Shaking Paper

The Utility of Refuse Things

2012-02-14T23:00:00.000-05:00

From the Gazette Sentinel of Plaquemine, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana on April 20, 1861:

The Utility of Refuse Things

The prussiate of potash is made in large quantities in Cincinnati from the hoofs, horns and other refuse of slaughtered cattle.

Cow-hair, taken from the hides in tanneries, is employed in making plastering-mortar, to give it a fibrous quality.

Sawdust is sold for sprinkling the floors of markets. It is also used for packing ice for shipping.

The rags of old worn out skirting, calico dresses, and the waste of cotton factories, are employed to make the paper upon which these lines are printed.

Old ropes are converted into fine note paper, and the waste paper itself, which is picked up in the gutter, is again reconverted into broad, white sheets, and thus does duty in revolving stages.

The parings of skins and hides, and the ears of cows, calves, and sheep, are carefully collected and converted into glue.

The finer qualities of gelatine are made from ivory raspings and the bones and tendons of animals.

Bones converted into charcoal, by roasting in retorts, are afterwards employed for purifying the white sugar with which we sweeten our coffee.

The ammonia obtained from the distillation of coal in making gas, is employed for saturating orchil and cudbear, in making the beautiful lilac colors that are dyed on silk and the fine woolen goods.

Carbonic acid, obtained in the distillation of coal tar, is employed with other acids to produce beautiful yellow colors on silk and wool.

The shavings of cedar wood, used in making pencils, are distilled to obtain the otto of cedar wood.

Brass filings and old brass kettles are remelted, and employed to make the brass-work of printing presses and pumps.

Old copper scraps are used in the construction of splendid bronze chandeliers, for illuminating our churches and the mansions of the wealthy.

Old horseshoe nails are employed to make the famous steel and twist barrels of fowling-pieces.

U.S. Federal Govt Investment in Horse Breeding, 1921

2012-02-10T23:00:00.000-05:00

"Motive power has not killed the horse and mule industry. Every member of the species has a valuable and important place to fill, motive power to the contrary not withstanding. The latter and the horses will go along together, each filling an important and useful sphere."

From the Mt. Vernon Signal of Mount Vernon, Rockcastle County, Kentucky on July 22, 1921:

Congress Appropriates A Quarter Million Dollars For Horse Breeding.

-------

Money To Be Spent Under Supervision of Army Officers To Raise More Thoroughbred Horses for Cavalry Purposes.

-------

Other Governments Spend Much More.

-------

Realizing the necessity of government interest, supervision and participation in breeding of thoroughbred horses, if the United States is to take her rightful position with the other countries of the world, the United States Congress has made an appropriation of a quarter of a million dollars to be expended in horse breeding.

click to enlarge

While this is a very small amount when compared with the millions of expenditure made by the governments of England, France, Italy and Spain in this work, it is being effectively used to enlarge the number of thoroughbred horses suitable for cavalry mounts.

In explaining the plans of the United States government for the breeding of more or better horses. Col. C. E. Hawkins, Quartermaster's Corps, United States Remount Service, says:

"The world war brought out the fact that the National Defense demands, not only thousands upon thousands of horses and mules, but horses and mules of good breeding. Quality and breeding in the horse and mule is what gives them the staying power in danger and emergency, as well as for the less spectacular, but not less important, service in connection with our agricultural and commercial pursuits. What is true in the man is true in the beast. Courage in the soldier we call morale. In either case the quality is that of the will to stay when threatened by the common instinct to falter which means failure and defeat.

"The United States is the great horse and mule market of the world. Our allies depended on us for the major supply of their war horses and mules. Thousands upon thousands were sold to the British, French, Italian, Belgian, Greek and other governments. The supply that could be sold was limited only by the ships available for their transportation abroad, and by the fact that rations were naturally of the first import.

"The first cry from abroad was for men, then for foodstuffs to feed their millions of soldiers and our own men; next came the demand for ammunitions--the stuff that made the hellish fire that raked the enemy; his theatre of operations and his lines of communication. On the heels of the call for theses [sic] necessities we had the one for the war horse and the war mule, in quantities never before approached.

"Automobile vehicles were used in great numbers. yes, that is true, and it will be true in the future. But war and the horse and the mule continue to be inseparable. The great military migrations of the past--those, indeed of civilization, itself--are so linked with the horse that his production and improvement may be said to have been co-incident with them. Motive power has not killed the horse and mule industry. Every member of the species has a valuable and important place to fill, motive power to the contrary not withstanding. The latter and the horses will go along together, each filling an important and useful sphere.

"The breeding of horses and mules, far from being abated, should be practiced in the spirit of the utmost optimism and confidence. True, the horse and mule market is upset. The demand, however, for every class will come again before the colts now bred mature. All our best informed horsemen, breeders and farmers recognize this fact and advise doubling our attention to the work of breeding.

"Meanwhile better horses and mules should be the aim of every breeder. We need better blood, more quality; hence, a more valuable animal. A well bred, sound animal, of good conformation and quality of any class, will always bring a high price and a handsome profit to the breeder. It is the scrub or ordinary animal that loses the breeder and farmer money. The scrub eats as much forage and takes as much care as the high class animal; and one has nothing at maturity. The progeny of high class, pure bred stallions, that have proved their courage, endurance and speed in competition, and selected farm mares, will bring the breeder an increasing profit as time goes on.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Scientist Says Only Nose Intended for Breathing, 1861

2012-02-06T14:00:00.000-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun on July 20, 1861:

"Shut Your Mouth."

This is the advice of Mr. George Catlin, who is so thoroughly convinced that most of the ills of our humanity are caused by open mouths, that he has written an amusing little volume to prove his case and urge his point upon the men and women of America.

"If I were to endeavor to bequeath to posterity the most important motto which human language can convey," (says Mr. Catlin,) "it should be in three words--Shut--your--Mouth."

Mr. Catlin addresses himself chiefly to mothers. He urges them to keep tightly closed not only their own mouths, but their children's, of both sexes and all ages. he assures them that out of the mouth, or through it--when it is open--proceeds consumption, dyspepsia, rotten teeth, a crooked spine, ill temper, snoring; and if there be any other diseases which men fear, they too assail man's vital parts by way of the mouth.

If you want to catch a contagious disease, sleep with your moth open. If you want to have disagreeable dreams, sleep with your mouth open. If you want to spoil your teeth, your good looks and your temper, sleep with your mouth open.

"Bronchitis, quinsey, croup, asthma and other diseases of the respiratory organs, as well as dyspepsia, gout of the stomach, rickets, diarrhea, diseases of the liver, the heart, the spine and the whole of the nervous system, from the brain to the toes, may chiefly be attributed to this deadly and unnatural habit" of sleeping with the mouth agape, like an oyster in his last agonies. "When a man lies down at night to rest from the fatigues of the day, and yields his system and all his energies to the repose of sleep, and his volition and all his powers of resistance are giving way to its quieting influence, if he gradually opens his mouth to its widest strain, he lets the enemy in that chills his lungs, that racks his brain, that paralyses his stomach, that gives him the nightmare, brings imps and fairies that dance before him during the night; and during the following day, headache, toothache, rheumatism, dyspepsia, and the gout."

Mr. Catlin believes that the nose was intended to be breathed through. He believes air should reach the lungs only through the nose, and never through the mouth; and to prove the correctness of his theory he cites a number of curious facts and experiences of his own.

He remarks that in times when cholera or yellow fever are prevalent, persons who habitually breathe through their mouth are most subject to these infections. And here we may bring in the general voice of seamen to co[r]roborate his statement. All experienced sailors sleep, habitually, with closely shut mouths. One reason for this may be that roaches, which are very large and extremely abundant on board ship, are apt to crawl into an open mouth to investigate its contents--the large East Indian roach being, as is well known, an animal of highly inquisitive character. But another and equally powerful reason is the general belief, among seamen, that the air laden with miasmatic poison is more or less purified by being inhaled through the nostrils. They believe with Mr. Catlin, that--

"The air which enters the lungs is as different from that which enters the nostrils as distilled water is different from the water in an ordinary cistern or a frog-pond. The arresting and purifying process of the nose, upon the atmosphere with its poisonous ingredients, passing through it, though less perceptible, is not less distinct nor less important than that of the mouth which stops cherry-stones and fish-bones from entering the stomach.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Anachronisms in Hell on Wheels, Final Post

2012-02-02T23:00:00.000-05:00

For my post on the Hell on Wheels pilot, please click here.

For my post on Episode 2, please click here.

For my post on Episodes 3 and 4, please click here.

----

I'm not going to do anymore posts on Hell on Wheels, after this one. I could barely sit through episodes five through eight, and I didn't even watch the ones after that. I had to go on a Deadwood binge to recover.

Hell on Wheels is a Politically Correct train wreck. The show is obsessed with race relations to such a point that it completely retards any actual storytelling. It seems like every conversation between Cullen and Elam is nothing more than Elam setting up Cullen so that he can whole-heartedly profess his new-found 'Yankeeism.' When Elam cuts the chains off Cullen's hands in the second or third episode, not only is Elam standing over Cullen symbolically, he has Cullen admit that it is natural for someone wearing chains to try to escape them. The action in the show is constantly paused for interactions like this. But the exact moment I threw my hands in the air was mid-season when Joseph, Cullen, and Elam ride out on horses side-by-side together and someone remarks, more or less, 'Look at that! An African-American, a Native American, and someone with European ancestry riding off into the sunset together as equals!'

Okay, I'm slightly exaggerating the overt PC madness. Perhaps. I felt pretty alone until I came across this blog post here which sums up what I mean rather well. That blog self-identifies as a 'conservative blog', and although I personally identify as a 'liberal,' I agree with the author of that blog on almost all points about Hell on Wheels, especially that in the first two episodes alone:

"...we get blasted by characters whining about how evilly the South treated Union prisoners of war. . . how evilly the Union treated the South’s soldiers. . . how evilly the Southerners treated the slaves. . . how evilly whitey treated the Indians. . . how evilly the Irish were treated. . . how evilly whitey treated the Chinese. . . how evilly corporate America treated its workers. . . etc. etc. etc. Every racial, ethnic, religious, political or economic grievance you can conjure up about the era gets crammed into the first two episodes. ... Even worse, the characters accept the modern liberal worldview."

That blogger refers to this as revisionist history, which I certainly agree that it is. However, I would like to specify that I don't think the writers are actively and maliciously trying to rewrite history in an effort to promote a specific modern agenda. Rather, I think that the show's poor depiction of the Civil War era results from a general lack of education on the subject. Hell on Wheels' portrayal of the Civil War era is, I think, the standard operational understanding of most people in the United States today -- a passing, one-dimensional understanding of a war supposedly all about slavery. The circular reasoning tends to go like this: Slavery ended with the Civil War, therefore the Civil War was about ending slavery. Since slavery was bad, and the South defended slavery, the South/Southerners were evil and the North/Northerners were good.

"[R]evisionists... insist that the major cause of the Civil War was the moral issue of slavery, that slavery could be eradicated only by the shedding of blood, and that it was a veritable 'irrepressible conflict,' a moral crusade. They are making of it a virtual 'holy war'..."
- pg 8, The Nebraska Question 1852-1854 by James C. Malin, published 1953.

The clearest manifestation of this revisionist scholarship in the show that I immediately remember (top notch citation going on here, I know) is when Cullen expresses to another character, Elam I think, that he now understands why it was wrong that he (Cullen) owned slaves, now that the War is over. The 'great moral crusade' has shown him the error in his ways!

I think emancipation is often considered by average Americans as the primary aim and goal of the War, when it is more accurate to say that emancipation was a political tactic used by the North to hurt the South. That is not to say that slavery is not an essential motivating component of the Civil War; of course it is, the War cannot be explained without it. Stating that there is more complexity to the Civil War than a battle over slavery is not an effort to downplay the social injustice of the "institution," or to invalidate the Civil Rights Movement. Knowing that slavery is wrong does not necessitate consideration of the Civil War as some great crusade of Good vs. Evil. I think that a lot of scholarship available on the Civil War operates erroneously on this assumption, just as historian James C. Malin charges in the above quote.

Antebellum Southerners are often vilified by average Americans as well as modern historians. They are rarely thought of as having a legitimate worldview about societal hierarchy, freedom, democracy, etc simply because that worldview is not acceptable today. Of course it is not legitimate today, but in antebellum America it was legitimate. Treatment of an era of study must be separated from modern social ideas. Historians, professional and amateur alike, cannot continue to forget that crucial lesson when studying and attempting to understand what happened during this time period. Historians are called to remove themselves from their own judgments and beliefs in order to adequately understand and study any topic. Historical Methods 101. Examination of one of the greatest cataclysms in American History, the Civil War, should be held to no less of a standard.

Hell on Wheels ultimately fails at portraying period sensibilities, opinions, and beliefs, in a huge thematic way. And that really is the biggest anachronism of all.

---

If you're looking for more Hell on Wheels anachronisms (as the examples in my four posts on the show are far from comprehensive and I've never pretended otherwise), I highly recommend this message board thread about the firearms used in the show. Military history is definitely a black hole in my knowledge, and I'm pretty clueless about weapons and even worse at identifying various guns and gun technology. I found it very informative and hope you will too!

Study on the Permanency of Typewritten Records, 1899

2012-01-28T14:00:00.000-05:00

From the Omaha Daily Bee on July 23, 1899:

Typewritten Records.

The permanency of typewritten records is a subject of no little importance says the Albany Law Journal, and it is worthy of note that a series of experiments is being conducted in Boston with a view of establishing the relative value of the leading brands of typewriter ribbons. Robert T. Swan, the state commissioner of public records for the state of Massachusetts, is doing some good work in this direction. He finds that of the different colors used for typewriter ribbons, the red, green, blue and purple are not permanent, black being the only one that will stand the test to which he subjects the writing.

The legislature of Massachusetts, which recently adjourned, passed an act permitting typewritten records to be accepted as official when approved by the commissioner of public records, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey having previously taken similar action. In other words, no such records will be accepted unless the materials used are up to the standard and the commissioner is expressly authorized by the statute referred to withdraw his approval at any time when he shall find that the articles used fall below such standard. This is a very important matter which should be acted upon in every state, for the fading of public records so as to become illegible is something that ought to be carefully provided against, otherwise it were much better to keep in force the provision that legal records shall be written only with pen and ink.

It is possible, we think, to produce typewritten records that are quite as permanent as any produced by writing with a pen and in view of the greater legibility of the former, as well as their economy of production, it is desirable that this should be done. While the states generally have no official corresponding to the commissioner of public records in Massachusetts, it out to be made somebody's business to supervise the matter of permanency of public records.

Pension Bill for Mexican War Veterans Stirred Sectional Emnity

2012-01-24T14:00:00.000-05:00

In the below article, Senator Chandler states he was present at Jefferson Davis' Farewell to Congress, and accuses Davis of meticulously scheming to overthrow the U.S. government throughout his career. So after you read this article, I encourage you to read my previous post containing Jefferson Davis' farewell speech, and think about whether you think that is a fair assessment...

From the Omaha Daily Bee on July 23, 1899:

A Famous Feud.

Senator Chandler of New Hampshire, who has just had a warm controversy with his colleague, Senator Gallinger, over civil service reform, was the central figure in a famous controversy in the senate of 1879, of which ex-Senator Ingalls writes in the Saturday Evening Post of Philadelphia. The pending question was a bill pensioning Mexican soldiers. As this would include all southerners who fought in that war, the bill provoked a sectional debate. Senator Hoar offered an amendment excluding Jefferson Davis from the operation of the act. This precipitated a crisis. Senator Garland eulogized the president of the confederacy and Senator Hoar retorted, "Two of the bravest officers of our revolutionary war were Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold."

Senator Lamar jumped into the breach with an impassioned speech, concluding with these words: "When Prometheus was bound to the rock, it was not an eagle, it was a vulture that buried his beak in the tortured vitals of the victim!"

During this eulogy and exculpation of Jefferson Davis the northern senators sat in silence; the boldness of the performance was paralyzing; such an emergency had not been anticipated. No one was ready. The passionate and excited spectators in the galleries wondered why no champion of the north took up the glove.

Toward the close of the debate a note fluttered over the balustrade of the northeast gallery, and, wavering in the hot air, was caught in its descent by a page, who carried it to Senator Chandler of Michigan, to whom it was addressed. It was written on a leaf torn from a memorandum book, without signature, and begging him in God's name to say something for the union soldiers and for the north.

He read the anonymous note brought from the gallery. The black fury of his eyes blazed from the pallor of his face. At the first opportunity he obtained the floor and delivered a tremendous philippic against Jefferson Davis. It was evidently wholly unpremeditated, and therefore the more effective.

He said: "Mr. President, twenty-two years ago tomorrow, in the old hall of the senate now occupied by the supreme court of the United States, I, in company with Mr. Jefferson Davis, stood up and swore before Almighty God that I would support the constitution of the United States. Mr. Jefferson Davis came from the cabinet of Franklin Pierce into the senate of the United States and took the oath with me to be faithful to this government. During four years I sat in this body with Mr. Jefferson Davis and saw the preparations going on from day to day for the overthrow of this government. With treason in his heart and perjury upon his lips he took the oath to sustain the government that he meant to overthrow.

"Sir, there was method in that madness. He, in cooperation with other men from his section and in the cabinet of Mr. Buchanan, made careful preparation for the event that was to follow. Your armies were scattered all over this broad land, where they could not be used in an emergency; your fleets were scattered wherever the winds blew and water was found to float them, where they could not be used to put down rebellion; your treasury was depleted until your bonds, bearing 6 per cent, principal and interest payable in coin, were offered for 88 cents on the dollar for current expenses, and no buyers. Preparations were carefully made. Your arms were sold under an apparently innocent clause in an army bill providing that the secretary of war might, at his discretion, sell such arms as he deemed it for the interest of the government to sell.

"Sir, eighteen years ago last moth I sat in these halls and listened to Jefferson Davis delivering his farewell address, informing us what our constitutional duties to this government were, and then left and entered into the rebellion to overthrow the government that he had sworn to support! I remained here, sir, during the whole of that terrible rebellion. I saw our brave soldiers by thousands and hundreds of thousands, aye, I might say millions, pass through to the theater of war, and I saw their shattered ranks return. I saw steamboat and railroad train after railroad train arrive with the maimed and the wounded; I was with my friend from Rhode Island (General Burnside) when he commanded the Army of the Potomac and saw piles of legs and arms that made humanity shudder; I saw the widow and orphan in their homes and heard the weeping and wailing of those who had lost their dearest and their best. Mr. President, I little thought at that time that I should live to hear in the senate of the United States eulogies upon Jefferson Davis living--a living rebel eulogized on the floor of the senate of the United States! Sir, I am amazed to hear it and I can tell the gentleman on the other side that they little know the spirit of the north when they come here at this day and with bravado on their lips utter eulogies upon a man whom every man, woman and child in the north believes to be a double-dyed traitor to his government."

Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address to the U.S. Senate

2012-01-20T14:00:00.000-05:00

Today's post comes from The Great Parliamentary Battle and Farewell Addresses of the Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War by Thomas Ricauld Martin, published in 1905. It is available on Google Books, here.

Farewell Speech of Senator Jefferson Davis, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, on the Occasion of His Withdrawal From the U.S. Senate, January 21, 1861

Mr. Davis. "I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people, in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my physical condition would not permit me to do so, if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent on an occasion as solemn as this.

"It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

"A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has often been arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgement.

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

"I, therefore, say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which I wish on this last occasion to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man, whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded State. The phrase "to execute the laws," was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented. The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a State which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State. If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded State. A State finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (and they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits.

"I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinions because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said that if Massachusetts, following her purpose through a stated line of conduct, chose to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but I will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States.

"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—-to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—-booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal-—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the Colonies to sever their connection with the Mother Country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men-—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.

"Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

"I find in myself perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceable relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and, if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God and in our firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.

"In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in the heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

"Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."

Life in Lake Superior Copper Mines, 1861

2012-01-14T14:00:00.000-05:00

From the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 15, 1861...

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Savannah's Colonial Park Cemetery

2012-01-10T14:00:00.001-05:00

My boyfriend, sister and I traveled to Savannah last month, and one place we visited was Colonial Park Cemetery. Located in Savannah's Historic District, the burial ground dates back to the 1820 Yellow Fever outbreak in the South....

From the Baltimore Patriot on September 27, 1820:

Charleston, Sept. 19.

Yellow Fever! -- We sincerely regret to inform the Public that several cases of this dreadful disorder have appeared in our City. Three interments have already been made, the subjects of which died of it, and there are two more persons now ill of the same disorder.-- These persons are all strangers to the climate.--Times.

Accounts from Savannah, represent that place to be in a dreadful situation, from the prevalence of Yellow Fever--200 persons left the City on the 15th inst.--from 12 to 15 die daily--19 persons were buried on the 14th inst. and it was supposed there were then from 2 to 300 lying sick. It is said "from Tuesday afternoon, at 9 o'clock, till Wednesday morning, 8 o'clock (a space of 29 hours) 49 persons were taken sick, and (on Friday) many of them were silently reposing in the grave"--City Gaz.

Yellow Fever in Newbern--A gentleman from Newbern yesterday, (says the Washington, N.C. paper of the 8th inst.) brings the melancholy intelligence of this dreadful malady having been introduced into that place by a vessel from the West Indies.--Ib.

BOARD OF HEALTH.

Charleston, Sept. 19th, 1820.

The Board of Health sincerely regret that they are compelled to announce to their fellow citizens, that YELLOW FEVER does exist within the city.-- Three deaths have occurred within the last few days, and there are three new cases reported. The persons who have died were strangers to the climate as are those who are sick of the disease. By order of the Board,

DANIEL STEVENS, Chairman.

Most of the graves are no longer marked because the headstones have broken. The broken markers have been placed upon a nearby wall...

Very cool cemetery, I highly recommend it if you like this sort of thing. I hope one day we'll get to tour Bonaventure, but we didn't have the money to spend on that this time...

Some Georgia Newspapers That Folded in 1860

2012-01-06T14:00:00.000-05:00

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Draft Evasion During the American Civil War

2012-01-02T14:00:00.001-05:00

There were a total of four drafts issued between 1863 and 1864 in the North. Below the table showing a breakdown of responses (failure to report, discharge, physical exemption, other exemption, paid commutation, substitute provided, held to service) to these drafts. Below that table are four examples of newspaper articles that mention or reference the drafts and/or draft evasion.

I suggest reading this article if you want to learn more about the socioeconomic makeup of draftees and draft evaders, and/or learn about the historiography of Civil War draftees.

Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye

August 9, 1862

300,000 More!

The administration at Washington have at last awakened to something like a realizing sense of the magnitude of the rebellion. They have issued another call for three hundred thousand men, to be raised by draft, and have ordered that if the former call for three hundred thousand be not filled by the 15th of the present month, the draft shall be resorted to for the deficiency.

This is first indication by the administration since the war began that they comprehend the magnitude of the rebellion. Hitherto they have exhibited a ridiculous confidence in the power of a certain number of troops to suppress it, and a few months ago checked volunteering, disbanded partly formed regiments, and announced, in substance, that all that was necessary to finish up the work of suppression was to march the army of six hundred thousand men down the hill [emphasize added -ed]. We have witnessed the march and the result of it. We trust it will be sufficient for the service required of it.

The last call being for men for nine months service, it may be reasonably inferred that the administration have made that the period during which the war shall certainly be brought to a close.

The administration are right, finally. The only way to crush the rebellion is to be a crushing force into the field. If there be any doubt that the force now provided for is not crushing, the administration are not criminal for calling for a million men, or whatever number would constitute an overwhelmingly crushing force.--Chicago Times.

The Daily Courant

Hartford, Connecticut

Friday Morning, August 8, 1862

It is stated that at the auction of the library belonging to a celebrated physician in London, there was one volume which was looked upon as of great value, for it contained his private prescriptions and rules of health. An enormous price was paid for it and the purchaser took his treasure home. He found much to his disappointment the physician's wisdom summed up in the three following maxims: 1. Keep your feet warm. 2. Keep your head cool. 3. Never expose yourself to a draft. Having paid so much for his instruction, the customer resolved to abide by it and lived to a good old age. The advice contained in the third precept would render the work invaluable about these days.

The Compiler
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Monday, March 31, 1862

An Augusta (Maine) editor thus distinguishes between different sorts of patriots: "Some esteem it sweet and decorous to die for one's country; others regard it sweeter to live for one's country; and yet others hold it to be sweeter still to live upon one's country."

The Daily Courant
Hartford, Connecticut
Friday Morning, August 8, 1862

Anyone who has information of the departure of any man to Canada to avoid the coming draft, will serve his country by reporting the name of the renegade to the war committee of this city. J. G. Batterson is the secretary.

Calico Production in the Nineteenth Century U.S.

2011-12-29T14:00:00.001-05:00

This article about how calico printing also comes from the San Francisco Bulletin of October 7, 1861.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T14:00:00.001-05:00

From The Central Record of Lancaster, Kentucky on December 25, 1900:

Christmas of the Rich and Poor

"We have an idea that Christmases as they are celebrated in homes of great wealth must be ideal," writes Edward Bok in a plea for a simpler life--a simpler celebration of Christmas--in the December Ladies' Home Journal. "Yet often, as the actual fact, no more lonesome Christmas days are spent anywhere than in these homes of plenty. Riches on Christmas are often like sweet bells out of tune. Nothing was simpler than the first Christmas Day, and its strongest appeal to our natures, although we do not always know it, is because it was so simple. Nothing is so fatal to our deepest and truest enjoyment as the realization that we can have whatever we will simply for the wishing or asking. All value is lost then. It is a hard truth for those who have little to believe that the greatest happiness of life is with them: that it is not with those who have abundance. The more we have the less we actually enjoy it. There is a law of compensation that comes in there. The lives of those who have abundance are vastly more complicated than are the lives of those who have little. We are wont to say, 'Oh, well, I'd like to try once having all the money I wanted.' Thousands have said the same thing only to have their wish come true, and to realize that happiness lay not along the way they thought. It is strange how the poor envy the greater and fuller happiness of those who have less. The women of simplest means is the happiest woman on earth if she only knew it. She is happiest because her life is simplest, and, therefore, truest,"

Anachronisms in Hell on Wheels, Episodes 3 and 4

2011-12-21T14:00:00.001-05:00

****

Please be aware that this post contains spoilers.

****

Hell on Wheels is a new period drama on AMC that is set in 1865 and involves the building of the trans-continental railroad. It airs on Sundays at 10:00 p.m. EST. All screenshots are © of AMC.

These posts are not strictly a discussion of outright anachronisms in the show, but also discussion of the portrayal of historical events as a part of the overall story, and whether or not (I think) they are used effectively. In other cases, I’ve only provided more information about historical events mentioned in the show.

For my post on the pilot, please click here.

For my post on Episode 2, please click here.

EPISODE 3: A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM

Photograph Technology. Photographic technology underwent a revolution in the mid-nineteenth century. Most people know that the speed with which photographs are taken has improved over time, but don't give thought about the material on which those photographs are printed and how that has changed. The types of photograph mediums that would have been available prior to 1865 are: daguerrotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, and albumen prints.

The third episode of Hell on Wheels opens with Bohannan rifling through Johnson's belongings. First he flips through a photo album with very stiff pages, which I think are most likely albumen prints. He then finds a photograph of Johnson in uniform, followed by a photo of all the men he blames for the death of his wife, complete with names. Bohannan then easily folds this photograph in half at the end of the scene, which means that this photograph is obviously not a daguerrotype or ambrotype as these were mounted on glass. Tintypes were metal, and also could not be folded. Albumen prints, however, were the size of calling cards and were typically mounted to thick cardstock, just like the photo album. An albumen print could be folded, but it shouldn't have been that flimsy. Plus the two loose photos are the wrong size for albumen prints--the photographs Bohannon finds are much larger than calling cards (think slightly larger than modern business cards). [Source: Victorian Fashion in America: 264 Vintage Photographs by Kristina Harris, google books]

Indian Princess. "That must be the new girl. The savage woman. ... She was but a girl, white as we, taken captive years ago, sold to the highest heathen bidder. Some say she was a slave, others an indian princess."

First, there is absolutely no such thing as an Indian princess. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. When I hear someone say their great-great-great-grandmother was an Indian princess, it takes everything I have to remain polite. No Indian tribe has or had any such social rank as princess. If your family legend includes this, you should research it or at least stop repeating it. It's a legend, and most likely you do not have Indian ancestry. I've heard that some people research to find out they actually have a line of African-American ancestry, and speculate that the "Indian princess" thing was likely a way for the family to cover that up. I've also heard/read rants that the "Indian princess" myth is a way for white people to not feel so guilty about having direct connections with some of the darker aspects of American history (slavery, killing Indians, forced removal of Indians, etc).

I'm not saying Hell on Wheels is necessarily guilty of perpetuating the "Indian princess" myth... The other McGinnes brother says right after this, "Stop with your tall tales." Which is exactly what that is. Now that we've got that out of the way...

The Girl With The Chin Tattoo. This character is most obviously based on the story of Olive Oatman. Olive's family was traveling alone through Arizona, when they were ambushed by a group of Yavapai Indians. The Yavapai murdered all of the family members except for Olive, age thirteen, her sister Mary, age seven, and Lorenzo, age fifteen, whom they clubbed and left for dead (but survived). The Yavapai Indians took Olive and her sister Mary into captivity. Mary died from starvation while the girls were still in Yavapai possession. Olive was later traded to a group of Mohave Indians, supposedly for two horses and some blankets. Olive lived a much happier life with the Mohave. She assimilated with them completely, becoming one of their group. The significance of the tattoo was to identify her as a Mohave in the afterlife, thus the tattoo indicates that she was accepted fully into the Mohave tribe.

Olive Oatman
Source for photo: wikipedia

The Blue Tattoo: The Life of Olive Oatman

Captivity of the Oatman Girls,

Hell on Wheels

However:

1. I dislike that in Episode 4, Eva states that the chin tattoo is a mark that she was a slave, because that perpetuates misinformation about the customs of the Mohave tribe.

they paid to buy her

EPISODE 4: JAMAIS JE NE T'OUBLIERAI

I chose to combine these two episodes into one post because I wanted to discuss Olive Oatman / Eva, whose backstory spanned both these episodes. Another reason I combined them is because this episode got deleted off my DVR, so I'm going to go completely by memory. :-/

Bleeding Kansas and Abolitionism. The Preacher tells Bohannan that he was in Kansas prior to the Civil War. When he said, "Have you ever heard of Bleeding Kansas?" I yelled out loud, 'Let me guess, John Brown???' And of course the Rev knew him. Assigning all the characters backstories involving the most popular/famous aspects of the Civil War does nothing to give depth to the story, it makes the characters into cardboard cut-out figures from the era. The purpose of revealing character backstory is namely to give depth to those characters, but instead it it actually reinforces the writers' one-dimensional 'interpretation' of the era.

Nothing was wrong about how antebellum Kansas was portrayed in their exchange as I can remember, though. I did like that Bohannan said some negative things about Brown; I liked that Brown was not portrayed as some great hero. Brown was guilty of murdering people who weren't slave owners, and never had been. Sure he may have been against slavery, but for what purpose? It is a common misconception to assume abolitionists were motivated solely because they believed blacks deserved equal rights. I'm not saying that the show has been guilty of this so far, it is just something to keep in mind for any drama set during this time period because it is such a pervasive misconception. Racism and anti-slavery sentiments were certainly not mutually exclusive. Many Northerners felt the existence of slave labor was unfair economic competition for free whites. How could a white man without slaves expect to keep up with the Jones', if the Jones' owned slaves? Lincoln himself said that the West needed to be slavery free so it could be preserved for free white men:

In Peoria, Illinois in 1854, Lincoln told his audience, "Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are for poor white people to remove from; not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories..."

Prostitutes. Anyone else out there a Deadwood fan? How different are the prostitutes in that show from this one? It's night and day, right? In Deadwood, the women were subjugated, broken, mistreated, and under the strict employ of a oppressive male proprietor. They are often sick or in need of medical attention, so much so the barkeep has a contract with the town doctor to tend to the girls on a routine basis. In the very first episode of Deadwood, Trixie gets the crap beat out of her for telling Swearengen to 'do what you will with me' ('Don't tell me what to do,' he says, then hits her). In Hell on Wheels the prostitutes all are self-employed, empowered, healthy, high-end call girl types who all appear to be enjoying themselves and their chosen profession immensely. They all seem to be in it for the thrill, not for a lack of other choices. I'm not saying that the prostitutes portrayed in Hell on Wheels are completely unfounded, as I'm sure there were some women like this, but it was a minority. No different from today, really. It certainly does not represent the whole story. Deadwood does an infinitely much better job on portraying this. Hell on Wheels seems so hellbent on exploring the black/white dynamic, they've completely glossed over the male/female one.

"Research of the nineteenth century has found "the majority of prostitutes were young, usually illiterate, poor and from broken families. These women had a limited number of options available to them during the nineteenth century and because of that, some turned to prostitution as a means of survival. Immigrant women arriving without money or brought into the country forcibly, as with many Asian women, had only prostitution as a way to make money. There were also the women who turned to prostitution as an escape from typical professions. And for others, they were as adventurous as the men heading west in the 1800s and this way of life was seen as temporary until something better came along." (Source)

If I've made any mistakes myself, please let me know. Everyone makes mistakes, including television set designers, writers, and producers. I know that this show is just a drama, and is meant to be entertaining, not educational or historically accurate. Every historical drama has errors, I know this. That doesn't make the exercise of finding/discussing them any less worthwhile. That's like saying everyone spells words incorrectly from time to time, so we shouldn't bother proofreading anything, ever. I did not write this out of anger or contempt; quite the opposite. I wrote this for entertainment purposes as well, because I love westerns and I love history. If I harbor any ill-will towards AMC at all, it is only because they cancelled Rubicon. :) All screenshots are © of AMC.

Anachronisms in Hell On Wheels, Episode 2

2011-12-17T14:00:00.000-05:00

****

Please be aware that this post contains spoilers.

****

Hell on Wheels is a new period drama on AMC that is set in 1865 and involves the building of the trans-continental railroad. It airs on Sundays at 10:00 p.m. EST. All screenshots are © of AMC.

For my post on the pilot, please click here.

EPISODE 2: IMMORAL MATHEMATICS

The bulk of the storyline for this episode involves Bohannan being held in an empty train car. After he escapes, he hops from tent to tent, and again not much is portrayed or said therein in the way of history. Even though it didn’t give me much to write about, I enjoyed this because I felt as if references to historical events weren't getting in the way of the plot, which they seemed to do throughout the pilot. The subplot of Lily Bell involved her travelling mostly by herself in the wilderness, and so there wasn’t much room for anachronisms there, either.

Andersonville. While Bohannan is held in captivity of the train car, Thor Gunderson, aka The Swede, says to him, “Our supply train was captured, and I become Prisoner of War.” Bohannon immediately assumes, “Andersonville?” “That’s right.” This little exchange bugged me, not just because Bohannon automatically assumed Gunderson was at Andersonville, as if it were the only Confederate POW camp. On another level, it bugged me because it seems that the purpose of writing that the Swede was in Andersonville Prison, as opposed to any another POW camp, would be because the audience is most likely to be familiar with the history of that specific camp. This familiarity could then be used to avoid a quick history lesson that bogs down the dialog. But the writers do it anyway, they go ahead and tell you plainly where Andersonville Prison was located (“way down in the great state of Georgia”), and while they’re at it, have the character rattle off some statistics to you (“30,000 prisoners, 14,000 dead”). And oh yeah, the conditions were really gruesome ('I weighed like 5 pounds and some dude tried to snack on my arm. Shit was crazy.')

Baltimore-Ohio Bridge over the Monocacy River. Bohannan tells Durant that he blew up this bridge during the War. This bridge was, in fact, destroyed by Confederate forces during the War. Here is an excerpt from History of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad by John F. Stover, published first in 1987 by Purdue University Press. A limited preview of this work is available on Google Books.

"Early in September 1862, the gray-clad troops of Robert E. Lee again moved north across the Potomac River and the tracks of the Baltimore and Ohio. Again the Confederates were hard on the bridges of the B&O including the wooden trestle at Harpers Ferry and the iron bridge over the Monocacy River near Frederick. Of the destruction of the Monocacy bridge, master of road John L. Wilson wrote in the 1862 Annual Report: 'September 8 [1862], The splendid iron suspension bridge at Monocacy blown up by the enemy. This bridge consisted of three spans of 115 feet each. The water station at Monocacy, including pump house and engine house, also burned,'..." (108)

Canola. I've read that this show was filmed in Canada. Isn't this rapeseed (or canola), a crop not grown in Canada until the 1970's?

Bible Printing in the Confederate States

2011-12-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

Well, finals were over last week, and my grades this semester are 3 A's and 1 C B. (I was assuming, but now that they're actually posted, I did better than I thought.) More importantly though, I've graduated! I should get my diploma in the next few weeks.

Posts will now be once every four days instead of once every three. My post on Hell on Wheels Episode 2 will be published on Saturday, December 17.

The following short article shows not only how little book printing was done in the South prior to the war, it also shows how slow news was getting out to the West. This article was printed in October, referencing a July issue of a Tennessee paper. For reference, the Pony Express operated from 1860 to 1861, and actually shut down in late October of 1861.

From the San Francisco Bulletin on October 7, 1861:

Short of Bibles.--The Tennessee Baptist of July 13th contains a call for help to supply the Southern army with Bibles and Testaments. It says: The startling fact comes to light that there is not a set of stereotype plates for printing even the new Testament in the whole South; nor a set of plates for the Bible. This fully illustrates how entirely the South has depended upon the North. The Baptist calls for subscribers to an edition of the Testament, to be issued at the rate of $20 a hundred. In New York the same Testament can be bought for $6 a hundred.

Brief Hiatus

2011-12-02T14:00:00.000-05:00

I've gotten behind on scheduling posts, so unfortunately I have to place this blog on hiatus for a week or two. :( I should be back after finals are over next week. I have a few things in the works that I hope I can get to after school wraps up. For instance, I have a decent list of Hell on Wheels anachronisms from the last three episodes. Also, I'm about half-way done with a post about the origins of the term "copperhead," which I looked into more after my post about the Hell on Wheels pilot (which is already my most viewed post ever, wow). For the copperhead post I got a bunch of new material from the NewsBank archive, and a book I ordered on interlibrary loan finally came in on Wednesday...

Other than that, I'm open to topic suggestions for when I get back!

In the meantime, have you seen this "advice animal" (History Major Heraldic Beast) on reddit?? <3

World War II U.S. Ration Books One Through Four

2011-12-01T14:00:00.000-05:00

Making an exception to my pre-1922 only rule, here are some high quality scans of U.S. World War II ration books. I forgot to schedule a Thanksgiving post, so after the rabid consumerism many Americans display on Black Friday weekend (and throughout the Christmas shopping season), I think this topic is, in a way, highly relevant to the holidays. As it says on many of the below pages:

"If you don't need it, don't buy it."

If only.

Rationing for the War in the United States began in 1942 and ended in 1946. Ration Book One was issued in May 1942, Book Two in January 1943, Book Three in October of 1943, and Book Four towards the end of 1943.

These books were not the only rationing coupons issued by the U.S. government. For more information and pictures about WWII rationing in the United States, please see this wonderful web page.

The below ration books belonged to Maude Elizabeth Haas Williams, of whom I shared a photograph in an earlier post. As you can see from some of the ration books, she lists her age as 35. Maude's husband Clarence did not serve in the war due to his age (52 according to his Book Two). In late 1942, Clarence and Maude had a son. Did you know they issued ration books to children, including infants? Their son John has one at age 2 months.

All four books are represented here for Maude as well as the cover of Book Two for her son John. Stamps from Book One and Book Three are shown (the other two are empty). Also included is a clipping from a newspaper of the Book Four Rationing Calendar. This is the only item I have transcribed below.

Click to enlarge.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Wm. H. Harrison and the 'White Slavery Slander'

2011-11-28T14:00:00.000-05:00

William Henry Harrison's political opponents during the 1836 and 1840 Presidential campaigns accused him of supporting debt bondage, or "white slavery," laws while serving as Governor of Indiana (1807) and in the Ohio State Senate (1820). Herein are a leaflet which promotes this claim, and a letter written by Harrison refuting it.

The laws in question legalized forced labor as a means for criminals to work off fines they could not otherwise afford to pay. The leaflet argues that the forced labor is not levied as a consequence of their crime, but as a consequence of the criminal's poverty. In this way, the law effectively permits debt bondage. And it makes this argument in an entertainingly over-the-top way:

"Did our fathers of the Revolution fight for MONEY? On the contrary, did they not pour out their money and their blood also like water for LIBERTY? Liberty was the watchword and Liberty the prize of a bloody and protracted civil war. Liberty was achieved and behold a second generation has not passed away, before some of the children of Revolutionary Fathers place this blood bought prize on a level with MONEY!"

According to Harrison, the reasoning behind the law(s) were as follows:

...the proposed amendment of the law presupposed that the delinquent was in confinement for the non-payment of a fine and costs of prosecution (the payment of which was part of the sentence): it seemed, therefore, humane, in respect to the offender, to relieve him from confinement which deprived him from the means of discharging the penalty, and to place him in a situation in which he might work out his deliverance, even at a loss, for a time, of his personal liberty.

Full transcripts of both documents follow after the jump. The leaflet dates from the 1840 campaign, while the letter from Harrison was written in 1836. The leaflet is from the LoC Printed Ephemera collection, while the letter can be found on google books, published in pro-Harrison campaign literature from 1840 which claims to compare the views of Harrison and Van Buren (the Presidential candidates in 1840).

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

A Description of Roatan Island, 1766

2011-11-25T14:00:00.000-05:00

The following is a description of the island of Roatan, located off the coast of Honduras. This is part of a larger work titled The West India Pilot by Joseph Smith Speer, first published in London in 1766. Speer's work can be found in the LoC online map collection.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Invasion of the South, April 6, 1861

2011-11-22T14:00:00.002-05:00

The following article comes from the New York Herald, on Monday, April 8, 1861, four days before the Battle of Fort Sumter, the conventional beginning of the Civil War. The article mentions that ships left New York on the previous Saturday, which would have been April 6, 1861.

Invasion of the South--The Inauguration of Civil War

By order of the federal government, on Saturday ships of war and transports, with troops, provisions, stores, ammunition and arms, large and small; tools, sandbags, spades and other siege tools; stalls for horses, boats, boat howitzers for landing, and "all the circumstance of war," cleared from [New York] with sealed orders, for parts unknown. The city was like a camp, and the excitement was intense. Some of the officers of the army, knowing the bloody mission on which the Powhatan and Atlantic are sent, resigned rather than mingle in the fratricidal conflict. The ships which have sailed are but the van; others are preparing to follow them, not only from this port, but from the Navy Yard of Charlestown, Massachusetts, where there is the same warlike activity as at Brooklyn and New York.

It is thus evident that a bloody civil war is resolved upon by Mr. Lincoln and his Cabinet. After long hesitation, the President has screwed his courage to the fighting point. At what precise spot he intends to commence hostilities or to provoke them--whether at Charleston, Pensacola, the mouths of the Mississippi or in Texas, where there is an evident design to excite "domestic insurrection," or at all of these places together--does not yet appear; but a few days will unfold the mystery.

To Mr. Lincoln, his Cabinet and the leaders of the republican party three courses are open--first, to yield to the Confederate States and to all the slaveholding communities their just rights as coequal partners in the Union, which would have had the effect of healing the breach and reuniting the sections; second, to permit a peaceable and bloodless separation, either in the hope of reunion at a future day, or at least of a friendly alliance for mutual defense against foreign foes, and for the establishment of commercial relations, which, if not specifically favoring the North, would at least not discriminate against her; and third, to wage a war of subjugation against seven sovereign States, which will be ultimately extended to fifteen, to compel them to submit to the authority of the government at Washington, and to pay tribute to it, whether they are represented in its Congress or not, in contravention to the great principle for which the colonies fought and conquered the mother country in the Revolution of 1776--the principle that "without representation there can be no taxation."

The first of the three courses was the best, and would have been that of a statesman. The second is the next best course, because the most successful war could only lead to the same result after inflicting an amount of suffering and calamity upon the country at which the imagination is appalled. As for now restoring the revolted States to the Union by war, that is the wildest chimera that ever entered the brain of man. But it is probable that even if the Northern section should succeed in subduing the South (for that is the naked aspect of the war when stripped of all its disguise), the same favorable terms would not be obtained, certainly not the same entente cordiale so necessary to the future peace and prosperity of both sections, as could be secured by the peaceful arts of diplomacy and statesmanship, which seem to have been completely ignored at Washington. The third course has been adopted, and that is unquestionably the worst of all. If it fails, and that is very possible, it will be destructive to the prestige and to the interests of the North, to say nothing of the overwhelming expense and debt which it will entail upon the country, the many hearths it will leave desolate and the feelings of bitter eternal enmity which it will have engendered between two geographical sections separated by an imperceptible line.

The pretence of carrying out the laws of this Union in the confederate States, enforcing the federal authority and collecting the revenue, is too transparent to deceive any person. It has been clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to accomplish these objects without civil war of the most ferocious kind. To make the attempt, therefore, is deliberately to commence a war whose end the present generation may not live to see, and whose disastrous effects will be such as to annihilate the accumulated wealth of the country at a blow, and throw back its progress half a century. The real object of the war is not to collect revenue, nor to assert the authority of the federal government, nor to protect its property. It is a war of propagandism--a war against the social institutions of fifteen States--a war to extirpate negro slavery, if not to exterminate slaveholders. It is the irrepressible conflict predicted by Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln, and for which Garrison, Giddings and the blood-thirsty abolitionists of their fanatical party have been laboring for the last thirty years. It is a revival of the struggle which took place two centuries ago in England between the Puritan Roundheads and the rest of the nation. The vast majority of the people were against them, but by the military genius and iron will of Cromwell the fanatics were rendered successful for a time, after putting their king to death and deluging their native land with seas of blood. But when their chieftain died, their cause died with him, showing that it had no root in the affections of the people, and that it was equally opposed to human nature and the freedom of man. Hence, when Charles II, who had nothing personally to recommend him, was restored, he was "proclaimed with a pomp never before known." A fleet conveyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent; for that republic had no sympathy with the fanaticism of the Puritan republic of England. When Charles landed the cliffs of Dover were covered with thousands of gazers, among whom, says the historian Macaulay, "scarcely one could be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to London was a continued triumph. The whole road to Rochester was bordered by booths and tents, and looked like an interminable fair. Everywhere flags were flying, bells and music sounding, wine and ale flowing in rivers to the health of him whose return was the return of peace, of law, of freedom."

That was the last of the Puritan faction in England. They have never revived. But their descendants here, the inheritors of their principles and their blood, now seek to inaugurate another civil war upon a question of morals, religion and social polity, in States over which they have not, and ought not to have, any control. Like their ancestors in Great Britain, they are in a small minority, but by an accident and the divisions of the people they have contrived to get hold of the reins of government; they have the sword of the nation, and for the present its purse. With this temporary power in their hands, they are preparing to embark in internecine strife, against the will of three-fourths of the people. But whether they will be fortunate enough to find another Cromwell to lead them remains to be seen. From our accounts the military talent of the army has espoused the side of the Southern confederacy. The South, moreover, is united to a man when it comes to blow, while the North is divided, and will be rent asunder by still greater divisions as the war proceeds, if even insurrections and revolutions do not take place in several Northern States. Soon the government will find itself in the position of the British government in the war of our first Revolution, only in a still greater degree. There will be such a storm of opposition, together with a positive refusal to furnish the sinews of war, that the Lincoln administration will be compelled to succumb in disgrace, amidst the execrations of the people and the curses of mankind. And that will be the end of the Puritanical faction in North America.

Interview with an Antebellum & Progressive Era Congressman

2011-11-19T14:00:00.000-05:00

Galusha A. Grow was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives during the 32nd, 33rd, 34th, (1851-1863) and 56th (1894-1903) Congresses. That is not a typo; he was re-elected to Congress after thirty years. He also started his congressional career as a Democrat, but switched to the Republican party after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. During the first years of the Civil War, Grow also served as Speaker of the House. In this interview, prompted by his re-election in 1894, Grow discusses details of his childhood as well as his earlier years in Congress, including the physical altercation he had with Lawrence Keitt which led to a sectional brawl among several members on the House floor.

From The Saint Paul Daily Globe on March 4, 1894:

CHAT WITH GALUSHA GROW

HIS RETURN TO CONGRESS AFTER THIRTY YEARS

STORY OF HIS EARLY LIFE

How He Became the Successor of David Wilmot -- Interesting Recollections of the Leading Statesmen and Orators of the Ante-Bellum Period -- Passage of the Homestead Laws.

Correspondence of the Globe.

GLENWOOD, Pa., March 2.--An interview with the most affable of American statesmen, Galusha A. Grow, who at the end of an election for congressman-at-large in Pennsylvania returns to the United States house of representatives, is a matter of pleasure as well of interest. With a courtesy equal to Chesterfield, a dignity and ease that made him memorable as speaker of the house during the stormy times of 1861-1862, he is at the same time as truly democratic as when he was a young and unknown attorney. In Pauwell's great allegorical picture, exhibited in the Holland section at the Centennial, prominent among the great Americans stands the figure of Galusha A. Grow, who as the originator of the homestead bill, has been hailed abroad as one of the benefactors of mankind.

On the opening day of the Thirty-second congress, in December, 1851, a tall, smooth-faced young man of twenty-seven, walked to the clerk's desk and took the oath of office. Curious eyes closely scanned the new member's make-up, for he came to the house as the apparently unknown successor of a man of national repute, David Wilmot, whose proviso had occupied the attention of previous congresses to the almost total exclusion of other matters. The young man's name was Galusha A. Grow, and he soon demonstrated that those who had selected him to succeed so notable a man had made no mistake in their choice. He early became the leader of the courageous and brainy men who, during the exciting days preceding the war, waged unyielding battle against the demands of the slave power on the floor of the house, and the leadership which he gained at the outset of his congressional career, his great abilities and unswerving devotion to duty and the right easily enabled him to retain during the twelve years he remained in congress.

There was no important measure introduced during his period of service that did not feel the influence of his voice and vote, while to his determination, persistence and farsightedness was due the final passage of the homestead act, with perhaps a single exception, the most important legislation of congress, and which has done more than all else to make the West so great and prosperous.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Democratic Party & Whig Party Politics, 1838

2011-11-16T14:00:00.000-05:00

This comes from the Kentucky Gazette of Lexington, KY on April 5, 1838. The unnamed author, after a flowery introduction, urges the voters of Indiana to throw their support behind the Democratic party. To show that the Whig party are unworthy of their votes, he traces the origins of that party as beginning with the Federalist party, arguing that they are different in name only. He decries the politics of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, argues against the chartering of a third national bank, says Henry Clay should not be elected President in the upcoming election, and talks about strict versus broad interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.

My favorite part of the below address is this fable, which the author uses to illustrate how a broad interpretation of the Constitution's general welfare clause will be used to 'hack away' at citizen's liberties:

It has an excellent moral, that old fable of the woodman and the forest. A certain woodman (it must have been in those early days of poetry when flowers spoke and trees reasoned)--a woodman one fine morning, humbly begged of the forest, that she would be so obliging as to give him some spare limb or other from one of her trees--quite a small one would answer his purpose--merely to make a handle for his axe. The good tempered forest thoughtlessly agreed to his proposal; the axe handle was made; and the next day, the woodman having thus obtained the means of executing his project without further leave returned, and fell to work with so much effect, that in a few days the poor forest saw the noblest of her trees levelled with the ground, the death knell of the others, as one by one they sunk beneath the murderous axe, sounded hourly in her ears. How bitterly then did she repent of her easy compliance!

The article has over ten footnotes that go along with it, but I had such a difficult time distinguishing symbols from smudges on the page, and then trouble figuring out which note corresponded with which symbol, so I left them out of my transcription. Therefore, please see the original article (page 1 and page 2) to view the footnotes.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING >>

Upton Sinclair Punished By Delaware Sabbath Laws

2011-11-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

Most people know Upton Sinclair for writing The Jungle, a muckraking novel about U.S. meat-packing that helped bring about legislative reforms of the food industry. In addition, Sinclair wrote a book, Oil!, satirizing the Teapot Dome scandal, tried starting a Utopian colony, and ran on the socialist ticket for Congress. Clearly he was a man with strong convictions -- enter this article from the Hopkinsville Kentuckian on August 5, 1911:

Upton Sinclair, a Socialist author who violated the Sunday laws at Wilmington, Del., decided to take an imprisonment of 18 hours rather than pay a $4 fine, and was put to breaking rock in the city workhouse. His offense was playing baseball and tennis on Sunday. Nine other men took the same punishment.

Anachronisms in the Hell On Wheels Pilot

2011-11-10T16:00:00.000-05:00

****

Please be aware that this post contains spoilers.

****

Hell on Wheels is a new period drama on AMC that is set in 1865 and involves the building of the trans-continental railroad. It airs on Sundays at 10:00 p.m. EST. You can also watch the full first episode on AMC's website, here, until November 30th.

My post(s) on this show will focus primarily on aspects of the history portrayed. I am selecting items that catch my attention and discussing whether I think they contain anachronistic elements.

Before I get to history-related stuff, though, I want to bring up one thing first because I busted out laughing when I heard it, and yet I haven't seen anyone else point this out. In the scene where Durant is having a conversation with two men about why the railroad should not be built straight, Durant says to one of them, "You're fired, get out. I said, get out!" And then that guy just walks off, but... THEY ARE ON A MOVING TRAIN. Even if there were another car to go sit in and pout, that still seems silly.

Doesn't look like there are any cars behind this one.

No door on this end of the car.

"You're fired, get out." Jump out the moving train and do a barrel roll, good luck!

There were far too many people not wearing hats while outdoors. The English girl in the Nebraska meadow with her surveyor boyfriend? No hat. The three prostitutes at the railroad camp that the preacher looked down his nose at? No hats. Mr. Johnson, the railroad camp manager guy that got his throat cut at the end? No hat the first time we meet him when Cullen gets off the train. The second time we see Common's character Elam laboring with the other former slaves? No hat. And on and on. I don't expect everyone to wear a hat in every scene, but in outdoor scenes I do, so this bugged me.

Mr. Johnson tells Cullen that he was a copperhead before the Civil War. A copperhead was someone who was against the war, and typically urged for an immediate peace solution with the South. So could one be against the war before the war started? Everyone has to remember that secession and the War were not one and the same. It is certainly possible one could be a supporter of Southern secession before the war broke out, and be against going to war with the South before war officially began. It isn't like the outbreak of war was a great sudden surprise to everyone. Still, was the term copperhead in use before the war? Online encyclopedias (example) state that the term was first used in print on July 20, 1861 in the New York Tribune, but after thirty minutes of searching I've apparently found an earlier example. On July 6, 1861, the Gazette and Sentinel of Iberville, Louisiana shows that "copperhead" was already being thrown around on the floor of Congress as early as July 2, 1861, only a month and a half after the war began.

The term seems to be used here almost in passing. It is not defined to readers, nor is it placed in quotations. So it seems the etymology of this term isn't exactly nailed down by historians. Because of this, it is possible that the term came into use slightly before sectional hostilities officially broke out in mid-April of 1861. So if there is any plausibility at all to Johnson's whole hipster-copperhead backstory it's by lucky accident. Regardless, the character saying he sympathized with the Southern cause before the war is not what makes his backstory seem so awkward. Rather, it's that the character also enthusiastically fought for the Union. Okay, maybe he was drafted, but, urgh -- This character obviously wasn't meant to be this complex, because they killed him off so damn fast. Why did they even bother saying he was a copperhead in the first place, if he is supposed to be one of the bad guys that killed Cullen's wife? Was it a convoluted way to make him have common ground with Cullen? Cullen would have talked to him regardless of this, because he wanted to know more about his wife's murder. That's what brought Cullen all the way out there in the first place. Really there is no reason for it. It just seems like the writers tried to throw in as much period terminology as they could, consequences be damned.

Additionally, what the hell is with Cullen being a Confederate who freed his slaves? Did they want an anti-hero, thinking that simply being a Confederate would automatically make him one, but then couldn't commit all the way? Why, because that would be a deal breaker to a lot of the audience, to root for a former slaveowner? If so, then why not just say he was a Confederate that did not own slaves at all? There were PLENTY of those and certainly a lot more plausible. But then that would beg the question of why the hell someone would fight for the Confederacy if they weren't fighting to keep their own personal slaves. That would mean taking a more than two dimensional look at the causes of the Civil War. Still, isn't it actually more mind-boggling on paper, working off the elementary-school-curriculum version of the Civil War, that a man who freed his own slaves would go on to fight for the Confederacy...? Whatever. /handwave, nothing to see here!

There are electric lights on the wall, fifteen years before they were invented. Making that shit candle-shaped does not really excuse this one. Gas lamps are present but aren't lit.

Cullen says "So, what, God just up and punches his ticket to heaven?" Ticket punching machines used for information storage were invented in the 1880s by Herman Hollerith. The inventor got his idea from how railroad tickets were punched. So was ticket punching used on railroad tickets in 1865? The earliest patent improving railroad tickets that I could find which references punching of tickets dates to December of 1868, and it is a patent for an actual hand-held ticket punching device. There are patents which follow chronologically after this one (in 1869 and 1870) which claim to improve how tickets are punched. Does this mean tickets were being punched before this 1868 device was patented? Possibly, but three entire years prior? And even if the practice had begun by that time, would it be so widespread that the phrase "punch a ticket" in this sense would already be in the colloquial lexicon of Americans? I'm doubtful.

Sean McGinnes, one of the Irish men on the train, asks Cullen if he is a "gunslinger." The word gunslinger was not in use in the 19th century. It originated and became popular in the 20th century. According to Wikipedia the term is considered as originating in 1920 in a western movie called Drag Harlan. Perhaps the best proof I can offer of this claim (it is made on Wikipedia after all) is demonstrated when you search for the term "gunslinger" on the Library of Congress newspaper database, which contains papers from 1836-1922. When you do so, only two pages pop up. One is an OCR transcription error, the other is a 1921 advertisement for the movie Drag Harlan. For comparison, when you search for "gunfighter" you get over 350 results; "border ruffian" over 1,700. Searching for the word "gunslinger" in the google books archive brings similar results.

The surveyor team member says "This land hasn't changed since Lewis and Clark first saw it sixty years ago." Lewis and Clark didn't pass through the territory that would become Nebraska, they passed north of it. But this is completely excusable if you assume the character was referring to the West in a broad sense.

The state lines on this map are wrong. Compare the Idaho-Dakota-Utah Territory border below to see the discrepancy. (This screencap also shows more electric lights, as well as more unlit ambiance gas lights.)

map source: Wikipedia

That's all I found in this episode. I'll try to find more in episodes to come. Thanks for reading!

Edited/Updated: 11/15/2011