Monday, January 21, 2019

Threadbare Brides of the Civil War

Weddings were welcomed social events during the Civil War and even threadbare brides were radiant. Economy usually replaced the glorious wedding gowns of the past and a nice day dress was considered proper attire, but flowers especially orange blossoms were still seen. Northerner Ellen Wright wrote that she was going to renovate her old clothes for her own wedding because she had no interest in, "shining forth in new apparel in these hard times."

Late in the war, after the fall of Columbia, South Carolina. Louisa McCord was preparing to be married.  Old gloves and slippers were re-dyed with ink.  Family and friends had scrapped together a trousseau which was a "monument to needlework ingenuity." A white wedding gown could not be found however, until Louisa’s mother found white muslin clothe available from a Yankee sutler, priced at an exorbitant $10 in greenbacks. The determined mother sold her carpet and some chairs and finally was forced to drive around town selling lard and butter to come up with all of the money needed to buy the clothe.
A wedding ring also became a challenge for Louisa's fiancĂ©. He announced that he would have to travel to another part of the state to borrow a ring from a cousin or aunt, but the McCord family came through again. Louisa's sister offered her 16th birthday ring. Louisa wanted to be married in church, but the family had no transportation. The buggy had been confiscated and the horses eaten. Guests who came couldn't stay long "because their supply of horse feed gave out." 

The Civil War Wedding, an entertaining look at the customs and superstitions of weddings during the Civil War era.

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

George Pullman's Worker's Paradise

The model town of Pullman, located on the far south side of Chicago, was built in the 1880s on land controlled by the Pullman Palace Car Company (think railroads and the luxurious Pullman cars).  The town was the brainchild of George W. Pullman, who thought he could avoid strikes, attract the most skilled labor, and achieve greater productivity by providing workers with a superior living environment. 

The residents weren’t as enthusiastic, and complained that rents, and prices in the company owned stores, were too high.  With the Depression of 1892, wages dropped, but rents and food prices stayed the same.  The bloody nationwide Pullman strike of 1894 resulted.  During the course of the strike, 30 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded before the strike was broken.

In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the company’s charter did not include the right to run a town.  Pullman became just another residential neighborhood until the area was granted landmark status, and the Historic Pullman Foundation set to work restoring it in the 1970s.

The Pullman Arcade Building, seen here in 1894 during the strike,  is being guarded by the Illinois National Guard.  The Arcade Building contained a 500-seat theatre, a post office, library, the Pullman Trust and Savings Bank, the town management offices as well as office and storefront spaces that were rented to private businesses.  

Video: The Gilded Age and Revolution

We think we know the Victorians, but do we? The same passions, strengths and weaknesses that exist now, existed then, but people organized themselves very differently.

Sunday, January 06, 2019

The Strange Case of Henry Washington

Mount Vernon

Henry (Harry) Washington

Born on the Gambia River around 1740, Henry Washington (real name unknown) was captured and sold into slavery sometime before 1763.  He subsequently became the property of George Washington and was a groom in the stables at Mount Vernon.  In November 1775, the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued a proclamation offering freedom to any slave who would help put down the American rebels.   That December, George Washington, commanding the Continental Army in Massachusetts, received a report from his cousin Lund that Lord Dunmore’s proclamation had stirred the passions of Washington’s own slaves. “There is not a man of them but would leave us if they believed they could make their escape. Liberty is sweet.”  In August 1776, a month after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Henry Washington made his escape from Mount Vernon, making his way to the British lines and joining Lord Dunmore’s all black “Ethiopian Regiment ”.  With several hundred men under arms, the Ethiopian Regiment fought for the Crown and the freedom of all blacks in slavery, under the regimental motto, “Liberty to Slaves”.  Lord Dunmore’s forces were overwhelmed in Virginia and the Ethiopian Regiment disbanded.  Henry Washington went on to serve in another Loyalist regiment, The Black Pioneers under the command of Sir Henry Clinton as they moved from New York to Philadelphia to Charleston, and, after the fall of Charleston, back to New York. 

Henry Washington was not alone in joining the British.  The so called “Black Loyalists” in the Revolutionary War are estimated to have numbered between eighty and one hundred thousand runaways who sought freedom within the lines of the British army.  By freeing the slaves the British forced slave masters to guard slaves, one of their chief economic assets, instead of fighting British troops. The British were willing to emancipate slaves if by so doing they could first cripple and then crush the rebellion.  Much as in the later American Civil War, military necessity rather than morality acted as the catalyst of history. The use of slaves by the British for military purposes soon prompted the American rebels to begin recruiting blacks.  George Washington gave his approval to Rhode Island's plan to raise an entire regiment of black slaves (the state bought and emancipated slaves willing to become soldiers). Similarly, Massachusetts raised an all-black unit, the Bucks of America under Samuel Middleton, the only black commissioned officer in the Continental Army. In October 1780, even Maryland accepted “any able-bodied slave between 16 and 40 years of age, who voluntarily enters into service . . . with the consent and agreement of his master.” New York began recruiting slaves in March 1781.  By June 1781 some 1,500 of the 6,000 troops under George Washington’s direct command were black.

In 1782, a provisional treaty granting the American colonies their independence was signed by Great Britain. As the British prepared for their final evacuation, the Americans demanded the return of runaway slaves, under the terms of the peace treaty. The British refused to abandon black Loyalists who had fought for the Crown to their fate. Some four thousand blacks who had served the Crown during the war, together with their families, were listed in “The Book of Negroes” (George Washington insisted that such a list be made so that masters could be compensated for their lost property).  Those lucky enough to make the list sailed to freedom in Canada and England.  Among them was Henry Washington.

Henry Washington embarked on the ship L’Abondance in July 1783, with 405 other black loyalists, including women and children, bound for Nova Scotia.  He was forty three years old.  His wife, Jenny was twenty four.  Most of the black loyalists on board L’Abondance were followers of a blind preacher called “Daddy Moses” who settled as a community in a place they named Birchtown.

Life in Nova Scotia was hard.  The Crown was slow in allocating land, the weather was harsh, and the soil rocky and poor.  After several unhappy years in Nova Scotia, Henry Washington together with his wife and three children and 1,192 other black colonists joined an enterprise sponsored by the Sierra Leone Company, and financed by the British government, which allowed black loyalist refugees to join the free black community established in Sierra Leone in West Africa.  In 1791, Henry Washington and his family settled in Sierra Leone. New settlers were promised twenty acres for every man, ten for every woman and five for every child. They were also given assurances that in Sierra Leone there would be no discrimination between white and black settlers.

The Company was long on promises and short on delivery.  Relations between the Company and the colonists deteriorated to the point that the Company sought a royal charter from the British parliament which would give the company formal jurisdiction over Sierra Leone.  The Company wanted full judicial authority to suppress dissent.  The Company explained, “…the unwarranted pretensions of the disaffected settlers, their narrow misguided views; their excessive jealousy of Europeans; the crude notions they had formed of their own rights; and the impetuosity of their tempers…” would soon produce a “ruinous effect.”

The settlers, who regarded themselves as loyal British subjects, petitioned the King, explaining how the black settlers had been given land by the British government as a consequence of “our good behavior in the last war.” The King hearing of their unhappiness about living a cold country offered to “remove us to Sierra Leone where we may be comfortable.” Things had not turned out in accordance with the terms of His Majesty’s offer, and the settlers sought redress. The Company insured that the settler’s petition never reached the King.

By 1799, Sierra Leone’s settlers had grown so discontented, so revolutionary in their rejection of the Company’s rule over the colony, that some in London likened them to the revolutionaries in France.   The Company noted with alarm, “meetings of a most seditious and dangerous nature.”  The governor sent armed marshals to arrest several men on charges of treason.  Within a week thirty one men were in custody.  A military tribunal was set up to try the prisoners for “open and unprovoked rebellion.”  Henry Washington and twenty three others were banished to the colony’s desolate northern shore.

The exiles elected Henry Washington their leader in 1800, only months after George Washington’s death at Mount Vernon.  In the love of liberty, Henry Washington was not excelled by the better known George Washington.

These are the often overlooked stories of early America. Stories such as the roots of racism in America, famous murders that rocked the colonies, the scandalous doings of some of the most famous of the Founding Fathers, the first Emancipation Proclamation that got revoked, and stories of several notorious generals who have been swept under history’s rug.

Friday, January 04, 2019

George Washington’s “Riding Chair”

As a young man, George Washington acquired a riding chair similar to the one you see above (which is at the Mount Vernon Estate).  Popular in America and England, riding chairs could travel country lanes and backroads more easily than bulkier for wheeled coaches.  Riding chair were relatively inexpensive compared with other vehicles, and were used by all social classes.

Riding chairs were popular in the 1700s, typically had two wheels, and seated one or two people.  Riding chairs were more comfortable than riding on a horse, and was easier on the horse, which didn't have the weight of a human on its back.

The Strange Case of Geronimo's Picture

In 1873, General George Crook fought the Apaches before being posted north to fight the Sioux (including participation in the 1876 campaign in which George Armstrong Custer was massacred at the Little Big Horn). In 1882, Crook returned to Arizona to lead a column in pursuit of Geronimo, Chato and other Apache warriors raiding Arizona and New Mexico, whom he eventually subdued.


I remember looking at the iconic picture of Geronimo, the fierce and gruesome Apache leader, and thinking that some intrepid newspaper photographer had journeyed into Geronimo’s lair to take a true action shot of the great warrior.  This old time photo certainly looks like it was taken in the desert wastelands.  Unfortunately, the photo is a fake.  It was taken by A.F. Randall who did photographic studies of Apache Indians in the comfort of his studio.  Individuals, including the great warriors Geronimo and Chato were posed against a neutral backdrop, surrounded by desert plants.

Geronimo in the studio

Chato in the studio

The real action photographer was Camillus "Buck" Sydney Fly of Tombstone Arizona, who accompanied General Crook’s expedition, and got this picture of Geronimo in his camp during surrender negotiations with General Crook. 

Geronimo in camp

C.S. Fly captured the only known images of Native Americans while still at war with the United States. 

Geronimo with his warriors

Custer’s Last Stand: Portraits in Time

For almost one hundred and fifty years, Custer has been a Rorschach test of American social and personal values. Whatever else George Armstrong Custer may or may not have been, even in the twenty-first century, he remains the great lightning rod of American history.

Monday, November 05, 2018

Civil War Fashion 1861-1865

War presented special problems for the world of ladies’ fashion in the Confederacy, as is best described in the words of General James Longstreet:

“While we were longing for the (reconnaissance) balloons that poverty denied us, a genius arose... and suggested we.... gather silk dresses and make a balloon. It was done, and we soon had a great patchwork ship.... One day it was on a steamer down on the James River, when the tide went out and left the vessel and balloon high and dry on a bar. The Federals gathered it in, and with it the last silk dresses in the Confederacy.”

For those interested in cultural history, researcher/historian Sarah Mitchell provides an entertaining, meticulously researched and informative look at southern ladies' Civil War and antebellum fashions 1855–1865, in her book by the same name. Mitchell’s book contains historically accurate descriptions of clothing, shoes, and undergarments worn by Southern women from 1855 to 1865, and a look at the ways that Southern women ingeniously kept themselves clothed and shod during the hard days of the Civil War. Sources include newspapers, magazines, letters, and diaries from the period. This work is complemented by her book on a slightly earlier period, Ladies' Clothing in the 1830's.

The Civil War Wedding, an entertaining look at the customs and superstitions of weddings during the Civil War era.

A brief look at love, sex, and marriage in the Civil War. The book covers courtship, marriage, birth control and pregnancy, divorce, slavery and the impact of the war on social customs.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

The First Great Anti-War Movie

It was not until All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) that the romantic view of war was cast aside, as movie goers were admonished that “Death is not an adventure”. Here German soldiers, all of whom look and act like wholesome “All American boy” types, are decimated by the war “with the impersonality of sausage going through a meat grinder.”  In this film the soldiers lose respect for authority after seeing the horrors of war and say such things as, “It is dirty and painful to die for your country”. The view of frontline romance is equally unsentimental, as French peasant girls give the German soldier-youths sex for food, and the men have sex with the women as a relief from the horrors of war. Ultimately, the protagonist is un-heroically killed by a sniper while huddling in a filthy trench one beautiful morning. In this film love does not conquer all. War conquers every decent impulse.

Although the leading characters in All Quiet on the Western Front are Germans, thus allowing the film to not directly condemn either the war aims or the war conduct of the United States in World War I, and although the film was both a box office hit and won the Academy Award for Best Picture (1930), there were many who saw the film as, “The most brazen propaganda film ever made in America. It undermines beliefs in the Army and in authority. Moscow could not have produced a more subversive film. Its continued uncensored exhibition especially before juveniles will go far to raise a race of yellow- streak slackers and dis-loyalists”.

All Quiet on the Western Front touched on one of the underlying problems of modern industrial society, the need for the individual to conform to industrial discipline, even if this requires that he march off into a senseless war created by competing economic elites. Based on Erich Maria Remarque’s book of the same name, the film puts provocative language into the mouths of the characters, “Who wants wars? Emperors, generals, manufacturers...” This World War I film reveals a nation turning inward rather than one looking for an imperial “policeman of the world” role.

General George S. Patton once said, “Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance.” Here are four stories about the history of the world IF wars we know about happened differently or IF wars that never happened actually took place.

History's Ten Worst Generals

Success leaves clues. So does failure. Some of history’s best known commanders are remembered not for their brilliant victories but for their catastrophic blunders.

Prada Shoes and Accessories

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Machine Guns Wreathed in Roses: The Greatest World War I Silent Movie

The implicit historical evidence contained in a commercial film is useful to the historian in that popular films reflect the concerns of the common man rather than intellectual elites. Because studio executives seek to hit the dead center of the mass audience in order to maximize profits, common themes in movies often reflect the fears and desires of the mass audience for whom the films were created

King Vidor’s World War I epic, The Big Parade , opened at New York City’s Astor Theater on November 19, 1925, quickly became a box office smash, and is now widely regarded as the top grossing silent movie of all time (by 1930 it had grossed $15 million on production costs of $245,000).

The Big Parade chronicles the war time experiences of Jim Apperson, the son of a wealthy family. The hitherto feckless Apperson enlists in a burst of patriotic fervor brought on by marching bands, the enthusiasm of his hometown chums and the excited gushing of his girlfriend. Apperson is thrown into the army with working class men such as his new pals Slim (a steel construction worker) and Bull (a bar tender). Army life resembles a boy’s summer camp. Deployed to France, the idyll continues as Apperson falls in love with a French peasant girl, Melisande. Called to the front, the mood now shifts as Apperson is torn away from his new lady love. Now follow scenes of the horrors of No Man’s Land, the deaths of Apperson’s pals Slim and Bull, Apperson’s wounding, and his inability to find Melisande after the shelling of her village by the Germans. The war ends and Apperson returns home, having lost a leg. Apperson’s American girlfriend has taken up with his brother and Apperson is generally embittered. At the coaxing of his mother, Apperson returns to France to search for Melisande. The two lovers are re-united as the movie ends.

The Big Parade is the story of ordinary doughboys at war, and while the film is sometimes characterized as an anti-war movie, it is in fact even handed, being neither patriotic nor pacifist.  The film did not reflect a wholesale rejection of the martial virtues, but skepticism about the outcomes of policy. Here there was no Union to preserve as in the Civil War, just vague ideals betrayed at the Versailles Peace Conference. Vidor’s even handed treatment of the war coincided with the ambiguous attitudes of veterans who tried to find nobility in their personal sacrifices while confronting the futility of modem war.

The Big Parade was widely praised for its realism, and Vidor went to considerable lengths to insure visual authenticity, viewing some 8,000 feet of footage made by the Army Signal Corps during the war. Four thousand U.S. Army soldiers were actually used in the film. “Then there were men who had fought in the Argonne who re-enacted scenes for us, and while we owe the working out of the mass effects to the officers, it was often the private who suggested a telling idea, and even the German, now an American citizen, came forward and told his former foes the correct way his compatriots made a machine gun nest” (Interview with King Vidor, New York Times, November 8, 1925, Page X 5).

The War Department indicated that the movie looked just like France. “Maj .-Gen. Hines, commanding the Eighth Corps Area, issued orders that placed the entire Second Division of the Army at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. under the control of Vidor’ s megaphone for the screening of The Big Parade. That each unit of the 10,000 men comprising the infantry, the artillery, supply trains and other operational factors might be in exact position when the cameras began to crank, Brig.-Gen Malone. - . issued regulation field orders to all tactical troops” (Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1925, Page X 5). Soldiers and military groups were outspoken in praise of the films authenticity. Critics agreed, “John Gilbert’s portrayal of the American doughboy as he really was with his slang and naughty songs and devotion to comrade.., struck home with a reality that brought tears to many masculine eyes....”; and, “. . .the entrance of the soldiers into battle. It is one of the few- possibly the only — scene that has ever depicted tellingly the menace of actual battle and its effect on men” (Chicago Daily Tribune, November 15, 1925, Page 18); and “The Big Parade is great realism done in a great way. It indulges in virtually no hokum”(Los Angeles Times, October 11, 1925, Page J 6).

While a quantum leap forward from the stereotyped World War I melodramas reflecting the war fevered propaganda of lesser directors, The Big Parade, does not stand up well in terms of war “realism”. The movie presented war in terms of dramatic conventions. Individuals stood apart from the mass and were made special through devices of romantic action. The movie could not come to full grips with the anonymity of twentieth century warfare. Iris Barry, an English film critic, wrote in 1926, “No film dares show what (the war) resembled. (The Big Parade) wreathes machine-guns in roses”. 

Sun Tzu, the Master of War, once said, “Those who are skilled in producing surprises will win. In conflict, surprise will lead to victory. ” Here are four stories about the history of the world IF wars we know about happened differently or IF wars that never happened actually took place.
1.The Hostage, in which Abraham Lincoln is kidnapped by the rebels.
2.The German Invasion of America of 1889, in which Germany unexpectedly launches its might against the United States.
3.The Invasion of Canada 1933, in which the new American dictator launches a sneak attack on Canada.
4.Cherry Blossoms at Night: Japan Attacks the American Homeland (1942), in which Japan attacks the American homeland in a very surprising way.