Manifest Destiny by Cris Lee

We have all heard of the term Manifest Destiny. Many of us had some rudimentary education about the American expansion to the West and the great cultural legacy that the West left on the American image. Interestingly, the West we imagine today could have very easily been the Mexican state of Baja California, or the vast Canadian province of British Columbia. Those who sought to expand the United States during the early 19th century clearly had no mental image of how expansive the Republic would become . Like children, the early United States and her politicians held grandiose dreams of continental conquest. Unsurprisingly, the objects of this desire were our friendly neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

As many are already aware, Mexico was a clear target of U.S. land interests. Though referred to as a sister republic by some, no American statesman denied that Mexico was in the way of the Jeffersonian ideal of the Empire of Liberty. The Mexican Republic maintained flimsy authority over her northern territories, unable to suppress local Native American hostilities, nor send enough settlers in to make a profit.

Through interpreting what was then thought of as divine will, and egging Mexican forces into taking the first shot, the U.S. took the Northern Mexican territories as the spoils of the Mexican American war.  What is less known, is that the U.S. briefly considered the annexation of the entirety of Mexico. The movement, known as the All-Mexico movement, was popularized after the American invasion of Mexico proper. With U.S. forces successful in the field, American politicians became bold enough to suggest that the United States could incorporate the entirety of Mexico.  Why not? It was said that some Mexicans felt more secure under the leadership of General Zachary Taylor than his Mexican counterparts, and Kearney seemed to be liberating Mexicans in the northern provinces from religious conservatism and political corruption. The answer to that question came in two parts.. As one of manifest destiny’s premises was to display the civic virtue of the United States, forcing American democracy on another nation-state was seen as abhorrent. Perhaps the more notable argument was John C. Calhoun’s “Our’s, sir, is the government of the white race.”

Evident to us of the 21st century, the U.S. did not annex Mexico. Though one could attribute this result to the consensus of white supremacy in the U.S. government, it is also notable that Mexico was the land of continuing dissent. In fact, Mexican factions quarreled amongst themselves, even as U.S. troops marched closer and closer to Mexico City. In this aspect, we can see the practicality in the U.S. government’s position to not annex Mexico, as it would simply put the burden of political instability on the U.S.

American desire for the occupation of Canada was almost as old as the U.S. herself. Unlike Mexico however, Canada’s image in the eyes of the United States was not one that required “civilization.” Of course, this could be due to the common cultural heritage that Canada and the United States derived from Britain, but the focal point on U.S. policy seemed to always link back to security. Some historians argue that the insecurity of the Northern borders of Colonial North America induced colonials to believe that Canada was a strategically critical position. The Revolutionary War saw the coming of American invitations to not only the Canadians, but Floridans, and West Indians to join the cause. Canada always prickled the imagination of our founding fathers as a security liability. Much like the way that Britain viewed Ireland during the rise of Napoleon, Americans viewed Canada as a potential staging point for a British Invasion and military tactics. This proved to be true after the War of American Independence as Canada became an important base of operations for British harassment of American frontiersman.

In the early years of the United States, Canada was viewed more as an object of hate that the Americans could lash out against to protest British actions. The most famous incident of this would be the War of 1812, where the American armed forces took the liberty of striking Canada while the bulk of the British forces were occupied with Napoleon’s France. Many American statesmen were under the impression that a successful invasion of Canada would shock the British government enough to force it into reckoning with American rights and neutrality. Even so, William Hull, the American general in charge of the invasion of Canada (and also famous for losing fort Detroit without firing a single shot) proclaimed that the Canadians would be liberated from British sovereignty. Such rhetoric was one of the foundations of Manifest Destiny. The premise goes back to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of an Empire of Liberty. As many Americans know, the invasion was a failure, and to some extent, an embarrassment to the American forces.  Afterwards, military threats directed at Canada came not in the hands of the American government, but private entities that had qualm with British policies. A famous example would be the Fenian Brotherhood’s actions in Canada to pressure Britain’s withdrawal from Ireland in the late 19th century. The question of Canada’s involvement rose again when the British and American governments disputed over the ownership of the Oregon territory. Stretching as far north into British Columbia and far south to Oregon, the Oregon territory had been jointly occupied by the U.S. and the U.K. Becoming increasingly aggressive, the U.S. statesmen urged then President Polk to claim all of the territory. Though tempted, the dark horse president settled for the 49th parallel which divides Washington and British Columbia today.

Pursue Your Curiosity: My History Research Trip Experience

While my senior thesis has taken me to several places these past two years, such as the musty aisles of the main stacks, the digital interfaces of numerous search engines, or into the book-lined offices of friendly professors, none was more exciting and fulfilling than my research trip to New York City and Worcester, Massachusetts. When I submitted my application for the history senior honors thesis program that fateful day Sophomore year, I could have never known that I, a suburban Midwestern boy, would be waving crazily at yellow-taxis in the heart of Manhattan, navigating the bustling streets of New York City, or traversing freshly fallen snow around a local Worcester City pond to look at a morning sunrise under the shelter of a gazebo. No, I could never have imagined those experiences when I sent that application email to Professor Symes.

My trip to New York was one mixed with awe and inspiration. My eyes eagerly darted across the NYC landscape as my plane descended into La Guardia airport. There was the Statue of Liberty! What river is this again? There’s the Barclay’s Center where the Nets play. There’s the Brooklyn Bridge! No, wait, I think that’s it. I rode down a river of cars and was swept onto the sidewalk at my hotel in Mid-Town Manhattan. The next three days would prove to be both challenging and entertaining at the same time.

Each morning before heading to the New York Historical Society, I would stroll into that environmental relic of the past we know as Central Park. The street noise of the city tapered off as I walked deeper and deeper into the trees. There was something uniquely beautiful about the juxtaposition of our great architectural achievements of skyscrapers and the grassy hills, jagged rocks, and quiet ponds of nature. I observed the many dogs whose owners would either be running or chatting with a friend, periodically sipping their coffee. It amazed me how practically no dogs were leashed and I smiled as I thought about how my own dog would react.

The New York Historical Society was amazing. After pacing back and forth outside trying to find the entrance to their archive, which turns out was on the second floor of the museum, I checked my coat and bag and began researching. I pored over 18^th century documents, trying to dig up any information on the printers who had published that set of essays we know today as the Federalist Papers. While there, I was pleasantly surprised to find out how friendly everyone was. “Sure! You wanted the New York Assembly Meeting Minutes, Volume…4? I’ll get that for you in one second.” “Awesome! Thanks!” I suppose that is their job, but still.

The New York Public Library was another experience entirely. I rode another waterfall of cabs down New York’s famous Fifth Avenue, staring at all the sparkling lights and LED displays of corporate America. I closed the door on a cabman who was busy telling me how Netflix and the iPad CHANGED his life, absolutely, changed his life, and walked into the main lobby. I quickly found out that the NYPL is something of a tourist attraction, as I unintentionally walked in front of multiple people taking pictures of a large, decorated Christmas tree in the lobby. After taking a couple pictures of my own, I navigated my way into the main reading room. I was amazed to see that table was lined with people studying. I glanced out the window and saw a countless number of tiny white boxes of office light dotting the sky. What is everyone doing? Are these the faceless forces that keep America’s economy in motion? I passed prospective lawyers and aspiring artists as I made my way into the manuscript division room.

The researchers here were equally nice, helping me locate documents and navigate their many collections and archival material. I learned about how an 18^th century printer who was known to publish many oppositional essays to the Constitution during ratification was attacked by a mob of Federalists. His shop was destroyed, windows broken, and equipment damaged. My curiosity led me to read many peoples’ individual correspondences describing a wide range of topics from family relationships and politics to business and the weather. The single greatest thing I learned from my research trip, however, was how to read 18^th century handwriting. At hour 5, my eyes would begin to cross as the p’s began to look like h’s, the f’s like s’s. Needless to say, I have a new found appreciation for published primary sources.

My time was up in New York and I scrambled to take that last picture and scribble that last note. I checked out of my tiny hotel and had an experience that was to me near death, while to the cab driver was probably normal Saturday traffic. I was plopped onto the sidewalk in front of the famous Madison Square Garden. After waiting a couple hours for my Amtrak to depart from Penn Station, I was on my way to Worcester, Massachusetts home of the American Antiquarian Society, the Mecca of 18^th century print culture.

To my dismay I arrived at the AAS only to find it was being renovated. I didn’t let this dampen my excitement, however, and dove into the archive’s deep pool of primary documents. Along the way I made friends with a fellow honors thesis student from University of Maryland and a particularly nice old man whose good nature helped me feel more at home. I read and took hundreds of pictures of colonial printer Isaiah Thomas’ business correspondence. I was transported into that 18^th century world of deference; each letter signed “Your humble and much obliging servant,”. I scribbled language of my time into my notes as I read: “lol”, “that sucks”, “nice”.

My three days in Worcester were quickly over. I hopped into my shuttle that would take me to Boston, talking with a woman who Boston accent was so heavy I thought it was a joke. She pointed out landmarks to me as we drove into Logan International Airport. We passed through Newton, the town which apparently originally invented the Fig Newton. I saw the Green Monster and the Boston Harbor as my driver rattled off many fun things to do in Boston. While it was all very interesting, I remember feeling both relieved that I had completed the trip and anxious to get back home.

A few hours later I was ascending into the night sky above Massachusetts Bay. Our plane banked and I was transfixed by the magnificent mosaic of a million tiny lights. How much would those of the past have given to see society from such a view point? The strips of highway lights lined the landscape. Here were the veins of America, pumping people across space as they moved through life. As I passed over city after city on my way back to my quiet suburban home in Cary, IL, I couldn’t help but feel that I had accomplished something.

No, I definitely could not have foreseen the experiences that this journey called my senior honors thesis would take me on. Nor would I have wanted to. Research is exciting; and I strongly encourage you, whenever the chance may be, to do some research of your own. It’s an adventure that will take you to exciting, unforeseen places if you only pursue with boldness your own curiosity.

-Peter R. Pellizzari, Associate Editor for Early American History

Sede Vacante

This past Monday Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation from the
papacy, stunning the Catholic world. Such an abdication of power is
nearly unheard of, especially for such a high position – but it does
have some historical precedent.

The last “true” pope to resign from power was Pope Celestine V in the
year 1294. Celestine came to power after a nearly two year period in
which the cardinals could not come to a consensus on whom was to
become the next pope. Eventually in a fit of desperation, one of the
cardinals shouted the name of Celestine’s given name Pietro Angelerio.
Celestine was initially unwilling, and attempted to flee the room, but
eventually acquiesced and was made pope at the age of 79. Celestine’s
reign would not last for long however, as he was notably unskilled at
leadership and was essentially a puppet of King Charles II, the King
of Naples at the time. Celestine appointed many of the king’s friends
to positions of power, confusing the hierarchy of the church and
creating a great deal of corruption. Eventually Celestine realized he
wasn’t fit for power, and resigned after just five months in power.
This wasn’t enough to forego him his sainthood, however, as he was
canonized in 1313. Celestine was the last pope to use this name,
perhaps for a reason. Who would want to be associated with such an
embarrassing leader?

I mentioned Celestine as the last “true” pope to resign, as the last
pope sequentially to leave his position was Pope Gregory XII in 1415.
Gregory XII isn’t considered a “true” pope to many as he ruled during
the Western Schism of the Catholic Church. During this Schism, two
popes ruled at two different geographical locations. In 1378, Pope
Urban VI had just been elected as the Pope by the cardinals. Many were
upset with this decision, as Urban proved to be violent and utilized
suspicious methods to attain his goals. Some cardinals privately
concurred that Urban was unfit for power, and returned to Avignon to
elect a new, secondary pope. Robert of Geneva was their man, and he
took the name Clement VII in 1378. Now that there were two popes, a
diplomatic crisis happened across Europe as various countries’ leaders
were unsure which pope to throw their weight behind.

The crisis continued for decades, with neither set of popes willing to
give up their power. The conflict outlived both initial popes, with
Benedict XIII taking the Avignon position and Gregory XII taking the
throne in Rome. Neither pope were willing to work with one another,
and for a time a third pope was elected by the cardinals in lieu of
support for either of the original popes in the schism. Each of the
three popes still retained some semblance of power, however, and
refused to give up their title.

Eventually the Council of Constance was held in 1414, intending to
resolve the matter. Gregory XII sent two proxies in his place, and
knew beforehand that he was likely to have to give up his power.
Gregory was the first to truly resign – the council of cardinals
forced the other two popes to give up their power as well. Pope Martin
V would be the next clergymen to hold the position.

Benedict’s resignation is truly unique in lieu of analyzing the
previous two instances of papal resignations. If we are to believe
what the Church says, Benedict is resigning for purely health reasons
– not because of any internal squabbles or leadership deficiencies. It
is truly exciting to be able to witness such a rare event.

-Brian J. Denten, Associate Editor for Western European History

Celebrities in Politics

A poll conducted in December by Public Policy Polling reported that South Carolina voters wanted comedian and South Carolina native Stephen Colbert to be appointed by Governor Nikki Haley to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Republican Jim DeMint. While this poll is obviously just that, a poll, and in fact Haley appointed Republican Congressman Tim Scott to the seat, it raised again the prospect of an entertainer entering politics. This interesting happening has occurred several times in recent history with varying levels of success. If Haley had bowed to that particular poll’s wishes, Mr. Colbert would have joined the following intriguing celebrity politicians:

Sonny Bono

U.S. Representative from California (1995-1998)

The world famous half of Sonny and Cher was also a conservative Republican. He served as mayor of Palm Springs, California in the late 1980’s and lost a bid for the U.S. Senate in 1992. However, he campaigned for and successfully won a seat in the U.S. House in the 1994 Republican landslide. As a congressman, he was regarded as a policy lightweight but a copyright bill he had championed was named in his honor following his untimely death in a skiing accident in 1998.

Jesse Ventura

Governor of Minnesota (1999-2003)

Jesse “The Body” was Navy veteran and longtime professional wrestler and commentator before entering politics in the early 1990’s. He served first as Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota in the early 1990’s before being elected Governor on the Reform Party ticket in 1998. The Ventura administration’s most notable achievements included mass transit innovations and participation in several trade missions. Having left the Reform Party in 2000, the independent Ventura found himself more and more disgusted by the actions of political parties and did not seek reelection in 2002. He continues to serve as an occasional political commentator.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor of California (2003-2011)

The world famous action star was one of many celebrities to enter the 2003 recall election of unpopular Democratic California Governor Gray Davis. Schwarzenegger quickly rose to the top of the crowded field of opponents of Davis and won the recall in October 2003. Schwarzenegger, a strong conservative Republican, moved more to the center during his governorship and accomplished the repeal of a few unpopular fees and initiatives. He won reelection in 2006 with 56% of the vote. His second term was marred by the economic crisis, which particularly hurt California. The Schwarzenegger administration attempted to deal with the crisis but California’s economic situation progressively worsened for the remainder of his term. He was barred from seeking reelection in 2010 by term limits and left office in 2011. He has since returned to occasional acting and continues to be a presence in the world of political commentary.

Al Franken

U.S. Senator from Minnesota (2009-Present)

This comedian and actor is perhaps best known for his tenure on Saturday Night Live in the 1980’s as a writer and sketch performer. Beginning in the late 1990’s he began to appear as a liberal commentator in the media, particularly on talk radio and by writing books. He returned to his home state of Minnesota in 2008 to campaign for a seat in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat. His opponent was former mayor of St. Paul and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. Franken’s close friend Democrat Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash in 2002, had once held the seat. The Franken-Coleman race was extremely close and it was not until June of 2009 that Franken was declared the winner. As a Senator, Franken has served as a reliable liberal, particularly as an advocate for financial regulation reform. He is up for re-election in 2014.

-Edmund J. Rooney, Associate Editor for Political and Legal History

Historians Dream Too

Last month I traveled to the Houghton Library at Harvard University to research explorer and missionary accounts of the Marquesas Islands. The what???? To very briefly explain, the Marquesas Islands are a tiny group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean (specifically Polynesia) and the focus of my senior thesis. Their location and history is not the primary focus of this blog post, however. To prepare for my journey into the archives at Houghton Library, I spoke with my thesis advisor about what kinds of evidence I would be searching for while in the land of clam-chowder and formerly cursed baseball teams. My advisor and I chatted at length about keywords that would catch my eye, the art of reading between the lines of manuscripts and letters, and the scary prospect of only finding something truly interesting on the last day of my stay, three hours before my flight leaves. The ability to extract information out of a primary source that the primary source doesn’t explicitly say or want to say? Pretty cool. Yes, finally as a senior I am getting the basic concepts down. I’ve never been to an archive besides the National Archive in Washington D.C., (where I got lost and didn’t see where Nicholas Cage stole the Declaration of Independence) so the prospect of reading something no one has read in 150 years excited the history nerd in me to no end. As my advisor and I continued our discussion of sources, we began talking about my potential “dream” or “fantasy” sources. Looking for clues in a document is neat and all, but how great would it be to find a source in an archive that shows something incredible about my topic which in turn also illuminates themes or facts in other sources I hadn’t previously noticed? Well reader, really really really great. Although it was a pipe-dream, and I left Harvard Yard with a souvenir pencil instead of that dream source, the thrill of the search made the tip entirely worth it. I will finish with some advice. If you ever have the chance to read documents written a long time ago, do it.

-Michael K. Miller, Associate Editor for Global History

The Bull Moose: 100th Anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt’s Third Party Bid

While Barack Obama successfully ran for re-election against Mitt Romney, he also won against several lesser known third party candidates. These third party candidates are rarely mentioned in the media and often have only a small, albeit rabid, base of supporters. Third parties have been a hallmark of U.S. presidential elections since very early on in U.S. history. While they have been a constant only occasionally have they affected the climate or tone of a presidential campaign. In fact this year is the 100^th anniversary of the first and only time a third party candidate beat a candidate from a major party. This candidate was Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt of the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party, who won more popular and electoral votes than Republican nominee William Howard Taft.

Immediately following his election to a full term as president in 1904, Theodore Roosevelt pledged he would not seek reelection. It was an impulsive and boisterous statement that matched the man’s personality. However, it was one he came to regret. Roosevelt kept his promise in 1908 and left the White House and the Republican Party in the hands of his anointed successor Secretary of War and diplomat William Howard Taft. However, Roosevelt quickly became impatient with Taft, who he felt was not adequately continuing his progressive policies. The relationship between the two presidents deteriorated to the point of Roosevelt challenging Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912. It was a reflection of a larger rift in the Republican Party between progressives and conservatives. Roosevelt actually won most of the primaries (a recent progressive innovation) but the nomination was still decided during this era by powerful party bosses, and in 1912 GOP leaders lined up solidly behind President Taft.

Roosevelt and his delegates walked out of the Republican convention in disgust. They proceeded to reconvene and form the new Progressive Party, with Roosevelt as its nominee. When Roosevelt was asked if he was fit to be president again he responded that he was as strong as a bull moose, giving his new party a nickname in the process. The Bull Moose Party had its work cut out for it with the Republican voting base divided and the Democrats fielding a strong progressive candidate in New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt hit the campaign trail with characteristic gusto and the campaign was rather heated. The most infamous incident of this campaign came on October 14^th when Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee and was shot in the chest. Roosevelt, who was protected from serious damage by a folded copy of the speech he was about to give in his chest pocket. Trumpeting his strength he proceeded to give the speech and then sought medical treatment. In spite of this remarkable event, Roosevelt was unable to unify the Republican centered voting block that had elected him eight years prior and Woodrow Wilson prevailed with 435 electoral votes. However, Roosevelt won 88 electoral votes, while Taft won only 8. In the century following, while countless have tried, no third party candidate has replicated this remarkable achievement of defeating a major party candidate. The ultimate goal of course for a third party is to defeat both major parties but only time will tell if such a precedent shattering event is even possible in American politics.

-Edmund J. Rooney, Associate Editor for Political and Legal History

Live From Gregory Hall Episode VIII

History encompasses a lot more than the written word.

In the seventh installment of “Live From Gregory Hall,” music’s place in history is discussed with the great Alec Heist (check out his blog on the blog you are currently reading) and guest Thomas Bruch. It’s two parts because one could not contain it’s amazingness. Enjoy your healthy dose of recorded historical discussion!

Check it out here: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/15303

Why Women are Funny

Time and time again, a statement is made that infuriates me to my very core.  For those out there who say, “women are not funny”, here’s a little history lesson to prove otherwise.

In 1951, a show by the name of “I Love Lucy” premiered. The premise centered around the crazy antics of New York City housewife Lucy Ricardo and her famous nightclub performer husband Ricky Ricardo.  If you haven’t seen an episode of “I Love Lucy,” I pity you because it is some of the most wholesome, clever, and of course, funny comedy I have ever seen.  In a time when men dominated the work force while the ideal wife tended to the family’s every need, “I Love Lucy” plays into as well as challenges these ideas.  For one, the show focuses Lucille Ball’s character, Lucy, who is constantly trying to break her way into show business.  Lucy is always the one landing into crazy situations, including: trapping herself on a ledge outside her apartment, making a mess at a chocolate factory, and accidentally getting drunk while taping a commercial for a new product, Vitameatavegamin.  Lucille Ball commits to this role, combining wit as well as physical comedy to leave the audience in stitches.  Ms. Ball later went on to produce and star in many other shows such as “The Lucy Show”, “Here’s Lucy”, and “Life With Lucy”.   An example of Ball’s comedic brilliance is featured below.

Fast-forward two decades and a new late night program created by a man named Lorne Michaels was just beginning.  The original “Saturday Night Live” cast contained greats such as Chevy Chase, John Belushi, and Dan Aykroyd.  However, what stood out was the use of women comics: Jane Curtin, Gilda Radner, and Laraine Newman.  To feature women on the show, especially one focused on improv comedy, was a very uncommon practice at the time.  In fact, in an interview Jane Curtin once stated that during the first season of “SNL” (1975-1976), she was not even allowed to possess a credit card.  Over the years, the women began taking more prominent roles in sketches, and after Chevy Chase left, Jane Curtin took over on the Weekend Update news desk. These women led the way for women in comedy, especially the writing side of it, and helped establish one of the longest running programs on television, “Saturday Night Live”, which is now in it’s thirty-eighth season.  The video below is a famous example of Gilda Radner’s character Roseanne Roseanadana.

SNL

The last woman whom I am going to feature is sort of a personal hero for me.  Tina Fey, in my humble opinion, is the funniest woman to ever live.  Fey began her career in comedy at The Second City in Chicago, an improv group where people such as John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, and Mike Myers got their start.  In 1997, Tina was hired to be a writer on “Saturday Night Live”, and found success in writing sketches.  In 1999, after the head writer stepped down, it was Lorne Michaels who approached her to take the position.  She accepted and in doing so became the first female writer in “SNL” history.  Fey became a household name in 2000 when she began acting in sketches, most notably at the Weekend Update desk with regular cast member Jimmy Fallon.  Another milestone came in 2004 when Tina’s friend from The Second City, Amy Poehler, took over Fallon’s spot at the Update desk, making it the first time two female anchors starred in the sketch.  In 2006, Fey decided to leave Saturday Night Live, to focus on writing a new sitcom, “30 Rock”.  The show, which is currently in its seventh and final season, is centered around Liz Lemon, the head writer for a late night comedy sketch series called “TGS” and dealing with her G.E. executive friend/mentor Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) as well as the crazy stars and other writers of the show.  Liz Lemon is described as “a New York, third wave feminist, college educated, single and pretending to be happy about it, over scheduled and under sexed” woman.  The show is somewhat autobiographical, and Fey used her experiences at “SNL” to create the premise of the show.  “30 Rock” has won many awards including an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy series in 2007 and Outstanding Female Lead in a Comedy series (Tina Fey) and has a loyal fan base. It should also be noted that Fey has just signed a four year contract with NBC to create and possibly star in another sitcom, a relief to those who wish to continue to see genius writing on television.  Tina has also found success in the movie business, writing the screenplay in “Mean Girls” (2004) and “Baby Mama” (2008).  Also, in 2011, she wrote an autobiography titled “Bossypants”, which became a fixture on the New York Times’ Bestsellers list for many weeks, and then again when it was reprinted in paperback.

As the examples show above, the statement “women are not funny” clearly is untrue.  With the success of these women, and others such as Betty White, Amy Poehler, and most recently Kristen Wiig, it is hard to ignore the fact that women are just as, if not funnier, than men.  So just remember, the next time you hear someone tell you that women have no business being in comedy, use history to prove otherwise.

-Anne M. Sweeney, Associate Editor for Television History

The Atrocities of the 20th Century

When people say the word genocide, most people think of the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazi Party.  Unfortunately, this was not the only genocide to occur in Eastern Europe.  For this installment of the Eastern European blog column, I thought we would examine some of the lesser known and more recent tragedies across Europe.

The term “genocide” is relatively new and yields from Raphael Lemkin who defined the term to mean the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Armenian Genocide: Occurred after the first Great War.  The Ottoman Empire sought to destroy the Armenian empire.  Through massacres, forced deportations and group marches the Ottoman Parliament (through legislation) forced the “troublesome” Armenians to leave cities and villages and relocate to the desert (today this area is the Syrian Desert).  It is believed that 1-1.5 million people died as a result.

Greek Genocide: Similar to the Armenian genocide, the Young Turks were responsible for the exportation and deportation of the Greeks form Asia Minor.  At the same time the Young Turks worked to expel Greek culture and religion from Asia Minor.

Soviet Union: 1932-1933: Stalin enforced the Soviet system of collectivism on the USSR territory of the Ukraine.   The system of collectivism did not go over well with the general public and they rebelled, as a result Stalin ordered the soviet troops and police to intervene to make sure the public meet the new quotas Stalin ordered.  The quotas were so demanding it purposely forced many Ukrainians into starvation.  As a result more that seven million people died under the restrictions imposed by Stalin.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1992-1995: The territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina is an ethnic mix of Serbs (Orthodox Catholics), Croats (Catholics) and Bosniaks (Muslims).   Starting in 1992, Serbia embarked on a mission to cleanse Bosnia of all the Muslims.  The Muslims were driven out of their homes, murdered or forced into concentration camps and the women were often raped.  The UN tried to step in to prevent further escalation but they were successful.  Finally NATO carried out air strikes against the Serbs.  The conflict finally came to an end in 1995 after the USA hosted the Dayton Talks.

Hopefully this blog hasn’t depressed you too much! The next one won’t deal with such a heavy topic, promise.

-Christopher J. Cirrincione, Associate Editor for Eastern European History

Crosses of Gold and Silver Slippers

The debate over bimetallism that dominated economic discussion in the late 19^th century is generally known to students of history for two reasons: it launched the career of three-time presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan, with his “cross of gold” speech AND it is allegedly the secret message of L. Frank Baum’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” Despite these nice little tidbits of history; however, one finds that very few people actually understand what exactly was being debated and how big of a deal this debate had on the economy for several decades. So, dear readers, strap on a pair of shoes you stole from a dead body, we may be off to meet the wizard (the wonderful wizard of Oz).

Our story begins, not in Kansas, but in 1870’s Europe, where the precious metal to have and do trade with was gold. Silver was in high supply, inflation was rampant, and gold was simply seen as the most stable good to base a currency on. Soon the entire world was going to the gold standard, including the United States, which became a de facto gold standard country with the Fourth Coinage Act, known to its opponents as the Crime of ’73. Combined with bank failures, a railroad boom (and bust), the Chicago fire, and a rather bad flu, the American economy collapsed and the event known, at the time, as the Great Depression began. Today we refer to this event as either the “Long Depression” or by its various incarnations, mainly the Panic of 1873.

For the sake of simplification, the Republican Party generally favored the gold standard, while the Democratic Party generally favored using both gold and silver (bimetallism), with the intention to overvalue silver to create inflation, which would help, theoretically, farmers in the Midwest. The usage of silver as currency was also in the interests of the mining industry, which periodically suffered through the Long Depression whenever railroads went bust. To make a long story short, in exchange for a large tariff, President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, signed into law the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which allowed some silver coinage to relieve difficulties. The plan backfired; however, when people began using silver to get gold, which was fast depleting reserves. This resulted in the Panic of 1893 and the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, ironically by Democratic President Grover Cleveland.

Enter William Jennings Bryan, a former congressman from Nebraska, who went around the country making speeches in support of free silver and raging against the corrupt, out of touch, Democratic Party of Grover Cleveland (the so-called “Bourbon” Democrats). At the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Bryan gave what is regarded as one of the best political speeches in history, the Cross of Gold speech, which made him a celebrity overnight and also the nominee of the party (a huge accomplishment considering he was only 36). Bryan eventually lost the election that November to William McKinley, but the influence of his style and message stuck. Bryan was nominated by the Democratic Party twice more in 1900 (losing again to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to William H. Taft); his ideas became the basic groundwork for the next generation of the Democratic Party, making it arguable that Bryan was the first Democratic Party presidential candidate whose views would still be Democratic in modern politics.

So how exactly does this lead us down the yellow brick road? Well according to “historian” Henry Littlefield in a 1964 article, L. Frank Baum was extremely interested in politics and used his famous novel “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” as an allegory for the conflict over bimetallism. Consider the fact the yellow brick road could imply gold and is being skipped and danced upon by a pair of silver slippers. Coincidence that these two metals are together and they are leading the way to the Emerald (greenback) City? Also consider the people Dorothy meets along the way: the Scarecrow (farmers), the Tin Man (steel industry), and the Cowardly Lion (allegedly William Jennings Bryan himself), all people who are lacking something only a trip down the bimetallism road to Washington, DC can solve.

Not convinced yet? How about considering that the Wicked Witches come from the East and the West, the two parts of the country Bryan railed against, while the Good Witches come from the North and South, areas heavy in Democratic support. For the cherry on top, consider that the silver slippers were the key to solving all of Dorothy’s problems. Then again, maybe this theory is all just a massive case of apophenia, not unlike the coincidentally related Dark Side of the Rainbow. The “Wizard of Oz” has this strange tendency to make people read more into it than is actually there, but I guess that is what you get from the mind of an opium addict (the poppy fields scene makes so much more sense now, doesn’t it?).

Whether or not there is legitimacy in Henry Littlefield’s thesis is debatable, but it can still help people understand the wild and crazy time that was the end of the 19^th century. Although the debate over bimetallism has been dormant since the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913, discourse is still continuing in our politics about the right course of our financial system. Let us not forget, like so many do, the past economic debates our country has gone through, it really could help us better understand the right and wrong actions to take, as well as what exactly the secret meaning is to the line “there’s no place like home.”

-Andrew C. Hanna, Associate Editor for Early National American History