Mungo Park


Mungo Park (September 11, 1771 – 1806) was a Scottish physician and explorer of the African continent who explorations in the Niger area on behalf of the British African Association helped to open up vast territories for trade and colonization. His exploits became iconic among explorers of Africa but while few doubt his courage and his determination to tread where no European had trod, his reputation among Africans was as a “ruthless murderer.” His career was set in the context of the early days of the European Scramble for Africa when the African continent was largely unknown. As well as providing a potential market and opportunity for imperial expansion, Africa represented the major remaining challenge for extending knowledge of the globe, and was a “focus for the fanciful imaginations of Europe.” Park died on his last expedition in 1806. On the one hand, his legacy contributed to exploitation and colonial domination, on the other it also helped to integrate Africa within the wider economic and cultural context, “for better or for worse, into a general system of knowledge and a world system of economics.” Exploration of the Niger River area was especially important because the river would aid transportation and thus the European settlement of West Africa, renowned for its gold deposits and for commerce in gold and precious gems.

Early life

Mungo Park was born in Selkirkshire at Foulshiels on the Yarrow, near Selkirk on a tenant farm which his father rented from the Duke of Buccleuch. He was the seventh in a family of thirteen. Although tenant farmers, the Parks were relatively well-off – they were able to pay for Park to have a good education, and Park’s father died leaving property valued at £3,000.

Park was educated at home before attending Selkirk grammar school, then, at the age of 14, taking up an apprenticeship with a surgeon named Thomas Anderson in Selkirk. During his apprenticeship he made friends with Anderson’s son Alexander, and became acquainted with his daughter Allison, who would later become his wife. In October 1788, Park started at the University of Edinburgh, attending for four sessions studying medicine and botany. During his time at university, he spent a year in the natural history course of Prof John Walker. After completing his studies, he spent a summer in the Scottish highlands engaged in botanical fieldwork with his brother-in-law, James Dickson. Dickson was a botanist who had begun his career as a gardener and seed merchant in Covent Garden. In 1788 he and Sir Joseph Banks – famous for role as James Cook’s scientific adviser on his round the world voyage of 1768-71 had founded the London Linnean Society. In January 1793, Park completed his medical education by passing an oral examination at the College of Surgeons in London. Through a recommendation by Banks, whose journeys in the cause of science he admired, he obtained the post of assistant surgeon on board the East Indiaman Worcester ship. The Worcester sailed to Benkulen in Sumatra in February 1793.

In addition to a genuine interest in exploration, McLynn suggests that such an enterprise provided someone of Park’s modest social status with an opportunity to ‘rise rapidly in the world’; ‘To an extent he also bore out a … tenet relating to … exploration that filling in the great white space on the map enabled men of humble origin to rise rapidly in the world’. On the one hand, Park ‘was no proletarian’ but on the other ‘as the seventh child of twelve children in a middle-class family of reduced circumstances, he was aware that he had to work hard for worldly success.’ On his return in 1793, Park gave a lecture describing eight new Sumatran fishes to the Linnaean Society. He also presented various rare Sumatran plants to Banks.

First journey

The African Association

In 1794 Park offered his services to the African Association, then looking out for a successor to Major Daniel Houghton, who had been sent out in 1790 to discover the course of the Niger and had died in the Sahara. Banks was a founder member of the Association, which had been formed in 1788 to ‘increase knowledge’ of Africa and to ‘grow rich, or rather richer’. McLynn thinks is significant that the society was formed in the same year as the Botany Bay landings which seemed to leave Africa as ‘nature’s last great redoubt’ in an age when ‘more was know ther Arctic North than about places just 100 miles inland from the slave forts of the Gold Coast’  Again supported by Sir Joseph Banks, Park was selected. With an annual salary of 271 pounds a year, he was commissioned to travel as far up the Niger River as he could, then to exit via the Gambia. Writing of his motive, he said, ‘I had a passionate desire to examine into the productions of a country so little known, and to become experimentally acquainted with the modes of life and character of the natives.’

On June 21, 1795 he reached the Gambia River and ascended the river 200 miles to a British trading station named Pisania. On December 2, accompanied by two local guides, he started for the unknown interior. He chose the route crossing the upper Senegal basin and through the semi-desert region of Kaarta. The journey was full of difficulties, and at Ludamar he was imprisoned by the local chief for four months. He escaped, alone and with nothing save his horse and a pocket compass, on July 1, 1796, and on the 21st of the same month reached the long-sought Niger at Segu, being the first European to do so. Famously, when he ‘first clapped eyes on the Niger’ he remarked to the King of the Bambara that he had ‘come a long distance through many dangers just to behold it’ which provoked the response whether his own country had no rivers’ that he had to endure such hardship when most rivers looked much the same.  He followed the river downstream 80 miles to Silla, where he was obliged to turn back, lacking the resources to go further. On his return journey, begun on July 30, he took a route more to the south than that originally followed, keeping close to the Niger as far as Bamako, thus tracing its course for some 300 miles. At Kamalia he fell ill, and owed his life to the kindness of a man in whose house he lived for seven months. Eventually he reached Pisania again on June 10, 1797, returning to Scotland by way of America on December 22. He had been thought dead, and his return home with the news of the discovery of the Niger evoked great public enthusiasm. An account of his journey was drawn up for the African Association by Bryan Edwards, and his own detailed narrative appeared in 1799 as Travels in the Interior of Africa. It was extremely popular, has remained in print ever since and is also available online in Project Gutenberg. He thanked ‘the Great ruler of all things’ for his success in reaching the Niger.

Park and His Attitude towards Africans

Park appeared to get on ‘well with the Africans he met’ in the initial phase of his journey. However, he disliked the Arab Tuareg, considering them barbarian lacking any ‘spark of humanity’. He appears to have exhibited considerable hostility towards them, firing at anyone he thought looked menacing. Heinrich Barth, who later reached Timbuktu, ‘was regale with tales of “that Christian traveler, Mungo Park, who had arrived on the Niger some 50 years ago appearing apparently out of nowhere, to the consternation of the natives”’ whose ‘policy it was to fire at any one who approached him with a threatening attitude’, killing some.

Between the journeys

Settling at Foulshiels, in August 1799 Park married Allison, daughter of his old master, Thomas Anderson. Banks wanted to include him in an expedition exploring Australia, but his wife was not keen on this and Park turned the offer down, which alienated him from his former patron. Park moved to Peebles, where he practiced as a doctor, having also fully qualified as a surgeon in 1799. In 1893, however, he was asked by the African Association to ‘chart the full course of the Niger’ . Although Allison remained opposed, this time the salary was more attractive (five thousand for expenses and a thousand a year) and he began to prepare himself by studying Arabic. His teacher was Sidi Ambak Bubi, a native of Mogador, whose behaviour both amused and alarmed the people of Peebles. In May 1804 Park returned to Foulshiels, where he made the acquaintance of Sir Walter Scott, then living near by at Ashesteil, with whom he soon became friendly. In September he was summoned to London to leave on the new expedition; he left Scott with the hopeful proverb on his lips, “Freits (omens) follow those that look to them.” Park had at that time adopted the theory that the Niger and the Congo were one, and in a memorandum drawn up before he left Britain he wrote: “My hopes of returning by the Congo are not altogether fanciful.”

Second journey

He sailed from Portsmouth for The Gambia on January 31, 1805, having been given a captain’s commission as head of the government expedition. Alexander Anderson, his brother-in-law, was second in command, and on him was bestowed a lieutenancy. George Scott, a fellow Borderer, was draughtsman, and the party included four or five artificers. At Goree (then in British occupation) Park was joined by Lieutenant Martyn, R.A., 35 privates and two seamen. The expedition did not reach the Niger until the middle of August, when only eleven Europeans were left alive; the rest had succumbed to fever or dysentery. From Bamako the journey to Segu was made by canoe. Having received permission from the local ruler to continue, at Sansandig, a little below Segu, Park made ready for his journey down the still unknown part of the river. Park, helped by one soldier, the only one left capable of work, converted two canoes into one tolerably good boat, 40 ft. long and 6 ft. broad. This he christened H.M. schooner “Joliba” (the native name for the Niger), and in it, with the surviving members of his party, he set sail down stream on November 19. At Sansandig on October 28, Anderson died, and in him Park lost the only member of the party – except Scott, already dead – “who had been of real use.” Those who embarked in the “Joliba” were Park, Martyn, three European soldiers (one mad), a guide and three slaves. Before his departure Park gave to Isaaco, a Mandingo guide who had been with him thus far, letters to take back to The Gambia for transmission to Britain. The spirit with which Park began the final stage of his enterprise is well illustrated by his letter to the head of the Colonial Office in which he said that he was prepared to die in pursuit of his mission to trace the source of the Niger; “I shall,” he wrote, “set sail for the east with the fixed resolution to discover the termination of the Niger or perish in the attempt. Though all the Europeans who are with me should die, and though I were myself half dead, I would still persevere, and if I could not succeed in the object of my journey, I would at least die on the Niger.”

Death

To his wife he wrote stating his intention not to stop nor land anywhere until he reached the coast, where he expected to arrive about the end of January 1806. These were the last communications received from Park, and nothing more was heard of the party until reports of disaster reached the settlements on The Gambia. At length the British government engaged Isaaco to go to the Niger to ascertain the fate of the explorer. At Sansandig Isaaco found the guide who had gone down stream with Park, and the substantial accuracy of the story he told was later confirmed by the investigations of Hugh Clapperton and Richard Lander. This guide (Amadi) stated that Park’s canoe descended the river to Yauri, where he (the guide) landed. In this long journey of about 1,000 miles Park, who had plenty of provisions, stuck to his resolution of keeping aloof from the natives. Below Jenné, came Timbuktu, and at various other places the natives came out in canoes and attacked his boat. These attacks were all repulsed, Park and his party having plenty of firearms and ammunition and the natives having none. The boat also escaped the many perils attendant on the navigation of an unknown stream strewn with many rapids – Park had built the “Joliba” so that it drew only a foot of water. But at the Bussa rapids, not far below Yauri, the boat struck on a rock and remained fast. On the bank were gathered hostile natives, who attacked the party with bow and arrow and throwing spears. Their position being untenable, Park, Martyn, and the two soldiers who still survived, sprang into the river and were drowned. The sole survivor was one of the slaves, from whom was obtained the story of the final scene. Isaaco, and later Lander, obtained some of Park’s effects, but his journal was never recovered. In 1827 his second son, Thomas, landed on the Guinea coast, intending to make his way to Bussa, where he thought his father might be detained a prisoner, but after penetrating some little distance inland he died of fever.

One of Park’s direct descendants is the Canadian author (of Scottish lineage), Professor Andrew Price-Smith, who has published extensively on health and development issues in Southern Africa.

Works

Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa: Performed in the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797. This book, first published in London in 1700, made the “debonair and handsome” Park “an overnight celebrity” … in London’s scientific and literary circles.

Legacy

Park’s widow Allison died in 1840. Mungo Park’s exploits fueled the European appetite for the exploration of Africa, becoming almost mythical. He inspired others of a similar modest social status to try their luck in Africa. He epitomized a new type of here, Kryza writes of a new type of European hero, the lone, brave African explorer who penetrates the heart of the continent with the sole purpose of finding out what is there to be found, whose tales of their own exploits soon “captured the imagination, fed the fantasies and filled the literature of Europe”  Similarity can be seen in the later career of fellow Scot Alexander Gordon Laing. His reputation among African, though, which may well have contributed to Laing’s murder, was very different. Laing ruefully commented that Park’s policy of killing defenseless men had been somewhat unthinking in terms its consequences for those who followed him, “how unjustifiable was such conduct.”  Ironically, Laing considered himself a successor to Park. Park had come among them uninvited and acted with such arrogance that his own name came to represent any European, and was used as a curse, ‘”Mungo Park” became a generic insult hurled at European travelers; the lost explorer was passing into myth’ and it is said that the “Emir of Yauri uses Park’s silver-topped cane as his staff of office.”  However, commenting on the odd concept of the European ‘discovery’ of Africa, since as Hastings Banda declared, “there was nothing to discover, we were here all the time,” McLynn suggests that while the notion is patronizing, what the process did was to build a bridge between Europe and Africa. “For better or worse,” he writes, this incorporated Africa into a general system of knowledge and a world system of economics.” Mungo was a precursor of ‘imperialism, which in turn generated the modern African nation-states’. At the ‘beginning of the nineteenth century, the interior of Africa was almost entirely unknown to European’ and Park did make a significant contribution to making part of the unknown known.

Mungo Park Medal

The Royal Scottish Geographical Society award the Mungo Park Medal annually in Park’s honour.

 

V-3


The V-3 (Vergeltungswaffe 3) was a German World War II supergun working on the multi-charge principle whereby secondary propellant charges are fired to add velocity to a projectile.

The weapon was planned to be used to bombard London from two large bunkers in the Pas-de-Calais region of northern France, but they were rendered unusable by Allied bombing raids before completion. Two similar guns were used to bombard Luxembourg from December 1944 to February 1945.

The idea was later taken up in the U.S. and Canada by developments such as Project HARP in the 1960s.

The V-3 was also known as the Hochdruckpumpe (“High Pressure Pump”, HDP for short), which was a code name intended to hide the real purpose of the project. It was also known as Fleissiges Lieschen (“Busy Lizzie”).

Description

The gun used multiple propellant charges placed along the barrel’s length and timed to fire as soon as the projectile passed them, to provide an additional boost. Because of their greater suitability and ease of use, solid-fuel rocket boosters were used instead of explosive charges. These were arranged in symmetrical pairs along the length of the barrel, angled to project their thrust against the base of the projectile as it passed. This layout spawned the German codename Tausendfüßler (“millipede”). Unlike conventional rifled weapons of the day, the smoothbore gun fired a fin-stabilized shell, dependent upon aerodynamic rather than gyroscopic forces to prevent tumbling, which resulted in a lower drag coefficient.

Development

In 1943, German engineer August Cönders, of Röchling Stahlwerk AG, proposed an electrically initiated multiple-charge weapon. Thanks to the success of Cönders’s other projects, including the “Röchling shell”, major figures in the Nazi establishment took notice of him, most importantly Albert Speer, the Minister of Munitions.

Cönders was ordered to produce a prototype of the Hochdruckpumpe (“high-pressure-pump”) and duly constructed one in 20 mm calibre, which proved satisfactory. At this point, Adolf Hitler, who had been following the project with interest, took a hand and decided that a battery of 50 full-size guns would be sited in northern France for bombarding London.

Cönders had constructed a full-calibre gun at the Hillersleben proving ground near Magdeburg, but by the end of 1943 he had encountered severe problems both in putting the gun’s basic principle into operation and in producing a feasible design for the shells it was to fire. Even when everything worked, the muzzle velocity was just over 1,000 metres per second (3,300 ft/s), which was nowhere near what had been promised. Nonetheless, plans were proposed to build a single full-size gun with a 150-metre (490 ft) barrel at Misdroy on the Baltic island of Wolin, near Peenemünde, while construction at the Mimoyecques site in France (which had already been attacked by the USAAF and the RAF) went ahead. By March 1944, with no good news from Misdroy, the Heereswaffenamt (Weapon Procurement Office) took control of the project, and Cönders became one of the engineers working on the three chief problems: projectile design, obturation, and ignition of the secondary charges.

Six different companies, including Krupp and Skoda, produced satisfactory designs for projectiles. Obturation problems were solved by placing a sealing piston between the projectile and the initial propellant charge, which in turn prevented the flash from the charge from getting ahead of the projectile and solved the problem of controlling the initiation of the secondary charges. By the end of May 1944, there were four designs for the 150-mm finned projectile, one manufactured by Fasterstoff (designed by Füstenberg), and three others by Röchling (Cönders), Bochumer (Verein-Haack), and Witkowitz (Athem).

Trials were held at Misdroy from May 20–24, 1944 with ranges of up to 88 km (55 mi) being attained. On July 4, 1944, the Misdroy gun was test-fired with 8 rounds (one of the 1.8 m (5.9 ft) long shells travelled 93 km (58 mi)). The gun burst during the testing, putting an end to the tests.

Mimoyecques site

Following Hitler’s decision that HDP guns be sited in northern France to bombard London, the task of finding a suitable site for the HDP batteries was given to Major Bock of Festung Pioneer-Stab 27, the fortification regiment of LVII Corps, Fifteenth Army, at the time based in the Dieppe area. A study in early 1943 concluded that a hill with a rock core would be most suitable, as the gun tubes could be placed in drifts (inclined tunnels) and support equipment and supplies located in adjacent tunnels. The guns would not be movable, and would be permanently aimed at London.

A suitable site was selected at a limestone hill about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) north of the Hidrequent quarries, near Mimoyecques in the Pas-de-Calais region of northern France behind Cap Gris Nez, very close to the French end of the present day Channel tunnel, where V-1 and V-2 launch sites were already under construction. The site was 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from the sea and 165 kilometres (103 mi) from London. It was codenamed Wiese (meadow) and Bauvorhaben 711 (Construction Project 711), and Organisation Todt began construction in September 1943 with the building of railway lines to support the work, and began to excavate the gun shafts in October. The initial layout comprised two parallel facilities approximately 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) apart, each with five drifts which were to hold a stacked cluster of five HDP gun tubes, for a total of 50 guns. Both facilities were served by an underground railway tunnel and underground ammunition storage galleries.

The eastern complex consisted of five drifts angled at 50 degrees reaching 105 metres (344 ft) below the hilltop. The five drifts exited the hilltop through a concrete slab 30 metres (98 ft) wide and 5.5 metres (18 ft) thick. Large steel plates protected the five openings and each drift had a special armoured door. Extensive tunnels and elevator shafts supported the guns, and had the site become operational about 1,000 troops from Artillerie Abteilung 705 and supporting units would have been deployed at Mimoyecques. Artillerie Abteilung 705 had been organised in January 1944 under Oberstleutnant Georg Borttscheller to operate the Wiese gun complex.

The plans were to have the first battery of five gun tubes ready for March 1944, and the full complex of 25 gun tubes by October 1, 1944. Following a failure at the Misdroy proving ground in April 1944 after only 25 rounds had been fired, the project was further cut back, from five drifts to three even though work had begun on some of the other drifts. The site was finally put out of commission on July 6, 1944, when bombers of RAF Bomber Command’s 617 Squadron (the famous “Dambusters”) attacked using 5,400-kilogram (12,000 lb) “Tallboy” deep-penetration bombs.

Luxembourg bombardment

The project eventually came under the control of the SS and SS General Hans Kammler ordered the project to be ready for action in late 1944. Assisted by Walter Dornberger, a battery of two shorter guns approximately 50 metres (160 ft) long with 12 sidechambers were constructed and placed in the hands of the army artillery unit Artillerie Abteilung 705 under the command of Hauptmann (Captain) Patzig. These were sited in a wooded ravine of the Ruwer River at Lampaden about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) southeast of Trier in Germany.

The two guns were aimed west, resting on 13 steel support structures on solid wooden bases on a 34 degree slope. The city of Luxembourg (which had been liberated in September 1944) was at a range of about 43 kilometres (27 mi) and was designated Target No. 305. Between the two gun tubes concrete blockhouses were constructed as well as ten smaller bunkers to hold projectiles and propellant charges.

The assembly and mounting of the Lampaden guns coincided with the final preparations for the Battle of the Bulge. However, the supply of ammunition became problematic due to the state of the German railway network. As time had become critical, it was decided to use a 150-millimetre (5.9 in) finned projectile with a discarding sabot, weighing 95 kilograms (210 lb) and carrying a 7–9 kg (15–20 lb) explosive charge. The propellant comprised a 5 kg (11 lb) main charge and 24 subsidiary charges for a total of 73 kg (160 lb).

By the time the Ardennes offensive began on December 16, 1944, Kammler received orders from OB West (German Army Command in the West) to begin firing at the end of the month and on December 30, 1944 the first gun tube was ready for action. Two warm up rounds were initially fired, followed by five high-explosive shells which were fired in sequence, attended by Kammler. The muzzle velocity was approximately 935 metres per second (3,070 ft/s).

The second gun tube was brought into operation on January 11, 1945 and in total some 183 rounds were fired until February 22, 1945, with 44 confirmed hits in the urban area. The guns were not particularly effective; from the 142 rounds that landed in Luxembourg, total casualties were 10 dead and 35 wounded. One gun was dismantled on February 15, and firing ceased on February 22, when US Army units had advanced to within 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) of the Lampaden site.

Final fate

A second battery of guns began to be deployed in January 1945 at Buhl, aimed at Belfort in support of the Operation Nordwind offensive. One gun was erected before the failure of the Nordwind offensive put the site at risk, and the equipment was removed before firing could begin.

There were other proposals to deploy batteries to bombard London, Paris, Antwerp and other cities but these were not implemented due to the poor state of the German railway network and a lack of ammunition. All four HDP guns were eventually abandoned at the Röchling works in Wetzlar and Artillerie Abteilung 705 was re-equipped with conventional artillery. The disassembled gun tubes, spare parts, and remaining ammunition were later captured by the US Army and shipped to the United States where they were tested and evaluated at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, where they were finally scrapped in 1948.

V-3 Museum

The Mimoyecques museum allows visitors to view the galleries (in various stages of construction and bombing damage), remains of the guns, a small scale V-3 replica, and examples of machinery, rail systems and tools employed. The site also contains memorials to the slave laborers who were employed by the Nazis to construct it and to the airmen killed in action during the destruction of the base.

The Miedzyzdroje site also has a museum.

 

War of 1812


The War of 1812 was fought between the United States of America and Great Britain and its colonies, Upper and lower Canada and Nova Scotia, from 1812 to 1815 on land and sea. The Americans declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812, for a combination of reasons: Outrage at the impressment (seizure) of thousands of American sailors, frustration at British restraints on neutral trade while Britain warred with France, and anger at British support for native attacks along the frontier which conflicted with American expansion and settlement into the Old Northwest.

The war started unsuccessfully for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed. The American strategy depended on militias, but they either resisted service or were incompetently led. The military and civilian high command was a serious American weakness that was not improved until 1814. New England opposed the war and refused to provide troops or financing. Financial and logistics problems plagued the American war effort. Britain had excellent finance and logistics but the war with France had a higher priority, so in 1812–1813 they had a defensive strategy. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 they were able to send veteran armies to invade the United States, but by then the Americans had learned how to mobilize and fight as well.

Overview

At sea the powerful Royal Navy instituted a blockade of the majority of the American coastline (allowing some exports from New England, which was trading with Britain and Canada in defiance of American laws). The blockade devastated American agricultural exports, but helped stimulate local factories that replaced goods previously imported. The American strategy of using small gunboats to defend ports was a fiasco, as the British raided the coast at will. The most famous episode was a series of British raids on the shores of Chesapeake Bay, which included an attack on Washington, D.C. that resulted in the burning of the White House, other public buildings, and the Library of Congress. The American strategy of sending out several hundred privateers to attack British merchant ships was more successful, and hurt British commercial interests, especially in the West Indies. American heavy frigates also prevailed in several one-on-one naval battles against British ships. The decisive use of naval power came on the Great Lakes and was a contest of building ships. The Americans won control of Lake Erie and thus neutralized western Ontario, cutting off Native Americans from supplies. The British controlled Lake Ontario. The Americans controlled Lake Champlain, and a naval victory there forced a large British invasion army to turn back.

The Americans destroyed the power of the native people of the Northwest and Southeast, thus securing a major war goal. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, British trade restrictions and impressment ended, so those causes of the war ceased. With stalemate on the battlefields, both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact. Before Congress ratified the treaty, the Americans decisively defeated a veteran British army at the Battle of New Orleans.

The war had the effects of both uniting Canadians and uniting Americans far more closely than either population had been prior to the war. Canadians remember the war as a victory in avoiding conquest by the Americans, while the Americans celebrated victory in a “second war for independence” personified in the hero of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson.

Course of the war

Although the outbreak of the war had been proceeded by years of angry diplomatic dispute, neither side was ready for war when it came.

Britain was still hard pressed by the Napoleonic Wars; most of the British Army was engaged in the Peninsular War (in Spain), and the Royal Navy was compelled to blockade most of the coast of Europe. The total number of British regular troops present in Canada in July 1812 was officially stated to be 6,034, supported by Canadian militia. Throughout the war, the British Secretary of State for War and the Colonies was the Earl of Bathurst. For the first two years of the war, he could spare few troops to reinforce North America and urged the commander-in-chief in North America—Lieutenant General Sir George Prevost—to maintain a defensive strategy, which accorded with Prevost’s own inclinations. But when reinforcements became available late in 1814, Prevost’s own cautious invasion of the United States was repulsed.

Despite years of warlike talk, the United States was not ready for a fight. President Madison assumed that the state militia would easily seize Canada and the rest would be negotiations. In 1812, the regular army consisted of fewer than 12,000 men. Congress authorized the expansion of the army to 35,000 men, but the service was voluntary and unpopular and there were initially very few trained and experienced officers. The militia—called in to aid the regulars—objected to serving outside their home states, were not amenable to discipline, and as a rule, performed poorly in the presence of the enemy when outside of their home state. The United States had great difficulty financing its war, especially since it had disbanded its national bank and private bankers in the Northeast were opposed to the war.

The early disasters brought about largely by American unreadiness drove United States Secretary of War William Eustis from office. His successor, John Armstrong, Jr., attempted a coordinated strategy late in 1813 aimed at the capture of Montreal but was thwarted by logistics, uncooperative and quarrelsome commanders, and ill-trained troops. By 1814 the United States Army’s morale and leadership had greatly improved, but the embarrassing Burning of Washington led to Armstrong’s dismissal from office in turn. The war ended before the new Secretary of War James Monroe could develop any new strategy.

American prosecution of the war also suffered from its unpopularity, especially in New England, where anti-war spokesmen were vocal. The failure of New England to provide militia units was a serious blow. Threats of secession by New England were loud; Britain immediately exploited these divisions, blockading only southern ports for much of the war and encouraging smuggling.

The war was conducted in four theaters of operations:

  1. The Atlantic Ocean
  2. The Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier
  3. The coast of the United States
  4. The Southern States

Atlantic theatre

Britain had long been the world’s pre-eminent naval power, confirmed by its victory over the French and the Spanish at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. In 1812, the Royal Navy had 97 vessels in American waters. Of these, eleven were large ships of the line and 34 were smaller frigates. By contrast, the United States Navy, which was not yet twenty years old, had only twenty-two commissioned vessels, the largest of which were frigates, though a number of the American ships were 44-gun frigates and very heavily built compared to the usual British 38-gun frigates.

The strategy of the British was to protect their own merchant shipping to and from Halifax and Canada, and to enforce a blockade of major American ports to restrict American trade. Because of their numerical inferiority, the Americans aimed to cause disruption through hit-and-run tactics, such as the capture of prizes and engaging Royal Navy vessels under only favorable circumstances.

The Americans experienced much early success. On June 21, 1812, three days after the formal declaration of war, two small squadrons left New York. The ships included the frigate USS President and the sloop USS Hornet under Commodore John Rodgers (who had general command), and the frigates USS United States and USS Congress, with the brig USS Argus under Captain Stephen Decatur. Two days later, President and Hornet gave chase to the British frigate HMS Belvidera. Belvidera eventually escaped to Halifax after discarding all unnecessary cargo overboard. President and Hornet returned to Boston, Massachusetts by August 31.

Meanwhile, USS Constitution, commanded by Captain Isaac Hull, sailed from Chesapeake Bay on July 12. On July 17, a British squadron gave chase. Constitution evaded her pursuers after two days. After briefly calling at Boston to replenish water, on August 19, Constitution engaged the British frigate HMS Guerriere. After a thirty five-minute battle, Guerriere had been dismasted and captured and was later burned. Hull returned to Boston with news of this significant victory.

On October 25, the USS United States, commanded by Captain Decatur, captured the British frigate HMS Macedonian, which he then carried back to port. At the close of the month, Constitution sailed south under the command of Captain William Bainbridge. On December 29, off Bahia, Brazil, she met the British frigate HMS Java. After a battle lasting three hours, Java struck her colors and was burned after being judged unsalvageable.

In January 1813, the American frigate USS Essex, under the command of Captain David Porter, sailed into the Pacific in an attempt to harass British shipping. Many British whaling ships carried letters of marque allowing them to prey on American whalers, nearly destroying the industry. Essex challenged this practice. She inflicted an estimated $8,000,000 damage on British interests before she was captured off Valparaiso, Chile, by the British frigate HMS Phoebe and the sloop HMS Cherub on March 28, 1814.

In all of these actions—except the one in which Essex was taken—the Americans had the advantage of greater size and heavier guns. However, the United States Navy’s sloops and brigs also won several decisive victories over Royal Navy vessels of approximately equal strength. In most of these battles, the British gunnery and ship-handling was inferior to the Americans’. While the American ships had experienced and well-drilled volunteer crews, the cream of the over-stretched Royal Navy was serving elsewhere, and constant sea duties of those serving in North America interfered with their training and exercises.

The capture of three British frigates was a blow to the British and stimulated them to greater exertions. More vessels were deployed on the American seaboard and the blockade tightened. On June 1, 1813, off Boston Harbor, the frigate USS Chesapeake, commanded by Captain James Lawrence, was captured by the British frigate HMS Shannon under Captain Sir Philip Broke. Lawrence was mortally wounded and famously cried, “Don’t give up the ship!”

Blockade

The blockade of American ports had tightened to the extent that most American merchant ships were confined to port (some were based in Europe or Asia and continued operations). In addition to the blockade, the British Admiralty had instituted a new policy in which Royal Navy ships could engage their American counterparts only if in squadron strength or by ship-of-the-line. An example of this was the engagement between USS President and a heavy British squadron in January 1815. The British engaged with four ships versus one: HMS Endymion, HMS Majestic, HMS Pomone, and HMS Tenedos. After a desperate battle, the President was captured. Because of the utilization of heavy squadrons and the blockade, the Royal Navy was able to transport British Army troops to American shores, paving the way for their attack on Washington D.C., which became known as the burning of Washington in 1814.

The operations of American privateers, some of which belonged to the United States Navy but most of which were private ventures, were extensive. They continued until the close of the war and were only partially affected by the strict enforcement of convoy by the Royal Navy. An example of the audacity of the American cruisers was the depredations in British home waters carried out by the American sloop USS Argus, which was eventually captured off St David’s Head in Wales by the more heavily armed British brig HMS Pelican, on August 14, 1813.

Halifax was the Royal Navy base that supervised the blockade and it grew rich during the war. British privateers based there seized many French and American ships, selling their prizes in Halifax.

The war was likely the last time the British allowed privateering since the practice was coming to be seen as politically inexpedient and of diminishing value in maintaining its naval supremacy. By the middle of the century, the legality of the practice under international law was being rapidly dismantled (Britain would not authorize privateers during the Crimean War, and it signed the Declaration of Paris in April, 1856). Before the war, the United States had successfully pressed claims for damages in British courts against British citizens who had been involved in privateering against American vessels.

Great Lakes and Canadian theatre

Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812

American leaders had assumed that Canada could be easily overrun. Former President Jefferson optimistically referred to the conquest of Canada as “a matter of marching.” However, in the opening stages of the conflict, British military experience (coupled with Canadian militia) prevailed over inexperienced American commanders.

Geography dictated that operations would take place in the west principally around Lake Erie, near the Niagara River between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and near the Saint Lawrence River area and Lake Champlain. This was the focus of the three pronged attacks by the Americans in 1812.

Although cutting the St. Lawrence River through the capture of Montreal and Quebec would make Britain’s hold in North America unsustainable, the United States began operations first in the Western frontier because of the popularity there of a war with the British.

The British scored an important early success when their detachment at St. Joseph Island on Lake Huron learned of the declaration of war before the nearby American garrison at the important trading post at Mackinac Island in Michigan. A scratch force landed on the island on July 17, 1812, and mounted a gun overlooking Fort Mackinac. The Americans, taken by surprise, surrendered. This early victory encouraged the Native Americans of the area, and large numbers of them moved to help the British at Amherstburg.

American Brigadier General William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, 1812, from Detroit with an army mainly composed of militiamen, but he turned back after his supply lines were threatened in the battles of Brownstown and Monguagon. British Major General Isaac Brock sent false correspondence and allowed it to be captured by the Americans, saying they required only 5,000 Native warriors to capture Detroit. Hull was afraid of North American Indians and some tribes’ practice of scalping. Hull surrendered at Detroit on August 16.

Brock promptly transferred himself to the eastern end of Lake Erie, where American General Stephen Van Rensselaer was attempting a second invasion. An armistice (arranged by Prevost in the hope the British renunciation of the Orders in Council to which the United States objected might lead to peace) prevented Brock invading American territory. When the armistice ended, the Americans attempted an attack across the Niagara River on October 13, but suffered a crushing defeat at Queenston Heights. Brock was killed during the battle. While the professionalism of the American forces would improve by the war’s end, British leadership suffered after Brock’s death.

A final attempt in 1812 by American General Henry Dearborn to advance north from Lake Champlain failed when his militia refused to advance beyond American territory. In contrast to the American militia, the Canadian militia performed well. French-Canadians, who found the anti-Catholic stance of most of the United States troublesome, and United Empire Loyalists, who had fought for the Crown during the American Revolutionary War, strongly opposed the American invasion. However, a large segment of Upper Canada’s population was recent settlers from the United States who had no obvious loyalties to the Crown. Nevertheless, while there were some who sympathized with the invaders, the American forces found strong opposition from men loyal to the Empire.

American northwest, 1813

After Hull’s surrender, General William Henry Harrison was given command of the American Army of the Northwest. He set out to retake Detroit, which was now defended by Colonel Henry Procter in conjunction with Tecumseh. A detachment of Harrison’s army was defeated at Frenchtown along the River Raisin on January 22, 1813. Procter left the prisoners in custody of a few North American Indians, who then proceeded to execute perhaps as many as sixty American prisoners, an event which became known as the “River Raisin Massacre.” The defeat ended Harrison’s campaign against Detroit, and the phrase “Remember the River Raisin!” became a rallying cry for the Americans.

In May 1813, Procter and Tecumseh set siege to Fort Meigs in northern Ohio. American reinforcements arriving during the siege were defeated by the Native Americans, but the fort held out. The Indians eventually began to disperse, forcing Procter and Tecumseh to return to Canada. A second offensive against Fort Meigs also failed in July. In an attempt to improve Indian morale, Procter and Tecumseh attempted to storm Fort Stephenson, a small American post on the Sandusky River, only to be repulsed with serious losses, marking the end of the Ohio campaign.

On the Great Lakes, the American commander Captain Oliver Hazard Perry fought the Battle of Lake Erie on September 10, 1813. His decisive victory ensured American control of the lake, improved American morale after a series of defeats, and compelled the British to fall back from Detroit. This paved the way for General Harrison to launch another invasion of Upper Canada, which culminated in the United States victory at the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813, in which Tecumseh was killed. Tecumseh’s death effectively ended the North American Indian alliance with the British in the Detroit region. The Americans controlled Detroit and Amherstburg for the duration of the war.

Niagara frontier, 1813

Because of the difficulties of land communications, control of the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence River corridor was crucial, and so both sides spent the winter of 1812-13 building ships. The Americans, who had far greater shipbuilding facilities than the British, nevertheless had not taken advantage of this before the war and had fallen behind.

On April 27, 1813, American forces attacked and burned York (now called Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada, including the Parliament Buildings. However, Kingston was strategically more valuable to British supply and communications along the St Lawrence. Without control of Kingston, the American navy could not effectively control Lake Ontario or sever the British supply line from Lower Canada.

On May 27, 1813, an American amphibious force from Lake Ontario assaulted Fort George on the northern end of the Niagara River and captured it without serious losses. The retreating British forces were not pursued, however, until they had largely escaped and organized a counter-offensive against the advancing Americans at the Battle of Stoney Creek on June 5. On June 24, with the help of advance warning by Loyalist Laura Secord, another American force was forced to surrender by a much smaller British and Indian force at the Battle of Beaver Dams, marking the end of the American offensive into Upper Canada.

The burning of Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) by American General McClure on December 10, 1813, incensed the British and Canadians since civilian houses had mainly been destroyed. Many were left without shelter, consequently freezing to death in the snow. This led to British retaliation and similar destruction at Buffalo on December 30, 1813.

On Lake Ontario, Sir James Lucas Yeo took command on May 15, 1813, and created a more mobile though less powerful force than the Americans under Isaac Chauncey. An early attack on Sackett’s Harbour by Yeo and Governor General Sir George Prevost was repulsed. Three naval engagements in August and September led to no decisive result.

Yeo constructed HMS St Lawrence, and by September 1814, the British launched the largest ship built during the war. HMS St. Lawrence was a 112 gun British warship that served on Lake Ontario and was likely the only Royal Navy ship of the line ever to be launched and operated entirely in fresh water. It was a first rate ship of the line. Its 112 guns gave them superiority, and the British became masters of Lake Ontario.

St. Lawrence and Lower Canada

The British were potentially most vulnerable over the stretch of the Saint Lawrence where it also formed the frontier between Upper Canada and the United States. During the early days of the war, there was much illicit commerce across the river, but over the winter of 1812-1813, the Americans launched a series of raids from Ogdensburg on the American side of the river, hampering British supply traffic up the river.

On February 21, Sir George Prevost passed through Prescott on the opposite bank of the river, with reinforcements for Upper Canada. When he left the next day, the reinforcements and local militia attacked. At the Battle of Ogdensburg, the Americans were forced to retire. For the rest of the year, Ogdensburg had no American garrison and many residents of Ogdensburg resumed visits and trade with Prescott. This British victory removed the last American regular troops from the Upper St Lawrence frontier and helped secure British communications with Montreal.

Late in 1813, after much argument, the Americans made two thrusts against Montreal. The plan eventually agreed upon was for Major-General Wade Hampton to march north from Lake Champlain and join a force under General James Wilkinson which would embark in boats and sail from Sacket’s Harbour on Lake Ontario and descend the Saint Lawrence.

Hampton was delayed by bad roads and supply problems and an intense dislike of Wilkinson, which limited his desire to support his plan. On October 25, his 4,000-strong force was defeated at the Chateauguay River by Charles de Salaberry’s force of fewer than 500 French-Canadian Voltigeurs and Mohawks.

Wilkinson’s force of 8,000 set out on October 17 but was also delayed by bad weather. After learning that Hampton had been checked, Wilkinson heard that a British force under Captain William Mulcaster and Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Morrison was pursuing him, and by November 10, he was forced to land near Morrisburg, about 150 kilometers (90 mi) from Montreal. On November 11, Wilkinson’s rearguard, numbering 2,500, attacked Morrison’s force of 800 at Crysler’s Farm and was repulsed with heavy losses. After learning that Hampton was unable to renew his advance, Wilkinson retreated to the United States and settled into winter quarters. He resigned his command after a failed attack on a British outpost at Lacolle Mills.

Niagara Campaign, 1814

By the middle of 1814, American generals, including Major Generals Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott, had drastically improved the fighting abilities and discipline of the army. Their renewed attack on the Niagara peninsula quickly captured Fort Erie. Winfield Scott then gained a decisive victory over an equal British force at the Battle of Chippewa on July 5. An attempt to advance further ended with a hard-fought drawn battle at Lundy’s Lane on July 25. The Americans withdrew but withstood a prolonged Siege of Fort Erie. The British raised the siege, but lack of provisions eventually forced the Americans to retreat across the Niagara.

Meanwhile, following the abdication of Napoleon, British troops began arriving in North America. Fewer than half were veterans of the Peninsula and the remainder came from garrisons. Along with the troops came instructions for offensives against the United States. British strategy was changing, and like the Americans, the British were seeking advantages for the peace negotiations in Ghent. Governor-General Sir George Prevost was instructed to launch an offensive into the United States. However, his invasion was repulsed by the naval Battle of Plattsburgh in Plattsburgh Bay on September 11, 1814, which gave the Americans control of Lake Champlain. Theodore Roosevelt later termed it the greatest naval battle of the war.

American West, 1814

Little of note took place on Lake Huron in 1813, but the American victory on Lake Erie isolated the British there. During the winter, a Canadian party under Lieutenant Colonel Robert McDouall established a new supply line from York to Nottawasaga Bay on Georgian Bay. When he arrived at Fort Mackinac with supplies and reinforcements, he sent an expedition to recapture the trading post of Prairie du Chien in the far West. The Battle of Prairie du Chien ended in a British victory on July 20, 1814.

In 1814, the Americans sent a force of five vessels from Detroit to recapture Mackinac. A mixed force of regulars and volunteers from the militia landed on the island on July 4. They did not attempt to achieve surprise, and at the brief Battle of Mackinac Island, they were ambushed by Native Americans were forced to re-embark.

The Americans discovered the new base at Nottawasaga Bay and on August 13, destroyed its fortifications and a schooner found there. They then returned to Detroit, leaving two gunboats to blockade Michilimackinac. On September 4, these gunboats were taken unawares and captured by enemy boarding parties from canoes and small boats. This Engagement on Lake Huron left Mackinac under British control.

The British garrison at Prairie du Chien also fought off an attack by Major Zachary Taylor. In this distant theater, the British retained the upper hand until the end of the war because of their allegiance with several Native American tribes that they supplied with arms and gifts.

Atlantic coast

When the war began, the British naval forces had some difficulty in blockading the entire United States coast, and they were also preoccupied in their pursuit of American privateers. The British government, having need of American foodstuffs for its army in Spain, benefited from the willingness of the New Englanders to trade with them, so no blockade of New England was at first attempted. The Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay were declared in a state of blockade on December 26, 1812. This was extended to the coast south of Narragansett by November 1813 and to all the American coast on May 31, 1814. In the meantime, much illicit trade was carried on by collusive captures arranged between American traders and British officers. American ships were fraudulently transferred to neutral flags. Eventually the U.S. Government was driven to issue orders to stop illicit trading. This put only a further strain on the commerce of the country. The overpowering strength of the British fleet enabled it to occupy the Chesapeake and to attack and destroy numerous docks and harbors.

From the probing of the British Colony of New Brunswick, Maine was an important conquest by the British. The line of the border between New Brunswick and the District of Maine had never been adequately agreed after the American Revolution. A military victory in Maine by the British could represent a large gain in territory for New Brunswick, but more immediately it assured communication with Lower Canada via the St John River and the Halifax Road. The war did not settle the border dispute, and when Maine became a state in 1820, it led to a border crisis called the Aroostook War. The border between Maine and New Brunswick was not be settled until 1842 and the “Webster-Ashburton Treaty.”

In September 1814, Sir John Coape Sherbrooke led a British Army into eastern Maine and was successful in capturing Castine, Hampden, Bangor, and Machias. The Americans were given the option of swearing allegiance to the king or quitting the country. The vast majority swore allegiance and were even permitted to keep their firearms. This is the only large tract of territory held by either side at the conclusion of the war and was given back to the United States by the Treaty of Ghent. The British did not leave Maine until April 1815, at which time they took large sums of money retained from duties in occupied Maine. This money, called the “Castine Fund,” was used in the establishment of Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Chesapeake campaign and “The Star-Spangled Banner”

The strategic location of the Chesapeake Bay near the nation’s capital made it a prime target for the British. Starting in March 1813, a squadron under Rear Admiral George Cockburn started a blockade of the bay and raided towns along the bay from Norfolk to Havre de Grace. On July 4, 1813, Joshua Barney, a Revolutionary War naval hero, convinced the Navy Department to build the Chesapeake Bay Flotilla, a squadron of twenty barges to defend the Chesapeake Bay. Launched in April 1814, the squadron was quickly cornered in the Patuxent River, and while successful in harassing the Royal Navy, they were powerless to stop the British campaign that ultimately led to the “Burning of Washington.”

The expedition, led by Admiral Sir George Cockburn and General Robert Ross, was carried out between August 19, and August 29, 1814. On August 24, Secretary of War Armstrong insisted that the British would attack Baltimore rather than Washington, even when the British army was obviously on its way to the capital. The inexperienced American militia, which had congregated at Bladensburg, Maryland, to protect the capital, were destroyed in the Battle of Bladensburg, opening the route to Washington. While Dolley Madison saved valuables from the White House, President James Madison was forced to flee to Virginia; American morale was reduced to an all-time low. The British viewed their actions as retaliation for the Americans’ burning of York in 1813, although there are suggestions that the burning was in retaliation of destructive American raids into other parts of Upper Canada.

Having destroyed Washington’s public buildings, including the White House and the Treasury, the British army next moved to capture Baltimore, a busy port and a key base for American privateers. The subsequent Battle of Baltimore began with a British landing at North Point, but the attack was repulsed, and General Ross was killed. The British also attempted to attack Baltimore by sea on September 13 but were unable to reduce Fort McHenry, at the entrance to Baltimore Harbor. All the lights were extinguished in Baltimore the night of the attack, and the fort was bombarded for 25 hours. The only light was given off by the exploding shells over Fort McHenry, which gave proof that the flag was still over the fort. The defense of the fort inspired the American lawyer Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would eventually supply the lyrics to “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which became the national anthem of the United States in 1931.

Creek War

In March 1814, General Andrew Jackson led a force of Tennessee militia, Cherokee warriors, and U.S. regulars southward to attack the Creek tribes, led by Chief Menawa. While some of the Creeks had been British allies in the past, the fighting was related to control of Creek land in Alabama rather than the British-American conflict. On March 26, Jackson and General John Coffee fought the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend, killing 800 of 1,000 Creeks at a cost of 49 killed and 154 wounded of approximately 2,000 American and Cherokee forces. Jackson pursued the surviving Creeks to Wetumpka, near present-day Montgomery, Alabama, where they surrendered.

As one historian wrote:

We speak of the War of 1812, but in truth there were two wars. The war between the Americans and the British ended with the treaty of Ghent. The war between the [Big Knives] [American frontiersmen] and the Indians began at Tippecanoe, and arguably did not run its course until the last Red Sticks were defeated in the Florida swamps in 1818 (Sugden 401).

Treaty of Ghent and Battle of New Orleans

Jackson’s forces moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in November 1814. Between mid-December 1814 and mid-January 1815, he defended the city against a large British force led by Major-General Sir Edward Pakenham, who was killed in an assault on January 8, 1815. The Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory in the United States, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency.

On December 24, 1814, diplomats from the two countries, meeting in Ghent, Belgium, signed the Treaty of Ghent. This wasn’t ratified by the Americans until February 17, 1815 when President Madison signed the American ratification of the Treaty of Ghent, though Congress ratified the treaty the day after the signing by the British. Though news of the treaty would not reach New Orleans for several months, the signing of the treaty and more importantly the quick ratification by the British meant that the battle would not have had and did not have any bearing on the outcome of the war.

After the battle on January 8, the British Army received reinforcements and a siege train. But it decided not to continue the attack on New Orleans. Instead, the fleet and army sailed to Mobile Bay, defeating the American garrison at the Battle of Fort Bowyer and capturing the fort on February 12. This was the last battle of the war. The British army was preparing to take Mobile, Alabama, when news of the treaty arrived on February 13; they then embarked on the British fleet.

By the terms of the treaty, all land captured by either side was returned to the previous owner; the Americans received fishing rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; and all outstanding debts and property taken was to be returned or paid for. Later that year, John Quincy Adams complained that British naval commanders had violated the terms of the treaty by not returning American slaves captured during the war, since the British did not recognize slaves as property.

During the blockade of the Chesapeake, in fact, Rear Admiral Cockburn had been instructed to encourage American slaves to defect to the Crown. Royal Marine units were raised from these escaped slaves on occupied Chesapeake islands, and they fought for the Crown. Some men and their dependents were taken to the naval base in Bermuda from which the blockade was orchestrated, where they were employed about the dockyard and where a further Marine unit was raised from their numbers as a dockyard guard. Orders were eventually given to send these Marines to the British Army to be re-enlisted into West Indian Regiments. Many resisted this change of service and were given land to settle in the West Indies. Many of those who agreed to transfer to the Army found themselves back in the United States, taking part in the Louisiana campaign.

Consequences

The Treaty of Ghent established the status quo ante bellum; that is, there were no territorial changes made by either side. The issue of impressing American seamen was made moot when the Royal Navy stopped impressment after the defeat of Napoleon. Relations between the United States and Britain remained peaceful, except in 1846 and 1861, for the rest of the nineteenth century, and the two countries became close allies in the twentieth century. Border adjustments between the United States and British North America were made in the Treaty of 1818. (A border dispute along the Maine-New Brunswick border was settled by the 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty after the bloodless Aroostook War.)

United States

The United States achieved their main goals of ending impressment in practice and restoring free trade, and ending the Native American threat on the western and southern borders; the first was largely assisted by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Of even greater importance was the gaining of a psychological sense of complete independence. Nationalism soared after the Battle of New Orleans proved Americans could defeat the British army. The opposition Federalist Party collapsed and an Era of Good Feelings ensued.

British North America

Canadians soon developed a national history to the effect that they had defied a great invasion threat. The largely American population of Upper Canada did not side with the United States; lured northwards by free land and low taxes, the settlers wanted to be left alone. After the bitter war, it was not wise to advocate American political ideals, such as democracy and republicanism. Thus the British and United Empire Loyalists elite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy. Additionally, the growing belief that they, the civilian soldiers, and not the Native American and British regulars, had won the war helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in Canada.

Great Britain

The war is scarcely remembered in Britain because it was overshadowed by the far larger, more dramatic and more influential triumph over Napoleon. With the exile of Napoleon to Elba in 1814, Britain felt it had achieved its main policy goals as well (Napoleon returned for 100 days, after the war of 1812 was settled.)

The Royal Navy, however, was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the War. Also, American privateers and commerce raiders had captured numerous British merchant ships, sending insurance rates up and embarrassing the Admiralty. On the other hand, the Royal Navy had been able to deploy overwhelming strength to American waters, annihilating American maritime trade. The Royal Navy made some changes to its practices in construction and gunnery and focused more on accuracy than on rate of fire as had been the case. It remained the most powerful navy in the world for at least the next 100 years.

 

Shoeless Joe Jackson


Joseph Jefferson Jackson (July 16, 1888 – December 5, 1951), nicknamed Shoeless Joe, was an American baseball player who played in the American League of Major League Baseball in the early part of the twentieth century. Jackson enjoyed a thirteen year career in which he played for the Philadelphia Athletics, Cleveland Naps (now known as the Cleveland Indians), and the infamous Chicago Whitesox.

Although he was not a power hitter, he received acclaim for his performance on the field as well as his ability to hit the ball. Jackson, who played left field for most of his career, has the third highest career batting average in Major League Baseball history at .356, including a record-setting .408 rookie batting average in 1911. He also batted .340 or better in eight of his thirteen seasons.

His career was cut short due to his association with the controversial Black Sox Scandal, when members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox participated in a conspiracy to throw the World Series. As a result of Jackson’s involvement in the scandal, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, Major League Baseball’s first commissioner, banned Jackson from playing after the 1920 season. To this day, Shoeless Joe Jackson has been banned from receiving any honor associated with Major League Baseball, although there is currently deliberation as to the possibility of posthumously admitting him into the baseball Hall of Fame.

Early life

Joe Jackson was born in Pickens County, South Carolina, the eldest of eight children. As a young child, Jackson worked in a textile mill in nearby Brandon Mill. Jackson’s job prevented him from devoting any significant time to formal education. However, he still found the time to make it to the baseball diamond. He played for the mill’s team, but when he broke the catcher’s arm with his powerful throw he was reassigned to the outfield.

Later, he played for a semipro Greenville team called the Greenville Spinners. During one of the games, mid-inning, he removed the new cleats that were giving him blisters, and a fan of the opposing team yelled out an insult to the shoeless runner as he rounded third base. The intended insult—”Shoeless Joe”—stuck even though Jackson had played without his spikes only one time.

Throughout his life, Jackson would suffer from his illiteracy. It would become a major factor during his major league career, particularly in the Black Sox Scandal, and has even affected the value of his collectibles. While on the Cleveland Naps (Cleveland Indians), he was taken to an upscale restaurant by his teammates and was tricked into drinking from the finger bowl.

Occurrences like these haunted Jackson and caused him to leave the team multiple times. Despite being uneducated, however, he married Katie Wynn, who he often had sign his signature for autographs and memorabilia. Consequently, anything actually autographed by Jackson himself brought a premium when sold.

Professional career

1908 was an eventful year for Joe Jackson. Jackson began his professional baseball career when he joined the Greenville Spinners of the Carolina Association. He married Katie Wynn and eventually signed with Connie Mack to play Major League baseball for the Philadelphia Athletics.

For the first two-years of his career, Jackson had some trouble adjusting to life with the Athletics. As a result, he spent a portion of that time in the minor leagues. Between 1908 and 1909, Jackson appeared in only ten games. In the 1909 season, Jackson played 118 games for the South Atlantic League team in Savannah, Georgia, where he batted .358 for the year.

Major League career

The Athletics finally gave up on Jackson in 1910 and traded him to the Cleveland Naps. After spending time with the New Orleans Pelicans of the Southern Association, he was called up to play on the big league team. He appeared in 20 games for the Naps that year and hit .387. In 1911, Jackson’s first full-season, he set a number of rookie records. His .408 batting average that season is a record that still stands. The following season, Jackson batted .395 and led the American League in triples. The next year, Jackson led the league with 197 hits and sported a .551 slugging average.

In August of 1915, Jackson was traded to the Chicago White Sox. Two-years later, Jackson and the White Sox won the World Series. During the series, Jackson batted .307 as the White Sox defeated the New York Giants.

In 1919, Jackson batted .351 during the regular season and .375 with perfect fielding in the World Series. This, however, did not prevent the heavily favored White Sox from losing the series to the Cincinnati Reds. During the next year, Jackson batted .385 and was leading the American league in triples when he was suspended, along with seven other members of the White Sox, after allegations surfaced that the team had thrown the previous World Series.

Black Sox scandal

After the White Sox unexpectedly lost the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds, eight players, including Jackson, were accused of throwing the Series. In September 1920, a grand jury was convened to investigate.

During the Series, Jackson had 12 hits and a .375 batting average—in both cases leading both teams. He committed no errors, and even threw out a runner at the plate. Jackson did bat far worse in the five games that the White Sox lost, hitting .286, with no RBI until the final contest, Game 8, when he hit a home run in the 3rd inning and added two more RBIs on a double in the 8th, when the White Sox were considerably behind.

The Cincinnati Reds also hit an unusually high number of triples to left field during the series, far exceeding the amount that Jackson—generally considered a strong defensive player—normally allowed.

In testimony before the grand jury, Jackson admitted under oath that he knew about the fix and had been offered money to participate but he had also asked to be benched for the Series to avoid any suspicion that he was involved, but his request was refused. He also took an envelope containing $5,000.00 given to him by teammate Lefty Williams and went to see Charles Comiskey. He was told by Comiskey’s secretary Harry Garbiner that Comiskey was busy and could not see him.

Legend has it that leaving the courthouse during the trial, a young boy begged of Jackson, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” In his 1949 interview in Sport Magazine, Jackson debunked this story as a myth.

In 1921, a Chicago jury acquitted him and his seven White Sox teammates of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the newly appointed Commissioner of Baseball, banned all eight accused players, claiming baseball’s need to clean up its image took precedence over legal judgments. As a result, Jackson never played major league baseball after the 1920 season.

Was Jackson innocent?

His name still remains on the Major League Baseball Ineligible list. Jackson cannot be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame unless his name is removed from that list. He spent most of the last 30 years of his life proclaiming his innocence. He released a statement that “Regardless of what anybody says, I was innocent of any wrong-doing. I gave baseball all I had. The Supreme Being is the only one to whom I’ve got to answer. If I had been out there booting balls and looking foolish at bat against the Reds, there might have been some grounds for suspicion. I think my record in the 1919 World Series will stand up against that of any other man in that Series or any other World Series in all history.”

In November 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a motion to honor his sporting achievements, supporting a move to have the ban posthumously rescinded, so that he could be admitted to the Hall of Fame. The motion was symbolic, as the U.S. Government has no jurisdiction in the matter. At the time, MLB commissioner Bud Selig confirmed that Jackson’s case was under review.

In recent years, evidence has come to light that casts doubt on Jackson’s role in the fix. For instance, Jackson initially refused to take a payment of $5,000, only to have Lefty Williams toss it on the floor of his hotel room. Jackson then tried to tell White Sox owner Charles Comiskey about the fix, but Comiskey refused to meet with him. Also, before Jackson’s grand jury testimony, team attorney Alfred Austrian coached Jackson’s testimony in a manner that would be considered highly unethical even by the standards of the time, and would probably be considered criminal by today’s standards. For instance, Austrian got Jackson to admit a role in the fix by pouring a large amount of whiskey down Jackson’s throat. He also got the nearly illiterate Jackson to sign a waiver of immunity. Years later, the other seven players implicated in the scandal confirmed that Jackson was never at any of the meetings. Williams, for example, said that they only mentioned Jackson’s name to give their plot more credibility.

Aftermath

During the remaining twenty years of his baseball career, Jackson played and managed with a number of minor league teams, most located in Georgia and South Carolina. In 1922, Jackson returned to Savannah and opened a dry cleaning business.

In 1933, the Jacksons moved back to Greenville, South Carolina. After first opening a barbecue restaurant, Jackson and his wife opened “Joe Jackson’s Liquor Store,” which they operated until his death. One of the better known stories of Jackson’s post-major league life took place at his liquor store. Ty Cobb and sportswriter Grantland Rice entered the store, with Jackson showing no sign of recognition towards his former teammate. After making his purchase, the incredulous Cobb finally asked Jackson, “Don’t you know me, Joe?” Jackson replied, “Sure, I know you, Ty, but I wasn’t sure you wanted to know me. A lot of them don’t.”

Death

As he aged, Joe Jackson began to suffer from heart trouble. In 1951, at the age of 63, Jackson died of a heart attack. He is buried at Woodlawn Memorial Park in Greenville, South Carolina

 

Aachen Cathedral


Aachen Cathedral, frequently referred to as the “Imperial Cathedral” (in German: Kaiserdom) is a Roman Catholic church in Aachen, Germany. The church is the oldest cathedral in northern Europe and was known as the “Royal Church of St. Mary at Aachen” during the Middle Ages. It is also one of the most famous examples of occidental architecture.

The Cathedral of Aachen is one of the best-known architectural monuments in the western world as it is the burial site of Charlemagne and a major pilgrimage site. Its famous relics from the time of Charlemagne were first shown in 1312, and the popularity of Aachen as a place of pilgrimage necessitated the expansion of the church by 1355.

For 600 years, from 936 to 1531, the Aachen chapel was the church of coronation for 30 German kings and 12 queens. The church has been the episcopal seat of the Diocese of Aachen since 1930.

In 1978 it was the first German cultural monument to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List.

History

The city of Aachen lies in a Prussian valley, surrounded by wooded heights, on the Wurm, a tributary of the Roer River.

The city owes its origin to its springs which were already known in the time of the Romans. There appears to have been a royal court in Aachen under the Merovingians, but it rose to greater importance under Charlemagne who chose it as his favorite place of residence, adorned it with a noble-imperial palace and chapel, and gave orders that he should be buried there.

Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse in German), the first Holy Roman Emperor, began building his Palatine Chapel (palace chapel) in 786 C.E. The Palatine Chapel has been described as a “masterpiece of Carolingian architecture.” It is all that remains today of Charlemagne’s extensive palace complex in Aachen.

The Palatine Chapel was designed by Odo of Metz. He based it on the Byzantine church of San Vitale (completed 547 C.E.) in Ravenna, Italy. This accounts for the very eastern feel to the chapel, with its octagonal shape, striped arches, marble floor, golden mosaics, and ambulatory. It was consecrated in 805 to serve as the imperial church.

Symbolism of octagon

The construction of Aachen Cathedral features an octagonal dome 32 meters high. Charlemagne’s tomb is in the Cathedral altar. It is adorned with engravings of the King and Pope Leo III. Pope Leo crowned Charlemagne as the Imperator Romanorum, Emperor of the Romans, in the year 800.

The great dome above the altar is octagonal because Charlemagne placed special significance on the number “eight.” The numeral appears frequently in the Holy Bible and was charged with symbolism in the Christian world during medieval times. An octagon can be made by drawing two intersecting squares within a circle. The circle represents God’s eternity while the square represents the secular world. The four corners also represent the four directions to heaven and the four characteristics of man. Charlemagne saw the number eight as symbolizing the power of the Franks and the Roman Empire, the ruler of both the secular and religious worlds. The Franks were later to become known as the Holy Roman Empire. The Emperor’s throne—built in the tenth century—overlooks the altar. The two relics in his hands were symbols of his power as ruler of two worlds. Charlemagne is holding a sceptre symbolizing his rule of the secular world in his right hand, while in his left he holds an orb, the symbol of the religious world.

Barbarossa’s chandelier

Hanging from the vault in the center of the Palatine Chapel is Barbarossa’s Chandelier, a huge (4.2-meter diameter) bronze circlet commissioned by Frederick Barbarossa to celebrate Charlemagne’s canonization. It was created in 1165-1184 in Aachen and is inscribed with a dedication to Mary from Barbarossa and his wife Beatrix.

The chandelier’s design represents the Heavenly Jerusalem as envisioned in the Book of Revelation, yet it has only eight towers (plus eight archways with smaller towers) instead of the 12 described in the Book of Revelation. The dedicatory inscription explains that the deviation from the biblical description was intentional, so that the chandelier would fit perfectly into the eight-sided imperial chapel for which it was designed.

Treasury

The Aachen cathedral treasury displays sacral masterpieces of the late Classical, Carolingian, Ottonian and Staufian period – among them there are some unique exhibits like the “Cross of Lothair” the “Bust of Charlemagne” and the “Persephone sarcophagus.” The Cathedral Treasury in Aachen is regarded as one of the most important ecclesiastical treasuries in northern Europe.

In 1995 the cathedral treasury was completely redesigned and brought up to date with developments in conservation and museum education. One of Europe’s most important church treasuries is now presented in a prestigious setting more appropriate for the priceless exhibits and also for the large numbers of visitors. The permanent exhibition is divided into five thematic areas: the cathedral as Charlemagne’s church, as a coronation site, as the Church of Saint Mary, the liturgy at Aachen Cathedral, the reliquaries and the pilgrimage to Aachen.

Shrines

There are two golden shrines elevated inside glass boxes in the Gothic choir. The one closest to the Octagon is the Shrine for the Virgin Mary or Marian Shrine (1238); the one in the back is the Shrine of Charlemagne (1215).

The Shrine of the Virgin Mary was completed in 1238 and contains the Four Great Relics of Aachen. The end gables have figures of Christ and Pope Leo III; the gables on the long sides depict the Madonna and Child (front side) and Charlemagne. The Twelve Apostles populate the rest of the long sides. The panels on the “roof” depict scenes from the life of Mary in low relief.

Every seven years Aachen held a Marian pilgrimage in order to honor the relics now held in the Shrine for the Virgin Mary. The four most famous are:

  • The dress in which “Mary gave birth to the Son of God”
  • The swaddling clothes of the baby Jesus
  • The loincloth that Christ wore on the Cross
  • The cloth on which Saint John the Baptist’s head was placed after his beheading.

Every seven years these relics were presented in beautiful reliquaries on the day of Heiligtumsfahrt whose celebration lasted for 15 days. Pilgrims came from Germany, Austria, Hungary, England, and Sweden and included the Queen of Hungary, who came to Aachen in 1337, with an escort of 700 knights. They were last displayed in 2007.

The Shrine of Charlemagne was made in Aachen in 1215 and still houses the emperor’s remains (except for the bits kept in reliquaries in the Treasury). On the front gable Charlemagne is shown enthroned between Pope Leo III and Archbishop Turpin of Reims, a member of the imperial court. Above them Jesus emerges from a roundel to bless the emperor.

The long sides of the shrine depict 16 rulers who were in power between Charlemagne and Friedrich II and the other gable has the Virgin Mary flanked by the archangels Gabriel and Michael. Above them are the personified virtues of Faith, Charity and Hope. The “roof” reliefs depict scenes from Charlemagne’s life, especially his struggle against the Moors. One shows him presenting his Palatine Chapel to the Virgin Mary.

Final Resting Place of Charlemagne

When he died in 814, Charlemagne was buried in a vault in the cathedral.

In 1000, Otto III had Charlemagne’s vault opened. Otto of Lomello, one of the courtiers who accompanied him, recorded the event, which is reported in the Chronicle of Novalesia, written about 1026. The account reads:
“So we went in to Charles. He did not lie, as the dead otherwise do, but sat as if he were living. He was crowned with a golden crown and held in his gloved hands a sceptre; the fingernails had penetrated through the gloves and stuck out. Above him was a canopy of limestone and marble. Entering, we broke through this. Upon our entrance, a strong smell struck us. Kneeling, we gave Emperor Charles our homage, and put in order the damage that had been done. Emperor Charles had not lost any of his members to decay, except only the tip of his nose. Emperor Otto replaced this with gold, took a tooth from Charles’s mouth, walled up the entrance to the chamber, and withdrew again.”
A large picture representing Otto and his nobles gazing on the dead Emperor was painted on the wall of the great room in the Town Hall.

In 1165, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa again opened the vault and placed the remains in a sculptured sarcophagus made of Parian marble, said to have been the one in which Augustus Caesar was buried. The bones lay in this until 1215, when Frederick II had them put in a casket of gold and silver. A vellum codex found interred with him was removed.

Other burials

Another imperial tomb is also here, the grave of Emperor Otto III (d.1002) is under the floor in the center of the choir. It is marked with a simple inscribed slab. Hanging from the vault above is a large, double-sided sculpture made in 1524 by Jan van Steffesweert of Maastricht. It depicts the Madonna and Child attended by cherubs inside a radiant corona.

 

Jewish Pirates


Sephardic Jewish pirate Jean Lafitte

Jewish pirates were those seafaring Jewish people who engaged in piracy. While there is some mention of the phenomena in antiquity, especially during the Hasmonean period, most Jewish pirates operated in the years following the Spanish and Portuguese expulsion of the Iberian Jews. Upon fleeing Iberia, these Jews turned to attacking the Catholic Empire’s shipping as both barbary corsairs from their refuge in the Ottoman dominions, as well as privateers bearing letters of marque from Spanish rivals such as the United Netherlands. Many Jews also were involved in backing Spanish-attacking privateers economically. They viewed this campaign to be a profitable strategy of revenge for their expulsion and the Inquisition’s continued religious persecution in both the Old and New Worlds.

Their accomplishments include helping to defeat the Spanish-Imperial fleet at the 1538 Battle of Preveza, leading the only successful capture of the Spanish treasure fleet in 1628, aiding the Dutch capture of part of Brazil from Portugal, and aiding the 1655 British conquest of Jamaica from the Spanish.

Piracy in the Ancient World: Pirates of Joppa

Ancient Jewish life was concentrated around in the highlands of the Samarian and Judaean Mountains, located some distance from the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, Jews were initially not very active in seafaring or navigation. After 142 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean state acquired ports of their own. Joppa (Jaffa), Ashdod and Gaza were added to their domain, and a small number of Jewish sailors developed.

Jewish pirates were first mentioned by Josephus. There is a drawing of a pirate ship following two merchant ships at Jason’s Tomb in Jerusalem. The drawing shows three ships, one of which is a war ship with Jason holding the bow and getting ready to shoot. The painting is dated back at early 1st century BCE. Seleucid Empire decay was a result of the Maccabean war, and was followed by an influx of Jewish and Arab pirates operating from Levant. Pompey’s journey to Judea may indicate a connection between Jewish and Cilician pirates. As a matter of fact there were so many Jews at the sea, some of which were pirates, during Pompey’s time that king Antigonus II Mattathias was accused in sending them out in purpose.

By the end of First Jewish–Roman War, also known as The Great Revolt, Jews who had been driven out of Galilee rebuilt Joppa (Jaffa), which had been destroyed earlier by Cestius Gallus. Surrounded and cut off by the Romans they rebuilt the city walls, and used a light flotilla to demoralize commerce and interrupt the grain supply to Rome from Alexandria.

In his The Jewish War Josephus wrote:

They also built themselves a great many piratical ships, and turned pirates upon the seas near to Syria, and Phoenicia, and Egypt, and made those seas unnavigable to all men.

In July 67 Vespasian attacked Joppa. The people of Joppa took to the sea, but a pre-dawn storm wrecked the ships. Many drowned, others killed themselves. Those who survived the wreck, numbering about 4,200, were killed by Romans. Joppa was destroyed once again.

But some of them thought that to die by their own swords was lighter than by the sea, and so they killed themselves before they were drowned; although the greatest part of them were carried by the waves, and dashed to pieces against the abrupt parts of the rocks, insomuch that the sea was bloody a long way, and the maritime parts were full of dead bodies; for the Romans came upon those that were carried to the shore, and destroyed them; and the number of the bodies that were thus thrown out of the sea was four thousand and two hundred.

After Joppa’s destruction for the second time Vespasian built a citadel there to prevent the Jewish pirates from taking the city over for the third time. The Romans considered their victory over Joppa’s pirates very important, and commemorated it with the large number of coins for “naval victory”.

Premodern Sephardi Piracy

Spanish Jewish pirates

The Age of Exploration was in part enabled by a crucial navigational advances developed by the primarily Jewish Majorcan cartographic school as well as Abraham Zacuto’s ephemerides. Zacuto was Royal Astronomer and Historian of Portugal until he fled the Inquisition. Vasco Da Gama even lent his name to his Jewish pilot Gaspar da Gama. Many Jews also worked as ship navigators. The knowledge and skills in ship navigation suddenly expelled from Iberia and made enemies of the state were contributing factors to the development of Jewish piracy in that age.

After Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, many of them settled in the friendlier Muslim lands of the Mediterranean (the Ottoman Empire for example). Like their Muslim compatriots who were likewise expelled in 1492, Jews were also looking to revenge Inquisition brutality by sharing with Muslims the newest military technique and secrets used by Christians. And they also joined in on the Muslim Anti-Christian Piracy of the Mediterranean, such as Sinan Reis and Samuel Pallache.

The English State Papers of 1521 bear evidences of Sinan Reis, who sailed with Hayreddin Barbarossa:

As to Coron, it was reported at Rome a few days ago that Andrea Doria was informed that the famous Jewish pirate had prepared a strong fleet to meet the Spanish galleys which are to join Doria’s nineteen

Christopher Columbus himself noticed a great symbolism in expulsion Jews from Spain and sea voyages of discovery, when he started his diary with this statement:

In the same month in which their Majesties issued the edict that all Jews should be driven out of the kingdom and the territories, in the same month they gave me the order to undertake, with sufficient men, my expedition of discovery to the Indies.

Jewish pirates of Jamaica

Today there are only around 200 Jews living in Jamaica. However, at some point 20% of Kingston’s population were Jews of Portuguese-Spanish ancestry, while Spanish Town was founded by escaped Jews. The first Jews landed on the island in 1530 just 40 years after it was discovered by Christopher Columbus. While for a time the Columbus family’s rule kept out the Inquisition, when their power was eroded and the Church began threatening the crypto-Jewish populace, they aided the British conquest of the Isle. Under the British, Port Royal Jamaica was home not only to privateers bearing letters of marque for operating against the Spanish, some of whom were Jewish, but was also home to a large Jewish community which economically backed the raids against the Spanish.

In 2008 an old Jewish cemetery was discovered outside Kingston. Some tombstones have not only Hebrew writing, but are also marked with the skull and crossbones — pirate symbols.

Jewish pirates of Jamaica named their ships for ancient Jewish heroes and prophets like Prophet Samuel, Queen Esther and Shield of Abraham. They targeted Spanish and Portuguese merchant ships. One of the most famous Jewish pirates of Jamaica was Moses Cohen Henriques, who in 1628, led with Piet Pieterszoon Hein the only successful capture of the Spanish treasure fleet. He went on to aid the Dutch capture of northeast Brazil from Portugal.

Notable pirates

The Great Jew

Sinan, called The Great Jew by the Spaniards, was one such Jewish refugee. His family emigrated from Spain to the Ottoman Empire. He sailed as a barbary corsair under Hayreddin Barbarossa. His legacy includes the defeat of a Spanish-Imperial fleet in 1538 at the Battle of Preveza. He is buried in a Jewish cemetery in Albania.

Yaakov Koriel

Yaakov Koriel was born to Jewish family that converted to Christianity under pressure from the Inquisition when Yaakov was a child. As a young man, Yaakov Koriel was a captain of the Spanish fleet until he was caught by the Inquisition. He was freed by his sailors, most of whom were marranos themselves. For many years after that his only goal was revenge. He had three pirate ships under his command. Little is known about what happened to him later. Some believe that eventually he made his way to the Holy Land, studied Kabbalah and died peacefully of old age.

Aleksandr Ivanovich Herzen


Aleksandr Ivanovich Herzen 1812 in Moscow – January 21  1870 in Paris) was a major Russian pro-Western writer and thinker generally credited with helping to create the political climate which led to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. He is known as the “father of Russian socialism,” although his actual philosophy is not that easy to characterize. He was as much anarchist as socialist, although at bottom they were both influenced by the positivism of the era which held that social transformation would create the good society and good citizenry. His autobiography My Past and Thoughts, written with grace, energy, and ease, is often considered the best specimen of that genre in Russian literature.

Life

Herzen was an illegitimate child of a rich Russian landowner, Ivan Yakovlev, by a young German Protestant woman, Henriette Wilhelmina Luisa Haag from Stuttgart, who gave her son the German surname stemming from the word herz, i.e., heart. He was born in Moscow, a very short time before Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and its occupation by the French. His father, after a personal interview with Napoleon, was allowed to leave, when the invaders arrived, as the bearer of a letter from the French to the Russian emperor. His family accompanied him to the Russian lines.

A year later the family returned to Moscow, where Herzen passed his youth, completing his studies at Moscow State University. In 1834, he was arrested and tried on charge of having participated with some other youths at a festival during which verses by Sokolovsky, of a nature uncomplimentary to the emperor, were sung. The special commission appointed to try the youthful culprits found him guilty, and in 1835 he was banished to Vyatka, later named Kirov. There he remained till the visit to that city of the Tsarevich (heir apparent and future Tsar Alexander II), accompanied by the poet Zhukovsky, led to his being allowed to leave Vyatka for Vladimir, where he was appointed editor of the official gazette of that city.

In 1840 he returned to Moscow, where he met Belinsky, who was strongly influenced by him. He obtained a post in the ministry of the interior at Saint Petersburg; but as a consequence of speaking too frankly about a death due to a police officer’s violence, he was sent to Novgorod, where he led an official life with the title of state councilor until 1842. In 1846 his father died, leaving him a very large property in his will. His personal life was rather complicated, as he drifted from one uncomfortable menage-a-trois to another. Especially turbulent was his relationship with Natalia Tuchkova, the wife of his childhood friend and lifelong companion, Nikolay Ogarev.

Early in 1847 he left Russia, never to return. While in Italy, Herzen learned of the outbreak of the revolution of 1848. He hastened to Paris, and afterwards to Switzerland. He supported the revolutions of 1848, but was bitterly disillusioned about European socialist movements after its failure. In 1852 he left Geneva for London, where he settled for some years. He promoted socialism, as well as individualism, and argued that the full flowering of the individual could best be realized in a socialist order.

British Exile 1852 – 1864

Alexander Herzen experienced 12 years in exile. His exile writings were a product of his oppressive experiences in Russia under the arch conservative regime of Nicholas I of Russia, and of the failed 1848 revolutions. Herzen had little revolutionary success prior to British. Herzen used exile as an opportunity to advance and refine his own understanding of Russia as he became a populist political commentator. The failed 1848 revolutions would shape and guide Herzen in exile and the effects constantly reappeared in his exile writings to form his own ideological doctrines.

In 1852 Herzen arrived in Great Britain where he would reside until 1864. Herzen would arrive disillusioned with the 1848 revolutions but not disillusioned with revolutionary thought. Herzen had always been a revolutionary thinker, admiring the French Revolution and broadly adopting its values. Early Herzen writings viewed the French Revolution as the end of history, the final stage in social development of a society based on humanism and harmony. Through his early life Herzen saw himself as a revolutionary radical called to fight the political oppression of Nicholas. Essentially, Herzen fought against modernism’s cruel inhumanity and Christian hypocrisy, fighting for individual self-expression without threat from the state. These foundations would underpin Herzen’s exile writings of individual freedom in a communal setting supported by a strong state.

Revolutionary failures, coupled with personal tragedies including the deaths of his wife, son and mother, drove Herzen to Britain for no particular reason as Herzen fell into emotional despair for several years. In London his despair eventually gave way to a revived energy for involvement in Russian politics to help the Russian peasantry that he idolized. Herzen became critical of those 1848 revolutionaries that gave in, “They had gone thither, so revolted by the Reaction after 1848, so exasperated by everything European, that they hastened on to Kansas or California”. Herzen found a new desire to influence and win the judgment of his countrymen as he established the Russian Printing Press. Unlike Herzen’s history of political activism in continental Europe, Herzen remained a writer alone during his British exile, Herzen valued English political freedom but found it unnecessary to admire little else as they did that themselves.

In 1864 he returned to Geneva, and after some time went to Paris, where he died on January 21, 1870 of complications due to tuberculosis.

Writings

His literary career began in 1842 with the publication of an essay, in Russian, on “Diletantism in Science,” under the pseudonym of Iskander, the Turkish form of his Christian name. His second work, also in Russian, was his Letters on the Study of Nature (1845-1846). In 1847 his novel, Kto Vinovat? (Who is to Blame?), appeared. About the same time Herzen published some stories in Russian periodicals which were afterwards collected and printed in London in 1854, under the title of Prervannye Razskazy (Interrupted Tales). In 1850 two other works, From Another Shore and Lettres de France et d’Ilalie appeared. He then published his essay Du Developpement des idées revolutionnaires en Russie in French, and his Memoirs, which were printed in Russian, then translated into French under the title of Le Monde russe et la Revolution (3 vols., 1860-1862). They were later partially translated into English as My Exile to Siberia (2 vols., 1855).

From a literary point of view his first important work is “Who is to Blame?” The story describes how the domestic happiness of a young tutor, who marries the unacknowledged daughter of a Russian sensualist of the old type, dull, ignorant and genial, is troubled by a Russian sensualist of the new school—intelligent, accomplished and callous—without there being any possibility of saying who is most to be blamed for the tragic termination.

Free Russian Press

But it was as a political writer that Herzen gained the vast reputation which he at one time enjoyed. Having founded in London his Free Russian Press (the fortunes of which, during its ten years, he recollected in a book published (in Russian) in 1863) he issued a great number of Russian works, all leveling criticism against the system of government prevailing in Russia. Some of these were essays, such as his Baptized Property, an attack on serfdom; others were periodical publications, the Polyarnaya Zvyezda (or Polar Star), the Kolokol (or Bell), and the Golosa iz Rossii (or Voices from Russia). The Kolokol soon obtained an immense circulation, and exercised an extraordinary influence.

As the first independent Russian political publicist Herzen began publishing The Polar Star, a review which appeared infrequently and was later supplemented by the The Bell in 1857, a more frequent journal issued between 1857 and 1867 at Herzen’s personal expense. Both publications acquired great influence immediately, illegally pouring into Russian territory; it was said the Emperor himself read them. Both publications afforded Herzen a genuine influence in Russia by reporting from a liberal perspective about the incompetence of the Tsar and the Russian bureaucracy.

Writing in 1857 Herzen became excited by the possibility of social change under Alexander II,

A new Life is unmistakably boiling up in Russia, even the government is being carried away by it.

Herzen used his skill for popular writing to expose the injustices of the ruling elite. These journals would cement Herzen’s position as an Russian revolutionary thinker. Alexander Herzen fought a propaganda war through the journals that had the constant goal of attaining individual liberty for Russians. Herzen understood the competing claims to power and was aware of the fundamental failings of the revolutionary doctrines that guided the 1848 revolutionary failures. Herzen wrote of the inhumanity of the ruling monarchies of Europe but was also aware of the excesses that were perpetrated by revolutionary governments. Herzen constantly fought for social change and felt his journals would contribute to the winds of change,

The storm is approaching, it is impossible to be mistaken about that. Revolutionaries and Reactionaries are at one about that. All men’s heads are going round; a weighty question, a question of life and death, lies heavy on men’s chests

Herzen’s belief in individual rights were somewhat motivated by an anarchic instinct that prevented him from trusting any ruling government.

For three years the Russian Free Press went on printing without selling a single copy, and scarcely being able to get a single copy introduced into Russia; so when at last a bookseller bought ten shillings worth of Baptized Property, the half-sovereign was set aside by the surprised editors in a special place of honor. But the death of the arch-conservative Emperor Nicholas I in 1855 produced an important change. Herzen’s writings, and the journals he edited, were smuggled wholesale into Russia, and their words resounded throughout that country, as well as all over Europe. Their influence became overwhelming. Evil deeds long hidden, evil-doers who had long prospered, were suddenly dragged into light and disgraced. His bold and vigorous language aptly expressed the thoughts which had long been secretly stirring Russian minds, and were now beginning to find a timid utterance at home.

The events of the year 1855 gave Herzen reason to be optimistic; Alexander II had ascended the throne and reforms seemed possible. The Bell broke the story that the government was considering the emancipation of the serfs in July 1857, also adding that the government lacked the ability to resolve the issue. Herzen urged the Tsarist regime “Onward, onward” towards reform in The Polar Star in 1856, yet by 1858 full Serf emancipation had still not been achieved. Herzen grew inpatient with reform and by May 1858 The Bell restarted its campaign to comprehensively emancipate the Serfs. Once emancipation was achieved in 1861 The Bell’s campaign changed to ‘Liberty and Land’, a program that tried to rally the support gathered by the emancipation into solid political action to achieve further social change in support of serf rights.

For some years his influence in Russia was a living force, the circulation of his writings was a vocation zealously pursued. Stories, perhaps apocryphal, tell how on one occasion a merchant, who had bought several cases of sardines at Nizhny Novgorod, found that they contained forbidden print instead of fish, and at another time a special copy of the Kolokol was supposedly printed for the emperor’s use, in which a telling attack upon a leading statesman, which had appeared in the public edition, was omitted.

At length the sweeping changes introduced by Alexander II greatly diminished the need for and appreciation of Herzen’s assistance in the work of reform. The freedom he had demanded for the serfs was granted, the law-courts he had so long denounced were remodeled, trial by jury was established, liberty was to a great extent conceded to the press. It became clear that Herzen’s occupation was gone. When the Polish insurrection of 1863 broke out, and he pleaded the insurgents’ cause, his reputation in Russia received its death-blow. From that time it was only with the revolutionary party that he was in full accord.

Russian Radicals and Liberals view of Herzen

Herzen drew criticism from both liberals who were against violence as a political tool and from radicals who thought Herzen was too weak. Liberals led by Chicherin and Konstantin Kavelin believed individual freedom would be achieved through the rationalization of social relations. Their etatist variety of liberalism was opposed by Herzen as it did not advocate the overthrow of the existing social order but rather believed that Russian society could evolve to an ideal state based on a Hegelian view of of the dialectic and reason. They believed the revolutionaries would merely postpone the establishment of the ideal state, which Herzen viewed as blind to the historical reality. Herzen rejected grand narratives which asserted that society would arrive automatically at a predestined position. Herzen’s writings in exile promoted small-scale communal living with the protection of individual liberty by a non-interventionist government.

Herzen aggravated Russian radicals by appearing too moderate. Radicals such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolay Dobrolyubov wanted more commitment towards violent revolution from Herzen, and to withdraw any hope in the reform of the autocracy. Further, radicals asked Herzen to use his journal, The Bell, as a mouthpiece for violent radical revolution, however Herzen rejected these and other requests to place himself at the head of an underground movement seeking violent revolutionary change. Herzen was still scarred by the complete failures of the 1848 revolutions, arguing that the Russian Radicals were not united and strong enough to seek successful political change, as expressed in his attitude toward Bazarov, the hero of Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons who was promoted by the radicals as a model. “You want happiness, I suppose? I daresay you do! Happiness has to be conquered. If you are strong, take it. If you are weak, hold your tongue”. Herzen feared the new revolutionary government would merely replace the dictatorship of the autocracy with another dictatorship. Herzen noted the radicals proclamations showed little ideological similarity to his own ideals.

The radicals describe Herzen as a liberal for not wanting immediate change, but Herzen rejected their pleas, arguing for gradual change that involved a total change in the type of government at a rate that would ensure success. Here again Herzen displayed his experience of the 1848 revolutions, becoming a hesitant liberal scared to make a wrong move, wanting social change assured not to backfire. Herzen briefly united with other Russian liberals such as Konstantin Kavelin to promote the peasant ‘awakening’ in Russia. Herzen continued to use The Bell as an outlet to promote unity with all sections of the Russian society behind a demand for a national parliament. However his hope to act as a uniting force were ended by the Polish revolt of 1863, when the liberals support for Tsarist revenge against the Poles ended Herzen’s link with them. This breach resulted in a decline in readership of The Bell. As support dried up, the journal ceased publication in 1867. Herzen acknowledged the closure of The Bell symbolized the failure of the Russian revolutionary movement and by his death in 1870 Herzen was almost forgotten.

Influence in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries

Herzen was a populist writer, supporting the common person’s interest and fighting against corruption. The rise in populism by 1880 led to a favorable reevaluation of the writings of Herzen, as he reappeared as the heroic creator of the movement. The emancipation of the serfs would again popularize Herzen’s exile writings, as they had addressed what would be the most important issues facing the Russian social structure. Herzen’s view, shaped by his experience of the 1848 revolutions in which he believed that wealth was concentrated in too few hands despite changing governments. He would side with the agrarian collectivist model of social structure instead.

In addition to his populism, Herzen is remembered for his rejection of government corruption of any political persuasion and his support for individual rights. A Hegelian in his youth, this translated into no specific theory or single doctrine dominating his thought. No single interpretation of life or schematic theory for social well-being was adopted by Herzen, who recognized these theoretical solutions had no positive real-world results. Herzen came to believe the complex questions of society could not be answered and Russians must live for the moment and not a cause, essentially life is an end in itself. Herzen found his solution in a dialectic compromise in which he would remain unattached to any formal doctrine but would embrace values that are common to all. Herzen found greater understanding from not committing himself to one extreme but rather lived impartially and objectively enabling him to equally criticize competing ideologies. Herzen believed grand doctrines ultimately result in enslavement, sacrifice and tyranny.

Herzen was a hero of the Russian-born twentieth century philosopher Isaiah Berlin. The words of Herzen that Berlin repeated most insistently were those condemning the sacrifice of human beings on the altar of abstractions, the subordination of the realities of individual happiness or unhappiness in the present to glorious dreams of the future. Berlin, like Herzen, believed that ‘the end of life is life itself’, and that each life and each age should be regarded as its own end and not as a means to some future goal.

Leo Tolstoy himself declared that he had never met another man “with so rare a combination of scintillating brilliance and depth.” Berlin called Herzen’s autobiography “one of the great monuments to Russian literary and psychological genius … a literary masterpiece to be placed by the side of the novels of his contemporaries and countrymen, Tolstoy, Ivan Turgenev, Fyodor Dostoevsky and others.”

Russian Thinkers, a collection of Berlin’s essays in which Herzen stars, was the inspiration for Tom Stoppard’s The Coast of Utopia, a trilogy of plays performed at London’s National Theatre in 2002. Set against the background of the early development of Russian socialist thought, the Revolutions of 1848 and later exile the plays examine the lives and intellectual development of among other Russians the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, the literary critic Vissarion Belinsky, the novelist Ivan Turgenev and Alexander Herzen himself, whose character and humanism comes to dominate the plays.

 

Gospel of James


The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel written about 150 C.E. The Gospel is the earliest surviving document attesting to the veneration of Mary by stating her perpetual virginity and presenting her as the New Eve. Besides its focus on Mary’s virginity, it is also the earliest text that explicitly claims that Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time that Mary is entrusted to his care. This is the feature which appears in its earliest mention, in Origen, who adduces it to demonstrate that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife. Since the text was among those “which are to be avoided by catholics” according to Gelasian Decree, its dismissal may be due in part to this interpretation of James’s relationship to Jesus, which corresponded to the developed Eastern Orthodox view rather than the western, such as Roman Catholic, view, which treated them as cousins.

Authorship and date

The document presents itself as written by James the Just, whom the text claims is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage, and thus a stepbrother of Jesus. However, scholars have established that, based on the style of the language, and the fact that the author is apparently not aware of contemporary Jewish customs while James the Just certainly was, the work is pseudepigraphical (written by someone other than the person it claims to be written by). The echoes and parallels of the Old Testament appear to derive from its Greek translation, the Septuagint, as opposed to the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is noticeable due to several peculiarities and variations present in the Septuagint. It apparently embellishes on what is told of events surrounding Mary, prior to and at the moment of, Jesus’ birth, in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke.

As for its estimated date, the consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the second century C.E. The first mention of it is by Origen in the early third century, who says the text, like that of a “Gospel of Peter,” was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the ‘brethren of the Lord’ were sons of Joseph by a former wife.

Manuscript tradition

Some indication of the popularity of the Infancy Gospel of James may be drawn from the fact that about one hundred and thirty Greek manuscripts containing it have survived. The Gospel of James was translated into Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Georgian, Old Slavonic, Armenian, Arabic, Irish and Latin. Though no early Latin versions are known, it was relegated to the apocrypha in the Gelasian decretal, so must have been known in the West. As with the canonical gospels, the vast majority of the manuscripts come from the tenth century or later. The earliest known manuscript of the text, a papyrus dating to the third or early fourth century, was found in 1958; it is kept in the Bodmer Library, Geneva (Papyrus Bodmer 5). Of the surviving Greek manuscripts, the fullest surviving text is a tenth century codex in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Paris 1454).

Content

The Gospel of James is organized in three equal parts, of eight chapters each:

  • The first part contains the story of Mary’s own unique birth and childhood and assignment to the temple.
  • The second part concerns the crisis posed by Mary’s imminent pollution of the temple, her assignment to Joseph as guardian and the tests of her virginity,
  • The third part relates the Nativity, with the visit of midwives, hiding of Jesus from Herod the Great in a feeding trough and even the parallel hiding in the hills of John the Baptist and his mother (Elizabeth) from Herod Antipas.

A primary theme is the work and grace of God in Mary’s life, Mary’s personal purity, and her perpetual virginity before, during and after the birth of Jesus, as confirmed by the midwife after she gave birth, and tested by “Salome” who is perhaps intended to be Salome, who is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark as being at the Crucifixion.

Besides the perpetual virginity of Mary, this is also the earliest text that explicitly claims that Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time that Mary is entrusted to his care. This is the feature which appears in its earliest mention, in Origen, who adduces it to demonstrate that the “brethren of the Lord” were sons of Joseph by a former wife. Since the text was among those “which are to be avoided by catholics” according to Gelasian Decree, its dismissal may be due in part to this reading of the adelphoi, which corresponded to the developed Eastern Orthodox view rather than the western, that is Roman Catholic, view, which treated them as cousins.

Among further traditions not present in the four canonical gospels are the birth of Jesus in a cave, the martyrdom of John the Baptist’s father Zachariah during the slaughter of the infants, and Joseph’s being elderly when Jesus was born. The Nativity reported as taking place in a cave, with its Mithraic overtones, remained in the popular imagination; many Early Renaissance Sienese and Florentine paintings of the Nativity, as well as Byzantine, Greek and Russian icons of the Nativity, show such a setting.

Genre

The Gospel of James is one of several surviving Infancy Gospels that give an idea of the miracle literature that was created to satisfy the hunger of early Christians for more detail about the early life of their Saviour. Such literature is filled with ignorance of Jewish life, unlike the many consistent details in the Bible, which where obviously written by authors who were at least acquainted with Judaism. Interestingly enough, not one work of the genre under discussion is in any Bible. In Greek, such an infancy gospel was termed a protevangelion, a “pre-Gospel” narrating events of Jesus’ life before those recorded in the four canonical gospels. Such a work was intended to be “apologetic, doctrinal, or simply to satisfy one’s curiosity.” The literary genre that these works represent shows stylistic features that suggest dates in the second century and later. Other infancy gospels in this tradition include The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (based on the Protoevangelium of James and on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas), and the so-called Arabic Infancy Gospel; all of which were regarded by the church as apocryphal.

Influence

Some indication of the popularity of the Infancy Gospel of James may be drawn from the fact that about one hundred and thirty Greek manuscripts containing it have survived. Apocryphal gospels testify to the reverence that many Jewish followers of Jesus (like the Ebionites) had for James. For example, the Gospel of the Hebrews fragment 21 relates the risen Jesus’ appearance to James. The Gospel of Thomas (one of the works included in the Nag Hammadi library), saying 12, relates that the disciples asked Jesus, “We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to him, “No matter where you come [from] it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist.”

 

Donald Olding Hebb


Donald Olding Hebb (July 22, 1904 – August 20, 1985) was a prominent Canadian psychologist. His seminal book The Organization of Behavior, published in 1949, established Hebb’s position in psychology, and led to him being described as the father of neuropsychology, although that title might also belong to Alexander Luria, and of neural networks.

Hebb’s interest lay in learning and how information is retained in memory. He sought to understand the function of the brain and its relationship to the activities of the mind. His research involved studies of brain damage as well as sensory deprivation. Putting together his studies of the biological functions of the brain with his work on behavior, Hebb proposed a theory of how brain functions underlie the higher functions of the mind. His proposal of “cell assemblies” as the foundation of memory “engrams” not only addressed the mind-body problem, but also laid the foundation for the development of artificial neural networks and the construction of computational devices that mimic the learning of living systems. Hebb’s work has had wide-ranging implications for the study of learning, memory, and brain functions.

His contribution to human knowledge is significant, not only in the theory and its applications, but also in the approach to research that he held and taught his students, namely that even when a theory is wrong (as he often thought his own were) if it was testable it had value and would lead to better understanding. The key to this view is humility, the willingness to put aside a theory once it is proven wrong by experimental data. With such an attitude, the scientific method surely advances knowledge in a positive direction.

Life

Donald Olding Hebb was born in Chester, Nova Scotia, Canada, on July 22, 1904. Donald was the oldest of four children of Arthur and Clara (Olding) Hebb, both physicians. He lived in Chester until the age of 16, when his parents moved to Dartmouth, also in Nova Scotia.

Donald’s mother was heavily influenced by the ideas of Maria Montessori, and she home schooled him until the age of eight. He performed well in elementary school, but his rebellious attitude and disrespect for authority led to problems in high school. However, he was able to graduate.

The older of Donald’s younger brothers, Andrew, obtained a law degree but went on to a career in journalism and then insurance. Donald’s youngest brother, Peter, became a physician like his parents. And his sister, Catherine, eventually became a prominent physiologist. Donald, early in life, had no aspirations toward psychology or the medical field; rather, he wanted to be a writer.

Donald Hebb entered Dalhousie University aiming to become a novelist. He was not an exceptional student but he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1925. After working for a number of years as a high school teacher and elementary school principal, Hebb turned to graduate study in psychology at McGill University.

He studied Charles Scott Sherrington’s The Integrative Action of the Nervous System and Ivan Pavlov’s Conditioned Reflexes, and one of his faculty advisers was Boris Babkin, who had worked with Pavlov. Hebb’s master’s thesis, entitled Conditioned and Unconditioned Reflexes and Inhibition, tried to show that skeletal reflexes were due to cellular learning. This he later dismissed as nonsense.

Hebb received his M.A. in psychology from McGill University, in 1932. Babkin arranged for him to do research on conditioning with Leonid Andreyev, another former member of Pavlov’s laboratory. Between 1933 and 1934, Hebb wrote a booklet titled Scientific Method in Psychology: A Theory of Epistemology Based on Objective Psychology. It was never published, but it contained many ideas that would become part of his later work.

By the beginning of 1934, Hebb’s life was in a slump. His wife had died, following a car accident, on his twenty-ninth birthday (July 22, 1933). His work at the Montreal school was going badly. The focus of study at McGill was more in the direction of education and intelligence, and Hebb was now more interested in physiological psychology.

In 1934, Hebb decided to leave Montreal and wrote to Robert Yerkes at Yale University where he was offered a position to study for a Ph.D. in psychology. Babkin, however, convinced Hebb to study with Karl Lashley instead. In July 1934, Hebb was accepted to study under Karl Lashley at the University of Chicago. His thesis was titled The Problem of Spatial Orientation and Place Learning. Hebb, along with two other students, followed Lashley to Harvard University in September, 1935. There, he had to change his thesis. At Harvard, he researched the effects of early visual deprivation upon size and brightness perception in rats, comparing the brains of rats raised in the dark with those raised in the light. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1936. The next year, he worked as a research assistant to Lashley and as a teaching assistant in introductory psychology for Edwin G. Boring at Radcliffe College.

In 1937, Hebb married his second wife, Elizabeth Nichols Donovan. That same year, on a tip from his sister Catherine (herself a Ph.D. student with Babkin at McGill University), he applied to work with Wilder Penfield at the Montreal Neurological Institute. There he researched the effects of brain surgery and injury on human brain function.

In 1942, Hebb moved to Orange Park, Florida to once again work with Lashley, who had replaced Yerkes as the director of the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. There, studying primate behavior, Hebb developed emotional tests for chimpanzees. The experiments were somewhat unsuccessful, however, because chimpanzees turned out to be hard to teach. During the course of his work there, Hebb wrote The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory, his ground-breaking book that set forth the theory that the way to explain behavior was in terms of brain function.

Hebb returned to McGill University to become a professor of psychology in 1947 and was made chairman of the department in 1948. There he once again worked with Penfield, but this time through his students, who included Mortimer Mishkin, Haldor Enger Rosvold, and Brenda Milner, all of whom extended his earlier work with Penfield on the human brain.

Hebb was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) and served as its president in 1960, the first non-US citizen to hold this position. He won the APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1961.

Hebb stayed as professor at McGill until his retirement in 1972. He remained there after retirement as an emeritus professor, conducting a seminar course required of all department graduate students. Finally, in 1980, he returned to Dalhousie University as professor emeritus of psychology.

Donald Hebb died in Nova Scotia on August 20, 1985, two years after his third wife. He was survived by two daughters (both by his second marriage), Mary Ellen Hebb and Jane Hebb Paul. The Donald O. Hebb Award, named in his honor, is awarded to distinguished Canadian scientists.

Work

Hebb’s work has been highly influential in the area of neuropsychology, as he sought to understand how the function of neurons contributed to psychological processes such as learning.

While working with Wilder Penfield at the Montreal Neurological Institute he saw that the brain of a child could regain partial or full function when a portion of it is removed but that similar damage in an adult could be far more damaging, even catastrophic. From this, he deduced the prominent role that external stimulation played in the thought processes of adults. In fact, the lack of this stimulation, he showed, caused diminished function and sometimes hallucinations.

At that time Hebb also became critical of the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler intelligence tests when used with brain surgery patients. These tests were designed to measure overall intelligence, whereas Hebb believed tests should be designed to measure more specific effects that surgery could have had on the patient. To achieve this, he created the Adult Comprehension Test and the Picture Anomaly Test.

Putting the Picture Anomaly Test to use, he provided the first indication that the right temporal lobe was involved in visual recognition. He also showed that removal of large parts of the frontal lobe had little effect on intelligence. In fact, in one adult patient, who had a large portion of his frontal lobes removed in order to treat his epilepsy, he noted “a striking post-operative improvement in personality and intellectual capacity” (Hebb and Penfield 1940). From these sorts of results, he started to believe that the frontal lobes were instrumental in learning only early in life.

In order to test his theory of the changing role of the frontal lobes with age, he designed a variable path maze for rats. Known as the Hebb-Williams maze, this became a method for measuring spatial and working memory of rats later used in countless studies of animal intelligence. Hebb used the maze to test the intelligence of rats blinded at different developmental stages, concluding that “there is a lasting effect of infant experience on the problem-solving ability of the adult rat” (Brown and Milner 2003). This became one of the main principles of developmental psychology, later helping those arguing the importance of the proposed Head Start programs for preschool children in economically poor neighborhoods.

Hebb’s name has often been invoked in discussions of the involvement of psychological researchers in interrogation techniques, including the use of sensory deprivation, because of his research into this field. Speaking at a Harvard symposium on sensory deprivation in 1958, Hebb is quoted as remarking:

The work that we have done at McGill University began, actually, with the problem of brainwashing. We were not permitted to say so in the first publishing…. The chief impetus, of course, was the dismay at the kind of “confessions” being produced at the Russian Communist trials. “Brainwashing” was a term that came a little later, applied to Chinese procedures. We did not know what the Russian procedures were, but it seemed that they were producing some peculiar changes of attitude. How? One possible factor was perceptual isolation and we concentrated on that (Solomon et al 1961).

The Organization of Behavior

The Organization of Behavior (1949) is considered Hebb’s most important book. A combination of his years of work in brain surgery mixed with his study of human behavior, it finally brought together the two realms of human perception. That is, it connected the biological function of the brain as an organ together with the higher function of the mind.

There were many theories on how the brain and the mind were connected. Pavlovian theories, for example, involved the connection between stimulus and response, based on the belief that a path existed from sensory organs to the mind, which then made a response. The problem with the theory was that it was assumed that signals traveled one way to the brain, just as neurons themselves transmit in only one direction. However, while individual neurons transmit in only one direction, connections between various neurons are much more complex. As a result, the simple Pavlovian model could not explain all the extra processing that adds to the input signals from human senses.

Another theory, the Gestalt theory, stated that signals to the brain established a sort of “field,” the form of which depended on the pattern of the inputs. However, this theory could not explain how such a field was understood by the mind.

The Behaviorist theories at the time did well at explaining how the processing of patterns happened. However, they could not account for how these patterns entered into the mind.

Donald Hebb combined up-to-date data about behavior and the mind into a single theory. And, while the understanding of the anatomy of the brain had not advanced much since the development of the older theories on the operation of the brain, he was still able to piece together a theory that correctly understood many of the important functions of the brain. This account of learning is best expressed in Hebb’s words:

When an axon of cell A is near enough to excite cell B and repeatedly or persistently takes part in firing it, some growth process or metabolic change takes place in one or both cells such that A’s efficiency, as one of the cells firing B, is increased (Hebb 1949).

The theory is often summarized as “cells that fire together, wire together,” although this is an oversimplification of the nervous system not to be taken literally, as well as not accurately representing Hebb’s original statement on changes in cell connectivity strength. The theory is commonly evoked to explain some types of associative learning in which simultaneous activation of cells leads to pronounced increases in synaptic strength. Such learning is known as Hebbian learning.

Hebbian theory concerns how neurons might connect themselves to become memory “engrams,” a hypothetical means by which memory traces are stored as biophysical or biochemical change in the brain (and other neural tissue) in response to external stimuli suggested by Hebb’s mentor, Karl Lashley. Hebb’s theories on the form and function of cell assemblies is described as follows:

The general idea is an old one, that any two cells or systems of cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become ‘associated’, so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other (Hebb 1949, 7).

When one cell repeatedly assists in firing another, the axon of the first cell develops synaptic knobs (or enlarges them if they already exist) in contact with the soma of the second cell (Hebb 1949, 63).

Not only did Hebb’s model for the working of the mind influence how psychologists understood the processing of stimuli within the mind but also it opened up the way for the creation of computational machines that mimicked the biological processes of a living nervous system. And while the dominant form of synaptic transmission in the nervous system was later found to be chemical, modern artificial neural networks are still based on the transmission of signals via electrical impulses around which Hebbian theory was first designed.

As an educator

Throughout his life, Donald Hebb (or D.O. as his colleagues and students called him) enjoyed teaching. Both in his early years as a high school teacher and a headmaster in a Montreal school and in his later years at McGill University, he proved to be a very effective educator and a great influence on the scientific minds of his students. Hebb’s most prominent students include Donald Forgays, Stevan Harnad, Woodburn Heron, Bernard Hymovitch, W. Jake Jacobs, Helen Mahut, Ronald Melzack, Brenda Milner, Peter Milner, Mortimer Mishkin, Aryeh Routtenberg, Seth Sharpless, and Case Vanderwolf.

As a professor at McGill, Hebb believed that one could not teach motivation, but only create the conditions necessary for students under which to do their study and research. One could train them to write, help them choose a problem to study, and even help keep them from being distracted, but the motivation and passion for research and study had to come from the students themselves. He believed that students should be evaluated on their ability to think and create rather than their ability to memorize and reprocess older ideas.

Hebb believed in a very objective study of the human mind, more as a study of a biological science. This attitude toward psychology and the way it is taught made McGill University a prominent center of psychological research.

Legacy

The frequency of citation to Hebb’s work has increased markedly over the years (Martinez and Glickman 1994). This reflected in part the transition from stimulus-response learning theories to more cognitively oriented positions anticipated in Hebb’s writings. The bulk of later citations refer to Hebb’s speculative postulate regarding the conditions surrounding permanent synaptic change in the nervous system. For many contemporary neuroscientists, Hebb’s fame roots on a prescient hypothesis that was not testable in his time but now generates a great deal of research.

Given the necessarily tentative nature of psychological theorizing in the mid-twentieth century, Hebb argued that the best justification for a psychological theory was the production of data that endured long after the details of the theory had fallen by the wayside:

For Hebb, the business of scientific psychology was to make inferences about the unobservable physical substrates of behavior, thinking, personality and emotion. Such inferences were risky (unlike behaviorism’s reinforcement schedules), in that they might be very wrong; but as long as they suggested testable predictions and successfully guided research, they were leading toward the truth about the mind. … Hebb had learned from behaviorism was that it is unwise scientific practice to ignore anything, be it our brain, our biological heritage, our cognition or our conscious experience. There is the room—indeed the need—in Hebb’s cognitive psychobiology for studying all of these (Harnad 1985).

Hebb’s pioneered a theory of how the mind and brain could actually work together, taking on the mind-body problem that has been an issue for philosophers from the beginning. As his former student, Stevan Harnad, noted:

Hebb reminded us of the problem anew, first through suggestive accounts of his work with Penfield on the localization of memories in the brain, and then from the viewpoint of his own specific hypothesis that thoughts could actually be the activity of reverberating circuits of neurons called “cell-assemblies.” I don’t think his idea had its full impact on me at the moment he described it. Rather, it was after the lecture, as I thought about it, and thought that my thoughts may well consist of those physical things I was thinking about, that I realized what a radically different world view such a theory represented, and that it all had a ring of reality to it that made the Freudian notions I had been flirting with sound like silly fairy tales. … Then, almost before the revelation his hypothesis represented had had a chance to take effect, Hebb took it back, informing us that his theory was almost certainly wrong. What followed was his second revelation: That a theory need not be right in order to be informative and to guide us in the right direction. And the cell assembly theory (together with other ideas in Hebb’s epochal 1949 monograph, The Organization of Behaviour) had indeed inspired an enormous wealth of research findings, from the effects of sensory enrichment and deprivation to electrical and chemical pleasure centers in the brain to theoretical modeling of neural networks (Harnad 1985).

 

First Great Awakening


George Whitefield

The First Great Awakening (often referred by historians as the Great Awakening) is the name sometimes given to a period of heightened religious activity, primarily in Great Britain and her North American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. In New England, the Great Awakening was influential among many Congregationalists; while in the Middle and Southern colonies (especially in the rural regions of those colonies) the Awakening was influential among Presbyterians and other dissenting Protestants. Although the idea of a “great awakening” is contested, it is clear that the period was, particularly in New England, a time of increased religious activity. The revival began with Jonathan Edwards, a well-educated theologian and Congregationalist minister from Northampton, Massachusetts, who came from Puritan and Calvinist roots, but emphasized the importance and power of immediate, personal religious experience. Edwards was said to be “solemn, with a distinct and careful enunciation, and a slow cadence.”Nevertheless, his sermons were powerful and attracted a large following.” Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” is his most famous sermon and his essay, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, describes his local experience during the Awakening. The Methodist preacher George Whitefield, visiting from England, continued the movement, traveling across the colonies and preaching in a more dramatic and emotional style, accepting everyone into his audiences. The first new Congregational church in Massachusetts in the Great Awakening period of 1730-1740, was at the newly incorporated town of Uxbridge and was pastored by the Rev. Nathan Webb, a native of Braintree. The First Great Awakening is often credited with helping to forge a new national identity that served as backdrop to the American Revolution.

Effects

Those caught up in the movement likely experienced new forms of religiosity. They became passionately and emotionally involved in their religion, rather than passively listening to intellectual discourse in a detached manner. Ministers who used this new style of preaching were sometimes called “new lights,” while the preachers who remained unemotional were referred to as “old lights”. People affected by the revival began to study the Bible at home. This effectively decentralized the means of informing the public on religious manners and was akin to the individualistic trends present in Europe during the Protestant Reformation.

Historians have debated whether the Awakening had a political impact on the American Revolution, which took place soon after. Heimert (1966) argues that Calvinism and Jonathan Edwards provided pre-Revolutionary America with a radical and democratic social and political ideology and that evangelical religion embodied and inspired a thrust toward American nationalism. Colonial Calvinism was the basis for the American Great Awakening and that in turn lay at the basis of the American Revolution. Heimert thus sees a major impact as the Great Awakening provided the radical American nationalism that prompted the Revolution. Awakening preachers sought to review God’s covenant with America and to repudiate the materialistic, acquisitive, corrupt world of an affluent colonial society. The source of this corruption lay in England, and a severance of the ties with the mother country would result in a rededication of America to the making of God’s Kingdom. However, Heimert has been criticized for not recognizing the differences between educated and uneducated evangelists, and for not recognizing the significance of Separate-Baptists and Methodists.

The First Great Awakening resulted from powerful preaching that aimed to convince listeners of their personal guilt and of their need of salvation through decisive action that included public repentance. The Great Awakening led people to “experience God in their own way” and taught that they were responsible for their own actions.

Pulling away from ritual and ceremony, the Great Awakening made religion intensely personal to the average person by creating a deep sense of spiritual guilt and redemption, along with introspection and a commitment to a new standard of personal morality. Historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom sees it as part of a “great international Protestant upheaval” that also created Pietism in Germany, the Evangelical Revival and Methodism in England.

The attempt at conversion brought about an apocalyptic event in New England that challenged established authority. It incited rancor and division between the old traditionalists who insisted on ritual and doctrine, and the new revivalists. It had a major impact in reshaping the Congregational, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed and German Reformed denominations, and strengthened the small Baptist and Methodist denominations. It had little impact on Anglicans and Quakers.

Unlike the Second Great Awakening, which began about 1800 and reached out to the unchurched, the First Great Awakening focused on people who were already church members. It may have contributed to changes in some followers’ ritual behavior, piety, and sense of self.

Legacy

The First Great Awakening is a name sometimes given to a period of time when religious revitalization movements were highly active in the American colonies during the 1730s and 1740s. Some scholars have disputed the idea of a “Great Awakening.” Jon Butler has suggested that both the name and the concept of the “Great Awakening” first arose in the work of nineteenth-century religious historians such as Joseph Tracy. Joseph Conforti has argued that ardent promoters of the eighteenth-century revivalists concocted the Great Awakening tradition. Frank Lambert lay the roots of the term not at the feet of secondary promoters, but upon the revival preachers themselves. He contended that the terminology and concept were indeed as old as the eighteenth-century events themselves, but that they existed more as press release than news report—more as an expression of what the preachers hoped would happen than as a realistic description of what did happen.

On the other hand, scholars such as William G. McLoughlin have argued that the Great Awakening was “the key which unlocked the door to the new household of the [American] republic.” Students of Christian revival movements and historians of the church have continued to write scholarly tomes analyzing Great Awakening.

The historicity of Edwards, Frelinghuysen, Tennent, and Whitefield is not disputed. The realignment of existing Christian denominations into pro-revival and anti-revival factions during the period is well attested, as is the emergence of new denominational bodies connected to the revival movement. Something happened to the American religious landscape between 1740 and 1776 to explain these phenomena. The nature of the debate goes less to the nature of the events themselves and more to the manner of their interpretation.