKSGIVING DAY – 1919 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – A PROCLAMATION

Thanksgiving Day 1918: wounded American at Red Cross hospital in France

The season of the year has again arrived when the people of the United States are accustomed to unite in giving thanks to Almighty God for the blessings which He has conferred upon our country during the twelve months that have passed. A year ago our people poured out their hearts in praise and thanksgiving that through divine aid the right was victorious and peace had come to the nations which had so courageously struggled in defense of human liberty and justice. Now that the stern task is ended and the fruits of achievement are ours, we look forward with confidence to the dawn on an era where the sacrifices of the nations will find recompense in a world at peace. But to attain the consummation of the great work to which the American people devoted their manhood and the vast resources of their country they should, as they give thanks to God, reconsecrate themselves to those principles of right which triumphed through His merciful goodness. Our gratitude can find no more perfect expression than to bulwark with loyalty and patriotism those principles for which the free peoples of the earth fought and died. During the past year we have had much to make us grateful. In spite of the confusion in our economic life resulting from the war we have prospered. Our harvests have been plentiful, and of our abundance we have been able to render succor to less favored nations. Our democracy remains unshaken in a world torn with political and social unrest. Our traditional ideals are still our guides in the path of progress and civilization.

Thanksgiving Day 1918: Red Cross care packages for prisoners at Metz

These great blessings, vouchsafed to us, for which we devoutly give thanks, should arouse us to a fuller sense of our duty to ourselves and to mankind to see to it that nothing that we may do shall mar the completeness of the victory which we helped to win. No selfish purpose animated us in becoming participants in the world war, and with a like spirit of unselfishness we should strive to aid by our example and by our cooperation in realizing the enduring welfare of all peoples and in bringing into being a world ruled by friendship and good will.

Wherefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, hereby designate Thursday, the twenty-seventh day of November next, for observance as a day of thanksgiving and prayer by my fellow-countrymen, inviting them to cease on that day from their ordinary tasks and to unite in their homes and in their several places of worship in ascribing praise and thanksgiving to God the Author of all blessings and the Master of our destinies.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done in the District of Columbia this 5th day of November in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and forty-fourth.

Wide World of Wilson: peace treaty

determining the fate of millions around the world

barnstorming San Diego: arriving at U.S. Grant Hotel

____________________

When the proclamation was issued on November 5th the United States Senate was debating whether to ratify the peace treaty that ended World War I and established the League of Nations; the Senate voted against the treaty three times on November 19th. Although Senate Republicans favored accepting the treaty with reservations, President Wilson “rejected this compromise and enough Democrats followed his lead to defeat ratification.”

And at the time Mr. Wilson was “seriously indisposed” because of a stroke he suffered on October 2nd. It had been quite a year for the president. For his work helping to hammer out the Paris treaty “Wilson was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize.” Back in the States he barnstormed the country trying to drum up support for the treaty and the League of Nations. Then the stroke. “Throughout late 1919, Wilson’s inner circle concealed the severity of his health issues.”

The New York City picture newspapers didn’t have a lot of Thanksgiving coverage either. Both papers showed a unique celebration in the nation’s capital, and the Tribune featured the traditional joy and gratitude of soldiers (and sailors) returning home. Most American military units returned from Europe in 1919.

sunrise cookout

marshmallows for dessert?

back over here

This is another one of those posts I find mysterious because of all I don’t know. President Wilson was “seriously indisposed” after his October 2nd stroke. Was he in good enough shape to compose the November 5th Thanksgiving proclamation? The words certainly seem to reflect Mr. Wilson’s view that the United States should be more involved in world affairs. You can also see the Thanksgiving proclamations at The American Presidency Project. The only Wilson Thanksgiving proclamation that is signed

“WOODROW WILSON

By the President:

ROBERT LANSING,

Secretary of State.”

is the 1919 one. The others are just signed by Mr. Wilson.

I almost had to get out a magnifying glass to find a blue-gray connection for this post. The picture of Theodore Roosevelt signing the 1902 Thanksgiving proclamation is definitely out there. It seems that there is an image of Sojourner Truth with Abraham Lincoln against the wall. Apparently this commemorates the October 1864 visit of Sojourner Truth to the White House. TR’s picture is a little different than the one at the Library of Congress. I can’t figure out who the man under the eagle in the other picture is. Over 100 years later the cartoon of the humane Theodore Roosevelt sort of reminded me of his “speak softly and carry a big stick” policy – he was pictured as caring about the turkey’s welfare but he went big game hunting in Africa in 1909. You can read the history of the presidential turkey pardons at The White House Historical Association. And then, happy coincidence, I just found the photo of President Wilson arriving at San Diego’s U.S. Grant Hotel. The president’s arrival was about two weeks before his stroke.
According to the National Archives, the U.S. State Department tried to encourage allied nations to celebrate Thanksgiving Day 1918 in the aftermath of the November 11th Armistice.

photoed in the act

Lincoln with Truth 1864

turkey tears

[November 29, 2019]I moved a sentence, made a change, added the reference to the 1868 Republican Chart, and added the following image links. From the Library of Congress: Thanksgiving Day 1918 hospital and prison at Metz; the big three allied leaders leaving Versailles; at the Grant Hotel; the New York TribuneNovember 30, 1919 (the Grantland Rice’s poem illustrated by Ding Darling) and December 7, 1919; more cookout coverage at The New York Times for December 7th; T.R. signing; Truth and Lincoln viewing; turkey’s humane end. The Cornucopia comes from WPClipart.

Happy Thanksgiving!

  1. [1]The Republican Chart for the 1868 presidential race included the nomination acceptance letters. Veep Schuyler Colfax’s letter was much longer than that of the general at the top of the ticket
Posted in 100 Years Ago, American Culture, American History, World War I | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“soil is trod by none but freemen”

In his first year as Commander-in-Chief, President Ulysses S. Grant followed the tradition begun by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 by calling for a national day of Thanksgiving on a Thursday in November. The new president opted for a slightly earlier observance.

reasons to be thankful

less conflict, more liberty

And just like all Thanksgivings during the 1860’s, even before the official national observance, The New-York Times used its front page on November 19th to cover sermons at various churches and mention some of the charitable activities in the metro area.

Another publication explained how fitting it was that Thanksgiving was celebrated in November. From the November 20, 1869 issue of Harper’s Weekly:

THANKSGIVING.

thanks for the pestilence-free progress

AGAIN the night-season of the natural year has come round to us – the time when, her fruits having been gathered up, the earth folds up and puts aside her green garments, and lays down to her winter’s rest. At this time, when ripeness passes so quickly into decay, man snatches [eagerly?] to secure for himself so much as he can of nature’s gifts. This work having been accomplished, he has leisure for reflection. He can now look upon the process, by which the dead earth gives us back manifold what we have lent her, as the yearly wonder of God. It is fitting that this should be the season of Thanksgiving. But not only the agriculturalist finds this season an occasion of thanksgiving; the merchant and the manufacturer, also, have profited by the abundant harvests of the autumn. These are positive reasons for thanksgiving; but, besides these, we have to remember with gratitude, that no great pestilence, no wasting famine, no destructive natural convulsion, no financial panic have visited us.

The illustrations which we publish this week on pages 744 and 745, apropos to this national festival, need no interpretation on our part. That on page 744 is a typical representation of the season and of the occasions for thanksgiving. The engraving on page 745, “Uncle Sam’s Thanksgiving,” represents the larger and more cosmopolitan features of the occasion.

more seats at the table

You can find all the Harper’s Weekly content for 1869 at the Internet Archive. From the Library of Congress: General Grant’s portrait; Chattanooga’s national cemetery, c.1891. The cemetery “was established in 1863, by an order from Major General George Henry Thomas after the Civil War Battles of Chattanooga, as a place to inter Union soldiers who fell in combat.” And “It became Chattanooga National Cemetery in 1867.”

thanks for the sacrifice

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, American Culture, Postbellum Society, Reconstruction, The Grant Administration | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

so much service everywhere

John Ellis Wool, 85, died at his home in Troy, New York on November 10, 1869. Major-General Wool was a veteran of three major North American wars. After volunteering for the War of 1812 he made the U.S. Army his career for the rest of his career. He was wounded during the 1812 Battle of Queenston Heights; after recovering he was shot in the thigh. After recovering, John E. Wool was promoted and led the 29th U.S. Infantry with distinction at the 1814 Battle of Plattsburgh. During the Mexican–American War he commanded the Chihuahuan Expedition, which captured Saltillo; later he fought with General Zachary Taylor at the Battle of Buena Vista. “Wool’s leadership was recognized with a Congressional sword, a vote of thanks, and the brevet of major general. After the battle, he commanded the occupation forces of northern Mexico.”

Thanks for Buena Vista

As Wikipedia has also reported: “When the Civil War began in April 1861, Wool had just turned 77 years old, two years older than commander-in-chief of the US Army Winfield Scott. Unlike Scott, who suffered from obesity, gout, and other ailments, Wool was still reasonably fit and could mount a horse.”

He might have been 77, but he had a younger man’s fire. When citizens of Troy visited the general’s home after the rebel assault on and capture of Fort Sumter, he passionately pledged his all for the Union: “My friend, that flag must be lifted up from the dust into which it has been trampled, placed in its proper position and again set floating in triumph to the breeze.”

But according to documentation at the Library of Congress General Wool was involved before Fort Sumter. On January 11, 1861 he wrote to President-Elect Abraham Lincoln vowing to do everything he could to make sure Mr. Lincoln made it safely to Washington, D.C. for his inauguration:

elderly generals along the bottom

Head Quarters Dept of the East
Troy 11th January 1861
Dear Sir,
Presuming that I am not altogether unknown to you, I take the liberty of transmitting to you two printed letters, which in part indicate my views on the state of the Country. In a few days will be published in the City of New York a letter of mine to the Hon A. B. Olin, a representative in Congress from this City, in which will be found a condensed history of the causes which have induced the State of South Carolina to rebel against the Union. My object in saying this much to you is merely to apprise you that with me the preservation of the Union is paramount to all other considerations; and that I am prepared against all threats to see you safely placed in the Presidential Chair the 4th March next in the city of Washington, that is, if my services as military commander of the Department in such a case be deemed necessary.

Third Wool War

To the letters enclosed I have received responses from the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland; all expressive of the most elevated patriotism and devotion to country, with a fixed determination to preserve the Union, “peaceably if it can, but forcibly if it must.” Any number of men, and any amount of money, can be had to sustain the union, and that flag, the stars and stripes, which is identified with all that has contributed to our greatness and renown as a nation, but recently trampled under the rebel feet of South Carolina without the slightest cause or justification.

In conclusion, allow me to say that I am no partisan, but a firm, decided and an uncompromising friend of the Union, “the whole Union and nothing but the Union”

considerations of the highest
respect your obt. servt
John E. Wool

P.S. Lest you may not know the part that I have acted in behalf of my country, I send you by mail a pamphlet which may interest you from the fact that several of the Regiments concerned in the [series?] of which t treats, were from Illinois.

W.

a team of generals

Mr. Lincoln responded on January 14th:

Springfield Ill Jany 14th 1861.

My dear Sir:

Many thanks for your patriotic and generous letter of the 11th inst. As to how far the military force of the government may become necessary to the preservation of the Union; and more particularly, how that force can best be directed to the object, I must rely chiefly upon General Scott and yourself. It affords me the profoundest satisfaction to know, that with both of you, judgment and feeling go heartily with your sense of professional and official duty, to the work.

It is true that I have given but little attention to the Military Department of government; but, be assured, I can not be ignorant as to who is Gen: Wool, or what he has done.

With my highest esteem
and gratitude I subscribe
myself
Your Obt. Servt.
A. Lincoln.

During the early days of Civil War General Wool secured Fort Monroe and in May 1862 he ordered the capture of the Norfolk Navy Yard. President Lincoln “personally witnessed the capture of Norfolk and afterwards rewarded Wool by promoting him to a full major general in the regular army thereby becoming only the 23rd man to hold this rank since its creation in 1791.” In July 1863 General Wool commanded a small force that helped contain the New York City draft riots, but on August 1st of that year President Lincoln ordered General Wool’s retirement after 51 years of army service.

letters for Lincoln

General Sherman breaks the news – The New-York Times
November 11, 1869

General Wool monument

It seems that in the 19th century career U.S. Army officers were often involved in managing the indigenous peoples as the United States manifestly filled up all the land between the Atlantic and the Pacific. John E. Wool “participated in the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia and Tennessee in the 1830s.” Between 1854 and 1857 General Wool commanded the Department of the Pacific; during that time he helped bring to Indian Wars in the Pacific Northwest by settling the tribes on reservations but having a more humane view of the native peoples. Wikipedia quotes from his letter to Governor Stevens of Washington Territory on February 12, 1856 – the general thinks he can protect the whites and bring peace to the region if white settlers don’t keep trying to exterminate the natives. You can read a good summary of General Wool’s work in the Northwest at The Oregon Encyclopedia.
As you can see above, the newspaper clipping John E. Wool included in his letter to President-Elect Lincoln praised the general for his actions while he commanded the Department of the Pacific.
Currently the United States observes Veterans Day to honor its servicemen and women and to commemorate the November 11, 1918 armistice between Germany and the Allies. So far I haven’t seen too much evidence that people officially remembered the one year anniversary of the armistice. Headlines in The New York Times focused on the U.S. Senate debate about joining the League of Nations, a coal miners’ strike, and communists. However, in its November 12, 1919 issue the Times reported on violence during Armistice Day activities in Centralia, Washington:
“Four former soldiers, members of the American Legion, were killed, two other service men were probably fatally wounded, and several other soldiers were less seriously hurt when members of the Industrial Workers of the World fired on an Armistice Day parade today as it passed the I. W. W. Hall.
“The marching veterans raided the hall, seized supposed snipers” … and escorted them to jail, protecting them from a mob that tried to seize them.”
Thanks again to Wikipedia – this time for all the information and quotes about John Ellis Wool and for the circa 1825 portrait. Matt H. Wade’s photo of the Wool obelisk in Oakwood Cemetery, Troy, New York is licensed under Creative Commons. The photo of sword and scabbard from Congress comes from The Metropolitan Museum of Art. From the Library of Congress: Virginia map; General Wool commanding Fort Monroe ; 1861 Council of War1919 issues of the New York TribuneOctober 26th (Wikipedia has different numbers for the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery) and November 30th (John E. Sheridan was famous for all his posters, including those that supported the American war effort in World War I).

twenty acres in France

“In Flanders Field”

Posted in 150 Years Ago This Week, Aftermath, Veterans | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

what it is

a big stiff

Not exactly a mummy just in time for Halloween, but in October 150 years ago some folks south of Syracuse, New York dug up what appeared to be a well-preserved human being. The mysterious form didn’t seem to be preserved by mummification but by petrifaction – the process of organic matter turning to stone. And it wasn’t just any human being, it was a giant of a man, over ten feet tall! The find generated a lot of interest; it didn’t take long for a geologist who examined the object to determine that it had never been a living, breathing human, it was just a well-wrought statue.

From the December 4, 1869 issue of Harper’s Weekly:

THE CARDIFF GIANT.

On the 16th of October there was discovered on Mr. NEWELL’S farm in Onondaga County, New York, and about thirteen miles south of Syracuse, what what at first was supposed to be a petrified human form – a giant of the olden time. The first reports of this discovery excited the greatest interest among all classes, and especially among scientific men. The fossil was found about three feet below the surface while some persons were digging for a well.The soil was a sort of bluish [?] clay mixed with quicksand [?] and black loam, and organic remains were found about the body. The figure, when first discovered, lay in a very easy and natural position, horizontal, partly on the right side, with the right hand resting over the abdomen. It’s dimensions were as follow [sic]: From crown of head to hollow of foot, 10 feet 2 1/2 inches; crown of head to tip of chin, 1 foot 9 inches; length of nose, 6 inches; width of nostrils, 3 1/2 inches; width of mouth, 4 inches; point to point of shoulder, 3 feet; point of hip to knee-joint, 3 feet; diameter of calf of leg, 9 1/2 inches; diameter of thigh, 1 foot; length of foot, 1 foot 7 1/2 inches; width of palm, 7 inches; diameter of wrist, 5 inches. The veins, eyeballs, muscles, tendons of the heel, and cords of the neck were all fully disclosed.

hoisting 2990 pounds

As we have said, this figure was at first supposed to be a petrified human form. But it was soon found that this theory seemed hardly plausible. Though the figure had the appearance of stone, the outer surface could be shaved off with a knife without dulling the blade. Dr. J.F. BOYNTON visited the figure, and, after a careful examination, pronounced it to be a statue of a Caucasian. The features were finely cut, and excellent artists have remarked the symmetry of proportions characterizing the whole figure.

Dr. BOYNTON at first supposed that this statue was carved by the Jesuits who dwelt in this valley between 1520 and 1760. After a more thorough examination he declares it to be of gypsum, and of recent origin. He says, in a recent letter to Professor SPENCER, of the Smithsonian Institute, at Washington:

“I have stated that I thought his ‘origin would not carry us back over three hundred years;’ but I am not certain that the known principles of chemistry will justify me in asserting that the period between his burial and resurrection was over three years. Its antiquated appearance has been produced not by abrasion, as many have said, but by the dissolving action of water, which, I think, could have been accomplished in a few months. A more careful and accurate calculation, admitting the possible chance of some undiscovered error creeping into the calculation, may show the burial to have taken place about 370 or 371 days ago – as it may have happened between two days.”

northward bound

Mr. NEWELL, upon whose ground the statue was found, is said to have disposed of it for $40,000. The figure has been carried to Syracuse. Its weight is 2990 pounds. If it were solid stone it would not weigh so much by 500 pounds. A recent theory has been started, that it is a cast-iron figure covered with a coating of cement. The head, it is said, gives a ringing sound when struck, like that of a hollow, metallic body. But Mr. PALMER, the sculptor, states that there are marks of sculptor’s tools.

American Goliah, a pamphlet published shortly after the find (and republished at Project Gutenberg), included a letter from Dr. Boynton explaining his raionale for concluding that the object was not a fossil-man. But the pamphlet also included reasons to think it might have been petrified and included the contrasting opinions of Tom, Dick, and Harry. A letter to the editor explained that the Onondaga people believed the giant was the prophet who predicted long ago the coming of the pale-faces and that he would die and be buried but that later Onondagas would see him again. It seems that the pamphlet was published before the move to Syracuse – hackies were available to drive visitors from Syracuse to the site; “The average daily attendance for the first week was from three to five hundred persons.” The big thing inspired scientists to examine but also artists to write:

TO THE GIANT OF ONONDAGA.

Speak out, O Giant! stiff, and stark, and grim,
Open thy lips of stone, thy story tell;
And by the wondering crowd who pay thee court
In thy cold bed, and gaze with curious eyes
On thy prone form so huge, and still so human,
Let now again be heard, that voice which once
Through all old Onondaga’s hills and vales
Proclaimed thy lineage from a Giant race,
And claimed as subjects, all who trembling hear
Art thou a son of old Polyphemus,
Or brother to the Sphinx, now turned to stone—
The mystery and riddle of the world?
Did human passions stir within thy breast
And move thy heart with human sympathies?
Was life to thee, made up of joy and hope,
Of love and hate, of suffering and pain,
In fair proportions to thy Giant form?
Did ever wife, by whatsoever name
Or tie of union, with her ministries
Of love, caress and cheer thy way through life?
Were children in thy home, to climb thy knee
And pluck thy beard, secure, and dare thy power
Or, was thy nature as its substance now,
Like stone—as cold and unimpressible?
Over these hills, with spear like weaver’s beam,
Dids’t thou pursue the chase and track thy foe,
Holding all fear and danger in contempt?
And, did at last, some fair Delliah
Of thy race, hold thee in gentle dalliance,
And with thy head upon her lap at rest,
Wer’t shorn of strength, and told too late, alas,
“Thine enemies be upon thee?”
Tell us the story of thy life, and whether
Of woman born—substance and spirit
In mysterious unon [union?] wed—or fashioned
By hand of man from stone, we bow in awe,
And hail thee, GIANT OF ONONDAGA!

SYRACUSE, Oct. 20, 1869. D.P.P

“Tell us the story of thy life”? Well, it seems that the mystery man is still speechless, but Wikipedia explains that the Cardiff Giant was a giant hoax. Atheist George Hill wanted to have some fun with believers who read the Bible literally – Genesis 6:4 says that giants once lived on earth. P.T. Barnum was so enamored with the profit-making potential of the object he offered $50,000 for it; rebuffed, Mr. Barnum commissioned a plaster replica he showed off as the original fossilized man and claimed the specimen unearthed in the hamlet of Cardiff was the actual imposter.

The first scientist on the scene, John F. Boynton, was an early leader in the Mormon Church, who was later excommunicated. He seemed to have a wide range of scientific interests. “After parting ways with the church, Boynton traveled throughout the United States lecturing on natural history, geology, and other sciences. Between 1853 and 1854, he joined a U.S. government geological surveying expedition to California. During the American Civil War, Boynton was employed by the U.S. to design torpedoes and other weapons. He holds 36 patents in the U.S. National Patent Office.”

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

die like an Egyptian

shrimps

The Onondaga Nation still has land south of Syracuse. North of that near Onondaga Lake a replica of Sainte Marie among the Iroquois is part of the Onondaga County Parks system. It is “a 17th-century French Jesuit mission located in the middle of the Onondaga nation of the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois. It was located on Onondaga Lake near modern-day Syracuse, New York. The original mission was in use only from 1656 to 1658.” Now the “French Fort” is the Skä•noñh – Great Law of Peace Center

Mormon scientist
and torpedo developer

showed off hoax replica

Onondagas in the middle

The giant is currently lying in repose (a very long repose) at The Farmers’ Museum in Cooperstown, New York. Back on October 16th the museum held a 150th Birthday Party for the Giant: Non-members “must pay 50 cents admission (the same price people paid in 1869!)”

well-preserved

You can find all the Harper’s Weekly material from its December 4th issue and all of 1869 at the Internet Archive. Martin Lewison’s photo at the farmer’s Museum is licensed under Creative Commons. I also got the image of John. F. Boynton from Wikimedia, as well as R. A. Nonenmacher’s map of the original five Iroquois nations. From the Library of Congress: the photo of the reclining giant; the midway at the “Pan-American Exposition, Buffalo, New York, 1901, includes Cardiff Giant display, American Inn, Lubin’s Cineography, and streets of Cairo.” – it looks like the giant was housed at the extreme left of the photo; Pharaoh Ramses II died in 1213 B.C. – his mummy has held up pretty well; Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn’s 1655 etching of David and Goliath, who probably stood about 6 feet 9 inches according to most known ancient sources. P.T. Barnum

tall tale

Posted in 150 Years Ago, 150 Years Ago This Month, Postbellum Society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment