Remembering John Parker

He was wakened around 1am on the morning of April 19, 1775 with news of British scouts in the area.  John Parker had gone to bed early that night probably already suffering from symptoms of the tuberculosis that would kill him in September.   There had been rumors the British would make an expedition into the countryside outside of Boston so the news was not a surprise.

Parker was 45 years old, married to Lydia Moore, with whom he had seven children from age 18 to 4.  The Parker family had lived in Lexington since the 17th century and John had served in the French & Indian War (1).  With his family background and military experience, he'd been elected as captain of the town's militia.

The 77 men of the Lexington militia mustered on the town green before dawn, formed into two lines. As dawn broke the 700 soldier British detachment approached.  At the same time, two men crossed through the Lexington line, carrying a large chest.  It was Paul Revere and an assistant with a chest containing important papers left behind by John Hancock in a house next to the town green. What happened next and who fired the first shot remains unknown, but the British initiated the first volley fire which shredded the Lexington ranks and Redcoats then advanced.  Eight militia were killed and ten wounded.  In a deposition given on April 25, Captain Parker wrote:

No 4. Lexington April 25th, 1775                                  

I John Parker, of lawful Age, and Commander of the Militia in Lexington, do testify & declare that on the 19th Instant, in the morning, about one of the Clock, being informed that there were a Number of Regular Officers riding up and down the Road, Stopping and insulting People as they passed the Road, and also was informed that a Number of Regular Troops were on their March from Boston, in order to take the Province Stores at Concord, ordered our Militia to meet on the Common in said Lexington, to consult what to do, and concluded not to be discovered nor meddle or make with said Regular Troops (if they should approach) unless they should insult or molest us – and upon their sudden Approach I immediately ordered our Militia to disperse and not to fire – Immediately said Troops made their Appearance and rushed furiously, fired up-on and killed eight of our Party, without receiving any Provocation therefor from us.

The population of Lexington in 1775 was between 700 and 800.  Members of the militia and their families were well known to each other and had often intermarried.  The shock of losing good friends must have been considerable.

The British marched on to Concord but Parker and the militia were not done.  At North Bridge, the Massachusetts men from several towns attacked and routed the British, who began an increasingly panicked retreat along the same road they'd taken early in the morning.  As news filtered back to Lexington, Parker mustered his men once again, determined to confront the British.  According to the recollections of Nathan Munroe of the militia:

"About the middle of the forenoon Captain Parker having collected part of his company, I being with them, determined to meet the regulars on their retreat from Concord. We met the regulars in the bounds of Lincoln. We fired on them and continued so to do until they met their reinforcement in Lexington.” 

The exact location of Parker's encounter, referred to as "Parker's Revenge" has been the source of dispute for many years but excavations in recent years have identified the precise spot.  The Lexington militia's initial volley inflicted several casualties on the British column and then continued to cause more damage as they followed the retreating British towards the Lexington green.  The National Park Service describes the search for Parker's Revenge here, noting of the militia tactics: 

Having left Lexington center before noon, Captain Parker and his militiamen had time to think about how to use the landscape to their advantage. Perhaps still questioning the decision to make a stand on the town green, Captain Parker was not going to be careless with the lives of his neighbors, relatives and friends. If the stand on the Green was meant as a show of resolve more than an invitation to battle, the fight on the town border in the afternoon was the real thing. 

 

For more on Parker and his actions that day: 

-------------------------------------------------------------

(1) There is some uncertainty over Parker's prior military experience, though all the secondary sources claim he served in the French & Indian War, including some stating he was at the Siege of Louisbourg in 1758 and at the Battle of Quebec on the Plains of Abraham the following year.  My research was unable to confirm Parker's presence at either event.  In what capacity he served during the war I could not ascertain.

Further On Mastering The Tides Of The World

Mastering The Tides of the World told of the difficulty in knowing what courses of action are the right path to take, despite our best efforts to reason our way forward and predict outcomes.

We are at war once again, this time with Iran.  Before it started I did not know what the right course of action was.  Now that it has commenced I think it essential we achieve victory along the lines outlined by Secretary of State Rubio.  This is a circumstance where, having started the task, failure to achieve these outcomes will have serious long-term negative consequences for the United States.  I am aware of the sunk cost fallacy but, in this case, we need to continue.  I'm also painfully aware of the potential for unforeseen consequences, a theme that has prompted a number of THC posts.

The Event At Sarajevo reflects on the unforeseen consequences of World War I and the lessons for future conflicts.

Japan's disastrous 1941 decision to attack the U.S. and other Western nations is the subject of Japan Decides On War. 

Dereliction Of Duty discusses the U.S. decision for escalated involvement in Vietnam in 1964-65. 

America's flawed decision to attack Iraq in 2003; Pausing At The Precipice. 

In his Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865), President Lincoln spoke of the unpredictable nature of war:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. 

We see that unpredictability in how the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a resolution I had not thought possible nor, for that matter, had the legions of American experts on the Soviet Union.  Perhaps Ronald Reagan was the only one with the foresight to predict that ending and he was considered delusional until it happened. 

There is also a delusion that those opposed to the use of force can fall prey to.  That inaction will allow things to continue unchanged on the same course.  They don't.  I wrote about this in the Iraq section of the essay Reflections On The Middle East Wars. 

Nor does it mean that victory is an end to history.  In his Finest Hour speech on June 18, 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill held out a vision of victory that would lead the world into "broad, sunlit uplands". 

The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.  

Yet only fifteen years later on March 1, 1955, merely a decade after victory over Hitler, the emergence of the Cold War and the threat of mutual annihilation by nuclear weapons led Churchill, only weeks before his resignation as Prime Minister, to address these words to Parliament:

The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow-men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. 

Of course, being Churchill, he closed his remarks with the stirring admonition:  "Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.” 

The Idea Of Democracy

 

 “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.”- Abraham Lincoln, note written to himself, date unknown

I'm currently reading Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and The American Experiment by Allen Guelzo.  So far, I've not run across the quote in the book but have noticed that Guelzo's take echoes some themes that have come up in this blog in recent years.  More on that later.

Coming Home

 

The remains of Pfc. Norton V. Retzsch, who died on New Georgia in the Solomon Islands were recently identified and will be buried on April 13 in Marana, Arizona, a town near Tucson, 83 years after his death.

Retzsch, 25 years of age and recently married, was with the 1st Marine Raider Battalion.  On July 9, 1943 he and two fellow Marines were caught in a Japanese ambush and killed.  It took decades after the end of WW2 to identify possible remains and have them DNA tested and compared to one of his relatives.  

After Norton's death his wife, Margaret, enlisted in the Marine Corps Women's Reserve.  She eventually remarried and passed in 2005. 

The New Georgia campaign, from June 30 to October 7, 1943 and cost 1,195 American lives, is one of many almost forgotten battles in the U.S. effort to capture the Solomon Islands with most of the fighting occurring between August 1942 and April 1944

The search for remains of the missing continues.  The difficulties in this process can be seen in the Military.com article on the search for Norton Retzsch.

After the war, the 604th Quartermaster Graves Registration Company searched the Bairoko Harbor and Enogai Inlet area from November to December 1947 but found no trace of Retzsch. The military declared him non-recoverable in 1949 and inscribed his name on the Tablets of the Missing at the Manila American Cemetery and Memorial in the Philippines.

What the military did not know at the time was that Retzsch's remains had likely already been recovered. In December 1943, unidentified remains buried at the Enogai Cemetery were exhumed and transferred first to a New Georgia cemetery, then to Finschhafen, Papua New Guinea, where they were designated as Unknown X-182. After multiple failed identification attempts, X-182 was interred at the Manila American Cemetery in 1950.

The case remained dormant for decades until DPAA turned its attention back to New Georgia. Agency researchers flagged a group of unidentified remains from the Enogai and Bairoko area as possible matches for missing Raiders, and in January 2019, X-182 was pulled from the Manila cemetery and sent to the DPAA laboratory. 

In 2013, I wrote of another missing Marine, Alexander "Sandy" Bonnyman, killed during the attack on Tarawa in November 1943.  Bonneyman is the only Medal of Honor recipient photographed during the action for which he received the medal.  In 2015, Bonnyman's remains were finally identified and he was returned home.

Personal Handling

I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when I tell you that I think I can personally handle Stalin better than either your Foreign Office or my State Department.  Stalin hates the guts of all your top people.  He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to.

President Franklin Roosevelt to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, March 18, 1942, from Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence

I think if I give him everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.

President Franklin Roosevelt to former Ambassador to the Soviet Union, William C Bullitt, January 29, 1943, from For the President: Personal and Secret: Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt 

 

 

There are many things President Franklin Roosevelt got right in the run up to, and during, the Second World War.  He recognized Germany as a threat, not just in Europe, but globally.  FDR also had an ability to spot and promote talent.  Selecting George C Marshall as Army Chief of Staff in 1939 was not obvious, as he was promoted ahead of more than three dozen more senior officers, yet FDR did so after Marshall disagreed with him in a large meeting (for the full story read Management Lessons).  Marshall proved to be a brilliant choice as was Admiral Chester Nimitz, hand picked by FDR to command the Navy in the Pacific.  He also had the good sense to keep Marshall in the U.S. and instead agree that Dwight Eisenhower should command Allied forces for D-Day.

FDR also encouraged dissent.  The military chiefs and his war cabinet engaged in ferocious arguments at time, particularly from 1939 through 1942.   At one point in 1942, Marshall threatened to resign because of his disagreement with the president on the issue of invading North Africa, an issue on which FDR was proven correct - the American army was in no shape to fight the Germans in northwest Europe in 1942, or even 1943.  Marshall, who believed military officers should be apolitical and never voted, was initially a doubter about FDR but became an admirer during the course of the war.

Roosevelt exhibited a good strategic sense in the run up and early years of the war, agreeing with the military chiefs that Germany would be the priority in the event of a conflict with both that country and Japan, and with his instincts of where American military priorities should be in the critical eighteen months after Pearl Harbor.   He also had top notch instincts as to what issues required his involvement and decision making and what didn't.

As I've noted before, in Harry Hopkins he had an informal channel through whom the military chiefs could take issues, trusting Hopkins to decide whether, and how, to make the case to FDR.  This stands in stark contrast to LBJ, who in the run up to the Vietnam War, had no such route outside the one channel station operated by Robert McNamara.  For a comparison of FDR with LBJ on this issue read Dereliction of Duty.

On the debit side was FDR's obsession with China in the lead up to the war.  The military chiefs constantly admonished him for his public statements and pledges in support of China which amounted to writing checks that could not be cashed, refusing to recognize the weakness of America's position in the Pacific and its very limited ability to do anything practicable to assist China in resisting Japan.  They thought his actions ran the risk of precipitating a Japanese attack on the U.S., plunging us into war and running counter to the agreed upon strategy of focusing on Germany first.  On this the chiefs proved correct.

However, the biggest debit item was FDR's failure to understand the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin and what that meant for his vision for the post-war world.  Chip Bohlen, a Soviet State Department specialist who, in 1953, would become Ambassador to the Soviet Union said of Hopkins that "Harry was inclined to dismiss ideology" and the same can be said of FDR. Roosevelt had a vague notion that the American and Soviet systems would, over time, converge in some unspecific way.(1)  He believed in personal diplomacy and in his ability to charm anyone.  The colonial empires of Britain and France offended FDR and he thought the war should spell an end to them. Why he did not understand the same thing about the USSR, which in that respect was merely a continuation of the land-based colonial empire established by the czars is an interesting question.

That's why even into 1944, when the Allies were clearly winning and the first signs of problems with the Soviets were arising, FDR insisted on continuing lend-lease supplies to the Soviets, including shipping materials that had no obvious short-term value to the war against the Nazis and despite increased evidence of Soviet industrial espionage in America.  At the Tehran conference in November 1943 and even more so at Yalta in February 1945, FDR went out of his way to ingratiate himself with Stalin while poking fun and, at times, insulting Churchill. The President simply could not fathom that Stalin was an ideologue and had no deep understanding of communism.  He completely lacked an understanding of how the Soviets thought.

To illustrate how different the thinking was let's look at Kim Philby, the Englishman turned Soviet agent who ended up in a senior position in Britain's intelligence agency.  Philby would thoroughly betray his country (and the U.S.) leading to the deaths of many East Europeans fighting Soviet tyranny after the war.

After Germany's attack on Russia in June 1941, Philby advised his Soviet handlers that Churchill ordered all British espionage efforts against the USSR to cease, causing the Soviets to wrongly suspect Philby had been turned and become a double agent working for Britain because, in their world, suspending espionage operations made no sense (the U.S., both before and during the war, did not conduct espionage against the Soviets).  After all Soviet espionage against Britain and America during the war not only continued, but was expanded.  After an extensive investigation of Philby the Soviets concluded that his reporting was accurate.

FDR's obsession with the creation of the United Nations, something not a high priority to the Russians, allowed Stalin to winkle more concessions from the U.S. before grudgingly agreeing to its creation. 

Unlike Churchill, FDR remained aloof from Stalin's domination of eastern European countries which became evident during the last months of the war.  In August 1944, when the Polish Home Army rose up against the German occupation of Warsaw, while Stalin's forces halted their advance to let the Nazis eliminate the Poles, who they saw as a threat to the communist future plans for that country, Churchill pleaded with Stalin to allow British planes to fly over Warsaw to drop supplies and then land in Soviet territory to refuel, a request refused by the dictator.  FDR refused Churchill's request to join the British in making the request to Stalin.  For more on this episode read Warsaw Does Not Cry.  During the remaining months of the war FDR continued to resist Churchill's efforts to create a strong joint opposition to Stalin's plans.

Given Roosevelt's death in April 1945, less than three months into his fourth term, we can only be thankful for the big city Democratic party bosses who, in the summer of 1944, rejected FDR's plan to retain Vice-President Henry Wallace on the ticket.  The eccentric and naive Wallace was an unwitting tool for the communists and would have been a disaster as president.(2)  Instead Harry Truman joined the ticket, becoming FDR's successor and proving a much better post-war president on foreign policy than Roosevelt would have been.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)  According to Bohlen, on a return flight from Moscow, on Hopkins last mission to Moscow in June 1945, Harry expressed "serious doubts as to the possibility of genuine collaboration with the Soviet Union", predicting "the American belief in freedom might lead to serious differences."

(2)  In 1948, Wallace ran as the Progressive Party candidate for president.  He blamed the U.S. for the start of the Cold War and urged America to give up West Berlin in response to the Soviet blockade (for more read Berlin Divides).  Several years later, Wallace acknowledged he had been manipulated during the campaign by the communists who had infiltrated his organization.

Huzzah!

 We had the pleasure of hosting Curt Fields for a week of events in Scottsdale.  Curt has portrayed Ulysses S Grant (real name - Hiram Simpson Grant) for the past seventeen years.  At this point it is probably more accurate to say Curt is Grant as he moves seamlessly into any part of the great man's life.  The National Park Service has Curt portray General Grant at its annual commemoration of the surrender of Robert E Lee's Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House. 

On Tuesday night he appeared as General Grant at the end of the war at the Scottsdale Civil War Roundtable at which we had a turnout of 200, our largest since before Covid.  Wednesday night, Curt was at the Sun City/Surprise Roundtable for a dinner with sixty.  Thursday morning was an appearance at the Scottsdale's Museum of the Western Spirit speaking to 75 senior citizens as President Grant.  That evening Curt wrapped up his schedule with another appearance at the Museum, speaking as the former president to an audience of one hundred, this time with a focus on the Indian policy of his administration and reflecting upon its failure.

At each event Curt captivated his audience, taking us back in time.  We hope to have him back.  

Below is General Grant and Grant with his personal secretary, Colonel Horace Porter.

Methodologies

The ruins of Pattara lay near the Mediterranean coast in southwestern Turkey.  A once flourishing city in the Roman province of Lycia.  After a forest fire in 1993 cleared the area, the ruins of a road monument were discovered.  Erected in 46 AD and dedicated to the Emperor Claudius, the structure displays 53 city names and 65 routes and distances, including previously unknown cities which got the archaeologists quite excited.  Below is a corner block of the monument.

 

What interested me more was the inscription:

To Tiberius Claudius, son of Drusus, Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, with his fifth tribunician power, eleventh salutation as emperor, father of fatherland, and fourth consulate in prospect, the savior of their nation, (dedicated by) Lycians as Rome- and Caesar-loving loyal allies, for they were freed from mutiny and lawlessness and banditry by his divine foresight; after the conduct of state was (taken) from the incompetent majority and entrusted to councilors chosen from amongst noblest men, (and) by this means they (Lycians) were given the possession of the homeland by him (Emperor) through Quintus Veranius, legatus propraetore of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, they (Lycians) have recovered concord, the fair administration of justice and the ancestral laws. 

 

It's this section that caught my eye:

". . . for they were freed from mutiny and lawlessness and banditry by his divine foresight; after the conduct of state was (taken) from the incompetent majority and entrusted to councilors chosen from among noblest men . . ."

What occurred in Pattara is that with the permission of the Roman governor and the emperor, the democratic government (the "majority") was removed, replaced with an appointed aristocracy, and peace and security restored.

A constant thread in history is that people seek to live in security, peace, and with protection and opportunity for their family and property.  Though it is often mistaken for the end purpose or goal, democracy is simply one of the methodologies for achieving these goals.  If it fails to do so, people will choose other methods.

The New Rome Metro Stations

Two new stations have opened in Rome, at the Colosseum and Porto Metronia, and I can't wait to see them.  Both display archeological findings uncovered during construction.  This video by Darius Arya shows the stations and the displays.  Darius was wonderful videos on ancient Rome and Italy.  If you are interested in the topic you shouldn't miss them. 

The Jason Russell House

On April 19, 1775, 49 Americans were killed in the fighting that began on the Lexington Green early that morning and continued at North Bridge in Concord.  For the rest of the day Americans from neighboring towns attacked the British as they retreated towards Boston.  Of the 49 deaths, twenty five occurred in Menotomy (now known as Arlington), the town southeast of Lexington and, of those, twelve were killed inside or on the property of the Jason Russell House which still exists.  The owner, Jason Russell, age 59, was killed, along with a number of men from Danvers who had rushed 16 to 18 miles that day to reach Arlington.

I recently came across the videos of Katie Turner Getty who has put together a series on the Revolutionary War in the Boston area.  They are very informative plus she has an authentic Boston accent!  This is her video on the events at the Jason Russell House and there is a lot more to watch on her YouTube channel and on her website.  She knows her stuff.

For more than a decade I worked less than two miles from the Jason Russell House and often passed it, but never went inside.  Wish I had. 

I wrote about April 19, 1775 in The Road Back, as well as Tough Guy, about another stalwart fighter in Menotomy that day, 78-year old Samuel Whittemore, who, after killing three British soldiers, was shot in the face, bayoneted somewhere between 6 and 13 times, clubbed in the head with a musket, and left for dead.  He lived another 18 years.

Winston's Christmas Message

When he received news of Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill felt a sense of relief, writing that on the evening of December 7 he "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved", knowing that now that America was in the war, victory was inevitable.

He then proceeded to invite himself and his military chiefs to visit President Roosevelt in Washington DC.  Arriving on December 22, he found that FDR had provided him lodging in the White House.  Two days later, FDR asked Churchill to join him for his annual Christmas message broadcast on radio.

This was Winston's message to America: 

I spend this anniversary and festival far from my country, far from my family, yet I cannot truthfully say that I feel far from home.  Whether it be the ties of blood on my mother’s side, or the friendships I have developed here over many years of active life, or the commanding sentiment of comradeship in the common cause of great peoples who speak the same language, who kneel at the same altars and, to a very large extent, pursue the same ideals, I cannot feel myself a stranger here in the centre and at the summit of the United States.  I feel a sense of unity and fraternal association which, added to the kindliness of your welcome,  convinces me that I have a right to sit at your fireside and share your Christmas joys.

This is a strange Christmas Eve.  Almost the whole world is locked in deadly struggle, and, with the most terrible weapons which science can devise, the nations advance upon each other.  Ill would it be for us this Christmastide if we were not sure that no greed for the land or wealth of any other people, no vulgar ambition, no morbid lust for material gain at the expense of others, had led us to the field.  Here, in the midst of war, raging and roaring over all the lands and seas, creeping nearer to our hearts and homes, here, amid all the tumult, we have tonight the peace of the spirit in each cottage home and in every generous heart.  Therefore we may cast aside for this night at least the cares and dangers which beset us, and make for the children an evening of happiness in a world of storm.  Here, then, for one night only, each home throughout the English-speaking world should be a brightly-lighted island of happiness and peace.

Let the children have their night of fun and laughter.  Let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play.  Let us grown-ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern task and the formidable years that lie before us, resolved that, by our sacrifice and daring, these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world.

And so, in God’s mercy, a happy Christmas to you all.

The First Writing?

I've posted about Irving Finkel of the British Museum before.  Here he is expounding his theory that a discovery at Gobekli Tepe in Anatolia proves that writing was developed several thousand years before previously thought.  He also explains that significance that the ancient writing we do have from Mesopotamia provides a very narrow, and perhaps misleading, window onto that world.

Finkel is always entertaining and has a knack for explaining complex topics in an understandable way.  I have no idea if his theory is correct but you'll enjoy listening to him. 

The Bulge

The Battle of the Bulge, between December 16, 1944 and January 28, 1945 remains the most costly battle fought by the American military with over 80,000 casualties.  It was Hitler's last offensive, a desperate gamble to split the Allied front and shatter the British/American alliance with the Soviets, taking place in wooded, hilly terrain in Luxembourg and Belgium.

What most Americans know about the Bulge (including me until recently) focuses on the siege at Bastogne and the valiant actions of the 101st Airborne, most recently celebrated in the fine Band of Brothers series.  However, there was much more to the battle as I learned in 2023 by listening to We Have Ways of Making You Talk, the top notch WW2 podcast hosted by two British military historians, James Holland and Al Murray, when they hosted John McManus, an American historian, who'd written Alamo in the Ardennes, about the 28th Infantry Division and its battle against the Germans in the opening days of the offensive, prompting me to read and write about the book (see Alamo in the Ardennes). 

Last December, Holland and Murray, along with McManus, did a 9-part podcast on the battle, focused on its opening days and on American units outside Bastogne, the siege of which is not mentioned until the seventh episode.  They provide an illuminating discussion of the strategic and logistical folly of the German plan, while shining a spotlight on the actions of outgunned and outnumbered American units who managed to completely disrupt the German timetable in the first four days, making the failure of the offensive inevitable.  These small actions, involving companies and regiments at obscure crossroads in the woods are given the attention and recognition they deserve and it completely changed my perception of the battle.  The series is a fitting tribute to those brave American soldiers.

I highly recommend giving it a listen.  You can find it here and searching on The Battle of the Bulge or use the podcast app on your phone.  Make sure to have a map in hand to follow the action! 

And now planning a trip next fall to the area. 

End Of A City

Ephesus, located on the Aegean coast of Turkey, was one of the great cities of the Greek and Roman world, along with being significant in the history of early Christianity. Today it is a ruin.  This video explains why and how it happened.  It is particularly good explaining the geophysical reasons for its decline and how spoliation works when it came to disassembling much of the city's monumental architecture.  It's also a reminder of the fragility of civilization.  During Roman times the governmental structure, finances, and technology allowed for the dredging to keep the harbor of Ephesus open, but once the empire became poorer and technical knowledge declined, so did the ability of the city to thrive. 

Induction

I was recently privileged to be inducted as an associate member of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, joining the Picacho Peak Camp in the Department of the Southwest of the SUVCW.  The SUVCW, with over 6,000 members, is the successor organization to the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), the organization of Civil War veterans formed at the conclusion of that conflict.

The SUVCW is a Congressionally chartered non-profit corporation with three missions; Patriotic Education; Honoring Union Veterans and Veterans of all U.S. conflicts; and Preserving and Perpetuating the Grand Army of the Republic. 

To become a full member of the SUVCW, one must be a direct descendant of someone who served in the U.S. military during the Civil War, and such ancestry goes through a rigorous vetting process before a membership application is accepted. 

Because all of my ancestors arrived after the Civil War, I am eligible to become an associate member of the organization.  Several members of the SUVCW are members of our Roundtable and having spoken to two of the three camps in Arizona, I was very honored to be asked to join as an associate.

I know my parents and my grandparents would all be very pleased with my membership in the SUVCW, given how proud they were to be Americans, and how they honored those who established and sought to preserve the Union. The posts that I've done on my paternal and maternal grandfathers make that clear. 

Man Down

On September 13, 1968, Major General Keith Ware, commander of the 1st Infantry Division, was killed at Loc Ninh, Vietnam when his helicopter was shot down. Along with Ware, his three command staff and the four-man crew also died. Ware, 52, was the highest ranking American officer to die during the Vietnam War.

Ware was the first WW2 draftee to become an Army general and received the Medal of Honor in recognition of his actions in 1944. 

The 25-year old Ware was drafted in July 1941.  Sent to Officer Candidate School he initially served as a squad leader, seeing action in the 1942-3 Tunisian campaign, the July 1943 invasion of Sicily, the January 1944 assault at Anzio, and in the August 1944 landings in southern France.

His leadership qualities were quickly recognized and he was promoted several times, eventually commanding the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Division.  He received the Medal of Honor for his actions on December 26, 1944 at Sigolsheim, a small town, near Colmar in the Alsace region of France.  The most decorated American soldier in the war, Audie Murphy, served under Ware, receiving the Medal of Honor for his actions in January 1945.

Ware decided to stay in the military after the war, eventually rising to be assistant commander of the 2nd Armored Division and then becoming, in the mid-60s, the army's Chief of Information.  He volunteered for service in Vietnam, arriving in early 1968, just in time to face the Tet Offensive. 

According to an article in HistoryNet, at the Battle of Loc Ninh, though Ware knew the North Vietnamese Army "had anti-aircraft weapons on the ground but ordered his helicopter to fly at low altitude despite the risk to allow him to pinpoint enemy positions and more effectively coordinate the battle".

Medal of Honor citation:

Commanding the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry, attacking a strongly held enemy position on a hill near Sigolsheim, France, on 26 December 1944, found that 1 of his assault companies had been stopped and forced to dig in by a concentration of enemy artillery, mortar, and machinegun fire. The company had suffered casualties in attempting to take the hill. Realizing that his men must be inspired to new courage, Lt. Col. Ware went forward 150 yards beyond the most forward elements of his command, and for 2 hours reconnoitered the enemy positions, deliberately drawing fire upon himself which caused the enemy to disclose his dispositions. Returning to his company, he armed himself with an automatic rifle and boldly advanced upon the enemy, followed by 2 officers, 9 enlisted men, and a tank. Approaching an enemy machinegun, Lt. Col. Ware shot 2 German riflemen and fired tracers into the emplacement, indicating its position to his tank, which promptly knocked the gun out of action. Lt. Col. Ware turned his attention to a second machinegun, killing 2 of its supporting riflemen and forcing the others to surrender. The tank destroyed the gun. Having expended the ammunition for the automatic rifle, Lt. Col. Ware took up an M-1 rifle, killed a German rifleman, and fired upon a third machinegun 50 yards away. His tank silenced the gun. Upon his approach to a fourth machinegun, its supporting riflemen surrendered and his tank disposed of the gun. During this action Lt. Col. Ware's small assault group was fully engaged in attacking enemy positions that were not receiving his direct and personal attention. Five of his party of 11 were casualties and Lt. Col. Ware was wounded but refused medical attention until this important hill position was cleared of the enemy and securely occupied by his command.

 

All Possess Alike Liberty Of Conscience

Moses Seixas was a man with a plan in the summer of 1790. Forty six years old, the son of Portuguese Jews who emigrated to Rhode Island, Moses was warden of Newport’s Tauro Synagogue. President George Washington was making his first visit to Rhode Island, and Moses was determined to use the occasion to obtain express acknowledgement of the enfranchisement of American Jews under the new Constitution.

Washington’s visit also had a plan behind it. The prior year, he had undertaken a lengthy visit to the northern states as part of his strategy of drawing the new nation together and creating more popular support for the newly formed Federal government (he would tour the southern states in 1791). Rhode Island was not part of that tour, because it had yet to ratify the Constitution. The recalcitrant state, under pressure from the new federal government and neighboring states, along with the promise of a visit from Washington and Vice-President Thomas Jefferson, became the last of the original 13 states to ratify on May 29, 1790.

Sexias was to get what he wanted from his letter, but the President’s response expressed additional thoughts that are worth reflecting upon today.

On August 17, 1790 Moses sent a letter to the President, welcoming him to Newport on behalf of “the children of the stock of Abraham“, expressing their happiness in having the “invaluable rights of free Citizens“, and adding:

“we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People – a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance – but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship.”

The President responded the following day, echoing the warden’s phrasing but adds his own distinctive sentiments:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United states, which give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Much of the commentary on the letter by historians focuses on the passage that the Government “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance“, citing its importance for the concept of religious liberty, but its significance is deeper in its link to America’s unique founding principles. It is found in two sentences which do not have a counterpart in the Sexias letter. The first:

“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”

The passage expresses two concepts:

First, the American version of “tolerance” is not something bestowed by a dominant group, or individual, upon other groups, because that kind of tolerance is revocable upon the discretion of the dominant group or individual. Bestowed “tolerance” was the concept used in most other societies in that age (and still used in many parts of the world), but in Washington’s parlance “tolerance” is that which we owe to each other as equals. In other “tolerant” societies of the time, the Jewish Community would be considered supplicants; in Washington’s they are equals.  In other words, tolerance is a mutual obligation, because it is a sign of equality.  It is that sense of mutuality that is foundational to this nation.

Second, the source of what we owe to each other as equals are our “inherent natural rights“. These rights are not created by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It’s the other way around – these rights predate those documents and are a source for the text and ideas behind them. Specifically, the Constitution is not a document describing the rights of citizens – those inherent natural rights are so broad as to exceed any attempt to catalogue them in a document. Rather, the Constitution is a delineation of the specific powers delegated by the citizens, who hold those inherent rights, to the government in order for it to perform certain designated functions.

It was 25 year old James Madison who first pointed out how these concepts worked together in May 1776, during the debate on Virginia’s new state constitution. The draft constitution contained a Declaration of Rights, including a clause on religious liberty drafted by George Mason, providing that “all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion“. Madison objected to the use of the word “toleration” because it implied toleration was a gift from government rather than an inherent natural right. Mason agreed and the draft was amended to read “all men are entitled to the full and free exercise” of religion. This approach is now embodied in the First Amendment our Constitution, not coincidentally authored by Madison:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As for Washington, his views were not something newly formulated in 1790. In 1775, shortly after the Continental Congress named him commander of its military forces, he approved a plan to invade Canada. The civilian population of Canada, which the British had taken from France only twelve years prior, was almost exclusively Catholic, a religion detested by most American Protestants of that era. On September 14, 1775, Washington sent instructions to Benedict Arnold, commanding the American expedition about to start its epic campaign through the backwoods of Maine to Quebec. He directed Arnold to respect the religious beliefs of the Canadians. This, in and of itself, was not remarkable – doing so was wise strategy when the Americans were trying to get the Canadians to join them in the revolt against Britain. It was the way Washington expresses himself that is striking:

“While we are Contending for own own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others; ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men and to him only in this Case they are answerable”

The second significant sentence in Washington's response to the Jewish congregation:

For happily the Government of the United states, which give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

In this passage, the President emphasizes the duty of every American is to be a good citizen by supporting the new federal government. Thought the letter does not refer specifically to the Constitution, Washington had  expressed that this was the underlying purpose of his state visits, and he seized every opportunity to promote it. The Constitution, not a common religion, was to bind all citizens together.  However, if you read more on Washington and many of the other Founders, what underlay all of this was a common sense of morality.  That duty of the citizen was not absolute, rather Washington's expression of that duty presupposes the government would act in a moral way that deserved the support of its citizens.  But not only the government.  As John Adams would write:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Both letters are worthy of a full reading, expressing their sentiments using the wonderful phrasing characteristic of that time, a writing style that only a generation later had fallen out of favor. I particularly like Washington’s closing lines:

” . . . while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.”

Moses’ closing words aren’t too bad either:

 “And, when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.”

You can find the full text of the Seixas letter here, and Washington’s full response here.

As a final note, it is often overlooked that Moses Seixas wrote a second letter to President Washington on August 17, 1790. This letter was on behalf of King David’s Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, of which Seixas was Grand Master, and contained greetings from one member of a fraternal order to another member.

Day Of Glory

 

On this date in 1863 occurred the Union assault on Fort Wagner near Charleston, SC, an event depicted in the movie Glory.  If you saw the film you'll certainly remember the scene when the character portrayed by Denzel Washington grabs the Union colors from the color guard of the 54th Massachusetts to prevent them from falling to the ground and is then shot as he rallies his fellow soldiers.

Meet William Carney.  Born in 1840 into slavery in Virginia.  His family was eventually freed and moved to Massachusetts.  When the 54th Massachusetts was organized as the first official black unit (designated as United States Colored Troops) in the Union army, Carney enlisted.  Promoted to sergeant, on July 18 he found himself among the leaders of the assault on the Confederate held fort.  Reaching the ramparts he saw the unit's color guard mortally wounded and grabbed the colors to prevent them from falling to the ground.

Wounded several times, Carney kept the flag flying as he rallied his men until finally collapsing from loss of blood.  Unlike Denzel Washington's character, Carney recovered from his serious wounds, and received the Medal of Honor on May 23, 1900.  His citation reads:

When the color sergeant was shot down, this soldier grasped the flag, led the way to the parapet, and planted the colors thereon. When the troops fell back he brought off the flag, under a fierce fire in which he was twice severely wounded. 

Some accounts call him the first black recipient of the Medal, but other black soldiers received the Medal before Carney.  However, the events for which Carney received the Medal preceded all of the others.

Carney returned to Massachusetts after being discharged, married, and became a mail carrier.  He died in 1908.  

For an account of a battle a month prior to Fort Wanger in which black soldiers, who had been slaves just weeks previously, resisted an Confederate assault read Milliken's Bend.

 

Berenike

Last year Smithsonian Magazine carried an article on the recent excavations at the Ptolemaic port of Berenike on the Red Sea, the Egyptian end of the sea trade with India, which have revealed more about the depth of the connections between the two regions.

Though the port was founded by the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty (320-30 BC), the trade was greatly expanded after Rome annexed Egypt in 30 BC.  THC wrote about this trade and the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire in The Farthest Outpost.  It's not just the extent of the trade and the navigation skills and knowledge needed for it, but the logistics of building an isolated port on the Red Sea, separated from the rest of Egypt by a vast desert requiring the establishment and maintenance of a safe and secure land-based transport system.

From the Smithsonian article:

In antiquity, this site, known as Berenike, was described by chroniclers such as Strabo and Pliny the Elder as the Roman Empire’s maritime gateway to the East: a crucial entry point for mind-boggling riches brought across the sea from eastern Africa, southern Arabia, India and beyond. It is hard to imagine how such vast and complex trade could have been supported here, miles from any natural source of drinking water and many days’ arduous trek across mountainous desert from the Nile. Yet excavations are revealing that the stories are true.

Archaeologists led by Steven Sidebotham, of the University of Delaware, have revealed two harbors and scores of houses, shops and shrines. They have uncovered mounds of administrative detritus, including letters, receipts and customs passes, and imported treasures such as ivory, incense, textiles, gems and foodstuffs such as pots of Indian peppercorns, coconuts and rice. The finds are not only painting a uniquely detailed picture of life at a lesser-known but critical crossroads between East and West. They are also focusing scholarly attention on a vast ancient ocean trade that may have dwarfed the terrestrial Silk Road in economic importance and helped sustain the Roman Empire for centuries.

“All the ancient sources talk about this place,” he says. One Greco-Roman text, known as the Periplus Maris Erythraei, or “Voyage around the Erythraean Sea”—which Bhandare, of Oxford, described as “a kind of Lonely Planet guide for the first century A.D.”—lists the port as a hub for maritime trade routes stretching south as far as modern-day Tanzania, and east, past Arabia, to India and beyond. But Berenike’s location was lost for centuries, until the Italian explorer Giovanni Belzoni, after nearly perishing from thirst in the search, rediscovered it in 1818 and hired a Bedouin youth to dig in the Isis temple with a giant seashell. A handful of European and American travelers followed, but the entire area fell back out of reach for decades, designated off-limits by an Egyptian army keen to control the coastline close to Sudan.

And as archaeologists are busy analyzing the growing material finds, other scholars are reassessing literary sources to better evaluate the economic impacts of these intercontinental networks. They already knew that trade was robust. In the early first century A.D., before trade reached its peak, the Greek geographer Strabo described eastbound fleets of more than 100 merchant ships. Another key source, a contract known as the Muziris papyrus dating from the second century, is more specific, describing a loan between an Alexandria-based businessman and a merchant for a return voyage to Muziris. On the reverse side, the text details the cargo of a ship called the Hermapollon, which included 140 tons of pepper, 80 boxes of nard (an aromatic oil used for perfumes, medicines and rituals), and around four tons of ivory. Its value, after payment of the Roman Empire’s 25 percent import tax, was nearly seven million sesterces, which scholars have calculated was easily enough to buy a luxury estate in central Italy, or, if you prefer, to pay 40,000 stonecutters for a year. That translates into some vast fortunes.

The island of Socotra, mentioned in the article, is also the subject of a THC post. 

Berenike today: 

 

 

 

 

Scopes At 100

On this date a century ago, the trial of John Scopes began in Clarksville, Tennessee.  The Scopes Monkey Trial, as it became known, was a national sensation at the time, given fodder for many books, and was the source material for the play, and later film, Inherit The Wind.  How the case is now remembered in many ways erases the nuances and complexity of the issues and people involved.

I first wrote about the case in 2015, with an update in 2022.  At the time of the 2015 post there were still some efforts to insert creationism into public school curriculum.  Those efforts seems to have ceased, but evolutionary biology now appears under assault from different quarters, it seems an appropriate date on which to post again.

------------------------------------------------------

Rather than the often repeated adage that the victors write the history of an event, the story of anything is actually determined by the unswerving adoption of one version of it, and the telling of that version by a determined cadre of writers. In time, the version with the most persistent adherents becomes the “truth.” – David & Jeanne Heidler in Henry Clay: The Essential American (2010)

I still recall the family getting in the car for the drive to Hartford, Connecticut. It was the late 1950s, and my father was taking us to pick up a monkey. He had a small role as an Italian organ-grinder in a play put on by a local community theater group. The director wanted to use a prop monkey, but dad insisted on the real thing. We housed that monkey for the next week; I remember it as nasty and mean-tempered, but the audience loved it, as well as dad in his bit part (he always had a knack for showmanship). The play was Inherit The Wind, based on a 1925 event in Tennessee that became popularly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Seeing the play and, later, the movie, I accepted its narrative of the forces of enlightenment, reason, heroism, and tolerance (represented by Spencer Tracey in the movie, playing a character based on Clarence Darrow) against the forces of narrow-mindedness, mean-spiritedness, repression, and unthinking old-fashioned religion (represented by Frederic March playing a character based on William Jennings Bryan); a morality play of liberal versus conservative written during the McCarthy years. The play is still staged frequently by regional theaters (here’s a recent Wisconsin production), has gone through several Broadway revivals, most recently in 2007, with Christopher Plummer and Brian Dennehy. There was even a London production, in 2009, with Kevin Spacey. In most cases, it is widely accepted by audiences as historically accurate.

It was only years later, prompted by reading Edward Larson’s Summer For The Gods and doing related research that I appreciated how much more complex and interesting the real story was. American history is much more fascinating and instructive when you don’t try to neatly shoehorn it into boxes labeled “liberal,” “conservative,” “progressive,” and “reactionary” as Inherit The Wind did, aided by influential mid-20th century historians and literary critics such as Richard Hofstadter. Throughout our history, you’ll see prominent people with constellations of political views that are unrecognizable in today’s categories (see Sam Houston as an example).  I support the teaching of evolutionary theory but the full story behind the Scopes Trial is more interesting than the caricature of Inherit The Wind and, as I learned, the main character in this drama, William Jennings Bryan, would not neatly fit into any political classification in modern-day America.

The Background

Dayton in 1925

The early 20th century saw an explosion in the growth of public high schools. In 1890, there were fewer than 200,000 public high-school students nationwide; by 1920, more than two million. In Tennessee, fewer than 10,000 in 1910, but more than 50,000 by 1920. What were they to be taught?

At the same time, battles were heating up between Darwinists and some religious denominations over the teaching of evolution. State legislative fights over its inclusion in educational curriculum became common.

Legislative efforts barring the teaching of evolutionary theory were successful in a small number of states, including Tennessee, which passed its law in early 1925. It was part of a larger package of laws in a massive education reform bill that laid the foundation for state-supported public schools. It was signed into law by progressive Governor Peay. Violation of the ban on teaching evolution carried a $100 fine, but no jail. Bryan supported the bill, but unsuccessfully lobbied against having any fine attached to violating the evolution provision, though no one at the time expected any prosecutions under the statute.

John Scopes

Looking for a test case, the American Civil Liberties Union placed advertisements in Tennessee papers offering to defend anyone prosecuted under the Act. Leading citizens of the town of Dayton decided to take them up on it. While some were interested in challenging the law, many others just saw it as a good opportunity to create publicity and generate business for the town. Rather than showcasing a contentious, divided populace, as portrayed in the play, the actual trial took place in a festive atmosphere, according to reporters like H.L. Mencken. The key players in Dayton recruited John Scopes, a young, part-time schoolteacher, to be the defendant and agreed to pay any penalty imposed on him.

Dayton was a small town in East Tennessee, and part of the only Republican enclave in the state. Bryan won every southern state in each of his three presidential runs, but never carried Rhea County where Dayton was located. The town was also heavily Methodist in a state dominated by Baptists (the Baptist Convention, meeting in Memphis just before the trial, refused to add an anti-evolution plank to the denomination’s statement of faith).

Once the ACLU came into the case, Bryan — the country’s leading opponent of the teaching of evolution — agreed to become part of the prosecution’s team. And through some very complicated machinations, Clarence Darrow, the most famous criminal defense lawyer in America, joined the defense team. When this happened, the trial became the biggest story in the country, and was also followed heavily in Europe. A deluge of reporters descended on Dayton.

Why Evolution? Why Bryan?

 
In 1925, 65-year-old William Jennings Bryan was well known to every American, having run unsuccessfully three times as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate (1896, 1900, and 1908). A remarkable orator — his “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 convention secured him the nomination — he is considered to be the first populist to run for President. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of State, a post he resigned in 1915 when the pacifist Bryan became convinced Wilson was maneuvering the country into entering the First World War.

Bryan campaigned successfully in support of four constitutional amendments: direct election of senators, the Federal income tax, women’s suffrage, and Prohibition.  So why, in the 1920s, did he undertake leadership of the crusade against the teaching of Darwinism, and why did he think it was consistent with his other views?  From today's perspective, it doesn't seem to make sense.

Bryan believed in “popular sovereignty", always campaigning against big business and the banks and on behalf of the common people. When the Supreme Court overturned some of the early progressive labor laws, Bryan supported (unsuccessful) legislation to limit judicial review, and backed the Progressive use of popular referendums. He believed the people were entitled to what they wanted, and saw the evolution issue in the same way. According to Bryan:

It is no infringement on their freedom of conscience or freedom of speech to say that, while as individuals they are at liberty to think as they please and say what they like, they have no right to demand pay for teaching that which parents and the taxpayer do not want taught.

The deeper reason was Bryan’s concerns about the implications of Darwinism. Bryan was a committed Christian and pacifist. He rejected evolutionary theory as a matter of religious faith, but also believed Darwinism and its doctrine of “survival of the fittest” threatened the dignity and perhaps even the very existence of the weakest of the human flock. Bryan saw a direct connection between the excesses of capitalism and militarism — which he had denounced throughout his career — and Darwinism, which, as early as 1904, he had called “the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak.”

The concerns Bryan raised in 1904 were reinforced by recent events. The slaughter of WWI appalled Bryan. He saw German militarism as Darwinian selection in action; this was a common view at the time, as reflected in the words of Vernon Kellogg in his book Headquarters Nights: “Natural selection based on violent and fatal competitive struggle is the gospel of the German intellectuals.”

Bryan saw the modernist wing of the Progressives, led by Woodrow Wilson, willing to go down the same road. It is striking to see how much Darwinism was in the air of politics at the time. Wilson’s key 1912 campaign speech, “What is Progress?” espoused a Darwinian approach to American government:

Now, it came to me, as this interesting man talked, that the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory. You have only to read the papers of the The Federalist to see that fact written on every page. They speak of the “checks and balances” of the Constitution, and use to express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe, and particularly of the solar system — how by the attraction of gravitation the various parts are held in their orbits; and then they proceed to represent Congress, the Judiciary, and the President as a sort of imitation of the solar system. …

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when “development” “evolution,” is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine. [emphasis added]

The new science of eugenics greatly troubled Bryan. The high school textbook used by John Scopes was A Civic Biology by George William Hunter, which defined eugenics as “the science of improving the human race by better heredity.” Hunter wrote,

If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading … Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibility of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.

The prior edition of Hunter’s textbook had contained language specifically citing biological deficiencies of African races.

Eugenics had many scientist adherents in the United States and England who believed that the human race could be made better via selective breeding to create a better and more progressive world. One of those scientists, A.E. Wiggam, expressed the connection between the teaching of evolution and eugenics:

“until we can convince the common man of the fact of evolution … I fear we cannot convince him of the profound ethical and religious significance of the thing we call eugenics.”

Holmes

During the 1920s and 30s, the eugenics movement gained momentum. By 1935, more than 30 states had laws mandating sexual segregation and sterilization of persons regarded as eugenically unfit. The most notorious expression of support for eugenics came in 1927 from the leading Social Darwinist on the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who, in his opinion for the Court upholding Oklahoma’s sterilization law, exclaimed “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” The only dissenting vote was cast by Pierce Butler, the lone Catholic on the Court.

Within a few years, WWII and the revulsion against Nazi law and experimentation would put an end to the eugenics movement (though a revival of eugenics under another name seems to be arising based upon  modern advances in biology and genetics). The heyday of the eugenics movement and the rise of anti-evolutionary forces led to the Dayton trial in 1925. Bryan expressed his pithy view of the whole matter when commenting on the latest discovery of purported early human remains: “Men who would not cross the street to save a soul have traveled across the world in search of skeletons.”  In his closing argument at trial, Bryan explained that evolutionary theory:

". . . if taken seriously and made the basis of a philosophy of life, it would eliminate love and carry man back to a struggle of tooth and claw."

The Trial and its Aftermath
The ACLU and Darrow differed on trial strategy. The ACLU considered it a free speech case, but that was not Darrow’s interest.  As a militant atheist who did not believe in free will, he wanted to use the trial as an opportunity to directly assault Christianity and its beliefs about the creation of the universe and the human race. This discomfited many ACLU supporters, but — through a complicated series of maneuvers — Darrow seized control of the defense strategy and was cleverly able to lure Bryan to the stand, where he cross-examined him viciously on Biblical inconsistencies. (Darrow might have been a terrible person, but you’d want him defending you if you were on trial). This prompted a Congregational Church official who supported the legal challenge to send a note to the ACLU: 

“May I express the earnest opinion that not five percent of the ministers in this liberal denomination have any sympathy with Mr Darrow’s conduct of the case.”

Edwin Mims of Vanderbilt University, another supporter of the ACLU, wrote:

 “When Clarence Darrow is put forth as the champion of the forces of enlightenment to fight the battle for scientific knowledge, one feels almost persuaded to become a Fundamentalist.”

The jury quickly returned a verdict finding Scopes guilty. Bryan offered to pay the $100 fine, and the local school board offered to renew his contract for another year, but Scopes decided to go to graduate school, attending the University of Chicago and becoming a petroleum engineer.  The fine was ultimately rescinded and the Butler Act was repealed in 1967.

Five days after the end of the trial, William Jennings Bryan passed away while taking his afternoon nap.

 

In today's Wall St Journal, playwright David Mamet has a piece with observations on Inherit The Wind, noting that: 

The play and film were intended as ripostes to the House Un-American Activities Committee’s persecution of those accused of communist sympathies.

As such, the play had to tailor the story from 1925 into a narrative usable for a 1950s audience. It also reflects intellectual currents of the mid-century: 

"Inherit the Wind” paints the contest between reason and religion as zero-sum. Religion is a metaphysical concept. It can’t be observed as part of the physical world. But a little reflection must suggest that reason is equally metaphysical. Where does it exist save for in the human mind, which can be inaccurate, uninformed, depraved or plain wrong, and in which “the reasonable” changes through maturity and over time. 

The truth is both are necessary.  

The factors potentially mitigating the horrors wrought by our corruptible human feelings, and our equally defective reason are two. One is religion, which is to say our avowal of our imperfection. The other is the law, the attempt to codify religious intuition mechanically. There will always be an unresolved remainder in an arbitration between justice and fairness, reason and folly. This dissatisfaction is the human condition, the subject of the actual drama, and that which differentiates it from pageant, propaganda or mere entertainment. The hero of “Inherit the Wind” is Darrow but at the play’s end, he has learned nothing. And, so, neither have we.  

As Mamet points out, reason and faith operate in different ways.  I've read articles in which it is said that Saint Aquinas should be read to understand how faith and reason can be reconciled.  I don't think they need to be as each stand on their own.  They may overlap at times but they also exist parallel to each other.  One can understand a reasoned analysis and nonetheless have faith in a certain outcome.  I don't feel any need to reconcile those aspects.  They just exist. 

Zaamurets

 

On July 6, 1918 the Czechoslovak Legion declared Vladivostok, Russia's port on the Pacific Ocean, an Allied Protectorate.  What was a Czechoslovak Legion doing there in the first place?

It's tied up with the story of an armored train, Zaamurets, pictured above in Vladivostok with soldiers of the Czech Legion.  That story is part of the tale told in "A Remarkable Armored Train Fought Its Way Across Eurasia" by David Axe.

Zaamurets was built during 1916 in Odessa, as one of 75 armored platforms constructed by Russian railyards during the First World War.  According to Axe:

Zaamurets was the king of the mechanical beasts. It had two fully-traversible 57-millimeter Nordenfelt gun turrets—and eight machine guns for close-in protection.

Three to four inches of armor protected the vessel’s carriage and crew from incoming fire. Underneath the armor, two Italian Fiat 60 horsepower petrol motors could push the railcar to a top speed of 28 miles per hour.

In September 1917, Zaamurets returned to Odessa for a refit. Workers mounted square fire-control pillars to both turrets, and raised the turrets for better clearance when firing.

Before the second revolution of 1917, in which the Bolsheviks overthrew the first democratic government in Russian history, the Zaamurets served on the Galician Front supporting the Russian army against the forces of Austria-Hungary.

After the Bolsheviks seized power they also seized Zaamurets and used the train in support of efforts to gain control over Ukraine amidst Germany's efforts to assert control of the region and with a local independence movement also in the mix. 

At the start of WW1, the lands of the Czechs and Slovaks were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, but there were strong movements for more autonomy and even independence in both areas.  Within Russia, Czech and Slovak emigres were allowed to form their own military unit to support Russia and, after the February 1917 revolution, this unit was allowed to recruit from Czech and Slovak POWs held in Russian camps.  By the end of 1917 the Czech Legion was 50,000 strong.

As the new Soviet leaders and Germany neared completion of peace negotiations in February 1918, the Czech Legion was given permission by the Bolsheviks to leave and go to France where they could fight the Central Powers on the Western Front.  The route chosen for the evacuation was the 6,000 mile Trans-Siberian railroad, bringing the Legion to Vladivostok from where they could take ship to France.

To learn how it all went wrong, and how the Czech Legion became involved in the Russian Civil War, seizing most of Siberia and Russia's gold reserve, and how the Zaamurets ended up in Manchuria as a Japanese operated train, read Axe's article.