US History
dirt track date -- Saturday, June 26, 2004 -- 04:48:25 PMFrom Jamestown on...the place to discuss US history.
This thread is tagged: history(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
I read an interesting "Diplomatic History of the Civil War". The diplomacy and foreign agents of both sides were impressive.
By and large the CSA was trying to get gunboats - especially ironclads if they could - under the ruse that the boats were for Turkey.
The USA had an advantage in some creative NGOs. A group of women raised donations for relief ships to Manchester for mill workers out of work for lack of cotton.
Can anybody point me to a book on the Barbary wars? It sounds fascinating and I'd like to learn more about it.
I don't even know what they are, although I suppose I will after next year.
The Barbary coast was what they called the Mediterranean coast of Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries. All I know about it is that it involved Stephen Decatur, and the US Navy cleaning out nests of pirates. It's where the "shores of Tripoli" lyric in the Marine song comes from.
Off to Amazon.
I strongly recommend the Arthur Schlesinger-edited "The American Presidents" series, especially for those people who, like me, never got around to reading many biographies of the lesser-known nineteenth-century U.S. presidents. Schlesinger selected a few dozen historians and professional writers to pen a biography of each of the American Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush. Examples are Garry Wills on James Madison; E.L. Doctorow on Abraham Lincoln; Kevin Phillips on William McKinley; and Louis Auchincloss on Theodore Roosevelt.
All of the volumes are short. Most run no longer than 140 pages of text. This is a perfect way to introduce yourself to a president you're pretty sure you don't want to spend three-hundred or more pages with. And the nineteenth century is full of such presidents. I've had biographies on Grover Cleveland and Chester Arthur sitting on my shelves for over two years that are both well over four-hundred pages. I just didn't dare open them. It's one thing to spend that much time with Lincoln or either of the two Roosevelts, but 450 pages on Chester Arthur? The combined length of the Arthur and Cleveland biographies in "The American President" series, however, is only two-hundred-eighty pages. Because of this manageable length, I've read about a half-dozen biographies of presidents I might never have gotten around to reading about, and I'm thoroughly enjoying the experience.
Both Cleveland and Arthur are interesting presidents. The Civil Service Act came in on Arthur's tenure, and I believe the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as well. However, it should be noted that legislation was far more driven by Congress in those days.
I'll take a look at what the Durant's have to say about the Barbary scene a little later. Until then...
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that they chose there targets carefully. They would not want to bring down the wrath of France, Brittain or the Ottoman Empire upon them. However, a puny mish mash of recently federated mini-states 5000 miles away would look very tempting.
By and large the Barbary states were under the nominal control of the Ottomans but left alone under local Muslim rulers. Their corsairs would operate under control of Christian captains from Europe over Muslim crews.
Cleveland may be one of the most under-rated presidents as far as significance. I don't know enough about to make the case, but as I've read here and there his name comes up much more frequently than someone like Arthur or Franklin Pierce--the kind of company you'll often see him lumped with.
Okay, Durant's had nothing to add.
Essentially the Barbary statelets came about due to the exhaustion of Spain and Portugal on the Christian side in war with the Ottomans and Moors on the Muslim side, fighting for the Barbary coast. The Moors held firm on the Atlantic Coast and the straights of Gilbraltor. The battle of Lepanto destroyed Ottoman hegemony over the Barbary coast. However, this did not result in long lasting Spanish domination. Basically, it was too expensive for either side to seize, and devolved to local rulers.
The Barbary states found plying privateering, for each side in turn, lucrative. Further the trade in African gold and slaves shifted from the overland Sahara route to the Atlantic coast, thus forcing them harder into these new sources of funds. They would prey on what they thought best. France and Britain were targets, until their fleets and arms proved dissuasive. Cromwell initiated Brittish entry into the western Mediterranean.
Still, the rise of Spain, Holland, France and Brittain brought new opportunties in the contracting of Italian naval power. No longer were the fleets of Venice, Genoa and Florence ones to be feared. Ships flying those flags were good targets, and continued so until the mid 1800s. This did not bother the recently emerged nation states for a while, because it cleared the seas for their merchantile fleets.
At last the infant United States enters the scene, and rapidly learned to pay tribute - at one point 26 barrels of dollars. This at a time when the official policy was "Millions for Defense, but no One Cent for Tribute". However this was to be divided and the Pasha of Tripoli dispised his share, preferring war instead.
Jefferson added up the cost, set aside his revulsion at a big ship standing navy and sent the US fleet and it's compliment of marines to Tripoli. After a four year intermittent campaign fortunes reversed. Triploi paid the US $60,000 (the total of its previous American ransome recipts) for peace. Victory led to further adventures along the coast and by the War of 1812, the US was largely unmolested in the Mediterranean. The US had proved that it was a real country with real muscle. Still further, it had battle trained crews with which to meet the Brittish on the high seas.
Both Cleveland and Arthur are interesting presidents. The Civil Service Act came in on Arthur's tenure, and I believe the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as well. However, it should be noted that legislation was far more driven by Congress in those days.
Actually, almost all the U.S. Presidents are interesting for some reason. I had no idea until recently, for example, that James Buchanan -- probably our worst president -- might have been gay. Did you know Rutherford Hayes, along with being a Civil War hero, was one of the best educated presidents in U.S. history, spoke German, read law at Harvard, and went out of his way to meet and hear speak the great Trancendentalists of his day? Or that James Garfield -- who, after his assassination, Chester Arthur succeeded -- was a trained classicist?
Of course, all this is merely trivia, but it's interesting nevertheless. There are a handful of important, but obscure presidents from the nineteenth century who did do substantial deeds. James Polk is one. William McKinley is another. And Grover Cleveland is a third. But with the exception of Lincoln (and maybe Grant), few people really know much about any of the presidents whose administrations span the time from Andrew Jackson to Theodore Roosevelt, incuding those three.
By the way, it's Benjamin Harrison who was responsible for the Sherman Antitrust act. Arthur, as you said, was in office for the Pendleton Civil Service Act and -- much to my surprise -- built up the navy that was later used in the Spanish-American War.
But the most interesting thing about Arthur is the way he came to office. I had never really heard much about Charles Guiteau, but he surely ranks above Lee Harvey Osawld and John Wilkes Booth in the annals of strange assassins.
He was at least, as you say, substantial. I've read some historians who loathe him and some who think he is immensely underrated. For a one-termer, he managed to accomplish a lot.
When Polk became president, the territory of the United States consisted of twenty-six states and 1,787,880 square miles; when he left office four years later, he had added 1,204,740 more square miles, out of which the remaining twenty-two continental states would be created. It was the largest increase of territory in U.S. history.
He also oversaw a major tariff reduction and reinstituted an independent treasury.
He also accomplished much of what he set out to do, and quit after one term--which he set out to do. I read an autobiography of him a couple decades ago, so I'm operating from memory.
I received Slavemaster President, which examines the relationship between Polk as slaveowner and his policies as President. I'm hoping it's an original take, rather than another breastbeating about the evils of slavery.
Chester Arthur was widely considered to be a hack, and his ascendancy to the Presidency occasioned the classic comment, "Chet Arthur, President of the United States! GoodGod!" His honest administration came as quite a shock.
This is what I learned in school, so I was taken aback when I was reading some of Harry Truman's personal writings to discover he had such a negative opinion of Polk.
I expect this will be the more critical take of Polk I've heard elsewhere as well.
For a "minor" President, Polk seems to evoke strong opinions going both ways.
I still lean toward a positive view of him.
I'm a fan of focus, I guess.
I admire it too.
The story I always liked about Garfield was that he could write with both hands simultaneously, and would take notes in Greek with one hand and Latin with the other during dull meetings.
I always heard that story about Branwell Bronte. I wonder if it was true of either of them.
I wish I'd seen this for the Fourth of July, but better late than never. Isaac Asimov speech on the importance of the lyrics to the National Anthem. I've always loved the last verse.
To give a sense of my geekitude, I shall reveal that I noted the March, 1991 date at the article's end and thought "No, that can't be right." I knew that the speech was one of the last public speaking events in his lengthy career, but by March 1991 he was almost entirely bedridden, with few good days.
So off I go to I, Asimov, the best of his biographies, and page back to his wife Janet's epilogue.
It must have been published later, but given his fondness for the Rensselaerville Institute, I felt obligated to correct it.