Genealogy as a Field of History

Since just before my son was born in October 2007, I have been researching the genealogy of our family. It has been quite interesting to uncover the stories of family members and I enjoy looking through all the records to find just the piece of the puzzle I am missing. Through it all, our family tree has grown to include almost 600 people and it can be traced back to Germany, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Switzerland. One of our relatives was born of Irish parents in the Congo in the middle of Africa. Our tree currently traces back to the late 1500s / early 1600s.

What surprises me about the field of genealogy is that it is not more prominently advanced by historians. Genealogy may center on family heritage and tradition, but much can be learned from the field. Genealogical research is not just about filling in the missing links between generations. It shows migratory patterns, includes personal accounts of historical events and utilizes masses of public records including censuses, military records, land deeds & titles, and cemetery records. One can learn a great deal about history just from researching their family lineage.

To become a professional genealogist, one must pass rigorous exams given by the certifying institution and prove the ability to accurately research a family lineage. Yet, one must undertake a study of genealogy on their own. Not a single major university or college offers course work to prepare for a career as a genealogist. I find this truly amazing and I would advocate the need for a more formalized program at the postgraduate level. Maybe after I earn my PhD and begin teaching at a university, I will be able to help establish a formal program somewhere. Until then, genealogists will just have to rely on their own research abilities and forge a community amongst themselves.

MIS-story: Washington was the First President of the United States

This blog posting is NOT an attempt to validate the claims of many websites proclaiming various Presidents of Congress as the first President of the United States. It is based on factual information surrounding Washington's inauguration and the Constitution of the United States which officially established the office of the President of the United States.

If you ask any American who was the first President of the United States, the likely answer will be "George Washington, you idiot!" However, Washington's position as the first President of the United States is not entirely factual.

Many websites will claim that at least eight others served as President of the United States prior to George Washington. These claims are all false for two reasons. First, the so called other eight "Presidents" were actually Presidents of the Congress. The roles and responsibilities of the President of Congress were not the same as that of the President of the Untied States. Secondly, many of these same "Presidents" held the office of President of Congress prior to the United States' official existence. This eliminates patriots such as Peyton Randolph, John Hancock, John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, and Cyrus Griffin from being considered the first "President of the United States", but it does not mean that Washington was the first to serve in that capacity.

If one looks at the first formation of a "national" government in what is now the United States of America, they could argue that Peyton Randolph, the first President of the First Continental Congress, was actually the first President of the United States. However, the "United States" was not a nation at the time and did not officially exist.

On July 4, 1776, the "United States" declared its independence from Great Britain. At that time, John Hancock was the presiding officer, or "President", over the Second Continental Congress. One could argue that Hancock was therefore the first President of the United States and support the argument with the fact that General George Washington addressed his letters to Hancock as "the President of the United States" during that time. However, declaring independence and securing independence are two different monsters. If the "United States" had failed, there would be no President of the United States because America would remain subjects of the British Crown (like Canada). The United States did not actually secure independence for another 7 years until the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783.

In the meantime, the Continental Congress passed the Articles of Confederation, the first attempt to form a government of the United States. John Hanson was the "President of these United States Assembled" when the Articles of Confederation were drawn up and ratified, but technically, he still was no more than the President of the Congress. The Articles of Confederation did not authorize or establish an executive branch of government and the executive office of "President of the United States" did not exist. Futhermore, although the "United States" was operating under the Articles of Confederation, the "United States" still did not officially exist. The Battle of Yorktown (1781) is considered the unoffical end of the American Revolution. However, the Treaty of Paris, which was signed September 3, 1783 is the OFFICIAL end of the American Revolution and the OFFICIAL beginning of an independent United States.

On September 3, 1783 when the Treaty of Paris officially created the United States, Elias Boudinot was serving as the President of Congress. Some could use this fact to argue that Boudinot was the first President of the United States, except as previously noted, the Articles of Confederation did not establish or authorize the office of "President" and serving as President of Congress is not the same as serving as President of the United States. Again, the roles and responsibilities of the two positions were very different.

The office of the President of the United States was not established until the ratification of The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States was ratified on June 21, 1788. Upon ratification, the office of the President officially existed. Elections were held from December 1788 to January 1789. In the time between the ratification of The Constitution of the United States and the Presidential elections, Cyrus Griffin held the office of President of Congress, but again, not the same as holding the office of President of the United States.

George Washington was won the Presidental election of 1788-89. He is the first popularly elected President of the United States, however, he was not the first to assume that office. Washington received the news of his election sometime around the middle of April 1789. On the 16th of April, Washington began his journey to the the nation's capital in New York City. He arrived on April 23, 1789, yet he waited a week to be sworn into office while Congress debated on the exact title of his new office. George Washington was sworn into office on April 30, 1789 at the first presidential inauguration. However, John Adams, Washington's elected Vice-President had arrived in New York City much earlier. Vice-President Adams was sworn into office on April 21, 1789, two days before Washington even arrived in New York. Under the terms of The Constitution of the United States, the Vice-President is to assume the duties of the executive in the absence of the executive. Thus, John Adams served in the capacity of President of the United States before George Washington, even if for only a few days.

W. Bruce Lincoln, Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989) - Book Review

For this week's post, I would like to offer a review of W. Bruce Lincoln's book, Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias. The review is not timely as the book has been in print for a number of years (almost 20), but I have just recently read the book and thought I would share my opinions of the work.

Unlike other historians, who portray Nicholas I as an oppressive tyrant, W. Bruce Lincoln portrays the Russian emperor as a man bound by his convictions and love for his subjects. His biography of Nicholas I, Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, is a somewhat sympathetic study of the emperor who, as Lincoln claims, led Russia through its “Golden Age”. Using more secondary sources than primary ones, Lincoln attempts to validate the reign of Nicholas I and justify the autocracy under which Nicholas reigned. Although he finds some success in his objective, in the end the author fails to fully convince his readers of Nicholas’ sincerity and intentions for Russia. Failure to convince his readers results from two faults in Lincoln’s writing. First, Lincoln uses contradictory statements on occasion, which weaken the author’s credibility. As an example, Lincoln claims that Nicholas was lenient with intellectuals who opposed him, yet at the same time Lincoln illustrates the oppressiveness of the “Nicholas System” against those same intellectuals (chapter 7). Secondly, Lincoln’s repetitive statements and twice-used quotes are distracting and fail to drive the author’s point home. Rather, these statements seem a lack of effort to provide stronger evidence and could account for the author’s failure to achieve complete success. Lincoln would do well to supplement his statements with new information and thus advance his narrative better than he has.

To begin his narrative of Nicholas I, Lincoln presents an extensive look at the reign of Nicholas’ brother and predecessor, Alexander I. This study of Alexander’s reign provides the foundation for the problems Nicholas would face as emperor. While setting the stage for his readers, Lincoln makes several assumptions about the influences of Nicholas’ youth that he cannot support with hard facts. Lincoln’s assumptions are evidenced by his use of words and phrases like “perhaps”, “probably” and “must have”. In making these assumptions, Lincoln draws upon what appear to be logical conclusions, but nevertheless, the assumptions detract from the author’s credibility in Nicholas’ childhood. Later, however, Lincoln shows the breadth of his knowledge and research by supporting his claims with primary sources. Although the author utilizes more secondary sources than primary, he uses the primary sources extensively, providing many direct quotes from the diaries and personal correspondence of Nicholas, his advisors and other world leaders.

After setting the stage for Nicholas’ reign, Lincoln begins a chronological history of the Czar as the supreme ruler and autocrat of all of Russia by explaining the different views of Nicholas I and his predecessor, Alexander I. According to Lincoln, Alexander I saw Russia as a part of Europe and brought European ideas to Russia in hopes of modernizing the mother country. Nicholas, on the other hand, saw Russia separate from Europe and attempted to isolate Russia from the revolutionary ideas of the west. This, according to Lincoln was both the strength and weakness of the “Nicholas System”. By pulling back from Alexander’s European policies and isolating Russia, Lincoln claims that Nicholas strengthened the identity of Russia and led to the birth of Russia’s golden age, particularly in literature and the arts. Russia’s strong identity carried over into government and created an age of Russian noble standing in the world. This view contrasts sharply with the oppressive viewpoints portrayed by other Russian historians. Lincoln acknowledges Nicholas’ reign was oppressive but prefers highlight the positive rather than the negative.

Lincoln also validates Russia’s isolation as a weakness stating Russia had few allies during Nicholas’ reign and was often misunderstood by the European powers because of Nicholas’ isolationist policies. Britain, for instance, believed that Russia wanted to destroy the Ottoman Empire and claim additional territory for the vast empire, despite continued denials of such plans from Nicholas.

Nicholas’ desire to preserve the weak Ottoman Empire is a major point through Lincoln’s account. Lincoln uses this point to illustrate not only the difficulties Nicholas faced, but also the kind of man Nicholas was. To illustrate the difficulties faced by Nicholas, Lincoln presents an example by which Nicholas kept ruinous thoughts to himself and projected an agreeable demeanor in negotiations (page 147). According to Lincoln, Nicholas understood the importance of agreement over personal ideals. Nicholas also understood the importance of keeping peace, for Russia and for Europe. Nicholas’ accommodations in negotiations support Lincoln’s portrayal of Nicholas as a charming individual and brilliant politician. More importantly, however, is Lincoln’s depiction of Nicholas as a candid, straightforward, man of integrity who believed in his divine right to rule Russia. According to the author, Nicholas’ belief in the divine right made him a humble, responsible father of the Russia people who was always tried to do what was right by Russia. The author further portrays Nicholas as being responsible for the transgressions of the Russian people.

Although, Lincoln claims Nicholas was a brilliant politician, he provides a much different view of Nicholas the statesman. Lincoln acknowledges that many of Russia’s problems existed prior to Nicholas’ ascension to the throne, but he squarely places much of the blame for Russia’s failures during the early to mid 19th century on Nicholas’ shoulders. First, Lincoln claims that Nicholas was poorly educated because of the Czar’s interest in military training over learning, despite his mothers continued efforts to remove him from the military’s influence. Nicholas’s military background would not serve him well in the administration of the state as witnessed by the large bureaucracy created under the “Nicholas System.” Lincoln implies that Nicholas may have suffered from some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder in that Nicholas had to know every minute detail of everything that occurred within Russia. Nicholas preferred the hands on approach to the day-to-day operations of the state, often, according to Lincoln, going unannounced into various regions to see Russia’s internal problems first hand. Nicholas, however, did not know the true Russia, despite these trips and a prolonged tour of the empire before the death of Alexander I. Lincoln implies this was the result of the Russian people’s love for their father and not wanting him to see them suffer. Few Russians blamed Nicholas because they believed if he were truly aware of their predicament, he would change it. Instead, the Russian people blame the government bureaucracy under Nicholas, which he had inadvertently, but ironically, created. A large bureaucracy was required to investigate the minute details Nicholas felt he needed to know, which the author asserts was the result of Nicholas’ fear of revolution. Quite possibly, this fear derived from the Decembrist Revolution that opened Nicholas’s reign. The bureaucracy was filled with military personnel due to Nicholas’ friends and closest advisors all being military men. According to Lincoln, these military trained government officials lacked the general understanding of civil service. Lincoln claims that, unlike Nicholas himself, Nicholas’ advisors feared being candid and open with the emperor. Lincoln states that Nicholas’ advisors spoke mostly of what Nicholas wanted to hear and smoothed over the real issues facing Russia. This supports Lincolns claim that the Russian people did not believe Nicholas knew the true condition of their suffering. Filling the bureaucracy with military generals and officers supports Lincoln’s claim that Nicholas desired military discipline in ruling the homeland, even if he had no desire for foreign wars, colonization, or territorial gains.

With a background of military training and a government of military officers, one would think that Nicholas served as an able commander of the Russian forces. Lincoln dispels this myth in his portrayal of Nicholas. Although Russia would eventually force the Ottoman Empire into opening the Straits of the Dardanelles and Bosporus to Russian shipping, Lincoln depicts Nicholas’ command at the beginning of the war as a failure. Furthermore, the author claims that behind the parade-perfect façade, the army was ill trained and ill equipped. Lincoln states that the army spent too much time, energy and resources on appearing disciplined and not enough time on actual training. He continues by implying that the strength behind Russia’s army was the military’s shear numbers.

The chronology of Nicholas’ reign lead Lincoln’s final chapters to be the most important. Although the European revolutions barely reached Russia and its provinces in1848, Lincoln treats this year as the turning point in Nicholas’ reign and the beginning of the collapse of the “Nicholas System”. The author claims that Nicholas became even more oppressive in his attempts to prevent western revolutions from spreading to Russia and illustrates how the increasingly arbitrary, oppressive, and secretive nature of the “Nicholas System” eventually oppressed even Nicholas himself. According to the author, Nicholas’ system and its administration and enforcement took a heavy toll on the emperor, diminishing Nicholas’ strength and contributing to his early aging. The author continues by charging the “Nicholas System” with being responsible for its own collapse.

Lincoln’s Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias is an easy to read biography that minimally analyzes the reign of Nicholas I critically. Lincoln provides a well-documented bibliography, but chooses to go against conventional history and portray the Nicholas I in a somewhat sympathetic and more positive light. This book is a good source for an undergraduate study of Russian history and Czar Nicholas I, but it is recommended with reservation by this reviewer.

Colonial America Quiz

For today's post, I thought I would offer my blog readers a short quiz about Colonial America. Answers will appear at the bootom of the quiz.

1. How long was the Stamp Act in force?

A) One month
B) One year
C) Two years
D) it was never in force

2. The Georgia colony was founded by which proprietor?

A) Roger Williams
B) William Penn
C) James Oglethorpe
D) William Berkeley

3. The first successful British settlement in North America at Jamestown was under the direction of which company?

A) The London Virginia Company
B) The Plymouth Company
C) The Jamestown Company
D) The Roanoke Company

4. Which colony was a haven for Catholics?

A) Rhode Island
B) North Carolina
C) Massachusetts
D) Maryland

5. The Seven Years War was better known in America as what?

A) King Philip's War
B) The Yamassee War
C) The French & Indian War
D) The Piquot War

6. When did Salem conduct its famous witch trials?

A) 1709
B) 1692
C) 1676
D) 1715

7. What does the name Pocahontas mean?

A) Little wanton
B) Free as a bird
C) Angel from above
D) Terror in the night

8. Queen Anne's War was fought during which years?

A) 1689-1697
B) 1744-1748
C) 1718-1725
D) 1702-1714

9. New Amsterdam eventually became which American city?

A) Hartford, CT
B) Providence, RI
C) New York, NY
D) Boston, MA

10. Charleston, South Carolina was founded in what year?

A) 1645
B) 1680
C) 1701
D) 1667

Answers
1. B, 2. C, 3. A, 4. D, 5. C, 6. B, 7. A, 8. D, 9. C, 10. B

Public History

In an earlier post, I defined history as not just a study of or presentation of the past, but a search for the truth of the political, economical, and social contexts of the past. “Public History”, therefore, is a search for the truth of the political, economical, and social contexts of the past in a public forum. In addition to search for the truth, historians have to be accurate in their assessment and interpretation of the past. Thus, good public history should try to illustrate all sides of a historical event or issue. The Smithsonian Institute is a good example of public history. It embodies the principles of academia by validating its research with accurate sources and presents its findings to the public in a factual, yet easily understood manner. These characteristics make the Smithsonian Institute one of the best examples of public history.

Because history originates in events, policies, and records that are public, public input is a necessity. However, it may not always be practical for THE (author’s emphasis for clarity) public to provide input into history. Input from the general public may be best in conveying oral or local histories; however, their contributions must still be validated by professional historians to ensure the accuracy of the truth in the final presentation.

In reality, the real world makes it difficult to achieve ideal public history. Two historians researching the same event or issue can, and likely will, come to two completely different conclusions. Each historical researcher has his or her own opinion and interpretation. Additionally, in the United States society is driven by financial profit. History generates little financial profits. Government priorities and responsibilities limit the availability of public funding. Public history must then turn to private funding. Private funds can influence the research or the interpretation of the researcher’s findings.

According to many scholars, academia falls outside of the scope of public history. This writer disagrees. Academia functions within the context of the public. Many professional historians employed in the field of academia are also public employees. Their work is carried out as a result of public funding and public resources. Even those employed in private academic settings contribute to public history. The public forum is the research findings they have compiled. Academic historians may be intent on producing history for others academic historians, but their findings will eventually become public. As Joseph Skeen, a student at West Virginia University, noted in his History 412 blog discussion, public history would not exist without the research of academia.

If public history is the search for truth of the political, economical, and social contexts of the past in a public forum, then is public history not an alias for history? This is the idea behind Ronald J. Grele’s statement, “From its earliest times, the study of history has been a public act…” (1) Since most history originates with public events, issues, and records and finishes with a presentation to the public in some manner, most history is public history. And if most history is public history, then what is “private history”. W. Andrew Achenbaum noted that even corporate historians practice public history. This writer disagrees. Not all records or proceedings of a corporation are public, nor were they ever intended to be public. This is true even if the corporation is publicly traded or a publicly owned entity. Corporations act on behalf of their owners and shareholders as a private entity. Corporate historians, therefore, are not necessarily practicing public history. They practice public history only if their research leads them to publish their findings publicly. The same holds true for individuals and family. Birth certificates, marriage licenses, and death certificates are all public records. These personal and private events took place under the public eye, with public knowledge and public approval. But diaries and personal letters are private. These records then become private histories of the individual or family. Unless the individual or family is a public official or in the public spotlight, these personal histories based on diaries, letters and other private records should remain private.

1. Grele, Ronald J. “Whose Public? Whose History? What is the Goal of a Public Historian?” The Public Historian Vol. 3, No. 4 (1981) p.41.

The Pacific Theater of Naval Warfare in the Mexican-American War

In the larger scope of history, few historians have written about the Pacific Theater of naval warfare in the Mexican-American War. The following is an essay written for my U.S. Naval and Maritime History class dealing specifically with this topic.

Although war with Mexico did not break out until 12/13 May 1846, the United States Navy conducted operations against Mexico in the Pacific almost four years earlier. In September 1842, Commodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones was in command of the Pacific fleet, which at the time included the frigate United States and the sloop Cyane. Jones had learned in Lima, Peru that war with Mexico had broken out and that England had purchased California from Mexico in a secret treaty for $7 million. Jones invoked the Monroe Doctrine and set sail for the Monterey, California’s capital. On 19 October 1842, The Pacific fleet of the Cyane, Dale, and the United States arrived at the harbor in Monterey. Jones sent his second in command, Captain James Armstrong, ashore to demand the surrender of California. Monterey was given until 9:00 am the next day to surrender.

The next morning, the pacific fleet landed 100 sailors and 50 marines, but Monterey, with its poor defenses and only 58 soldiers, offered no resistance. Jones, however, had acted prematurely. On 21 October, he went ashore himself and discovered that war had not broken out and that no treaty with England existed. He replaced the American Flag and saluted the Mexican colors he had hoisted as he left the harbor. Luckily, no lives were lost by either side. Jones was later relieved of his command. (1)

When war finally broke on 12 May 1846, Commodore John D. Sloat was in command of the Pacific fleet. The Pacific war against Mexico would last a mere eight months with few casualties, two reasons which may explain the lack of research on the Pacific theater in the Mexican-American War. The Pacific fleet mainly comprised ten ships including two ships of the line, two frigates, two sloops-of-war, and four sloops. The ships of the line were the Columbus, captained by Commodore James Biddle and the Ohio, seemingly under the direction of the reinstated Commodore Thomas ap Catesby Jones. The Pacific fleet frigates were the Congress, commanded by Commodore Robert F. Stockton and the pacific flagship Savannah with Commodore Sloat at the helm. The Warren was a 2d class sloop-of-war directed by Acting Master William H. Montgomery; The four sloops were the Cyane, under Captain William Mervine, the Portsmouth, headed by Commander John B. Montgomery, the Levant, and the Erie. It is not known to this writer who was at the helm of the Levant or the Erie. Each of these ships played various roles in the Pacific theater of the Mexican American War with the Cyane and the Savannah having the most prominent roles early and the Dale, the other sloop-of-war, and Portsmouth in the final year. The Erie served as a supply ship and saw no combat. The Columbus saw no action in the Mexican-American War, as it was too large to be useful. The Ohio, the other ship of the line protected American shipping in the Pacific and saw no direct action of the war itself.

Commodore Sloat had been ordered to claim California if war broke out with Mexico and he had to contend with England for the rights. Mexico was heavily in debt to England and the British had plans to claim California to collect their debts. Commodore Sloat, however, arrived in Monterey Harbor two weeks prior to the English. Possibly remembering Commodore Jones’ blunder four years earlier, Sloat sent his second in command, Captain William Mervine, ashore to capture the capitol city. During the voyage, Sloat ordered his men to exercise everyday so that they would be fit to carry their gear into combat. Fortunately this was not necessary. On 7 July 1846, Mervine landed a party 140 seamen and 85 marines without incident in capturing the city. The American flag was hoisted above the customs house and raised over California for the second time, this time for good. Knowing the indefensibility of the city, Commodore Sloat’s men immediately began construction of a new fort, originally named Fort Stockton in honor of Commodore Robert Stockton, but later renamed Fort Mervine.

Two days after the “fall” of Monterey, on 9 July 1846, Commander John B. Montgomery landed seventy sailors and marines from the sloop Portsmouth near San Francisco and took possession of both the village of San Francisco and the village of Yerba Buena. (2)

On 25 July 1846, Captain Mervine sailed from Monterey on the Cyane with a volunteer battalion under Captain John C. Fremont of the United States Army. Mervine arrived four days later in San Diego and ordered a naval detachment under Lieutenant Stephen C. Rowan to go ashore. Rowan took possession of San Diego without incident and Captain Fremont’s troops landed once the city was secure. On this same day, Commodore Robert F. Stockton relieved Commodore Sloat of his command due to Sloat’s failing health. Sloat returned to Washington on the Levant. (3)

On 4 August 1846, Commander Samuel F. DuPont landed a party from the Pacific squadron’s flagship frigate Congress at Santa Barbara, California but encountered no resistance. Similarly, San Pedro, California was peacefully occupied by the United States Marines under the command of First Lieutenant Jacob Zeilin. Proceeding from San Pedro, Commodore Robert F. Stockton entered Los Angeles nine days later with a naval detachment of 360. Fremont’s troops advanced from San Diego and arrived shortly after Stockton. Again, no Mexican or Californian resistance was offered. Mexican forces in California surrendered on 14 August 1846. (4)

Sally Cavell Johns attributes the early success of the United States in California to the lack of organization among the Californians and Mexico’s neglect of the California province since the Mexican War for Independence from Spain in 1821. (5) According to Johns, Californians were also divided politically between two leaders. This division split the province between north and south. Only the outbreak of war drew the two sides together, but in a very loose, suspicious manner. United States Navy Chaplain, Reverend Walter Colton provides evidence to support Johns’ theory when he wrote that Mexican officer José Castro was “an officer of high pretensions, but utterly deficient in strength and steadiness of purpose.” (6) Reverend Colton also stated that Castro’s followers “had gathered to him with as little discipline, sobriety, and order, as would characterize a bear hunt.” (7)

The surrender of the Mexican forces in California on 14 August 1846 did not close the curtain on the Pacific theater of the Mexican-American War. Commodore Stockton appointed USMC Lieutenant Archibald Gillespie the officer in command at Los Angeles. (8) Stockton then sailed to Monterey. After claiming California, the United States Naval forces moved south to the Baja Peninsula. On 2 September, Lieutenant Rowan landed a party from the Cyane against enemy cannon at San Blas, one of Mexico’s main supply bases on the Pacific coast. Within a week, the U.S. Navy pushed further south along the Mexican Pacific coast. The sloop Warren under Lieutenant William Radford captured the Mexican merchant brig Malek Adhel outside Mazatlán.

After these initial, successes, the tide began to turn against the United States. In late September 1846, the Californian Revolt, led by Mexican army Captain José Maria Flores routed Lieutenant Gillespie’s 48-man garrison in Los Angeles. It took four days to dislodge the American forces, but once in retreat, the American’s had no recourse but to evacuate from Santa Barbara and take refuge on a merchant ship in the San Pedro harbor. (9) Two weeks later, Captain Mervine advanced from San Pedro with 225 men from the frigate Savannah. (10) Mervine’s men joined forces with Lieutenant Gillespie bring the total U.S. forces to number 310 sailors, marines and volunteers. The Californians held off the advance of Mervine and Gillespie in the Battle of Dominguez Rancho, which is more popularly known as the “Battle of the Old Woman’s Gun”. Johns attributes the American defeat to the sailors being unaccustomed to their role as infantrymen and the long march from San Pedro. U.S. forces lost four sailors and six wounded.

The Congress and Commodore Stockton arrived in San Diego near the end of October, but without reinforcements from Captain Fremont and horses necessary to transport supplies, any attempt to reclaim Los Angeles was futile. Commodore Stockton and Lieutenant Gillespie sailed to San Diego on the Congress to obtain supplies and reinforcements, leaving the Savannah and Captain Mervine in San Pedro. Before the initial attack on American forces in Los Angeles, Lieutenant Gillespie had sent reinforcements to San Diego at Captain Henry Delano Fitch’s request. When the Congress arrived in San Diego, it found a similarly dismal situation. The garrison was being starved out be the Californian insurgents and had little in the way of supplies. (11)

By November, most of the early American successes had been reclaimed by the California revolt. “The U.S. Navy held the ports of San Diego and Monterey, but insurgents controlled all the rest of the territory south of San Francisco Bay.” (12) According to Captain Fremont, these ports were scarcely held “under the guns of their men-of-war.” (13) The intention was to hold the Americans hostage on their ships by forcing all the livestock and horses into the interior regions of the province.

All along the American forces believed the successes of the California Revolt were only temporary. Lieutenant Joseph Warren Revere wrote in his journal, “In the existing state of affairs, the Californian movement, although ultimately helpless, possessed the elements of temporary success.” (14) This proved to be true as the tide turned back to the Americans at the beginning of 1847. On 2 January 1847, a marine detachment supplemented by volunteers totaling 101 under the command of USMC Captain Ward Marston defeats and uprising near the Mission at Santa Clara. (15) Six days later, Commodore Robert Stockton and U.S. Army Colonel Stephen Watts Kearny combined forces in San Diego, while Captain Fremont’s troops advancing from Santa Barbara providing a second prong offensive, to route General Flores at the Battle of the San Gabriel River. American forces number 607 with four cannon against Flores’ forces of 450 and 2 cannon. Flores retreated to what is now modern day Vernon but engaged the advancing American forces more intensely the next day at the Battle of La Mesa. La Mesa proved too much, however, for the Mexican forces Flores retreated further to present day Pasadena. On 10 January 1847, General Flores fled to Mexico leaving Major Andrés Pico to accept defeat. Major Pico saw surrender as the only option and on 13 January 1847, signed the Treaty of Cahuenga, surrendering all Mexican claims to California.

The Treaty of Cahuenga did not end the Pacific conflict of the Mexican-American War. On 30 March 1847, the United States returned to the Baja Peninsula. Lieutenant Benjamin F.B. Hunter from the sloop Portsmouth attacked the port of San José del Cabo and briefly occupied it with a landing party of 140 men. Four days later, the Portsmouth landed at the village of San Lucas in Baja, followed by the occupation of La Paz, capital of Baja, on 13 April 1847. This final landing party was under the command of Lieutenant John S. Missroon.

Throughout the spring and summer of 1847, the United States Navy cruised the Pacific coasts of California and Mexico raiding Mexican privateers and merchant ships. The sloop-of-war Dale, which joined the Pacific fleet in January 1847, was instrumental to the Pacific effort at the end of the war. “Not only did she capture several Mexican privateers and merchantmen, but landing parties she sent ashore raised the American flag over towns of Guaymas and Mueljé.” (16) On 1 October 1847, the Dale was under Commander Thomas O. Selfridge who ordered an attack on the village of Mueljé. Lieutenant T. A. M. Craven drove the Mexican garrison from the village with a landing party of fifty men. Four days later, the Dale and Craven land at the village of Loreto and seize three cannon and several small arms. (17)

On 20 October 1847, the Congress and the Portsmouth under the respective leadership of Captain Elie A. F. La Vallette and Commander John B. Montgomery bombarded Guaymas before occupying the town with a naval landing party. (18) From these small villages and towns, the Navy moved to Mazatlán, Mexico’s most important Pacific port. On 11 November 1847, Captain La Vallette led a landing party of over 725 men from the frigates Congress and Independence and the sloop Cyane. On this same day, an anti-American revolt was suppressed at La Paz. A second revolt was put down six days later. (19) Activity intensified over the next six months on the Baja Peninsula with the American naval landing parties overcoming larger forces and surprise attacks in Guaymas, La Paz, Urias, and Palos Prietos. Most of these skirmishes involved landing parties from the Dale and were under the leadership various lieutenants. Although the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on 2 February 1848, the United States navy continued to be attacked in the Pacific by Mexicans until 9 April 1848. Under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico relinquished claims to Texas and ceded all of present day Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah as well as most of New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. (20)

Victory for the United States in the Pacific theater of the Mexican-American war can be attributed to several factors. In addition to Johns’ theory that the Californian and Mexican forces were disorganized and neglected, the United States proved to have superior firepower and training. In numerous landings, the United States Navy had small parties and still managed to capture and occupy major cities, ports, towns and villages. Many of the Naval officers in the Pacific theater of the Mexican-American War went on to receive accommodations for their service. Most of those that held the rank of Commodore were promoted to newly created ranks of Admiral or Rear Admiral and many of those that held lower ranks were eventually promoted to the rank of Commodore

1. Hart, Colonel Herbert M. USMC (retired). “The American Capture of Monterey, 1842 and 1846”, The California State Military Museum accessed at http://www.militarymuseum.org/Monterey.html on 17 October 2008.
2. Sweetman, Jack. American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-Present. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. 2002. p 46.
3. Ibid, 47.
4. Ibid.
5. Johns, Sally Cavell. “Viva Los Californios! The Battle of San Pasqual”, The Journal of San Diego History 19, no. 4, (Fall 1973) accessed online at http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/73fall/sanpasqual.htm on 17 October 2008.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Sweetman, 47.
11. Johns.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Sweetman, 48.
16. Naval Historical Center. “Dale”, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships accessed online at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d1/dale-i.htm on 17 October 2008.
17. Sweetman, 51.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid, 51-52.
20. Ibid, 52.

What is history?

Before we get too far into this blog, I would like to take an opportunity to define history. My definition of history derives from the welcome lecture of one of my undergraduate professors at Fairmont State University in Fairmont, West Virginia - Dr. Patrick Albano.

For many history is nothing more than a study of the past and while this definition is accurate, it is far from complete. History as a study of the past is a misconception and too simple a definition. History is a critical inquiry of the cultural, economic, political and social contexts of the past with an eye to the future. In this critical inquiry, history seeks to find the truth. Truth authenicates events and validates history. Only in truth can history exist and only through truth, has history led us to where we are today. It will continue leading us to the future.

A second misconception of history is that history repeats itself. It is true that certain events in history seem to repeat themselves by resembling other events. World War I and World War II are good examples, but in truth, no two events in history have ever been the same. Each historical event has it's own causes, its own outcome, and its own effects.

In seeking the truth, the historian wears many hats. First, the historian is a detective researching thousands of documents to find the elusive truth. Second, the historian is a judge deciding which documents and artifacts are relevant and which are simply unimportnat to his or her cause. Lastly, a historian is a lawyer defending his or her research, findings and conclusions.

Everything has a history and history covers everything. Even history has a history. The history of history is called historiography. As a discipline, history can be divided into several subfields. Some of the more common subfields are written, oral, comparative, diplomatic/military, psychohistory, and specialty history. Specialty history includes such topics as public history and revisionist history.

A third misconception of history is that history is dead. According to Dr. Albano, some historians will argue that history is dead because there is nothing left to write about. No new ideas are being put forth. I disagree. History is an evolutionary study. It is an interpretation of the facts. As new facts are discovered, history has the potential to re-write and correct itself, and everyday new discoveries are made (see post dated 10/31/08).

History is alive and well.

Veterans Day Rememberance

Today is the 90th Anniversary of the Armistice that ended World War I, sometimes referred to as the "Great War" or the "War to End all Wars". Although the Armisitce was signed at 5 AM on November 11, 1918, it did not take affect until 11:00 AM, becoming what is referred to as the "eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month".

My question is what is the significance of the 11-11 at 11:00 AM? Why not put the Armistice in effect at 5 AM when it was signed. Some have suggested that this time and date were chosen to ensure the significance of the armistice. Does anyone have any thoughts?

The two best sources on the Great War are Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August and Eric Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. Remarque's book is actually a novel, however it draws on his first hand experience as a soldier during World War I so it can be used as a reliable source of the conditions of the war.

Change in Washington

With the historic election of Barack Obama as the first African-American President of the United States, many have already begun to compare the president-elect to some of his predecessors. The news media has likened the former senator to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt because he is taking office in a time of great crisis. Others have made the comparison to Jimmy Carter because of his lack of experience on the national scene. I believe that such comparisons are pointless at this point in time. President-elect Barack Obama is his own man and he will do what he feels is necessary to right the direction of America’s ship. Comparing him to former presidents will only set the stage for failure and right now, “failure is not an option”. We will not be able to adequately compare an Obama administration until many years after his term in office is over, when scholars have had time to analyze the long-term effects of any policy the administration enacts. Only time will tell if Barack Obama will join the ranks of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt or whether he will slip into obscurity like Van Buren, Fillmore, Pierce, and Arthur.

I believe the more important question that faces President-elect Barack Obama is whether he can redeliver the American Dream. In his campaign, the president-elect promised many things, including a tax cut for the middle class. But this is not about the individual policies that the president-elect put forth in his campaign. It is about the larger picture, his vision, for America. A tax cut for the middle class is only one part of that vision and all too often people focus too much on the small pieces of the bigger puzzle. We need not get tied up and bogged down the details of how Barack Obama will redeliver the American Dream; we must look at whether the American Dream can be redelivered and if Barack Obama is the man to do it.

In the bigger scheme of things, Barack campaigned on a theme of change. Change is the bigger picture. It is what makes Barack’s vision for America. The president-elect used his lack of experience in Washington to define change, yet as he begins the planning of his cabinet, many names familiar to Washington are being put forth. Is this really change? Having the same Washington bureaucrats in charge of the same policy making agencies? Barack Obama’s lack of experience necessitates the need for experienced Washington players, but this need will make it difficult to deliver real change. Change cannot come from within Washington; it must come from the outside, because we are creatures of habit and to change Washington, we must break the habits of Washington. The election of Barack Obama was the right choice in this regard. Although he has served in the U.S. Senate, he is still an outsider. But is Barack Obama enough? For true change to come to Washington, we need more outsiders. Many more.

At the same time, too many outsiders will stall the ship’s engines while they learn the ropes in Washington. The Carter Administration illustrates this fact well. These outsiders will learn the ropes from the same individuals who have steered Washington for the past forty years and the same individuals who have steered the ship away from the American Dream. Thus, the president-elect will need to balance the new blood with the old. He will have to do it with authority and with compassion. The old blood must realize that their time has come. They have served their country faithfully in the best way that they knew how, but it is time to hand the reigns to the next generation. History passed it to them four decades ago and now they must pass it on. Only then will we see real change.

Let me know your thoughts.

Archealogical Discovery in Israel

Yesterday, CNN reported that archeaologists from Hebrew University of Jerusalem discovered a Hebrew text dating back to the Old Testament. The text is inscribed on a shard of pottery which carbon dates to the 10th century b.c.e. (before common era - preferred by many scholars, specifically non-Christian scholars, over the Christianized b.c. meaning before Christ). The 10th century b.c.e would be about 3,000 years ago, making this find 1,000 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The text has yet to be deciphered but contain Hebrew root words of "judge", "slave", and "king", indicating that the pottery may have served as a legal document. Although I am not a biblical or Middle Eastern historian, I find this discovery interesting. I believe we have much to learn from this excavation and I am anxious to see what else the Hebrew University archealogists find at this site.

The complete story can be found at the following link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/30/israel.ancient.text/index.html

I am interested in hearing your thoughts, both academic and non, on this amazing discovery.

Welcome Message

Welcome to the All Things History Blog.

I created this blog to share my thoughts and ideas about history and engage in constructive discussions about various historical topics and aspects of history. I hope to post a different discussion each week, but may, as time allows, post more often.

Although, my interests and research focus is the maritime culture of colonial and revolutionary America and the early republic, this blog will not limit itself to that focus. Instead, I hope to provide a wide range of discussion topics including both American and world history. Posts will include topical questions, historical analysis, book reviews and research papers. My goal with this blog is to generate interest in history among non-historians and garner peer review of topics that impact our society.

I hope that you will find this blog informative and engaging, and I look forward to everyone's comments and discussions.

Thank you for joining our discussion. Please be sure to add your profile to the followers of this blog.