Showing posts with label 1820s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1820s. Show all posts

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Tuesday, March 17, 1824. Irish in Savannah and Old Glory

Savannah, Georgia held its first St. Patrick's Day parade on this day in 1824.

We don't tend to think of the Irish immigrating to the American South, but there were some, although the story is complicated by the conflation of the Irish with the Scots Irish, the latter group actually being a Scottish Protestant population imported by the United Kingdom with the intent to create a sort of Protestant wall in Ulster.  The actual Irish were a massively unpopular "race" in the United States at this point in time.

The original Old Glory.

The name "Old Glory" was applied to the U.S. flag for the first time, with that coming from Cpt. William Driver, a commercial captain who received it from his mother and local women of Salem, Massachusetts.  The name was applied to the individual flag.

Driver was an interesting character and had originally gone to sea at age 13 as a cabin boy.  On an 1831 expedition to the South Pacific, his ship was the only one out of six that survived the trip, and his ship escorted 65 descendants of the Bounty survivors back to Pitcairn Island.  He retired from sailing in 1837 and became a salesman. During the Civil War, he remained loyal to the Union while living in Nashville.

It remained in his family's possession until 1922, when it was donated to the Smithsonian.

The Anglo Dutch Treaty was entered into resolving issues that had arisen due to a prior treaty in 1814.

Last prior:

Thursday, March 11, 1824. Bureau of Indian Affairs formed.

Monday, March 11, 2024

Thursday, March 11, 1824. Bureau of Indian Affairs formed.

 Today In Wyoming's History: March 11


Formed on this day, in 1824.  Taking over the role of various predecessor agencies, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun formed the bureau as a department within the Department of War, doing so without authority.

Last prior:

Friday, March 5, 1824. The First Anglo Burmese War commences.

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Friday, March 5, 1824. The First Anglo Burmese War commences.

The First Anglo Burmese War commenced with a British declaration of war against the Burmese Empire over competing claims to Northeast India.


The war would be one of the costliest British wars of all time, although would prevail, and it would commence the beginning of the end for the Burmese Empire.


Monday, March 4, 2024

Thursday, March 4, 1824. The 18th Congress convenes.

The National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck was founded in the United Kingdom.  It became The Royal National Lifeboat Institution in 1858.

Florida Territorial Governor William Duval signed a proclamation designating Tallahassee as the new territorial capital.

Cockade of the "Republicans", based on the cockade worn by French Revolutionaries. By Angelus - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15935450

The 18th Congress of the United States convened.  There were 48 Senators, with the Majority being members of the Democratic Republicans.  There were 213 Congressmen, and they were in fact all men, with the majority also being Democratic Republicans.  Henry Clay, a legendary legislator, was the Speaker of the House.

The Democratic Republicans called themselves the Republicans in reality, with the latter term being a later historical innovation.  They were also the Jeffersonian Republican Party.  They stood for liberalism, republicanism, individual liberty, equal rights, decentralization, free markets, free trade, agrarianism, and sympathy with the French Revolution, the latter of which as a disaster and can be regarded as the father of disastrous 20th Century revolutions. The party became increasingly dominant after 1800 when the Federalist Party collapsed.  It was a progenitor of the Democratic Party.

Saturday, March 2, 2024

March 2, 1824. Gibbons v. Ogden.

The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gibbons v Ogden, a major case establishing Congress' supremacy over states, something that will nonetheless be challenged from time to time today by far right state politicians.

GIBBONS v. OGDEN

22 U.S. 1 (1824)

March 2, 1824

APPEAL from the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors of the State of New-York. Aaron Ogden filed his bill in the Court of Chancery of that State, against Thomas Gibbons, setting forth the several acts of the Legislature thereof, enacted for the purpose of securing to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton, the exclusive navigation of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that State, with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of years which has not yet expired; and authorizing the Chancellor to award an injunction, restraining any person whatever from navigating those waters with boats of that description. The bill stated an assignment from Livingston and Fulton to one John R. Livingston, and from him to the complainant, Ogden, of the right to navigate the waters between Elizabethtown, and other places in New-Jersey, and the city of New-York; and that Gibbons, the defendant below, was in possession of two steam boats, called the Stoudinger and the Bellona, which were actually employed in running between New-York and Elizabethtown, in violation of the exclusive privilege conferred on the complainant, and praying an injunction to restrain the said Gibbons from using the said boats, or any other propelled by fire or steam, in navigating the waters within the territory of New-York. The injunction having been awarded, the answer of Gibbons was filed; in which he stated, that the boats employed by him were duly enrolled and licensed, to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade, under the act of Congress, passed the 18th of February, 1793, entitled, 'An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same.' And the defendant insisted on his right, in virtue of such licenses, to navigate the waters between Elizabethtown and the city of New-York, the said acts of the Legislature of the State of New-York to the contrary notwithstanding. At the hearing, the Chancellor perpetuated the injunction, being of the opinion, that the said acts were not repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, and were valid. This decree was affirmed in the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, which is the highest Court of law and equity in the State, before which the cause could be carried, and it was thereupon brought to this Court by appeal....

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and, after stating the case, proceeded as follows:

The appellant contends that this decree is erroneous, because the laws which purport to give the exclusive privilege it sustains, are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.

They are said to be repugnant--

1st. To that clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce.

2d. To that which authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said, that these powers ought to be construed strictly. But why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants, expressly, the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used, is not extended to the powers which are conferred; nor is there one sentence in the constitution, which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, think ourselves justified in adopting it.... As men, whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said....

The words are, 'Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.'

The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations, which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals, in the actual employment of buying and selling, or of barter....

The subject to which the power is next applied, is to commerce 'among the several States.' The word 'among' means intermingled with. A thing which is among others, is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.

It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

Comprehensive as the word 'among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a State, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose; and the enumeration of the particular classes of commerce, to which the power was to be extended, would not have been made, had the intention been to extend the power to every description.... The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.

We are now arrived at the inquiry-What is this power?

It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.... The power of Congress, then, comprehends navigation, within the limits of every State in the Union; so far as that navigation may be, in any manner, connected with 'commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes.' It may, of consequence, pass the jurisdictional line of New-York, and act upon the very waters to which the prohibition now under consideration applies....

In argument, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act, law. The appropriate inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it....

This act demonstrates the opinion of Congress, that steam boats may be enrolled and licensed, in common with vessels using sails. They are, of course, entitled to the same privileges, and can no more be restrained from navigating waters, and entering ports which are free to such vessels, than if they were wafted on their voyage by the winds, instead of being propelled by the agency of fire. The one element may be as legitimately used as the other, for every commercial purpose authorized by the laws of the Union; and the act of a State inhibiting the use of either to any vessel having a license under the act of Congress, comes, we think, in direct collision with that act.

As this decides the cause, it is unnecessary to enter in an examination of that part of the constitution which empowers Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts....

Powerful and ingenious minds, taking, as postulates, that the powers expressly granted to the government of the Union, are to be contracted by construction, into the narrowest possible compass, and that the original powers of the States are retained, if any possible construction will retain them, may, by a course of well digested, but refined and metaphysical reasoning, founded on these premises, explain away the constitution of our country, and leave it, a magnificent structure, indeed, to look at, but totally unfit for use. They may so entangle and perplex the understanding, as to obscure principles, which were before thought quite plain, and induce doubts where, if the mind were to pursue its own course, none would be perceived. In such a case, it is peculiarly necessary to recur to safe and fundamental principles to sustain those principles, and when sustained, to make them the tests of the arguments to be examined.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

February 24, 1824. Treaty With Tunis Amended.

As follows:

Whereas Sundry articles of the Treaty of peace and friendship concluded between the United States of America and Hamuda Bashaw, of happy memory, in the month of Rebia Elul in the year of the Hegira 1212, corresponding with the month of August of the Christian year 1797; have by experience been found to require alteration and amendment: In order therefore that the United States should be placed on the same footing with the most favored Nations having Treaties with Tunis, as well as to manifest a respect for the American Government and a desire to continue unimpaired the friendly relations which have always existed between the two Nations, it is hereby agreed & concluded between His Highness Mahmoud Bashaw Bey of Tunis, and S. D. Heap Esquire Charge d'affaires of the United States of America, that alteration be made in the Sixth, eleventh, twelfth and fourteenth articles of said Treaty; and that the said articles shall be altered and amended in the Treaty to read as follows.

ARTICLE 6th

If a Tunisian Corsair shall meet with an American vessel & shall visit it with her boat, two men only shall be allowed to go on board, peaceably to satisfy themselves of its being American, who as well as any passengers of other Nations they may have on board, shall go free both them & their goods; and the said two men shall not exact any thing, on pain of being severely punished. In case a slave escapes and takes refuge on board an American vessel of war he shall be free, and no demand shall be made either for his restoration or for payment.

ARTICLE THE 11th

When a vessel of war of the United States shall enter the port of the Goletta she shall be saluted with twenty one guns, which salute, the vessel of war shall return gun for gun only, and no powder will be given, as mentioned in the ancient eleventh article of this Treaty, which is hereby annulled.

ARTICLE THE 12th

When Citizens of the United States shall come within the dependencies of Tunis to carry on commerce there, the same respect shall be paid to them which the Merchants of other Nations enjoy; and if they wish to establish themselves within our ports, no opposition shall be made thereto, and they shall be free to avail themselves of such interpreters as they may judge necessary without any obstruction in conformity with the usages of other Nations; and if a Tunisian Subject shall go to establish himself within the dependencies of the United States, he shall be treated in like manner. If any Tunisian Subject shall freight an American vessel and load her with Merchandise, and shall afterwards want to unload, or ship them on board of another vessel, we shall not permit him untill the matter is determined by a reference of Merchants, who shall decide upon the case, and after the decision, the determination shall be conformed to.

No Captain shall be detained in port against his consent, except when our ports are shut for the vessels of all other Nations, which may take place with respect to merchant vessels, but not to those of war. The Subjects and Citizens of the two Nations respectively Tunisians and Americans, shall be protected in the places where they may be by the officers of the Government there existing; but on failure of such protection, and for redress of every injury, the party may resort to the chief authority in each country, by whom adequate protection and complete justice shall be rendered. In case the Government of Tunis shall have need of an American vessel for its service, such vessel being within the Regency, and not previously engaged, the Government shall have the preference on its paying the same freight as other Merchants usually pay for the same service, or at the like rate, if the service be without a customary precedent.

ARTICLE THE 14th

All vessels belonging to the Citizens and inhabitants of the United States, shall be permitted to enter the ports of the Kingdom of Tunis, and freely trade with the Subjects and inhabitants thereof on paying the usual duties which are paid by other most favored Nations at peace with the Regency. In like manner all vessels belonging to the subjects and inhabitants of the Kingdom of Tunis shall be permitted to enter the different ports of the United States, and freely trade with the Citizens and inhabitants thereof on paying the usual duties which are paid by other most favored Nations at peace with the United States.

Concluded, signed & sealed at the palace of Bardo near Tunis the 24th day of the Moon jumed-teni in the year of the Hegira 1239: corresponding the 24th of February 1824: of the Christian year; and the 48th year of the Independence of the United States; reserving the same nevertheless for the final ratification of the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(Signed) S. D. HEAP

Charge d'affaires of the U. States of America at Tunis

(Seal of MAHMOUD BASHAW.)

(Seal of HASSAN BEY.)

The immediately prior treaty, from 1816, read:

Treaty of Peace and Amity, concluded between the United States of America and the Dey and Regency of Algiers.

The President of the United States and the Dey of Algiers being desirous to restore and maintain upon a stable and permanent footing, the relations of peace and good understanding between the two powers; and for this purpose to renew the Treaty of Peace and Amity 1 which was concluded between the two States by William Shaler, and Commodore Stephen Decatur, as Commissioners Plenipotentiary, on the part of the United States and His Highness Omar Pashaw Dey of Algiers on the 30th of June 1815.

The President of the United States having subsequently nominated and appointed by Commission, the above named William Shaler, and Isaac Chauncey, Commodore and Commander in chief of all the Naval Forces of the United States in the Mediterranean, Commissioners Plenipotentiary, to treat with His Highness the Dey of Algiers for the renewal of the Treaty aforesaid; and they have concluded, settled, and signed the following articles:

ARTICLE 1st.

There shall be from the conclusion of this Treaty, a firm, perpetual, inviolable and universal peace and friendship between the President and Citizens of the United States of America on the one part, and the Dey and subjects of the Regency of Algiers in Barbary on the other, made by the free consent of both parties, and on the terms of the most favoured Nations; and if either party shall hereafter grant to any other Nation, any particular favor or privilege in Navigation, or (commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other party, freely, when freely it is granted to such other Nations, but when the grant is conditional, it shall be at the option of the contracting parties, to accept, alter, or reject such conditions in such manner as shall be most conducive to their respective interests.

ARTICLE 2d

It is distinctly understood between the contracting parties, that no tribute, either as biennial presents or under any other form, or name whatever, shall be required by the Dey and Regency of Algiers from the United States of America on any pretext whatever.

ARTICLE 3rd

Relates to the mutual restitution of prisoners & subjects and has been duly executed.

ARTICLE 4th

Relates to the delivery into the hands of the Consul General of a quantity of Bales of Cotton &c and has been duly executed.

ARTICLE 5th.

If any goods belonging to any Nation with which either of the parties are at War, should be loaded on board vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free and unmolested and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

ARTICLE 6th.

If any citizens or subjects belonging to either party shall be found on board a prize-vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be liberated immediately and in no case, or on any presence whatever shall any American citizen be kept in captivity or confinement, or the property of any American citizen found on board of any vessel belonging to any Nation with which Algiers may be at War, be detained from its lawful owners after the exhibition of sufficient proofs of American citizenship and American property by the Consul of the United States, residing at Algiers.

ARTICLE 7th.

Proper passports shall immediately be given to the vessels of both the contracting parties on condition that the vessels of War belonging to the Regency of Algiers on meeting with Merchant vessels belonging to the Citizens of the United States of America shall not be permitted to visit them with more than two persons besides the rowers; these only shall be permitted to go on board, without first obtaining leave from the Commander of said vessel, who shall compare the passports and immediately permit said vessel to proceed on her voyage; and should any of the subjects of Algiers insult or molest the Commander or any other person on board a vessel so visited, or plunder any of the property contained in her, on complaint being made to the Consul of the United States residing in Algiers, and on his producing sufficient proofs to substantiate the fact, the Commander or Rais, of said Algerine ship or vessel of War, as well as the offenders, shall be punished in the most exemplary manner.

All vessels of War belonging to the United States of America on meeting a cruiser belonging to the Regency of Algiers, on having seen her passports, and certificates from the Consul of the United States residing in Algiers; shall permit her to proceed on her cruize unmolested and without detention.

No passport shall be granted by either party to any vessels but such as are absolutely the property of citizens or subjects of the said contracting parties, on any presence whatever.

ARTICLE 8th

A citizen or subject of either of the contracting parties, having bought a prize vessel condemned by the other party or by any other Nation, the Certificates of condemnation, and bill of sale, shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for six months, which considering the distance between the two Countries, is no more than a reasonable time for her to procure passports.

ARTICLE 9th

Vessels of either of the contracting parties, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies shall be furnished at the Market price, and if any such vessel should so put in from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and reembark her cargo, without paying any customs or duties whatever; but in no case shall be compelled to land her cargo.

ARTICLE 10th

Should a vessel of either of the contracting parties be cast on shore within the territories of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her crew; no pillage shall be allowed. The property shall remain at the disposal of the owners, and if re-shipped on board of any vessel for exportation, no customs or duties whatever shall be required to be paid thereon, and the crew shall be protected and succoured until they can be sent to their own country.

ARTICLE 11th.

If a vessel of either of the contracting parties shall be attacked by an enemy party within cannon-shot of the forts of the other, she shall be protected as much as is possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized or attacked when it is in the power of the other party to protect; her; and when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be permitted to pursue her from the same port within twenty four hours after her departure.

ARTICLE 12th

The commerce between the United States of America and the Regency of Algiers, the protections to be given to Merchants, Masters of vessels, and seamen, the reciprocal rights of establishing consuls in each country, the privileges, immunities, and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such consuls, are declared to be on the same footing in every respect with the most favoured nations respectively.

ARTICLE 13th

The Consul of the United States of America shall not be responsible for the debts contracted by the citizens of his own country, unless he gives previously, written obligations so to do.

ARTICLE 14th.

On a vessel or vessels of War belonging to the United States, anchoring before the city of Algiers the consul is to inform the Dey of her arrival when she shall receive the salutes which are by Treaty, or custom given to the Ships of War of the most favoured nations on similar occasions and which shall be returned gun for gun; and if after such arrival so announced, any Christians whatever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the said ships of war, they shall not be required back again, nor shall the Consul of the United States or Commander of the said ship be required to pay any thing for the said Christians.

ARTICLE 15th.

As the Government of the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of any Nation, and as the said states have never entered into any voluntary War or act of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony between the two Nations; and the Consuls and Agents of both Nations shall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their Own houses.

The Consuls respectively shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the territories of each other by land and sea and shall not be prevented from going on board any vessel they may think proper to visit; they shall likewise have the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Broker.

ARTICLE 16th

In case of any dispute arising from the violation of any of the articles of this Treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall War be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, the Government of that country, shall state their grievance in writing and transmit the same to the Government of the other, and the period of three months shall be allowed for answers to be returned, during which time, no act of hostility shall be permitted by either party; and in case the grievances are not redressed and a War should be the event, the Consuls and Citizens and Subjects of both parties, respectively shall be permitted to embark with their effects unmolested, on board of what vessel or vessels they shall think proper, reasonable time being allowed for that purpose.

ARTICLE 17th.

If in the course of events a War should break out between the two Nations the prisoners captured by either party, shall not be made slaves; they shall not be forced to hard labour or other confinement than such as may be necessary to secure their safe-keeping, and shall be exchanged rank for rank; and it is agreed that prisoners shall be exchanged in twelve months after their capture and the exchange may be effected by any private individual, legally authorized by either of the parties.

ARTICLE 18th

If any of the Barbary powers or other States at war with the United States shall capture any American vessel and send her into any port of the Regency of Algiers, they shall not be permitted to sell her; but shall be forced to depart the Port on procuring the requisite supplies of provisions; but the vessels of War of the United States with any prizes they may capture from their enemies shall have liberty to frequent the Ports of Algiers for refreshment of any kind, and to sell such prizes in the said Ports, without paying any other Customs or duties than such as are customary on ordinary commercial importations.

ARTICLE 19th.

If any of the Citizens of the United States or any persons under their protection, shall have any disputes with each other, the Consul shall decide between the parties, and whenever the Consul shall require any aid or assistance from the Government of Algiers to enforce his decisions it shall be immediately granted to him: and if any disputes shall arise between any citizens of the United States and the citizens or subjects of any other Nations having a Consul, or Agent in Algiers, such disputes shall be settled by the Consuls or Agents of the respective nations; and any disputes or suits at law, that may take place between any Citizens of the United States and the subjects of the Regency of Algiers, shall be decided by the Dey in person and no other.

ARTICLE 20th.

If a citizen of the United States should Kill, wound or strike a subject of Algiers, or on the contrary, a subject of Algiers, should kill, wound or strike a citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take place and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial; but the sentence of punishment against an American citizen shall not be greater, or more severe, than it would be against a Turk, in the same predicament, and if any delinquent should make his escape, the Consul shall not be responsible for him in any manner whatever.

ARTICLE 21st

The Consul of the United States of America, shall not be required to pay any customs or duties whatever on any thing he imports from a foreign country for the use of his house and family.

ARTICLE 22d

Should any of the Citizens of the United States of America die within the Regency of Algiers, the Dey and his subjects shall not interfere with the property of the deceased, but it shall be under the immediate direction of the Consul, unless otherwise disposed of by Will. Should there be no Consul, the effects shall be deposited in the hands of some person worthy of trust, until the party shall appear who has a right to demand them, when they shall render an account of the property; neither shall the Dey, or his subjects give hindrance in the execution of any will that may appear.

ARTICLE ADDITIONAL & EXPLANATORY

The United States of America in order to give to the Dey of Algiers a proof of their desire to maintain the relations of peace and amity between the two powers upon a footing the most liberal; and in order to withdraw any obstacle which might embarrass him in his relations with other States, agree to annul so much of the Eighteenth Article of the foregoing Treaty, as gives to the United States any advantage in the ports of Algiers over the most favoured Nations having Treaties with the Regency.

Done at the Palace of the Government in Algiers on the 22d day of December 1816. which corresponds to the 3d Of the Moon Safar Year of the Hegira 1232.

Whereas the undersigned William Shaler a (citizen of the State of New York and Isaac Chauncey, Commander in chief of the Naval Forces of the United States, Stationed in the Mediterranean, being duly appointed Commissioners by letters patent under the signature of the President and Seal of the United States of America, bearing date at the City of Washington the twenty fourth day of August A. D. 1816. for negotiating and concluding the renewal of a Treaty of Peace between the United States of America, and the Dey and subjects of the Regency of Algiers.

We therefore William Shaler and Isaac Chauncey, Commissioners as aforesaid, do conclude the foregoing Treaty, and every article and clause therein contained, reserving the Same nevertheless for the final ratification of the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice, and consent, of the Senate of the United States.

Done in the Chancery of the Consulate General of the United States in the City of Algiers on the 23d day of December in the Year 1816 and of the Independence of the United States the Forty First

[Seal] Wm SHALER

[Seal] I. CHAUNCEY


Saturday, February 10, 2024

February 10, 1824 become the leader of Peru.

On this day in 1824, Simón Bolívar, having already liberated what later became Venezuela, Columbia, Panama and Ecuador, became the leader of Peru, which he had recently liberated.


I frankly have mixed opinions on Bolivar, who did manage to boot Spain from much of South America, but didn't establish functioning democracies in the end.

Perhaps that would have been asking too much, however.

Sunday, February 4, 2024

February 4, 1824. Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Jared Sparks.

 



The topic was African slaves in the United States, and what to do about/with them.  Jefferson advocated for establishing an American colony in Africa.

Sparks was a very early Unitarian minister who had served as the Chaplain for the House of Representatives, and who would go on to serve as the President of Harvard.  He died in 1866 at the age of 76, having therefore had a life span which would have overlapped the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the Civil War.  Fairly typically for the era, he'd been married twice, his first wife having been taken by death when they'd been married only three years.


Saturday, January 7, 2023

House of the Rising Sun Deconstructed. Anything seem a little odd?

Most of us know the song, House of the Rising Sun.  Probably most people who think of it, when they do, think of the version by Eric Burdon and the Animals.

It's a great song.

Anything ever seem a little off about it, however?

The song is about a house of prostitution, which most people familiar with the song are aware of.  As Burdon sings it, the lyrics are:

There is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God, I know I'm one


My mother was a tailor

She sewed my new blue jeans

My father was a gamblin' man

Down in New Orleans


Now the only thing a gambler needs

Is a suitcase and a trunk

And the only time he's satisfied

Is when he's all drunk

 

Oh mother, tell your children

Not to do what I have done

Spend your lives in sin and misery

In the House of the Rising Sun


Well, I got one foot on the platform

The other foot on the train

I'm goin' back to New Orleans

To wear that ball and chain

 

Well, there is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God, I know I'm one

Now, it is a great song.  And I like this version of it, which was released in 1964.

The interesting thing, however, is that song from a male point of view, which it is, it's sort of way ahead of its time.  Not that it isn't relevant, it's just a point of view that I can't think of any other song from the mid to late 20th Century expressing that view.  Basically, the protagonist is confessing that he's a sex addict and addicted to frequenting the prostitutes of The House Of The Rising Sun.

The song wasn't written by Eric Burdon, or any of his band. They were covering a song, which many are unaware of, that had already had a successful recording run when sung by Woodie Guthrie and Hudey Ledbetter (Leadbelly).  Indeed, I thought Leadbelly had written the wrong, but I was in error on that.

The Guthrie version, from 1941, has the following lyrics:

There is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God I know I'm one


My mother was a tailor

She sewed my new bluejeans

My father was a gamblin' man

Down in New Orleans


Now the only thing a gambler needs

Is a suitcase and trunk

And the only time he's satisfied

Is when he's on a drunk


Oh mother tell your children

Not to do what I have done

Spend your lives in sin and misery

In the House Of The Rising Sun


Well, I got one foot on the platform

The other foot on the train

I'm goin' back to New Orleans

To wear that ball and chain


Well, there is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy

And God I know I'm one

Identical.  What about Leadbelly?  Well, he recorded it twice, first in 1944, which had these lyrics:

There is a house in New Orleans

You call the Rising Sun

It's been the ruin of many a poor soul

And me, oh God, I'm one

 

If I'd listened to what mama said

I'd be at home today

Being so young and foolish, poor girl

I let a gambler lead me astray

 

My mother she's a tailor

Sews those new blue jeans

My sweetheart, he's a drunkard, Lord God

He drinks down in New Orleans

 

He fills his glasses to the brim

Passes them around

The only pleasure that he gets out of life

Is a hoboin' from town to town

 

The only thing a drunkard needs

Is a suitcase and a trunk

The only time that he's half satisfied

Is when he's on a drunk

 

Go and tell my baby sister

Never do like I have done

Shun that house down in New Orleans

That they call that Rising Sun.

 

It's one foot on the platform,

One foot on the train.

I'm going back down to New Orleans

To wear my ball and my chain

 

My life is almost over

My race is almost run

Going back down to New Orleans

To that house of the Rising Sun

Oh, now wait a moment, that's a lot different.  In this version, which is earlier, the protagonist, while sung through Leadbelly's male voice, is a girl entrapped in prostitution.  Frankly, the song makes a lot more sense all the way around.

Leadbelly's 1947 version of The House of the Rising Sun.

In the second recording, which is the one people normally here, Leadbelly had followed Guthrie's lead, and the protagonist was male.

The first one presents a really grim warning. The girl who is the subject of the song has obviously left the house, and now is returning? Why? Well, contrary to the way prostitution is portrayed in film, her reputation would have been completely ruined and by this point that probably would have been her only option to try to make enough money to stay alive.  Not only that, she's noting that she's expecting an early death.  

More on that in a moment.

Leadbelly, it should be noted, didn't get around to recording until very near the end of his life.  He died in 1949, and was first recorded in 1933.  He was born in 1888 and was preforming professionally by 1903.  Indeed, at first he preformed in Shreveport audiences in St. Paul's Bottoms, its red-light district, with his career interrupted by stints in jail, which are referenced in some of his most famous songs.  He was in fact discovered, and truly was a great musical talent, by Alan Lomax while serving a prison stint.

Leadbelly preformed so early that some have speculated to what degree he was an indeterminable influence on the blues.  He definitely was, but he also was unique in that he played a twelve-string guitar, very unusual for bluesmen, and his songs were always in the blues format but in sometimes in a near blues, ten bar, format.  Indeed, some of those were converted to eight bar blues formats by later recording artists, probably basically by accident.

Anyhow, Leadbelly's songs often had a really old origin.  This seems to be one. And the fact that the first version he recorded was sung from a female point of view is telling. Taht's probably how he learned it.

How early is that version?

Well, the song first makes its appearance by reference in 1905. By that time, it was being sung by miners in Appalachia, which means that one of the references doesn't quite fit unless the song had really travelled in the South.  I.e., a song about somebody in New Orleans is out of regional context.  The first printed version of the lyrics appear in 1925, with this:

There is a house in New Orleans, 

it's called the Rising Sun

It's been the ruin of many poor girl

Great God, and I for one.

Just like Leadbelly had it.

The first recorded version came in 1933, later than I would have supposed, but still pretty early in the recording industry.  It was by Applachain artist Clarence "Tom" Ashley and Gwen Foster.  Ashley claimed to have learned it from his grandfather, which pushes the song back to the mid 19th Century. Ashley's version has a male protagonist:

There is a house in New Orleans

They call the Rising Sun

Where many poor boys to destruction has gone

And me, oh God, are one.

Note, this one has a blunter warning than any others with a male protagonist. The male vocalist hasn't gone to "ruin", but to "destruction".

Hmmmm. . . . so was it a male or female song?

My guess is that it was originally a female one, but because of its compelling popularity, it's been switched back and forth from its near onset.

So, was there a House of the Rising Sun that induced poor girls into lives, and probably shortened ones, of prostitution?

Nobody really knows for sure, but applying Yeoman's Eighth Law of History, as we should, would suggest it's likely. That law, as you'll recall, stated the following:

Yeoman's Eighth Law of History:  Myths, unless purely fanciful, almost always have a basis in reality.

In cultures that write things down, the concept that myths, which were primarily related by word of mouth, have any basis in reality seems to come as a shock. But they normally do. 

It is the spoken word that is the default means of transmitting information, including history, in human beings.  The written word is a learned behavior, indeed one that must not only be learned but nurtured in order to take root.   Even now, a lot of people will take and retain information better orally than in a written form.

But oral transmission is always subject to decay with the teller, and the tricks the mind uses to retain the story warp it a bit by default. But that doesn't mean that the stories were never true in any fashion.

All the time we find that historians and archeologist are surprised to learn that something thought to be a myth has some basis in reality.  Probably most do. Troy turns out to have been a real city (and the war was probably over the teenage wife of a teenage king, I'll bet), the Navajo and Apache turn out to be from the far north originally and so their memories of their being great white bears and great white birds are spot on.  Myths, even very old ones, if carefully discerned usually have some basis in fact.

While that eight law mostly referred to old myths, it applies to more recent ones as well, as the basic principle is the same. The song clearly came out of Louisiana, and it traveled the South pretty extensively while persistently retaining its references to a House of the Rising Sun.  There likely was such a place in Louisiana, or at the chances that there was are pretty good.

Indeed, a whole series of theories hold that it was on Conti Street in the French Quarter or on Ursulines Street or on St. Louis Street.  In 2016 however, the New Orleans Times Picayune ran an article about an advertisement they'd found in which a hotelier was advertising the Mechanics Hotel, just outside of town, and with obviously pretty good rooming accommodations, which was noted to have formerly been "the old establishment of the Rising Sun".

Hmmm. . . .

The owners of the Mechanics Hotel wanted his potential guests to note that the hotel had a variety of rooms and offered a variety of services and accommodations, none of which included prostitution.  The prior role of the Rising Sun wasn't mentioned, just that the Mechanics Hotel was where it formerly was, or rather that it was being rebranded.  Perhaps it was also being repurposed. If so, that advertisement would have served two purposes, one being "don't stay away if you would have avoided the old Rising Sun", and the second being "don't come around if you are expecting the old services of the Rising Sun".

That advertisement, by the way, ran in 1828, which would mean that the song would have to have dated back to at least that approximate time.

So, what's the moral of the song?  It clearly has one.

The basic warning is against living a life of depravity, that's clear enough.  More than that, it was a direct warning about living a life of sexual depravity.  Further, it warns the audience that the vocalist can't get out of it, now that the protagonist is in it, even though it would see, that the protagonist has tried.  In the male variant sung by Guthrie, and in the female variant sung by Leadbelly, the protagonist informs the audience that the subject is at a railroad station with one foot on the platform, and one on the train, and is going back to New Orleans "to wear that ball and train".  That tells us that the male protagonist is going back to New Orleans where he intends, seemingly against his will, to resume visiting the House of the Rising Sun.  In the female protagonist version, she's going back to be a prostitute.

The female version is even grimmer.  In that version, not only does the lyrics indicate that the subject is a slave to the situation, she's a different sort.  Her slavery, in essence, is implied to be economic.  Her reputation is ruined and she can't do anything else at this point.  Moreover, she knows that she's going to die young, either at the hands of one of her clients, or more likely through disease.

Which takes us to this.  That in fact was then and is now the thing that kills prostitutes early.  It's odd how in Western movies like Lonesome Dove or Open Range this is ignored.  Prostitutes were nearly guaranteed to get a venereal disease at the time, and it was probably going to kill them. Regular clients were likely to get a "social disease" as well, and the number of men who came down with one even where they were not regular customers, but who had made a visit a few, or perhaps even one, times were likely to as well.


Indeed, it wasn't really until after World War Two that it was the case that VD could really be effectively treated. . Nearly all of the treatments before then were ineffective to varying degrees.  But that's not the last of it.  Girls who fell into prostitution didn't simply think it an economic option, but were often victims of what was termed "white slavery".  Kidnapped and drugged, or kept against their will in some fashion, sometimes by force, sometimes by addition.  This is also still the case.  

It's worth noting, in addition, that modern pornography has its origin in prostitution and indeed the word stems from it.  "Graphy" indicates depiction, and pornea is Greek for of or pertaining to prostitutes.  Very early pornography, going back to the first really easy to use cameras, came from photographing prostitutes to expand on their marketability.  I.e., the working girls were basically captives of their procurer, and those people expanded their profits, not the girls profits, by photographing and selling their images, which had the added impact of being a species of advertising.  This aspect of pornography was very heavy in the industry up until the mid 20th Century, when some of the subjects limited themselves to selling their own images in some fashion, but it's apparently returned in spades since the Internet, with many, apparently, of the images around now being once again of young girls trapped most likely by drug addiction.

The whole thing is pretty bad, suffice it to say.

Okay, we went down sort of a rabbit hole here, and for an odd reason. The trip to House of the Rising Sun started off as it refers to the mother of the subject sewing his blue jeans. We'll explain that in the other thread, but we would note that the song has one final aspect.  It's a warning about the decay of a family. 

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

September 7, 1822. Dom Pedro I declares Brazil independent of Portugal.


Dom Pedro I declared the independence of Brazil on this day in 1822.

I don't know this story well, nor do I know the history of Portugal well, which this event is tightly tied into.  Pedro was a Portuguese-born member of a noble family close to the thrown in Portugal.  Born with the full name of Pedro de Alcântara Francisco António João Carlos Xavier de Paula Miguel Rafael Joaquim José Gonzaga Pascoal Cipriano Serafim, he not only became Emperor of Brazil, but bizarrely, due to revolution and family associations, was briefly later King of Portugal.

Something often missed in the United States is the fact that early independence movements in Latin America sometimes featured contests between propertied American located noblemen vs. their European opposites, and were not examples of common people rebelling against their colonial masters.  No matter how a person might tend to characterize the American Revolution, they were often not analogous to it and featured little input or concern for common people.  I'm not familiar, as noted, with the Brazilian episode, as noted, but it is interesting to note that this provides an example of a contest between societal monarchical elites.  The first revolutions in Mexico very much followed this pattern before they turned into true revolutions against the Spanish noble class.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Movies in History: The Revenant

 Newspaper article with C.M Russell depiction of the attack of the bear upon Glass. This depiction is probably more correct than any depicted in film.

This movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio is currently touring, and as anyone following movies knows, its a fictionalized telling of the legendary grizzly bear attack upon trapper Hugh Glass and his subsequent abandonment by his companions. Glass, by any measure, has to be one of the toughest men who ever lived.

So how does the movie hold up, in terms of history?

Well, not bad, but not perfect.

Still, better than the 1971 Man In  The Wilderness, based on the same event, by a long margin, and quite good in some surprising ways.

Okay, let's first look at the real life Glass.

Glass was a frontiersman born in the Province of Pennsylvania, ie., colonial Pennsylvania, in 1780.  1780 is obviously rather late in the colonial period, as the Revolution was well under way at that time, but it is relevant in the context of exactly how early of Western frontiersman Glass was.  Glass was born at a time when the British could claim him as a subject, as could the fledgling United States.  His parents were Scots Irish from Ulster, putting him in a demographic that supplied a lot of frontiersmen.  His early history is murky, but he seems to have moved West, perhaps to Texas, while still a young man and he married a Pawnee woman at that time.  He was even part of a Pawnee delegation that met with met with representatives of the United States in 1821.

A year later he is to be bound with the Ashley Henry Party, a very significant enterprise undertaken by the Rocky Mountain Fur Company which has just been the subject of a post on Wyoming Fact and Fiction.  Rather than try to go into the history of that enterprise, I'll just refer the reader to that post, which was just made the the other day.

Glass became famous, of course, as he was badly mauled by a grizzly bear on the Grand River in present day South Dakota in 1823.  Indeed, he was already a wounded man at the time that occurred, as he'd been shot that prior May in a raid by Arikara's upon the party's camp, but he'd apparently recovered in the intervening months.  Badly injured he was expected to die.  Thomas Fitzpatrick and a young Jim Bridger were left behind to stay with him, but left him for dead, later claiming they were attacked by Arikara's and had to retreat from the location. At any rate, the left Glass, who managed to revive himself sufficiently, in spite of being in horrible condition and having a broken leg, who made it 200 miles down river to Ft. Kiowa.

A truly amazing story, the details of which make it much more amazing than the short synopsis I've provided here.

Well, how does this compare, in terms of history, to the film The Revenant?

First let me note that simply as a film, The Revenant is very well done.  Filmed with all natural light in spectacular scenery, the film stands out as a very good film. That doesn't make it good history of course, but it should be noted. This is all the more the case as some of the film is quite surreal, and intentionally so, something that a popular movie very rarely gets away with.

Okay, having noted that, let's take a look at the film in history. The film gets some things right, indeed very right.  In other places it departs significantly from the true history of of the story and in some ways that are fairly significant.  Let's look first at what the movie gets right.

In terms of material details the film is very well done.  The weapons in the film are period correct.  This includes not only the flintlock rifles and pistols, but also the edged weapons.  It also, and quite correctly, depicts traditional Indian weapons in use at the time, and in use very effectively, which is not always the case in films depicting this period.  A scene depicting an Arikara attack early in the film does a very good job showing high volume of fire on the part of the Native Americans, which is something that is well accounted for in the historical record.

Even more amazing, the details concerning animal use and consumption throughout the film are unabashedly shown and shown correctly.  Film has always been bad about demonstrating this and over time as people have become more and more squeamish about real life and nature this has continued to be the case except as to humans themselves. But the fact that all the populations depended upon hunting to survive, that this is a trapping party, etc., is shown very realistically.

The use of boats by parties on tributaries of the Missouri is also nicely depicted.  

Clothing is done well as well, showing a mix of Euro-American clothing and animal skin clothing, but in a worn fashion and by subjects who are often dirty from living outdoors.  In older films attempting to depict this, and particularly on television, the subjects are often depicted as being absurdly clean, which is not the case for people who live continually outdoors.

As an odd detail, Glass was in fact nicknamed "The Revenant" following his return, that term applying to people who have returned after a long absence or from seeming death.

So, all in all, very well done on material details.

So where does the film do poorly?

A notable departure from historical reality is that events in this film seem to take place pretty uniformly in the Fall and Winter and in high Rockies.  In terms of appearance, it would appear that most of the events depicted take place in the Canadian Rockies.  In reality, however, this expedition was very wide ranging and while it did range into the Rockies, Glass was attacked in rolling country in South Dakota, territory that is nothing like the Rockies in terms of appearance.  A lot of the terrain shown in the film is spectacularly wet, if not covered by snow.

Indeed, the bear attack scene in the film takes place in something that's very obviously bordering on a temperate rain forest, while in reality the bear attack occurred on the Great Plains.  It's hard to grasp for modern audiences that grizzly bears were a plains animal, but they were. The attack is depicted correctly in terms of it being done by a mother grizzly with two cubs, however.

In terms of Glass' six week trip while horribly wounded, the trip was both more arduous and less.  In the film Glass encounters continual stress from hostile Indians and engages in some amazing physical feats.  A few of those are in fact based on actual incidents, including feeding on a buffalo killed by wolves.  But for the most part Glass, while suffering immensely, was aided by the Indians he encountered.  His trip was additionally partly by raft, although it was partly early on by crawling.

Which gets to the more arduous part.  In reality, Glass was not only mauled by the bear, but sustained a broken leg in the attack, which he set himself.  He also had to contest with the threat of infection, which he attacked by allowing maggots to eat the dead portions of his flesh.  

Perhaps more significantly in terms of the history of his ordeal, the human elements inserted in the film depart from reality in some significant ways.  He was at a camp attacked by Arikara's, and indeed lost his life in an Arikara attack ten years later, but that attack was some months prior to the bear incident.  He wasn't traveling with a son.  Jim (Jeb in the film) Bridger was one of the men who abandoned him, but when Glass tracked him down he forgave him for having abandoned him.  He more or less did the same thing with Thomas Fitzpatrick, who wasn't the lout described in the film, and who went on to have a role in negotiating at least one Indian treaty later on.

A peculiarity of the story, which must come from the plot line of the novel, is to provide a rationale for the Arikara attack in the form of an Arikara chieftain's daughter having been kidnapped by white trappers. We later learn that the kidnappers are a party of French trappers show are generally shown to be less than reputable.  This is a bit peculiar as its the only film I've seen in which French trappers are cast in a negative light, and in reality they generally had fairly good relations with native populations.  The Pawnee are shown in a positive light, which is at least a break from the treatment they generally get in film for some odd reason.

All in all, it's a good film, and of course it is a work of fiction, just based on fact.  The positive points, from an historical prospective, are quite good.  The areas where the film doesn't hold up will not bother most audiences, but they might irritate the historically minded viewer.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Related Pages:

Movies In History: The List