How our Founding Fathers fought the Barbary Pirates

“[The Congress shall have the power] To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations …”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 of the United States Constitution – ratified in 1787, during the American-Algerian War

Militarily speaking, the Founding Fathers are most famous today for fighting the British. During the American Revolution, they fought to become independent from Great Britain. But, when four of our Founding Fathers became presidents, they had to deal with the Barbary Pirates. These were a group of (mostly Muslim) pirates from distant North Africa. Many of them would capture Christians, and sell them into slavery. Thus, it’s a small wonder that the Barbary Pirates would become somewhat unpopular in America (not to mention elsewhere) as a result. This post will thus tell the forgotten story of the Barbary Wars. But, in order to understand them, we must understand the Barbary Pirates themselves. And it turns out that their story goes back for many centuries.

An Algerine pirate ship, during the prior actions of the Barbary Pirates

The “Quasi-War”: The only war between France and the United States

“There shall be a firm inviolable and universal peace, and a true and sincere friendship between His Britannick Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the United States of America; and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns and people of every degree, without exception of persons or places.”

“It is agreed between His [Britannick] Majesty and the United States of America, that there shall be a reciprocal and entirely perfect liberty of navigation and commerce, between their respective people, in the manner, under the limitations, and on the conditions specified in the following articles.”

– Articles 1 and 11 of the Jay Treaty (signed in 1794, and proclaimed in 1796), as negotiated by ambassador John Jay under President George Washington – which angered the French enough for France to fight the “Quasi-War” with the United States

That time that the United States went to war with France (sort of)

You might already know that the American colonies rebelled against Britain, in our “Revolutionary War.” You might further know that we fought against Britain again during our “War of 1812.” In both of these wars, we were thus allied with distant France. Thus, many Americans would feel some degree of “gratitude” to France for helping us with these wars. But the situation may actually be a little more complicated. In the late eighteenth century, we fought a small (but still important) war with France on the high seas. This is a lesser-known conflict, which was between the American Revolution and the War of 1812. During this conflict, we had to make some difficult choices about whom we would choose as allies. And we had to make some equally difficult choices … about whom we would choose as our enemies. Had the war gone a little differently, our “War of 1812” might have instead been against France – and who knows what the war’s consequences would have been in that case? This had the potential to change American history, if it had been navigated a little less delicately.

Fire at Port-Royal following Samuel Argall’s attack – French Acadia, 1613

Why there are still American Revolution and Civil War buffs

“And there was Cap’n Washington,

And gentle folks about him;

They say he’s grown so ‘tarnal proud

He will not ride without ‘em.

Yankee Doodle keep it up,

Yankee Doodle dandy,

Mind the music and the step,

And with the girls be handy.”

– “Yankee Doodle,” written in 1755 – although some verses (like the one before the famous chorus above) were later added, when this became the first American patriotic song

Our Revolution and Civil War (particularly the latter) receive much interest in America …

This might seem a strange way to begin a blog post about these American topics … but, in nearby Canada, people strongly remember the “Seven Years’ War,” including the portion known to Americans as the “French and Indian War.” Canadians also strongly remember the War of 1812 – in which they fought against the United States. But Canadians usually forget the American Revolution (where they had been fighting against the Americans), and the American Civil War (which coincided with the peaceful Confederation period in Canada). Conversely, Americans usually forget the “Seven Years’ War” (including the “French and Indian War” portion thereof), and they usually forget the War of 1812 as well. But the American Revolution is considered a big deal here in the United States, and so (to an even greater degree) is the American Civil War. Why is this? Why are there still many American Revolution buffs here – and why is our Civil War still one of the most popular historical topics in the United States? And why do these subjects remain important today, all of these years after both of these conflicts ended – one in 1865, and the other even earlier in 1783? These are the questions that this post will try to explore. I will try to show how both of these subjects can shed some light on the American identity – by telling us who we are as Americans. They are related to promises about liberty and equality, and what they mean for Americans today. To some extent, this may explain why Americans are still interested in these conflicts today.

Washington and Lafayette at Valley Forge

What the War of 1812 did for the United States

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

– Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolution

Anecdote about the diplomacy of John Adams, during and after the American Revolution

In 1785, John Adams became the first American ambassador to meet with a British king. That monarch was King George the Third, who then remained somewhat unpopular in the American colonies. As was customary for ambassadors in this time, Adams approached the king and bowed three times. As Wikipedia puts it, Adams then “promised to do all that he could to restore friendship and cordiality between people separated by an ocean and [who] ‘have the same language, a similar religion and kindred blood.’ The king agreed and added that ‘while he had been the last to consent’ to American independence, he wished Adams to know that he had always done what he thought right and proper. He inquired, ‘There is an opinion, among some people, that you are not the most attached of all your countrymen, to the manners of France.’ Adams replied, ‘That opinion sir, is not mistaken, I must avow to your Majesty, I have no attachments but to my own country.’ George responded, ‘An honest man will never have any other.’” (Source: Their page on the “Diplomacy of John Adams”) John Adams had signed the peace treaty with Britain that ended the Revolutionary War. Later on, his son John Quincy Adams would sign the peace treaty with Britain that ended the War of 1812. Both tried to sort out some of the issues left over from the American Revolution – whether before, during, or after the War of 1812.

Naval engagement in our Quasi-War with France, 1799

USA spies: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

“Therefore no one in the armed forces is treated as familiarly as are spies, no one is given rewards as rich as those given to spies, and no matter is more secret than espionage.”

– Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” (5th century BC China), Chapter 13 (as translated by Thomas Cleary)

Information traveled slowly in those days, at the speed of a horse or a sailing ship

Sun Tzu reminds us that spies have been around since antiquity. In the Peloponnesian Wars of Ancient Greece, for example, Alcibiades betrayed Athens to Sparta, then defected to the Persian side, and then returned to Athens. This high-profile treason had a way of making him a little unpopular in certain quarters, to say the least. But most of the glory of espionage tends to go to the later Cold War period of the twentieth century. The latter period has been the subject of movies like “Breach,” “Bridge of Spies,” and (of course) the “James Bond” franchise. We may thus tend to associate spies with high-tech methods, like hacking and computer encryption. But most of the spies in history were somewhat lower-tech, and the embarrassing government secrets could travel no faster than the speed of a horse. And, during the American Revolution, London and Paris were way across the ocean from the critical campaigns in North America. Thus, it could take months for important information to sail across the Atlantic. The news of the American victory at Saratoga took several months to bring France into the war, delaying the all-important French assistance to the outnumbered (and badly outgunned) American rebels.

British surrender at Saratoga, 1777

Some information in this post was once top-secret, while the rest is largely forgotten

But the spy conflicts of the early United States are largely forgotten today. We hear much about the American Revolution and the Civil War in school, but we don’t hear too many stories about the important spies in our earliest conflicts. This is understandable, because the discussions of these wars usually have to focus upon the politics involved therein – and, of course, upon the many battles themselves. But the spy stories of these wars seem to have all the drama of more modern spy conflicts. They have all of the human interest, all of the juicy scandals, and all of the broader strategic importance. Specifically, the spies therein had a great effect on how these wars ultimately played out. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about a few of the spies in America’s earliest conflicts. Some of the information herein was once top-secret. The rest is largely forgotten to the public. But these details tell a story about how the military secrets of both sides were either protected, or (more embarrassingly) leaked – sometimes with catastrophic consequences, for the one side or the other.

Paul Revere’s ride

Why World War II continues to fascinate so many

World War II has been depicted in countless books, documentaries, and Hollywood movies. Some of these movies are basically action films of one sort or another. That is, they dramatize the contributions of those who fought for the various Allied nations. These films can take place on submarines and other warships, in bombers or fighter planes, or in various (often exotic) ground locations all over the world. Other films tell the stories of those who lived under Nazi or Japanese rule, with difficult decisions dropped on these unluckily-placed people. For example, some of them chose to escape, some of them chose to spy for the Allies, and others of them chose to collaborate with the Axis occupations of their own countries (sadly enough). Other films depict parts of the Holocaust, dramatizing the countless victims of the genocide. Other films (such as “Tora! Tora! Tora!”) ask big questions, like how we got involved in the war. I have even heard of a film about the efforts to prevent the Nazis from getting the atomic bomb. (More about that here.) Other films depict World War II code-crackers or spies, prisoners of war in Axis-controlled prison camps, or even the postwar Nuremberg trials. There are biographies of major leaders – such as FDR, Churchill, Patton, or Eisenhower. And there are countless stories about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Why is this? What is it about World War II that continues to fascinate people, all of these decades after it tore the world apart – and then altered the very map of the world itself?

Firefighters tackling a blaze amongst ruined buildings after an air raid – London, 1941

Naval air power: Aircraft carrier tactics in the Pacific War

In Italy, the distant Battle of Taranto proved the effectiveness of aircraft carriers

In November 1940, a British aircraft carrier launched an aerial attack against the forces of Fascist Italy. At the Italian port of Taranto, 21 Fairey Swordfish biplanes wreaked havoc on Mussolini’s fleet. These planes were “torpedo bombers,” meaning that they were designed to drop torpedoes at a point in the water near to an enemy ship. The torpedoes were then supposed to plunge towards their targets, and hit it beneath the waves. By inflicting a hole on the submerged part of the enemy ship, they would allow water to pour in, and (if all went well) send the target sinking to the bottom of the ocean. People were understandably skeptical about whether these torpedoes would work in the shallow waters of Taranto harbor. They were worried that the torpedoes would instead plunge into the muddy bottom of the harbor itself. But, at the cost of two British aircraft, the British had damaged one heavy cruiser, two destroyers, and two enemy fighters. Most importantly, they had actually disabled three Italian battleships, which were then supposed to be the most formidable ships afloat. At Taranto, Mussolini’s Italians had lost 59 killed and 600 wounded, while the British had lost only 2 killed and 2 captured. The Battle of Taranto was powerful evidence about the effectiveness of the latest aircraft carriers, and their ability to sink these supposedly “invincible” battleships.

Aftermath of the Battle of Taranto, showing a beached Italian battleship – Italy, 1940

U-boats in the Great War: The other “Battle of the Atlantic”

German U-boats were once the terror of the high seas, and this was true during both world wars. In the First World War, this campaign had much to do with the eventual American entry into the war. But we tend to associate these campaigns with the Second World War, which will probably continue to enjoy more glory than the first one ever did. And, in truth, the Battle of the Atlantic really was quite important. We thus tend to associate the phrase “Battle of the Atlantic” with World War Two, and describe its World War One equivalent simply as the “Atlantic U-boat campaign.” (When using the generic phrase “U-boat campaign,” though, this can also include the lesser-known “Mediterranean U-boat campaign.”) But in a broader sense, the First World War version was also a “Battle of the Atlantic,” and was vitally important in its own right. It was the lifeline of Allied Europe during the Great War, and (as mentioned earlier) played a big role in getting America to enter the war. This post will describe the U-boat front of the Great War, with a particular focus on the changing role of the Americans in this campaign. But I assure readers from other countries that I will tie in our own situation to that of our many allies, since it affected every other nation that participated in these campaigns – as readers may soon see, if they indeed decide to read this post.

German U-boats at Kiel (before the war started), 1914

Top secret: The role of spying and code-cracking in the World Wars

In the 1970s, a British television network made a series called “The World at War,” possibly the most comprehensive television history ever made about World War II. But it contains not one word about Bletchley Park, the primary British codebreaking operation of World War II. The reason is very simple: In the 1970s, information about Bletchley Park was still top-secret, since releasing this information would have risked compromising current espionage efforts. Thus, the existence of Bletchley Park was still a closely guarded secret in the early 1970s. But, after enough time had gone by, it was no longer necessary to keep these things confidential. Thus, in the decades since “The World at War,” much of the information about the era’s espionage (including code-breaking) has been officially declassified. Thus, historians today have somewhat more information to work with, in talking about the state secrets of that time. For example, we now know things that were once top-secret, and we now know how some of that information changed hands – while other parts remained protected. This post will try to use some of the now-declassified information, along with more traditional information, to tell the stories of spies and code-crackers in both world wars – especially World War II. But, in order to achieve a true understanding of the Second World War, it may help to consider the prior events of the First World War. The “Great War,” as it is sometimes called, had some spy stories that are fascinating in their own right – rivaling any others in their human interest. These juicy stories may help to shed some light on the later espionage of the Second World War – the conflict that most continues to fascinate people today.

Rear of the rebuilt British “Bombe” computer, used at Bletchley Park in World War II England

USA prisoners of war: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these in particular is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

I grew up on prisoner-of-war movies – like “Stalag 17,” “The Great Escape,” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” They are particularly popular when depicting World War II, or certain other wars of the twentieth century. But relatively little has been said about American prisoners of war in prior conflicts. For example, little has been said about POWs in the American Revolution and the Civil War. Thus, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps here, and talk about our “POWs” (or “Prisoners Of War”) in some of these other periods. I should note that most of these periods were before the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Thus, modern rules and laws about the treatment of POWs did not yet apply in some of these periods. The stories of captured Americans, and those that we captured for ourselves, will tell us much about who we were as a people – and who we are today.

Air power in the World Wars: From “expensive toy” to a serious weapon

“There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.”

– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber” Harris), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)

In 1903, the Wright brothers showed the world that “man really can fly” (to paraphrase Dieter F. Uchtdorf). As Wikipedia puts it, Orville and Wilbur Wright made “the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, four miles (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, at what is now known as Kill Devil Hills.” (see source) Planes have since been used for scientific and commercial reasons, but they have also been an important part of warfare for more than a century now. They have altered the way that warfare has been fought, on both the land and the sea. The history of military aviation is one of conflict between carrier and battleship theories, between heavy bombing and close air support theories, and other changes in military strategy and tactics. I freely confess that I’m no expert on any kind of aviation, but my paternal grandfather was well-versed in the subject, and taught me some of what he knew about it. This post will thus focus on aviation in the two massive World Wars, particularly as used by the United States. This was my grandfather’s biggest area of historical expertise.

German biplane shot down by the Americans in the Argonne, 1918 (during World War One)

Cold War crises: Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and “Able Archer 83”

“Is this a game, or is it real?”

– Quote from “WarGames” (1983), a fictional movie about a close call with nuclear war, which came out a few months before the first of these real-life crises

The Soviet Union shoots down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 …

In 1983, a Boeing 747 aircraft took off from JFK International Airport in New York City on the 30th of August. Its planned destination was Seoul in South Korea, but it was scheduled to make a stop in Anchorage, Alaska, and routinely did so on the following day (the 31st of August). But the aircraft actually never made it to its planned destination, because it was shot down the next day on the 1st of September. It was flying over prohibited Soviet airspace. The Soviets thus mistook it for an American spy plane, and sent up a Sukhoi SU-15 interceptor aircraft to shoot it down. The interceptor did the job with air-to-air missiles, and the aircraft quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan, near Moneron Island west of Sakhalin. All 269 passengers and crew were killed, including a United States Congressman from Georgia named Larry McDonald. Two weeks later, on the 15th of September, the Soviets actually found the wreckage under the sea; and in October, they even found the flight recorders. But they kept all of this secret for the next ten years, not releasing any of this until 1993. (I borrow some of the wording for this blog post from various parts of Wikipedia, which I must acknowledge here as a source.)

HL7442, the same plane that was shot down as “Korean Air Lines Flight 007”

The Berlin Blockade: The first crisis after World War II

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an IRON CURTAIN has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in some form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow."

- Winston Churchill, in his "Sinews of Peace" address, given in Fulton, Missouri on March 5, 1946

The wartime alliance against Nazi Germany

This might seem a strange way to begin a post about the Berlin Blockade, but politics makes for strange bedfellows. There are few bedfellows more strange than the United States and Soviet Russia. During World War II, they had been allied (somewhat ironically) in the struggle against Nazi Germany. Now they distrusted each other greatly - although the distrust wasn't all that new, in the grand scheme of things - almost as much as they had distrusted their common enemy, the Nazis. After the war was over, they were supposedly working together to undo Nazism, but the people of this time had reason to wonder if this was actually happening. The Soviets had made several promises in the postwar peace treaties that they were now breaking, and they weren't exactly tiny promises. They'd promised freedom to the several countries in Eastern Europe (which the Soviet troops were now occupying), and the Soviets pledged that they would "remove their troops soon." But there was a problem with this, since the troops were still there; and freedom wasn't exactly high on the Soviets' priority list.

Red Army raises Soviet flag in Berlin after taking the city, 1945

A review of “Liberty! The American Revolution” and “The Revolution”

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."

"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

- The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

It was the most successful revolution in history (and the most underrated), but one in which the winning side lost almost every battle that it fought. It was a war with dramatic battles and military campaigns, but whose greatest revolution was in political thinking and good government. And it was a war with larger-than-life heroes who were immortalized in statues and monuments; but it was won by the tireless efforts of ordinary people, without whose efforts the war would surely have been lost.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

The war was a desperate one, and the Americans came pretty close to losing it ...

The American Revolution it created became the most powerful nation in the world, but was one of the weakest nations for most of its early history. Indeed, it would never have won its independence at all without the help of foreign powers (especially France), and the war was a desperate one whose outcome was not the inevitable victory that it is often painted to be. The Americans could very well have lost that war, and the country as we know it would never have existed: the world would have been a very different place.

Why we allied with Soviet Russia during World War II, and then fought against it later on

"The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[,] desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement: Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers."

- Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), 23 August 1939 - a pact which was quickly broken in 1941, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union

It's often cited as one of the great ironies of history - that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II, and then enemies during the Cold War. Why is this?

We were fighting against a greater enemy during World War II, which was Nazi Germany

The answer is long and a bit complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: We in America allied with Soviet Russia during World War II to fight against a greater enemy (Nazi Germany) that had actually declared war on us, when Soviet Russia had not. Later on, we watched with horror as the poor countries of Eastern Europe were passed from one dictator (Hitler) to another (Joseph Stalin), and reluctantly realized that the Soviet Union could be every bit as threatening as Nazi Germany had been. Thus, we fought hard to prevent its expansion into any further territory.

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

The common theme in our dealings with the Russians was America's national interest

These ideas might seem incompatible: Allying with the Russians during one five-year period, and being enemies with them for more than forty years after that. Yet the alliance and the later conflict both had a common theme in them, which was America's national interest. It was served by an alliance of necessity during World War II, and an opposition of equal necessity during the Cold War period.

Russian Revolution of 1917

The Cuban Missile Crisis: A comparison of two movies

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

- John F. Kennedy, in his Address on the Cuban Missile Crisis (22 October 1962)

I have watched two movies about the Cuban Missile Crisis, in addition to the episode about it in CNN's Cold War series. I've also seen it treated in some documentaries about the Kennedys, so I feel like I have some basic knowledge about it. I'm thus in a position to compare the different media about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and say what the advantages and disadvantages of each one are.

U-2 reconnaissance plane (during refueling)

How the crisis began

But before I do this, I should probably explain what the Cuban Missile Crisis was, for those who don't know. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the time in world history when the world came closest to nuclear war. The Soviets began to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, which were discovered by an American U-2 reconnaissance flight. The plane brought photographic evidence of them back to the United States, which alarmed the few authorized to see them. President Kennedy and his advisers knew that these missiles were well within range of a significant portion of the United States, and would have allowed the Soviets to nuke much of the country with little or no warning. This would have given them a first-strike capability.

Actual U-2 reconnaissance photograph of Soviet missiles in Cuba (visible when magnified)

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 “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