The wars commemorated on “Cinco de Mayo”

In 1862, the Battle of Puebla was fought in Mexico. Specifically, Mexican forces defeated the invading armies of France on the 5th of May. Thus, on “Cinco de Mayo,” the anniversary of this battle is today celebrated by some Mexican Americans. This is the most famous legacy of the war today. But why did the French want to invade Mexico in the first place? What can we learn from another French intervention in Mexico, which happened in an earlier decade? And how can we understand these two French interventions in Mexico … in their broader historical context? These are the questions that I will be trying to answer today. I will try to mention other nineteenth-century wars fought by either France or Mexico. By so doing, we can achieve a greater understanding of these two interventions, their connection to the American Civil War, and the “Cinco de Mayo” holiday.

Photo of Queretaro taken during the battle there – Mexico, 1867

A review of PBS’s “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”

“Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal – you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

– A comedic line from the play “Our American Cousin” (1858) – spoken by an actor at Ford’s Theater in 1865, the moment before Lincoln was shot there by John Wilkes Booth

Background on John Wilkes Booth, and his unrealized plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln

I have seen many films about the Civil War. But this film may still rank among the best, despite its relative brevity. It is only 90 minutes long, and it is brilliantly narrated by the actor Chris Cooper. It has many omissions, but it also has some great storytelling. (More about the omissions later.) After a brief introduction, they start by delving into the early life of John Wilkes Booth. They spend some time on his successful stage career, and his early sympathy with the Confederacy. Ironically, John Wilkes Booth had a pro-Northern brother, who later disowned the actions of his notorious sibling. The brother-against-brother phenomenon extended right into the Booths’ own family. But I’m getting ahead of myself here. They spend time on his growing dissatisfaction with Abraham Lincoln, which would later turn into murderous rage. Booth felt some guilt about not having fought for the Confederacy on the battlefield. Thus, he recruited people to help him in a plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln, and bring him southward. Obviously, this kidnapping plot was never realized – partly because his accomplices pointed out that there were some slight flaws in his plan. But, eight hours before the fateful gunshots, he learned that President Lincoln would be attending Ford’s Theater that night. Thus, he worked at a feverish pace to lay the groundwork for the later events of that evening. Lincoln had few bodyguards around him, in part because no president had ever been assassinated before. That is, there were many other times where Booth could have killed Lincoln with relatively few risks to himself. But he chose Ford’s Theater instead, in part because of his familiarity with the stage. Thus, he got ready to kill President Lincoln. But he also had some accomplices remaining, as well as two other targets.

John Wilkes Booth, the man who murdered Abraham Lincoln

Booth with brothers Edwin and Junius Jr. in Julius Caesar

American naval power: Playing a crucial role in the rise of the United States

“An act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America …”

– Long title of the “Trade Act 1774” (also known as the “Boston Port Act 1774”), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered in the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How the United States went from a vulnerable backwater to a world superpower …

A few of America’s wars began at sea, as part of greater conflicts between Britain and France. America was just an economic and military backwater, and its navy started out as a pinprick and a laughingstock. But the United States would eventually become the mightiest naval power in the world. How did this happen? The roots of this success involve various political and economic factors, which would be too complex to cover here. But they were expressed in the rise of the American military – and, in particular, of the United States Navy. This was how our economic and political rise was most expressed, and the most direct way that this rise was asserted and defended. Thus, an examination of its effects might be in order here, as I show the role of the United States naval power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This shows how the rise of the United States as a world power was owing (at least in part) to the United States Navy. The navy was involved in some shameful imperial acts, but it also helped the young nation to survive, and to withstand its most vulnerable periods.

Naval engagement in the Barbary Wars, 1804

A story of revolution, defensive actions, imperialist ventures, and civil war

Most coverage of America’s naval conflicts focuses on the Second World War – and, to a lesser degree, on other wars of the twentieth century. But this post will focus on the now-forgotten role of sea power in some of our earlier naval conflicts. That is, it will go from our navy’s beginning in the 1770s, through its role in the Spanish-American War of 1898 – and, eventually, in the “Great White Fleet” of the early 1900s. This was a critical period for the United States, which (chillingly) involved many frightening dangers on land and on sea. During that time, our navy supported unfortunate imperial ventures against Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippines – although those against Native Americans were primarily on land, so I will have to omit them here. (Although I do cover them elsewhere – here, if you’re interested.) But our navy also defended American sovereignty against serious encroachments from Britain and France, and allowed the United States to survive the most staggering threats of its birth and early childhood.

Battle of Lake Erie – Great Lakes (between the United States and Canada), 1813

Abraham Lincoln prevented Great Britain from supporting the Confederacy

“England's course towards the United States during the rebellion exasperated the people of this country very much against the mother country. I regretted it. England and the United States are natural allies, and should be the best of friends. They speak one language, and are related by blood and other ties.”

– Ulysses S. Grant, in the Conclusion of the “Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant” (1885)

There was a real danger that Great Britain would support the Confederacy …

The biggest issue of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency was the rebellion of the Southern states, and the Civil War that quickly erupted when they tried to leave the Union in 1861. There may be good reason for thinking of this kind of domestic rebellion as a “domestic” policy issue. But it also involved complicated foreign policy, as the Southern states tried to get European powers to intervene on their behalf. In particular, the South tried to get Queen Victoria’s British Empire to support the Confederate war efforts. If this had happened, there was a chillingly real possibility that the Civil War would have ended very differently than it did. For example, we might have been forced to become two countries, with chattel slavery living on for years in the more southern country. Abraham Lincoln was just as determined to prevent this from happening. To some degree, Civil War diplomacy also involved distant France, nearby Mexico, and the various Native American tribes who made various choices about whom to ally with. But the two sides’ respective relationships with Britain were the most important theatres of the chess game, since the British had the most power to affect the war’s outcome. Thus, an examination of the Civil War diplomacy might be in order here, to show how both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis conducted diplomacy with the mighty British Empire.

Charles Francis Adams, Sr. – Lincoln’s ambassador to Britain

The Napoleonic Wars: A series of several coalitions and conflicts

The Napoleonic Wars lasted for twelve years, with a death toll in the millions …

The Napoleonic Wars lasted for twelve years, with a death toll in the millions. They are among the most defining conflicts in European history. But most Americans know very little about them, even though they crossed the Atlantic on more than one occasion. Most importantly, they hit the United States in the “War of 1812,” which actually ended in 1815. Thus, it might be helpful to examine the defining European conflict of the early nineteenth century. It has origins in the French Revolution, and in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. He came to power some years before these wars that bear his name. Thus, an overview of the domestic “French Revolution” might be in order here, to show how it affected Napoleon … and, in so many ways, also affected the world at large.

French victory over the Prussians at the Battle of Valmy, 1792

A review of Boris Fausto’s “A Concise History of Brazil”

Note: The edition that I’m reviewing here was expanded by Boris Fausto’s son Sergio Fausto, to bring it up to date.

The most populous country in Latin America, with even more people than Mexico

Brazil is the most populous country in Latin America, with even more people than Mexico. It is also the only country in Latin America (or anywhere in the Americas) that speaks Portuguese. This often surprises North Americans, because they expect South America to speak Spanish. And in many other South American countries, they do. But in fairness, Spanish and Portuguese are extremely similar languages, so they’re not too far off. Of all of the major Romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese seem to me to be the closest. In the Old World, Spain and Portugal were neighbors on Europe’s Iberian Peninsula. And in the New World, they are the two dominant languages of South America, with a large border between their respective spheres. Famously, Spain and Portugal both had territorial ambitions on this continent, and appealed to the Pope to settle the boundary between their respective territories there. Spain then got everything to the west of that boundary, while Portugal then got everything to the east of it. The boundary may not be as linear as it once was, but you can definitely see its influence in the modern map of South America. This explains why the modern nation of Brazil speaks Portuguese, rather than Spanish. And it explains many other things about Latin American geography.

Original edition of this book

The Gettysburg Address explained

If you feel like you don’t understand the Gettysburg Address, this post is for you.

What the heck does “Fourscore and seven years ago” mean?

When people think of the Gettysburg Address, the first thing they think of is the opening phrase: “Fourscore and seven years ago.” Most people don’t even know what a “score” is, so perhaps I should define it for my readers. A “score,” in this context, is an older way of saying “twenty.” Thus, “Fourscore” is four times twenty (which is eighty), and “Fourscore and seven” would be eighty-seven. Lincoln was giving this speech in 1863. If you do the math, 1863 minus 87 gives you the year 1776 – the birth year of this country.

Sketch of Abraham Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address

A review of “Modern Marvels: The Suez Canal” (History Channel)

Long before the Panama Canal was built, the Suez Canal was opened in 1869. This is the same year that America’s Transcontinental Railroad had been completed. But the Suez Canal was even more important for world history. It allowed ships to pass from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, without having to go around Africa. For a trip from Britain to India, a ship could thus save 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) by going on this route. This may make the Suez Canal the most important canal in the world – arguably even more important than the Panama Canal, which is saying something.

Opening of the Suez Canal, 1869

Actually, the Confederacy had no intention of ever abolishing slavery

Warning: For obvious reasons, this post does not censor the offensive language out of the historical sources that it quotes from. To do so would be to obscure the truth about past racism and bigotry.

The Confederate Constitution shows that the South intended to prolong slavery

Even today, there are still some White Southerners who support slavery (although they are few), but most of them now disapprove of the institution, and the racial discrimination that was at the heart of it in these prior times. Perhaps because of this, there have been some White Southerners in recent years who have argued that the South would have abolished slavery anyway, and that it was inclined to do so at this time. (The fictional book “The Guns of the South” is one example of this trend, and I have encountered various other examples of this in some conversations that I have had with White Southerners over the years.)

I will show this with some relevant quotations from the Confederate Constitution

Because of this, it might be helpful to correct the record here, and show that the South had no intention of ever abolishing slavery. I will do this with some quotations from the so-called “Constitution of the Confederate States” (ratified 1862), which show how pro-slavery this wanna-be “Constitution” really was. In many ways, it was even more pro-slavery than the United States Constitution that it would have permanently replaced, which had a number of defects of its own with regards to slavery.

First page of the Confederate Constitution

A review of “Japan: Memoirs of a Secret Empire” (PBS Empires)

Japan's initial contact with the West in 1543

In the year 1543, a Portuguese trading ship arrived in the Japanese island of Tanegashima. Its passengers were the first Europeans to set foot in Japan. From a European perspective, they “discovered” Japan; but from an Asian perspective, they were not the first people to “discover” these islands; since these islands had been inhabited for centuries by that time. An ancient civilization resided here, with its own language, culture, and religions. At least one of its major religions (namely, Buddhism) had been imported from outside, but its Shinto religion was native to Japan itself. To those who lived in Japan, their empire was no “secret.” But to the people back in Europe, this island was indeed a “secret empire.” The European empires were equally “secret” to the Japanese, of course; and to the Japanese, these Christian Europeans were something of a novelty; and so were the strange goods that they carried.

Japanese painting depicting a group of Portuguese foreigners

Early trade with Europeans, including in weapons

The Portuguese carried valuable cargo that they wanted to trade for the Japanese goods. Both sides were eager to engage in this trade, as it turns out, and so Japan's first contact with Europeans established a long relationship with the West. This relationship would not always be as friendly as it was here, but the strange European imports have long fascinated the Japanese. The most important of these imports at this time was the musket. The Japanese realized very early on that these European weapons were very powerful. The Europeans were willing to sell them these weapons for a price, and certain tribes in Japan took them up on this offer. The ones that “got in” on this trade the earliest were able to dominate the other tribes via these weapons, and so these weapons had a massive effect on Japanese internal politics. This documentary starts at the moment of initial contact in the sixteenth century, and continues on through the end of Japanese isolationism in the nineteenth century. Internal Japanese politics are also covered, of course, but there is also a strong emphasis on Japan's complicated relationship with the West.

Various antique Tanegashima muskets

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

A review of PBS’s “Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony”

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 2 - a major barrier to the enactment of women's suffrage before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, because of the word "male"

I had a sort of request from one of my female readers to do something about women's history. Up until that point, I had thought that women would not like hearing things about women's history coming from a man (such as myself); but considered at that point that women might also dislike the idea of their history being left out - which is not a fair perception for my particular blog, I might suggest (since I have talked about it indirectly, in posts about other things), but one that might be perceived nonetheless on the part of some women, if I didn't actually go out and write something specifically on women's history. Thinking "darned if I do, darned if I don't" (or something along those lines), I thought "What the heck?", and decided to write about women's history after all. (If you don't like the idea of women's history written by a man, then by all means, don't read this; but if you're not bothered by the masculine coverage of feminine history, then you're entirely welcome to read this post.)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony: The central figures of this documentary

Thus, I set out to write a post about two of the great feminists of the women's suffrage movement, which are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. These were both depicted in a Ken Burns film called "Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony" (which was later broadcast on PBS). I imagine that Ken Burns and writer Geoffrey C. Ward (both men) also found themselves in the same uncomfortable position that I described for myself, which may have been why they dedicated this film to their daughters, and the other women in their lives. In that same spirit, I set out to give my review of this film; perhaps one that will be read by my future children and other descendants - which will likely include females, who will wonder what I said about their gender's history; and who I cannot let myself disappoint in my coverage here.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton with her two sons, 1848

Susan B. Anthony, 1848

A review of Ken Burns’ “The West”

"Nevada Territory is fabulously rich in gold, silver, lead, coal, iron, quicksilver... thieves, murderers, desperadoes ... lawyers, Christians, Indians, [Chinese], Spaniards, gamblers, sharpers, coyotes, poets, preachers and jackass rabbits."

- Samuel Clemens, who would later become known as "Mark Twain"

I have had a strong love-hate relationship with Ken Burns' "The West" ever since I first saw it, perhaps having more mixed feelings about it than any other documentary that I've ever seen. There is so much good in it, and there is so much bad in it. I sometimes remember parts of it fondly when coming into contact with the history that it covers, but I also remember an overall negative impression that I received from much of the series. This is one of those series where political correctness is taken to levels that are a bit on the extreme side, which is strong enough to detract from the quality of some parts of it. Some parts of it are also quite good, which makes it hard for me to reject it outright; but my overall impression of this series has been generally negative since first watching it. It has much of value in it, but my memory of this series has tended to be negative.

Hernán Cortés

A review of “Andrew Jackson: Good, Evil, and the Presidency”

"Andrew Jackson was a patriot, and a traitor. He was the greatest of generals, and wholly ignorant of the art of war. He was the most candid of men, and capable of the profoundest dissimulation. He was a democratic autocrat, an urbane savage, an atrocious saint."

- Andrew Jackson's first biographer

He was a slaveholding Southerner, who stopped an early attempt at seceding from the Union. He was a champion of the "common man," so long as that common man was white. And his face is found on the $20 bill, even though he caused Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears - after the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.

His name was Andrew Jackson, and he was one of the toughest son-of-a-gun presidents that this country has ever produced. His presidency was not without its praiseworthy moments, but he had more than his share of shameful acts; and some of them taint his legacy to this day. He has been admired and hated by generations of Americans; and continues to excite controversy today. One thing both sides agree on, though - the man was extremely interesting. While his legacy is not always inspiring, it is a source of endless fascination for anyone interested in our history - and as the ongoing interest in Nazi Germany demonstrates, people are (perhaps morbidly) fascinated by Hitler, puzzled and sensationalized by how anyone could do such things. Although Andrew Jackson was no Hitler, the evils in his nature and legacy continue to have much the same effect - puzzling and sensationalizing, scandalizing and mystifying. People love him and hate him, but never lose interest in him. A documentary at PBS explains why.

Dred Scott: The most infamous decision in Supreme Court history

"The plaintiff [Dred Scott]... was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant [Sandford], in the State of Missouri; and he brought this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for [Missouri], to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom."

"As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois...."

- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), a decision that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court

If you asked people what was the worst decision in Supreme Court history, you would get all kinds of answers. Liberals, for example, might say something like District of Columbia v. Heller (a pro-gun-rights decision), and conservatives might say something like Roe v. Wade (a pro-abortion decision). But one thing conservatives and liberals can agree on is the notoriety of another decision - the one my own vote for the worst decision goes to. The case is an old one from 1857, four years before the Civil War broke out. This is a decision that upheld the constitutionality of slavery, and put the liberty of free blacks in the North in jeopardy, to a degree not seen in any previous decision.

Dred Scott, a fugitive slave the court refused to free

A review of “Jefferson Davis: An American President”

"The executive power [of the Confederacy] shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for a term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible."

- Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Confederate States

Other documentaries cover other major figures of the Civil War

So I recently watched a 3 ½ hour documentary about the life of Jefferson Davis, the one and only president of the Confederacy. I first ran into this after having watched documentaries about Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, and wondering if there was anything decent out there about the lead Confederates. So I Googled Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, to see if there were any good documentaries about their lives. There were two documentaries about Robert E. Lee which were an hour and an hour-and-a-half respectively; but after watching both of them, neither of them turned out to be very good. The A&E one suffered from many of the same flaws as the network's other biographies, as it was poorly made and painfully brief. The PBS one had a liberal bias bad enough to interfere with its quality. I've enjoyed many of PBS's other biographies, but their one about Robert E. Lee was disappointing, particularly in that it was also brief; and it was not so much offensive as just unsatisfying - I didn't feel like I learned anything new.

Even the title of the documentary is controversial

Jefferson Davis was a different story, as I soon found two movies about his life. One of them was only two hours long, and the reviews of it did not make it seem that good. But the other one was this one, which is a 3 ½ hour documentary entitled "Jefferson Davis: An American President." The title in and of itself is somewhat controversial, but that was part of what made it intriguing. The length of it seemed appropriate, and the controversies about it among the reviewers further augmented my interest. I thus decided to get a copy for Christmas. This one is much better, as I learned a lot; and it helps you to better understand the Southern side of the war.

A review of “Ulysses S. Grant: Warrior President”

"The war between the States was a very bloody and a very costly war. One side or the other had to yield principles they deemed dearer than life before it could be brought to an end."

- "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" (1885), Conclusion

I had heard the name "Ulysses S. Grant" as a child, and knew he was important; but did not know much about him. I had heard much criticism of Grant's generalship, with the old claim that he was a butcher - an unfavorable characterization voiced by then-First-Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. I also heard some good things about Grant's generalship, and my father was a great admirer of Grant; but everyone seemed to consider Robert E. Lee's generalship superior to his. The general, it seemed, was incompetent; and a drunk to boot. I knew also of the apocryphal story about someone complaining to President Lincoln about Grant's drinking, and then hearing the response to "Find out what he drinks, and I'll send a barrel of it to all my other generals" (or something to that effect).

Abraham Lincoln

Ken Burns' famous depiction of Grant in "The Civil War"

It was in watching Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries that I got to know Grant a little better; to hear Jason Robards read quotes from him, and to hear a brief version of Grant's postwar life. Ken Burns is a little hard on Grant's presidency in the postwar episode, I think, mentioning only its failures in the brief sentence about it. He does do justice to the story of Grant's writing his memoirs, and setting it up with the business failures that prompted his writing them; but he also ignores some important context when mentioning that Grant had someone tied to a tree for several hours for mistreating a horse - the man was ordered to stop doing it, and persisted quite openly in doing so. Mentioning this insubordination would have seemed appropriate to give context; but given the other virtues of the series, I'll let this omission slide.

The definitive film on Grant is this biography by PBS

This American Experience documentary about him is the definitive film on Grant. The Western director John Ford, I am told, wanted to do a biopic about Grant; but never got to do so. A Hollywood movie would have been something, but this documentary is quite impressive as well; making good use of the many photographs of Grant, the people he worked with, and the events he was involved in. They make good use of quotes from Grant's memoirs, and benefit from having one of the most interesting stories in American history to dramatize. I think Grant may be the most fascinating man in American history, and this documentary does him justice.

A review of “Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided”

" 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

- Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech (1858)

I have seen a lot of PBS's presidential biographies, and many of them are compelling indeed. But my personal favorite would have to be this one about Abraham Lincoln. Technically, it is not a biography of Abraham alone, as it is also about his wife Mary. (Witness the title: "Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided.") But telling the story of either is also to tell the story of the other; and weaving them together as they are woven here, one gets a great view of both of them, especially during Lincoln's presidency.

Abraham Lincoln

Mary Todd Lincoln

Frederick Douglass: The forgotten antislavery leader

"Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system, and hastening the glad day of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in bonds - faithfully relying upon the power of truth, love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts - and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred cause - I subscribe myself, FREDERICK DOUGLASS. Lynn, Massachusetts, April 28, 1845."

- Concluding words of the Appendix to the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself"

Have you ever wondered what American slavery was like? If so, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better answer to this question than the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself." This book was written by a former slave to influence Americans to oppose the "peculiar institution" of slavery.

Young Frederick Douglass