17th Century Spanish Galleon Found

In October 1631 a Spanish fleet of 19 ships set sail for their homeland from Veracruz, a port on the Gulf coast of what is now Mexico. Shortly after departing, the fleet encountered a violent storm, most likely a hurricane, which ultimately sank the majority of the fleet. While the exact cargo of the fleet is unknown, it is speculated to have been carrying gold and silver from the mines in Peru and Central America. One of the ships in the fleet was the Spanish galleon Our Lady of Juncal. Our Lady has recently been discovered by Odyssey Marine Exploration of Tampa, Florida. (Odyssey is the same company that discovered the HMS Victory in my previous post.) Odyssey wishes to explore the shipwreck and recover artifacts in compliance with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, anc Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention which would keep all artifacts together as a single collection. The Mexican government has denied Odyssey the right to explore and recover stating that Odyssey's proposal "is not intended to conduct research and does not have the approval of archaeologists or an academic institution of recognized prestige."

For the complete AP article by Mark Stevenson, please visit Mexico says US firm can't explore shipwreck.

Another Historic Shipwreck Found

In 1744, the British Royal Navy was the mightiest of them all, in part because of ships like the Her Majesty's Ship (HMS) Victory. The HMS Victory was "the world's mightiest and most technically advanced warship" of it's time. Its sinking has been called "one of the greatest mysteries in naval history", until now.

Odyssey Marine Exploration believes they have found the wreck of the HMS Victory, and its location is nowhere near where the Victory was thought to have sunk. Originally, the ship was believed to have sank in Channel Islands near the French coast. Odyssey Marine Exploration has found the wreckage in the English Channel almost 62 miles from the Channel Islands. Historians believed that Admiral Sir John Balchin and his crew ran the ship aground on a reef due to mistakes and faulty navigation, but Odyssey's discovery in the deep waters of the English Channel indicate the ship may have sank in a violent storm. The design of the ship is believed to have played a part in the ship's demise.

The HMS Victory's crew numbered almost 1,000 men. A crew this size was virtually unheard of in 1744 when the ship went down. The ship has been identified by artifacts near the site including a 42 pounder cannon. The ship itself is unrecoverable. Like the Titanic, the ship was believed to be unsinkable.

To read the complete story by Josh Levs, please visit Treasure Hunters Claim Historic Warship Found on CNN.com

The Worst Maritime Disaster in the United States

While researching my family heritage (see post dated December 30, 2009) my brother directed me to a website that mentioned the sinking of the SS Sultana, known as the worst maritime disaster in the United States. "The SS What?", you ask. Exactly!

After seeing the site my brother directed me to, I got thinking. How could a shipping disaster that claimed more lives than the sinking of the Titanic go unnoticed? Show me one history book that mentions the SS Sultana. While, local history texts may mention it, on a national level the event is no where to be found. According to Fire Service History, two books have been written about the incident. Neither, however, are mainstream. The first is The Sultana Tragedy: America's Greatest Maritime Disaster by Jerry O. Potter. The second, Disaster on the Mississippi: The Sultana Explosion, April 27, 1865 by Gene Eric Salecker. So I again ask, how does a shipping disaster that claimed more lives than the Titanic go unnoticed?

To begin with, the SS Sultana was a steamship operating on the Mississippi River. During the Civil War, the ship was used to transport Union soldiers and supplies into the Confederacy. On April 27, 1865 when the SS Sultana sank, the war was nearly over. The Sultana began transporting Union prisoners of war back to St. Louis. En route, the steamship had to stop in Vicksburg for some repairs to one of the boilers and take on more passengers. Although the ship was only certified to carry 376, more than 2,000 were believed to be on board. At approximately 2 a.m. on April 27, 1865, the hasty repairs to the boiler gave way causing the ship to explode. Because the Sultana was heading upstream against the strong spring currents, the ship required more steam (and thus more pressure) to sail upriver. The ship was also listing because of the excessive weight from overcrowding. The boiler explosion killed more than 1,500 people. Official estimates are 1,547, but many historians believe that upwards of 1,800 were sent to their deaths. Official reports point to the boiler explosion as the cause, but a Confederate sabotage theory has also been advanced.

Casualties from the RMS Titanic number 1,517, thirty less than the estimates from the SS Sultana, yet the Sultana has been forgotten by history. Why? Because of when it sank. On April 27, 1865, the United States was mourning the loss of President Lincoln who had been assassinated two weeks earlier. As the first U.S. President to be assassinated, Lincoln's death held the nation captive for several months. Lincoln's body would not be laid to rest until the following month after a long tour around the country. Immediately following Lincoln's assassination, the conspiracy to kill several key government officials became known. This too turned the nation's attention away from a small steamship that sank on the Mississippi River and thus relegated the SS Sultana into near oblivion.

Move Over Titanic

The sinking of the Titanic and its later discovery was the most important maritime discovery of the 20th century. That discovery will continue to make history and awe thousands, if not millions of people. But the 21st century must find its own place in history, and it amy have done so in the past week with a discovery that is to science what the Titanic was to popular culture.

On Friday, January 9, 2009, the BBC reported the possible discovery of the HMS Beagle. The HMS Beagle was the ship that Charles Darwin sailed on to the Pacific when he formulated his theory on evolution.

The HMS Beagle made only three voyages before being sent the British Coast Guard to aid in their anti-smuggling campaign. After years of service in the Coast Guard, the HMS Beagle was decommissioned and sold off to be stripped and dismantled. According to the BBC article, it is believed that two local farmer purchased the ship and then let it sink in the muddy marshes of River Roach in Essex, England after they salvaged as much as they possibly could. Samples taken from the hull of the ship will eventually confirm whether or not the find is indeed the HMS Beagle, but already their are positive signs. The discovery is apporximately the same size as the HMS Beagle and the first samples have confirmed the presence of organisms, called diatoms, which are only found in the Pacific and Australian seas.

To read the complete article by Jeremy Grange, please visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7819991.stm.

Roman Expansion

Yesterday, CNN reported that archeologists in Germany discovered a battlefield from the Ancient Roman Empire. What is fascinating about this discovery is that it revises all previous notions of the Romans in Northern Germany. Prior to this discovery, historians believed the Germanic tribes defeated the Romans within a decade of Christ. The battlefield, however, proves the Romans were still strong and in control of Northern Germany into the third century. Archealogists at the site believe the Germanic tribes ambushed the Romans, but that the Romans were able to regroup and that advanced Roamn weaponry thwarted the ambush resulting in close hand-to-hand combat. One of the more interesting finds at the site was a Roman coin depicting the late second century Emperor Commodus. Most of the artifacts have been preserved so well that archealogists and historians can re-create portions of the third century battle.

The full story can be accessed on CNN's website at German Battlefield Yields Roman Surprises.

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.