http://historum.com/blogs/salah/ Historum History Discussion Forums en Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:34 GMT vBulletin 60 http://cdn.historum.com/images/classic/misc/rss.jpg http://historum.com/blogs/salah/ http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1657-execution-william-b-mumford.html Tue, 21 May 2013 01:36:51 GMT 'They will fear the stripes, even if they do not revere the bars of our flag'
-Ben Butler

American history is replete with dark irony. In May of 1862, Union general Benjamin F. Butler captured New Orleans from the Confederacy, and became its military governor. Exactly half a century earlier, his father, Captain John Butler, had helped defend New Orleans from the British.

Ben Butler was perhaps one of the most controversial generals of the American Civil War. Born in 1818, he started his career as a criminal lawyer. By the outbreak of the Civil War, he was infamous for being a corrupt and shifty politician. In another great irony, he supposedly voted - fifty-seven times - to nominate Jefferson Davis as the Democratic presidential candidate in 1860.

The man who so passionately supported a states rights, pro-slavery candidate in 1860 became a staunch Unionist in 1861. During military service in the Virginia Theater at the beginning of the War, Butler refused to return several runaway slaves to their Rebel masters, claiming them as 'contraband of war'. It would hardly be the last time that he took a militant stance towards the Confederate South.

Living in New Orleans at the start of the War, was a man named William Bruce Mumford. The date of his birth is unknown - he was a veteran of both the Seminole and Mexican Wars, meaning he was likely in his forties at the youngest. He was married; his wife was substantially younger than himself, but had already given him several children. Mumford was vocal in his patriotism for the newly-declared Confederate States of America.

The Union's navy beat Butler into New Orleans by several days. Sailors under Admiral Farragut raised the American Flag over the US Mint of the city on April 28th, 1862. Almost immediately afterwards, a pack of pro-Confederate citizens tore the flag down. They dragged it through the streets of the city before tearing it to shreds, each man taking a piece as a momento. When Butler entered the city several days later, he proclaimed his intentions to catch and punish the miscreants who had desecrated the US Flag.

Not long afterwards, Bill Mumford was witnessed strutting through the streets of New Orleans with a tattered piece of the flag stuffed into the buttonhole of his shirt; one witness later claimed to have overheard Mumford bragging about his supposed leadership of the mob that first took the flag down. He was promptly arrested by Union soldiers, and was tried with treason by a military tribunal.

Mumford pled not guilty; despite the claims of the witness, he said he was not the ringleader of the group. This did not phase Ben Butler, who formally sentenced Mumford to death on June 5th. This caused a barrage of popular protest in New Orleans. Some citizens begged for Mumford's life, while others bombarded the Union general with hate mail and death threats. The intensity of the protests on Mumford's behalf only deepened Butler's resolve to go through with the execution.

On the night of June 6th, the youthful Mrs. Mumford and her brood of small children received an audience with General Butler. The condemned man's wife begged pitiful for her husband's life, and the children 'fell about my knees', as Butler later recollected. The Union general remained stoical. He told Mrs. Mumford that she should say goodbye to her husband, and offered to help her in any way he possibly could. This offer, though it sounded like mockery at the time, was evidentally taken seriously by both parties, as will later be revealed.

Late on the morning of June 7th, William Bruce Mumford was escorted to the very Mint where he first desecrated the flag. He was given permission to give a final speech, which was defiant and full of pro-Confederate patriotism. Then, the trapdoor at his feet was dropped, and Mumford strangled to death.

Had he not been executed for his impetuous act, history would have never remembered William Mumford. His death caused a fire-storm of protest in the Confederacy; Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Louisiana governor Thomas Overton Moore all expressed outrage - particularly in light of the fact that Mumford was executed for a crime commited before the Union had fully occupied the city. Davis gave all soldiers of the Confederacy permission to execute Butler on sight if they ever captured him alive.

Butler continued to stir controversy in New Orleans. The belles of the city became haughty and verbally abusive towards Federal soldiers; thus, Butler issued the 'Woman Order', giving his men to treat such women like prostitutes. His alleged theft of precious silverware from wealthy citizens earned him the nickname 'Spoons', while others preferred to call him 'Beast Butler'. His Civil War career continued to be full of controversy, but not so full of legitimate battlefield successes.

In 1869, Benjamin Butler was serving his first term as a Massachusetts congressman when he received a shocking visitor - the widowed Mrs. Mumford. Having fallen on bad times financially, the widow took Butler up on his promise to help her if ever she needed him. The very man who had pitilessly executed her husband, now used his political connections to win her a well-paying job. It was one, last dark irony in the story of Benjamin Butler's occupation of New Orleans. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1657-execution-william-b-mumford.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1655-burnside-stuck-mud.html Sun, 19 May 2013 21:11:19 GMT 'Burnside may be unfit to command this army; his present plan may be absurd, and failure certain; but his lieutenants have no right to say so to their subordinates'
- Colonel Charles S. Wainwright, artillery chief of the Union First Corps


Ambrose Burnside was twice offered command of the Union Army of the Potomac. A modest man in an Army full of pompous and devious officers, Burnside frankly confessed that he was not up for the challenge. The first time, he flatly refused; the second time, he only reluctantly accepted command after the removal of his friend George McClellan.

Burnside's Fredericksburg Campaign in December of 1862 began on a positive note, but by the evening of December 13th it had become one of the most bloody and embarrassing Union reverses of the War. The Union commander was relying on the quick arrival of pontoon bridges, allowing his men to sweep across the Rappahannock into the town itself. The delay in receiving these bridges gave Robert E. Lee more time to brace himself for Burnside's assault. Over the course of the day, Burnside ordered fourteen piecemeal charges, each of which was shattered by Confederates crouching behind a stone wall.

A truce was finally agreed on December 15th, and that night the Army of the Potomac withdrew across the Rappahannock. As accounts of the battle and its catastrophic losses reached the Northern press, the Union states erupted in grief and fury. Some accused Burnside of incompetence or even duplicity, while others railed against the Lincoln administration for allegedly pushing him into a premature encounter with Lee. Lincoln himself plunged into deep depression. 'If there is a worse place than Hell, I am in it' he said to a visitor, and a reporter commented on his increasingly poor hygiene and visible stoop in his posture.

Burnside's name has since become a byword for incompetence. At Fredericksburg, however, his main handicaps seem to have been bad luck, and the sour attitudes of his generals. William B. Franklin and Joseph Hooker, commanding the Left and Center 'Grand Divisions', respectively, took their opposition to Burnside to almost mutinous levels. No general could hope to win victories with such blatantly uncooperative subordinates, and the storm of politicking and back-biting that followed the debacle at Fredericksburg reveals just how troublesome these generals had become.

On December 30th, Franklin granted two of his brigadiers leave - so they could visit Washington and 'try to have things made right'. In a conference with the President, they vocalized the widespread opposition to Burnside in the Army, and their lack of faith in his plans for a renewed attack via the Rappahannock. After this meeting, Lincoln telegraphed Burnside, asking him not to make another 'general movement' without his knowledge.

The first day of 1863 found Burnside in Washington, meeting with Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck. Angry when he learned of Lincoln's visitors, Burnside attempted to resign. Lincoln would have none of it, and that same day he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Burnside returned to the Army of the Potomac, and began plotting his next move.

Morale plummeted in the Army of the Potomac in the month after Fredericksburg. In the last week of January, 25,363 soldiers of the Army were known to have deserted. The mood of the rest was sullen and gloomy. Some were bitter over the slaughter at Fredericksburg, which, like the civilian population, they variously blamed on Lincoln, Burnside, the Radical Republicans, or the Democrats. Others were outraged at the corruption and incompetence of the Army's supply system - rations were poor and many regiments had not been issued sufficient winter gear. Union and Confederate soldiers widely meet to trade during the winter, and many Federals reported dismally that the Rebels generally had a more optimistic attitude.

At one point in January of 1863, Burnside reviewed a unit of soldiers. Their officers ordered them to give him three cheers - but their only response was a stony silence. It was not Burnside's fault that his generals were plotting against him, or that the harshness of winter had turned soldiering into a life of monotone boredom and misery. But the surviving comrades of the nearly 13,000 men who became casualties at Fredericksburg could hardly bring themselves to cheer for a man who had thrown away so many lives, without exacting any advantage for his own cause.

Ambrose Burnside was not a coward - indeed, he had wanted to lead a charge in person after watching his attacks at Marye's Heights fail. The public outcry, and the stigma of his over-cautious predecessor also motivated him to act, quickly and decisively. Thus, he resolved to launch another massive foray across the Rappahannock, this time at Bank's Ford, upriver from Fredericksburg. The movement was set to begin at one in the afternoon on January 20th, with Franklin's Left Grand Division forming the Union vanguard. The men of at least one regiment are known to have erupted with protests and abusive jokes at Burnside's expense when they were informed of the planned movement.

Military offensives in the winter have always been a relative rarity, and often end poorly. The American Civil War was no exception to this rule; the troops were usually occupied building cozy winter quarters, skirmishing with enemy pickets, and looking for chances to get in to drunken mischief to ward off the frigid boredom. Burnside's offensive plan was greeted with dismay and disgust within the ranks of his Army, and with shock - followed by amusement - on the opposite side of the River.

What has become known as the 'Mud March' actually began without any of Burnside's customary bad luck, but this had changed by the night of the 20th, when an icy rain began to pummel the Union troops. For the entirety of January 21st, it rained, turning the ground under the Army's feet into a liquid mud. Amidst torrents of cursing and grumbling, soldiers wrestled cannons and wagons through the mud, while pieces of equipment - and eventually, even horses and mules - were swallowed up in the mire.

On January 22nd, the rain and the mud continued to make life unbearable for the Federals. Several regiments were given an allowance of whiskey - this resulted in an outbreak of drunken brawling. Men and pack animals collapsed in exhaustion, and the latter died by the hundreds. Confederate soldiers on the opposite bank watched this scene unfold with great amusement. Some even found the time to paint 'BURNSIDE STUCK IN THE MUD' on wooden planks, which they then held up for the venomously cursing Union troops to see. Finally, the March was called off, and the Army of the Potomac returned to its previous quarters. Almost to a man, the Army was splattered in mud and cursing ferociously. One soldier quipped that Burnside would have been scared for his life if he could have heard the violent rage being expressed around the camp at night.

By January 23rd, Burnside had few allies left in his army. One of them, George Meade, wrote home to his wife that Burnside 'really seems to have even the elements against him'. The other generals were less understanding. Hooker openly insulted Burnside, while Franklin was rumored to have been the ringleader of a plot to put McClellan back in command.

Burnside appears to have born the hatred of his under-officers with a measure of dignity, up until this point. On January 23rd, he snapped, and in a rage he prepared General Orders No. 8. It called for the removal of a a number of generals, including Hooker, Franklin, and Franklin's cronies who had secretly met with Lincoln at the end of December, as well as other generals who had formed an anti-Burnside faction. Of the three commanders of his 'Grand Divisions', only the elderly Edwin V. Sumner was to remain in command.

On January 24th, Burnside met with Lincoln. He handed the President a copy of General Orders No. 8, and his commission as a major general, asking the President to accept either one or the other. The next day, Lincoln made his decision. With General Orders No. 20, Lincoln removed, Burnside, Sumner, and Franklin from their commands in the Army of the Potomac - the former two, by their own request, the latter, because Lincoln could not fail to recognize his poisonous influence. Joe Hooker, however, was seemingly rewarded for his blustery and and nigh-mutinous conduct. He was appointed Burnside's replacement, and Lincoln proclaimed himself ready to 'risk the dictatorship' that Hooker felt was necessary to save the country.

Burnside's services were retained - indeed, outside of the Virginia Theater, his record in the War was generally a good one. Hooker, however, was to disgrace himself in the debacle at Chancellorsville in May of 1863. 'Fighting Joe' had done much to clean up the mess that Burnside had left him with, improving morale, supply issues, and unit identities within the Army of the Potomac. But, unlike Burnside, he was frozen with fear of failure when he finally came face to face with the Army of Northern Virginia. Lincoln had professed a desire to find a general who would understand the 'arithmetic' of the War. He would find him in 1863 - but not in the ranks of the Army of the Potomac.

Primary Sources:

Boatner III, Mark M. - The Civil War Dictionary
Gallagher, Gary (editor) - The Fredericksburg Campaign
Smith, Carl - Fredericksburg 1862
Wert, Jeffry - The Sword of Lincoln ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1655-burnside-stuck-mud.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1654-ulysses-grant-jews.html Sat, 18 May 2013 15:33:33 GMT In October of 1862, Ulysses S Grant found himself the commander of the Union Department of the Tennessee. Two months later, on December 17th, he... In October of 1862, Ulysses S Grant found himself the commander of the Union Department of the Tennessee. Two months later, on December 17th, he issued one of the most controversial orders of the War, which was to become - along with the bogus allegations of alcoholism - one of the ugliest stains on the great soldier's career.

'General Order No. 11' was issued to expel 'Jews as a class' from Grant's Department, with the rationale that persons of Jewish faith had been engaging in cotton smuggling behind Confederate lines. President Lincoln rescinded the Order as soon as he heard of it, after receiving protests from horrified loyal Jews among others. Out of the several hundred-thousand Jews living in the Union states, it is modernly believed that less than one hundred were personally hurt by General Order No. 11. The damage that this blunder would do to Grant's reputation, however, was only beginning.

Some 10,000 Jews were serving in the Union Army; a smaller but substantial number fought for the Confederacy. Many were European immigrants - particularly from Prussia - who had fled to America in the 1840s to escape anti-Semitic regulations and popular hatred. Outraged and frightened at Grant's Order, some American Jews feared that their problems had followed them across the Atlantic. Some Jewish communities labelled Grant another 'Haman', that infamous Biblical villain who plotted to destroy all the Jews of Persia.

Grant was condemned by large sections of the Jewish-American community for the rest of the War, and afterwards. He publically apologized in 1868, and expressed regret and embarrassment at his order for the rest of his life. Both Jewish and gentile reactions to his apologies varied greatly, but by the end of his second term in the White House most were convinced that his repentence was sincere. General Order No. 11 was issued in the heat of the moment, and was fuelled by ignorance, not malice.

Grant held two presidencies, from 1869-1877. He presided over America during the peak of the Reconstruction Era, doing his best to live up to his campaign slogan - 'let us have peace'. He is credited with combating the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and standing up for the newly-won liberties of African-Americans. Indeed, in a post-war America, a rising power in an era of Western Enlightenment, Grant strove to encourage both religious and racial harmony in the nation.

Grant made a conspicuous effort to win the support and the trust of the Jewish community, not before, but during his first term. He appointed more Jews to positions of governmental authority than any president before him or a long time afterwards, and courted the friendship of many prominent Jewish rabbis and thinkers. During his second term, he displayed great concern at the plight of Jews living in both Russia and Romania, where they were subjected to vicious bouts of anti-Semitic violence.

Though there is no reliable source to back it up, legend claims that Grant even started to eat kosher during the last few years of his life. Many prominent Jewish-Americans expressed their good wishes during his battle with throat cancer, and the condolences to his mourning family when he lost that battle in July of 1885. Jewish communities across America and the world mourned for him and honored his memory in their worship services.

Even one of Grant's pallbearers, E. B. M. Browne, was not only a Jew, but an influential rabbi. With Grant's burial taking place over the Jewish Shabbat, Browne felt it was not right to ride to the funeral in a train. As a result, he famously traveled to the funeral on foot, securing for himself a place in Jewish-American folklore for his refusal to break the Shabbat.

Grant was a sincere and honest man in a nation recovering from total war and entering into a new phase of avarice and grotesque political corruption - indeed, it was his loyalty to those beneath him, rather than any personal vices, that led his presidencies to become infamous for their corruption. He was also hard on himself for his personal failings. In few areas of his life was this better revealed than his sincere and sensitive - even obsessive - efforts to court the forgiveness of the Jewish-American community. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1654-ulysses-grant-jews.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1652-death-p-hill-april-2nd-1865.html Fri, 17 May 2013 20:49:11 GMT Ambrose Powell Hill (1825 - 1865) was a Virginian and a graduate of West Point. Despite his personal hatred of slavery and his dubious attitude... Ambrose Powell Hill (1825 - 1865) was a Virginian and a graduate of West Point. Despite his personal hatred of slavery and his dubious attitude towards secessionism, he followed his mother state into the Confederacy at the start of the American Civil War. Starting as the colonel of the 13th Virginia Regiment, he quickly rose to higher commands, saving the day for the Confederacy with his timely intervention at Antietam.

In May of 1863, Hill was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General and was given command of the Third Corps, Army of Northern Virginia. From here, his previously impressive record began to draw criticism. Controversy surrounded his performance at Gettysburg and the Wilderness, while his poor health - brought on by an STD he contracted as a teenager - put him on sick leave at several points in 1864.

Nonetheless, Hill had performed with energetic competence during the Siege of Petersburg. He spent the later part of March, 1865 on sick leave again, but he returned to the Army on April 1st due to rumors that Grant was about to launch a final assault on the defenses of Petersburg. A clerk of the Third Corps wrote in a letter home that the return of the popular General 'will please us all'.

When Hill arrived back at Petersburg on the morning of April 1st, he was nearly too weak and lethargic to sit in the saddle. His aides observed that the usually friendly and outgoing General was quiet, and seemed to be 'lost in contemplation of his immediate position'. He spent most of the day in the saddle, inspecting the entire line of the Third Corps. Hill's Corps, not unlike his health, had been going downhill rapidly and miserably. Sickness, skirmishes with the Federals, and above all desertion had taken a heavy toll.

Exhausted and in physical agony, Hill was restless on the night of April 1st. Union artillery fire served as an ominous warning of Petersburg's imminent fall; Hill himself was very possibly having premonitions of his own death. Finally, the general rose from his bed, and rode his favorite horse, Champ, to Lee's headquarters on Edge Hill. Here, at four in the morning the two men sat and engaged in a light conversation. It was to be the last meeting between Lee and one of his most gifted subordinates.

This light-hearted conference was suddenly interrupted by Charles Venable, a colonel on Lee's staff, who brought word of the latest Union assault. Federal troops were only half a mile away from where Lee and Hill sat - meaning they had managed to penetrated the entire right of the Confederate line.

Despite his physical misery, this roused Hill to action. The sickly, exhausted Hill of 1864 suddenly turned back into the fiery, energetic Hill of 1862, as he struggled to mount his horse. He rode out to rally his Corps, accompanied by his aides George W. Tucker and William H. Jenkins. Lee sent Colonel Venable after him, with a request that Hill not expose himself to the enemy. It was a request that would go unheeded.

Hill examined his meager lines, which had crumbled in the face of an assault by the Federal VI Corps. Now accompanied only by Tucker, he rode further south, across the Boydton Plank Road. Tucker nervously asked Hill where they were going, and Hill replied 'I mut go to the right as quickly as possible'. Hill was seeking the headquarters of General Henry Heth, and used a clump of woods as cover as they continued their ride.

Suddenly, Hill and Tucker noticed a small band of Union infantrymen were also in the woods. Two of the men sheltered, and aimed their rifles at the Confederates. Hill said to Tucker 'we must take them' and drew his revolver. Tucker implored the General to hang back, and shouted out 'If you fire, you'll be swept to hell! Our men are here! Surrender!' Hill echoed the cry and aimed his weapon at the Federals.

The Union troops were Corporal John W. Mauck and Private Daniel Wolford, both of the 138th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment. Both of them fired, Mauck at Hill, Wolford at Tucker. Wolford missed, but Mauck did not.

The bullet tore Hill's left thumb off, before passing through his heart and out his back. He was killed instantly, and his body fell facedown off his horse. Realizing Hill was dead, Tucker fled and relayed the news to James Longstreet.

A few moments later, Tucker and Colonel William H. Palmer of Hill's staff personally informed Lee of Hill's death. 'Little Powell', though sometimes quarrelsome and independent of mind, was one of the most popular and well-loved men in the Army. Palmer broke down and wept, and silent tears streamed down Lee's face as well.

'He is now at rest, and we who are left are the one to suffer' Lee said quietly, his voice cracking with emotion. Hill had said that he never wished to outlive the Confederacy. Exactly seven days after his death, the Army of Northern Virginia was surrendered to Ulysses Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1652-death-p-hill-april-2nd-1865.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1647-america-s-1871-korean-war.html Thu, 16 May 2013 22:39:10 GMT OUR LITTLE WAR WITH THE HEATHENS -New York Herald, July 1871 Naturally, when one thinks of American soldiers fighting in Korea, they will think... OUR LITTLE WAR WITH THE HEATHENS
-New York Herald, July 1871

Naturally, when one thinks of American soldiers fighting in Korea, they will think of the 20th Century conflict. However, the United State's first Korean War, the result of diplomatic measures gone sour, occurred only a few years after the guns of the Civil War had silenced.

In the years immediately following the Civil War, the United States Navy had a small naval presence in Korea to assist diplomatic delegations sent to Korea's reclusive government. In May of 1871, Korean forces fired at two American warships. As a result, Secretary of War Hamilton Fish called for an 'expedition' against the 'barbarians'.

The force dispatched to Korea was led by Rear Admiral John Rogers of the Asiatic Squadron. He had at his command around 1,230 sailors and US Marines, bringing with them Remington rifles as well as seven howitzers. Rogers was a veteran of the Civil War, who had been the captain of a Union ironclad. His second-in-command, Winfield Scott Schley, was a Marylander and a fellow veteran of the Union Navy.

The main fighting of this little expedition took place at the beginning of June. The Americans landed at Kanghwa Island, at the mouth of the Han River - about thirty miles to the northeast of Seoul. Here, they captured two small forts, followed by a much more formidable citadel that was situation on a 150-foot hill. In the aftermath of its capture, the citadel caught fire, burning the corpses of most of the Korean dead.

The butcher's bill was stunningly one-sided. The Koreans lost 243 men killed, while another twenty surrendered. Fifty banners and 481 firearms were looted by the victorious Americans. By comparison, the Americans suffered a mere thirteen casualties, only three of which were fatalities. One of these was Lt. Hugh W. McGee, a twenty-seven year old Kentuckian who was the first over the ramparts of the citadel - and was fatally stabbed with a spear.

The American forces withdrew from Kanghwa Island on June 14th, and the Asiatic Squadron itself left Korea on July 3rd. Nine sailors and six Marines were rewarded with the Medal of Honor, to commemorate their service. One of these medals was awarded, posthumously, to young Lieutenant McGee.

Primary Source:

Byron Farwell - Encyclopedia of 19th Century Land Warfare ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1647-america-s-1871-korean-war.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1645-angel-marye-s-heights.html Thu, 16 May 2013 12:42:40 GMT December 13th, 1862 was one of the darkest days of the Civil War for the Union. At Marye's Heights, just outside Fredericksburg, seven divisions of Union infantry had been shattered in piecemeal assaults on the Confederate position. Somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 of the boys in blue became casualties. The commander of the Army of the Potomac, Ambrose Burnside, proposed to lead another assault in person the next day, but was fortunately dissuaded by his underlings.

For the wounded men stuck in the no-man's land between the two armies, that night was the most hellish of their lives. Hundreds suffered from the cold, thirst, and the general misery of their surroundings in addition to their wounds.

But this grim spectacle was simply too much for one young Confederate soldier. If the Civil War was a 'war between brothers', his act was arguably the most brotherly of all.

Sergeant Richard Rowland Kirkland had been born in 1843, at Flat Rock, South Carolina. Enlisting in the 2nd South Carolina Infantry at the beginning of the War, he had become a segeant in Company G by the latter part of 1862. He was a veteran of such battles as First Bull Run and Antietam, but the horror he witnessed at Marye's Heights was beyond anything he had seen previously.

At some point on Sunday, December 14th, Kirkland approached Brigadier General Joseph Kershaw, saying 'all night and day I have heard those poor people crying for water, and I can stand it no longer. I ask permission to give them water'. With a few individual exceptions, the 'poor people' he referred to were Union soldiers.

Kershaw dubiously eyed the young sergeant, informing him that he was likely to get shot the second he stepped over the stone wall that marked the Confederate positions. Kirkland replied that he was 'willing to try it' all the same, and requested permission to carry a white flag. Kershaw forebade this, as the Union forces might interpret it as an attempt to negotiate a truce.

A moment later, Kirkland sprung over the stone wall, carrying an armload of full canteens. Men on both sides watched with fascination as he tended to the wounded, begging Union soldiers. He gave water to them all, and covered them with their overcoats or provided whatever other relief he could think of.

Kirkland's mission of mercy lasted an hour and a half, and not a single shot was fired in his direction. He earned a place in Civil War legend as 'the Angel of Marye's Heights'. Tragically, this tender-hearted young Rebel was to die two years later, killed in action at Chickamauga. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1645-angel-marye-s-heights.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1644-battle-franklin.html Thu, 16 May 2013 10:27:35 GMT There were few battles in the American Civil War that made Confederate soldiers look more gallant, or a Confederate general look more disgraceful,... There were few battles in the American Civil War that made Confederate soldiers look more gallant, or a Confederate general look more disgraceful, then Franklin.

Nineteen miles to the south of Nashville, Tennessee, John Bell Hood and his Army of Tennessee attacked entrenched Federals under the command of Brigadier General John Schofield. In a brave but costly assault that was compared to Pickett's Charge, the Confederates charged across two miles of open ground before coming into contact with the Yankees.

Hood's men managed to break the center of the Federal line, and captured no less than eight artillery pieces, but they were forced to withdraw after suffering crusing losses. The Southern Confederacy had lost six generals, 32 regimental colors, and 6,252 officers and men. Among the fallen generals were Patrick Cleburne, the 'Stonewall of the West', and States Rights Gist.

Schofield received a Medal of Honor and a promotion to brevet Major General for his victory. Hood, on the other hand, was censored for what practically resembled a deliberate attempt at destroying his army. Franklin was one of only a few Civil War battles that witnessed a substantial amount of hand-to-hand combat. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1644-battle-franklin.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1643-fitz-john-porter-disgraced-union-general.html Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:48 GMT Porter (1822-1901) was born into a New Hampshire family that had contributed several men to the US Navy in both the Revolutionary War and the War of... Porter (1822-1901) was born into a New Hampshire family that had contributed several men to the US Navy in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 (indeed, he was a relative of the Union admirals David Dixon Porter and James G. Farragut). He was a West Pointer whose pre-War experience included service in the Mexican and Utah wars.

It seems that Porter spent most of his military career lurking in the shadows of other men. In Mexico, the highest rank he achieved was brevet major. He was an adjutant to Robert E. Lee 1853-1855, when the latter was the Superintendent of West Point. He was an adjutant general in the West, and served under A.S. Johnston in Utah. Ironically Porter, destined to be a Union man, had been a subordinate to at least two hallowed members of the Confederate Pantheon.

During the first year of the Civil War, Porter became associated with George McClellan, and by May of 1862 was commanding the Fifth Corps. His successful performance during the Peninsular Campaign won him the rank of brevet major general, but from here, his military career would be lost in a storm of controversy and disgrace.

Porter was outspoken about his detest for John Pope, when he was sent with his Corps to reinforce the latter in August of 1862. During the Battle of Second Manassas, Pope gave Porter orders that were, in the words of Frank E. Vandiver, 'impossible to implement' - and resulted in roughly one out of every three men of the Corps present becoming casualties.

After the defeat, Pope removed Porter from command 'for disobedience, disloyalty, and misconduct in the face of the enemy'. Pope himself, however, was soon removed in favor of McClellan, who reinstated his friend as commander of the Fifth Corps. Porter fought at Antietam, but was arrested and court-martialed in November of that year, after McClellan lost command of the Army of the Potomac for the second and final time.

Fitz John Porter was cashiered in January of 1863, and spent the rest of the War fuming about the premature demise of his career. In 1878, Porter was exonerated of Pope's charges by a board headed by John Schofield, but it was only in 1886 that the US Congress restored him to the rank of infantry colonel. Two days after this event, Porter retired, satisfied that his name had been cleared.

From my readings, it seems that Porter's behavior at Second Manassas remains one of the controversies of the Civil War. Vandiver, mentioned above, describes Porter's removal as 'perhaps the greatest injustice done to a Federal commander in the Civil War'. The late Kenneth P. Williams, author of the five-volume Lincoln Finds a General, argued that Porter was indeed guilty of the charges levelled by Pope. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1643-fitz-john-porter-disgraced-union-general.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1642-vicksburg-justice.html Mon, 13 May 2013 19:34:46 GMT Vicksburg, in Warren County, Mississippi, was named in honor of Newit Vick, a Methodist missionary from Virginia who settled in the vicinity in the... Vicksburg, in Warren County, Mississippi, was named in honor of Newit Vick, a Methodist missionary from Virginia who settled in the vicinity in the 1820s; it was formally acknowledged as a city in 1825. By that year, Vicksburg had a population of some 2,500 whites and Indians, as well as nearly 10,000 slaves. It had become a center of commerce, and was home to banks, insurance businesses, jewelers, and doctors.

But Vicksburg's waterfront also became home to a thriving population of rogues, including professional murderers and gamblers, drunks, and prostitutes. They were held in contempt by the city's more genteel inhabitants.

In 1835, this contempt turned to conflict when a drunk from Vicksburg's 'city within a city' disrupted a Fourth of July gathering hosted by the Vicksburg militia company. He was tarred, feathered, and flogged, and a gang of 400 vigilantes subsequently raided the brothels and saloons on the waterfront.

The situation was intensified by the so-called 'Murrell Excitement' which raged in Nashville, Memphis, and Natchez that very week. A rumor claimed that John Murrell, a Virginian-born thief and slave-catcher, was the ringleader of a plot to free Southern slaves. As a result, no less than ten white men and twenty black men were lynched in these Southern cities, for alleged involvement in this apparently bogus plot.

The tensions spread to Vicksburg, where the raids on the city's red light district turned bloody. The mob attacked the Kangaroo Club, laying siege to the tavern's owner and five of his fellows. When the owner managed to shoot a member of the mob, a local doctor, the rioters went berserk. The murderer and his comrades were lynched, and another man who was implicated was bound and turned loose in a rowboat on the Mississippi.

These inter-city tensions seem to have died out past July of 1835. The very next year a railroad connecting Vicksburg to Jackson was constructed, predominately by using slave labor. Vicksburg's prosperity continued to grow, and by the end of the 1850s it had become one of the richest cities in the South. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1642-vicksburg-justice.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1637-quotable-sir-charles-napier.html Fri, 10 May 2013 19:31:09 GMT Sir Charles Napier (1782-1853) was one of a host of 19th Century British military men to carry that surname. He was also the first, and one of the... Sir Charles Napier (1782-1853) was one of a host of 19th Century British military men to carry that surname. He was also the first, and one of the most colorful, British generals to distinguish himself during the reign of Queen Victoria. Napier was notable for both his courage and his bad luck during the Napoleonic Wars, being captured at Corunna and then suffering a miserable facial wound during the Peninsular Campaign. He held command of the 102nd Foot during the American War, known to his foes as the 'War of 1812'.

Napier was the British governor of part of the Ionian Islands 1819-1830; he stood out for his humanity and his desire to better the lives of the people he governed. He also acquired a lover, a high-spirited Greek girl named Anastasia by whom he fathered two daughters. Napier married twice; both of his brides were almost old enough to be his mother. His mistress Anastasia seems to have been the only woman he ever loved with romantic passion, but their liaison ended when he was dismissed from the Ionian Islands.

In 1839 Napier was given the rank of major-general, and commanded the Northern District of England. He was charged with surpressing Chartist sentiments in the area, despite his personal sympathies with the working man. In 1841, despite his advanced age and poor health, he accepted a command in Sind, where he famously defeated an army of 30,000 Baluchis at Miani in 1843. A month after this victory, he defeated them again at Dubba. Because 'Dubba' was a local word for 'skin of grease', Napier dispatched a young officer - incidentally, his future son-in-law - to find another local, more eloquently-named village to name the battle after. It went down in histoy as the Battle of Hyderabad.

As in the Ionian Islands, Napier ruled Sind with decency and compassion for the poor, and was again dismissed by his superiors. He returned to India in 1849, however, to replace Sir Hugh Gough as the British commander in the Second Sikh War. Gough had already brought the war to a conclusion by the time Napier arrived. He was the commander in chief in India for two years, before he was forced to resign yet again. Sir Charles Napier died in retirement near Portsmouth on August 29th, 1853.

Even by Victorian standards, Sir Charles Napier was something of an eccentric. He was brilliant and forward-thinking, and was remarkably understanding and seemingly devoid of supremacist attitudes in his dealings with 'natives'. He stood out for being the first British general to ever mention non-white soldiers by name in post-battle dispatches. He was a fervent Christian, yet was known for his foul mouth and his sexual promiscuity; however, he abstained from alcohol and smoking. In his letters to family, Napier stands out for his witty perspective, and his love of irony and gothic humor.

Ironically, the quote most often attributed to Sir Charles Napier does not seem to have been his. During his 1843 conquest of Sind, Napier was reportedly appalled at the level of human suffering he had caused, and supposedly exclaimed 'peccavi!' Latin for, 'I have sinned!' Though this expression was falsely put in Napier's mouth by Punch magazine, his disgust with the bloodshed seems to have been genuine. The rest of this essay will consist of some of Napier's cleverest or best-known quotes. My primary source has been Eminent Victorian Soldiers by Byron Farwell.


'She looked so wicked and haughty...I think of nothing else, and hate any kind of company where she is not' - Napier, writing in 1802 of his first love, the daughter of Lord Gage

'Then blaze away!' - Napier to his soldiers at Corunna, when he asked them if they could see the enemy

'George was hit in the stern and I in the stem. That was burning the family candle at both ends' - Napier, upon hearing that his brother was wounded in the hip

'My friend Stewart is dead: I wonder how he likes it' - Napier in a letter to his mother in 1812

'This kind of man it gives me pleasure to flog, and no regiment is without several' - Napier, on a soldier he punished for beating his own wife

'I dislike sacking and burning towns...is very disgusting...nevertheless a pair of breeches must be plundered, for mine are worn out, and btter it will be to take a pair than to shock the Yankee dames by presenting myself as a sans culotte' - Napier in a letter to his mother during the War of 1812

'Tell Aunt that out of regard for her I don't bayonet many children' - another letter written during the American War

'They are fine fellows, liars it is said, but so are we' - Napier on the Americans

'Power is never disagreeable' - Napier on his administration in the Ionian Islands

'Never have I wronged a woman in my life. I have kissed away many a tear, but never caused one'

'So thin, so sharp, so black, so Jewish, so rascally, such a knavish looking son of a gun' - Napier describing his own physical appearance

'I saw she had a good head and no humbug and this, I thought, would suit the kangaroos' - Napier on his second wife, whom he married in 1835, when he was aspiring to become a governor in Australia

'The people are starving and the government does nothing...the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but it is assuredly hung with Manchester cotton' - Napier, during the Chartist 'disturbances'

'Charles! Charles Napier! Take heed of your ambition for military glory; you had scotched that snake, but this high command will, unless you are careful, give it all its vigour again. Get thee behind me, Satan!' - Napier in his journal, during his first Indian command

'They are tyrants, and so are we, but the poor will have fairer play under our sceptre than under theirs...we have no right to seize Scinde, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be' - Napier on his conquest of Sind

'We break treaties, but that is not a reason for letting others do the same.'

'Am I guilty of these horrid scenes?' - Napier in his journal, after the Battle of Miani

'I never feel angry in my heart against any one - beyond wishing to break their bones with a broomstick!' - Napier on his critics in Parliament

'The burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to our national customs' - Napier to Indian leaders indignant at his ban on the practice of Hindu widow-burning

'My God! What numbers of lives I could have saved had I been master in this Sikh War! I think there never was a such a galaxy of blunders since war was war!' - Napier on Gough's conduct in the Second Sikh War

'So perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to be misgoverned by its own people rather than well ruled by another'

'The human mind is never better disposed to gratitude and attachment than when softened by fear'

'The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed' ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1637-quotable-sir-charles-napier.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1634-union-regiments-maryland-1861-1865.html Wed, 08 May 2013 18:02:54 GMT For personal reference... 1st Maryland Infantry Regiment 2nd Maryland Infantry Regiment 3rd Maryland Infantry Regiment 4th Maryland Infantry... For personal reference...

1st Maryland Infantry Regiment
2nd Maryland Infantry Regiment
3rd Maryland Infantry Regiment
4th Maryland Infantry Regiment
5th Maryland Infantry Regiment
6th Maryland Infantry Regiment
7th Maryland Infantry Regiment
8th Maryland Infantry Regiment
1st Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
2nd Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
3rd Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
4th Potomac Home Brigade Infantry
1st Eastern Shore Regiment
Patapsco Guard
Purnell Legion Infantry
Baltimore Light Guard Infantry
1st Maryland Cavalry Regiment
2nd Maryland Cavalry Regiment
3rd Maryland Cavalry Regiment (Bradford Dragoons)
1st Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry
Purnell Legion Cavalry
Smith's Independent Cavalry Company
1st Maryland Heavy Artillery Regiment
Battery A Light Artillery, Rigby's
Battery B Light Artillery, Snow's
Battery D Light Artillery
Battery A Junior Light Artillery
Battery B Junior Light Artillery
Baltimore Independent Battery Light Artillery ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1634-union-regiments-maryland-1861-1865.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1627-children-cleopatra.html Mon, 06 May 2013 19:30:01 GMT Cleopatra VII, surnamed Thea Philopator, ruled Ptolemaic Egypt from 51 to 30 BCE, though she briefly shared the throne with two younger brothers,... Cleopatra VII, surnamed Thea Philopator, ruled Ptolemaic Egypt from 51 to 30 BCE, though she briefly shared the throne with two younger brothers, both named Ptolemy, early in her reign. The story of Cleopatra's life is fairly well-known. Her position was solidified by Julius Caesar, who became her lover. After his assassination she became associated with Marcus Antonius, and backed him during the final civil war between Octavian and Antony. After the defeat at Actium, Antony, and then Cleopatra committed suicide - the latter, by allowing a venomous snake to bite her. Egypt subsequently became a province of the Roman Empire.

What isn't as well known, is the fact that Cleopatra was the mother of four children at the time of her death; the eldest was in his late teens, the youngest was less than ten years old. Inevitably, her adult son by Caesar became one of the last victims of the late power struggle, but the fates of his three younger half-siblings remain shadowy.

Caesarion

Ptolemaios XV Philopator Kaisar was probably born in 47 BCE. The debate over his fatherhood was never conclusively settled in ancient times, though both past and present historians have generally assumed that he was Julius Caesar's child. Cleopatra seems to have become pregnant with him during her famous 'pleasure cruise' on the Nile with Caesar. The child was given the typical name and titles of a Ptolemaic prince, but he also received the unique surname of Kaisar in honor of his alleged father. The Alexandrian mob, always prone to making fun of its betters, declared him Kaisarion, little Caesar. He is modernly known by the Latinized form of this nickname.

Julius Caesar never recognized Caesarion as his son, but he could hardly have been expected to. The child would have been an embarrassment at best back in Rome, where Cleopatra would increasingly become the target of xenophobic propaganda and hysteria. Nonetheless, Caesar obviously did not object to Cleopatra's naming her child in his honor; modern historians often intrepret this as proof of the boy's parentage.

Caesarion was perceived as a threat to Octavian from the moment Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE. Shortly thereafter, Octavian persuaded Caesar's friend Gaius Oppius to publish a short work claiming that Caesar could not have fathered Cleopatra's child. As for little Caesarion himself, he had lived with his mother at Caesar's Roman villa 46-44 BCE, but after the dictator's murder the royal mother and child returned to Egypt. Here Caesarion would spent the rest of his short life.

Antony, unlike Octavian, did not feel threatened by the existence of Caesarion. In 34 BCE Antony declared Caesarion 'king of kings' and the true son of Julius Caesar. These were part of the Donations of Alexandria, a catalyst for the final encounter between Octavian and Antony. Antony had the worst of it, and by August of 30 BCE both Antony and Cleopatra had taken their own lives.

Accounts vary as to exactly what happened in the final months of Caesarion's life. When Octavian first landed in Egypt, Caesarion was sent to the port of Berenike for safety. Plutarch weaves a somewhat unlikely tale of Caesarion fleeing all the way to India, before turning back at the insistence of a treacherous guardian. One way or another, Caesarion had fallen into Octavian's hands by the end of 30 BCE, and seems to have been executed. As a possible blood son of Julius Caesar, who had been raised as a royal prince, Caesarion was simply too dangerous to be left alive.

The Sun and Moon

In or around 40 BCE, Cleopatra gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl, fathered by Marcus Antonius. The children were named Alexandros Helios and Kleopatra Selene, literally the 'Sun' and 'Moon'. Along with their older half-brother, the twins were honored by Antony during the 34 BCE Donations of Alexandria. Alexander was declared honorary ruler of Armenia and Parthia, while Cleopatra was declared queen of Cyrenaica and Libya.

After his victories in Egypt, Octavian chose to spare Alexander and Cleopatra, apparently viewing them as too young to pose any serious threat. The children were raised and educated by his elder sister, Octavia minor, who was in fact the widow of Antony. History does not record how Octavia, who had been a devoted and loving wife, felt about raising children that her husband had sired by another woman.

The fates of Alexander and Cleopatra are mostly unknown from here. It is generally presumed that Alexander died of an illness not long after his move to Rome. Cleopatra, however, lived to adulthood and was married to Juba II, client-king of Numidia. This marriage produced two children, a daughter, whose name went unrecorded, and a son, Ptolemaios. This son succeeded his father in 23 CE, but was executed by Gaius 'Caligula' seventeen years later for wearing a purple cloak in his presence.

Interestingly, Zenobia, the famous rebel queen of Palmyra in the 3rd Century, traced her ancestry back to to the Ptolemaic clan via Cleopatra Selene. Modern historians are not inclined to believe this legend.

The Last Ptolemy

Antony and Cleopatra had one more child, probably born in the fall of 36 BCE. He was named Ptolemaios Philadelphos, and his birthplace seems to have been Antioch, Syria. During the Donations of Alexandria, Ptolemy was made honorary ruler of Syria and Cilicia. It seems unclear as to whether Antony and Cleopatra intended for their kingdom to be partitioned between their children, or if these titles were strictly honorary. More than likely, they hadn't planned that far ahead - nor would they have time to do so.

When Octavian landed in Egypt, this last Ptolemaic prince disappears from history. Cassius Dio mentions only Alexander and Cleopatra as appearing in Octavian's Triumph. This could be an accidental omission on Dio's part, or it could mean that Ptolemy had not survived the voyage to Rome. Alternatively, it is possible that he was exempted from participation in the Triumph due to his exceptionally tender age. The fact that he does not appear again in written history would suggest that Ptolemy, like his brother Alexander, died young. This has traditionally been attributed to illness. However, their sister Cleopatra was coincidentally the only child of Antony and Cleopatra to survive to adulthood - this would almost suggest a more sinister cause for Alexander and Ptolemy's abrupt disappearance from the historical stage.

Primary Sources:

Goldsworthy, Adrian - Antony and Cleopatra
Grant, Michael - Cleopatra
Roller, Duane W. - Cleopatra: A Biography ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1627-children-cleopatra.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1486-love-life-cleopatra-philopator.html Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:14:36 GMT Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator, the last member of the Ptolemaic Dynasty to rule ancient Egypt, is one of history's great seductresses. Or at least, that's how the story goes. Her irresistable charm, feminine wiles, and maddening beauty have been the stuff of Western legend for two-thousand years, and have been immortalized in art and cinema.

The hypothesis that Cleopatra was homely, if not actually ugly, in physical appearance is already well-known. We have very few contemporary pieces of evidence for her physical appearance. We have busts dating to the Julio-Claudian period (27 BCE - 68 CE) that depict her as a fairly attractive, while contemporary Ptolemaic coinage depicts her profile as everything from beautiful to hag-like.

Certain physical traits seem to have been heriditary in Cleopatra's family, and these include long, hooked noses and a tendency to become obese. Cleopatra's busts do gently hint at her having a strong nose, while some of her coins depict her as nasally well-endowed to an extreme that borders on grotesque. No reference is made to obesity in Cleopatra (though we can safely assume that the middle-aged mother of three in 31 BCE may not have been as shapely as the teenaged princess who seduced Caesar nearly twenty years earlier).

Nothing is known about Cleopatra's mother, and this has led to much debate about her ethnicity. A skeleton recently found in Ephesus, which could possibly be that of her murdered sister Arsinoe, may hint at partially sub-Saharan African ancestry. Even this may tell us nothing; there is no indication that Cleopatra and Arsinoe had the same mother. It was rumored that Cleopatra equated pale skin with beauty, and bathed in donkey's milk in the belief that it would make her skin fairer. This is, in fact, one of the very few ancient references to Cleopatra's physical traits. Though she was a descendant of a Macedonian general, Cleopatra herself may have had black African, Semitic, or even Celtic or Thracian ancestors. There is little reason to speculate when nothing is known about her mother, or the mothers of most of her forefathers.

Despite modern attempts at stirring controversy about Cleopatra's appearance, she could have hardly been ugly, to have become the lover of not one but two of the most high-profile men in Roman society. Even so, our sources agree that Cleopatra's personality is what made her irresistable. She was flirtatious, kittenish, and seemingly prone to making cutely unintelligent observations, and yet she was also fluent in a number of languages, cunning, well-read, and extremely bold. She was fascinating as a conversation partner. Her first encounter with Caesar would suggest that she was prone to thinking 'outside the box', and her depiction in a temple relief not as a Greek monarch, but an Egyptian pharaoh, would suggest she understood the country she was ruling much better than her ancestors had.

Cleopatra has been portrayed as a sex goddess for centuries. And yet, ancient sources only attribute two lovers to her - Julius Caesar, and Marcus Antonius. She married both of her brothers, as was Ptolemaic tradition, but their tender ages and the friction between the siblings makes it unlikely that these incestuous unions were consummated. Cleopatra was only eighteen when she first met Caesar, and had undoubtedly lived the sheltered life typical of female royalty throughout history - this has led Adrian Goldsworthy to suggest that she was probably a virgin at the time.

The union of Cleopatra and Antony was not quite the tragic romance of lore - both lovers had their own, separate agendas and ambitions, and were apart for long periods of time. Nonetheless, they may have married (by Greco-Egyptian, rather than Roman custom) and they were the parents of no less than three children. In the last years of her life, Cleopatra stands out partly as a devoted mother, but also as a Roman puppet attempting to prolong the inevitable.

Cleopatra was certainly devious and conniving (as any ancient monarch would have to be), but history hardly seems to defend her stereotypical image. She was probably neither remarkably beautiful or ugly; it was her personality that seemingly made her irresistable. The historical Cleopatra was a fairly responsible queen, and there is no evidence for her having any manner of sexual or romantic relations with any man except for Caesar and Antony - hardly the royal prostitute of legend.

Posthumously, Cleopatra was a victim of the Roman propaganda machine. The staunchly patriarchal nature of Roman society made the notion of a strong-minded female ruler reprehensible, even unnatural. The Romans had a tendency to turn all female monarchs and chieftains into either bloodthirsty amazons, or Eastern whores. Thanks to the grossly biased nature of our sources, we will never catch any more than the briefest glimpses of who Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator truly was. Even in death she remains alluring and tantalizing - just the way she may have wanted it to be. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1486-love-life-cleopatra-philopator.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1477-decianic-persecution.html Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:36:37 GMT Gaius Messius Quintus Decius ruled the Roman Empire from September of 249 CE until June of 251. By his reign, the Empire was visibly entering into... Gaius Messius Quintus Decius ruled the Roman Empire from September of 249 CE until June of 251. By his reign, the Empire was visibly entering into what has become known as the 'Crisis of the Third Century'. The Empire's frontiers were menaced by various Germanic peoples as well as the Sassanid Persians, and plagues and military usurpations caused internal trauma. It was Decius who adopted the novel policy of attempting to appease the gods - with disastrous results for at least one of the religious minorities within his troubled state.

Decius styled himself an old-fashioned Roman - he even took the name Traianus to commemorate one of Rome's greatest emperors. In January of 250, he decided to begin the new year by performing a sacrifice to Jupiter in Rome, and then publishing an edict calling for the entire free population of the Roman world to join him in sacrificing to the gods. Only the Jewish community, which had long been granted freedom of worship, was exempt from this mandatory sacrifice.

The Christian Church was originally regarded as a sect of Judaism - indeed, Jesus Christ and his disciples would have been observant Jews. By the second half of the 1st Century CE, however, they had come to be recognized as something else. The Biblical book of Acts would suggest that Christians had been subjects of discrimination and sporadic violence almost from the conception of their sect, but the first Roman emperor to unleash a persecution upon them was Nero. The last of the Julio-Claudians used the Christians as scapegoats after the Great Fire of Rome, but his persecution seems to have been short in duration and limited to Rome itself.

Some Christians also seem to have perished at the hands of Domitian, the third and last Flavian emperor. However, for the first two centuries after the life of Christ, Roman emperors seldom appear as persecutors of the Church. Localized persecutions continued, even in the glory days of the Adoptive and Antonine Emperors. It was Trajan who advised his friend Pliny, then governor of Bithynia et Pontus, to refrain from staging witch-hunts targeting Christians, only punishing those who were turned in by local authorities and refused to 'revile' the name of Christ.

The Christians of ancient Rome seem to have occupied about the same role in society that the Jews would play in medieval Europe, or that African Americans would play in the historic United States. Their existence was generally tolerated, but they were subjected to discrimination, and were commonly scapegoated; unsolved crimes were attributed to them and national misfortunes were blamed on them. The Christian writer Tertullianus cynically remarks that the moment anything went wrong in the Roman Empire, the mainstream populace began shouting 'the Christians to the lion!'

Christianity was nominally regarded as an illegal cult, some form of atheism or even magic. But it was not until Decius' Edict of January, 250, that the Christian community would be shaken to its core by the decree of a Roman ruler. Decius insisted that every free person, man or woman, burn incense to the Roman gods and pray for the health of the emperor. This had to be done in the presence of a Roman official, who then signed a paper along with the citizen to confirm that the ritual had been carried out. Surviving papyri from Egypt indicate that this was no literary embellishment on the part of our sources.

Such a ritual posed a serious problem for a practicing Christian. Decius was not launching an attack on Christianity - he presumably had no qualms about a Christian practicing their faith, so long as they fulfilled the demands of his Edict. But this was a dilemma for Christians, who staunchly refused to acknowledge the gods of Rome, let alone its emperor, as deities worthy of their adoration.

As was the case with all Roman persecutions, some Christians turned their back on their faith and compariots, sacrificing as the emperor demanded; a particularly large number of Christians in Carthage are said to have obeyed the Edict in spite of their personal beliefs. But other Christians refused to comply - some went into hiding, not returning until after the demise of Decius. Others perished as martyrs. Unless they were coming from good family, Christian martyrs were executed publically, and often with extreme savagery. Burning at the stake and being thrown to the beasts in the arena seem to have been the most common punishments, but sometimes men were sent to the mines and women to brothels - sentences which in ancient times were effectively death sentences.

There are no figures for how many Christians were killed or otherwise punished in the year and a half that elapsed between Decius' Edict and his death. The butcher's bill did, however, claim many of the most prominent figures in the Christian community, among them the church-leaders (bishops in modern terms) of several major cities. Origen, the famous theologian who had castrated himself to escape the temptations of the flesh, suffered from lengthy torture before dying in prison; similar fates befell Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Babylas, bishop of Antioch. Fabianus, the bishop of Rome, was one of the first and most notable casualties of the persecution, allegedly being executed on January 20th, 250. Cyprianus, bishop of Carthage, escaped death only by going into hiding.

Decius himself was destined to suffer an unpleasant fate. In the summer of 251, he became the first Roman emperor to die fighting in battle, having entered into a disastrous engagement with the Goths of King Kniva at Abrittus in the province of Moesia inferior. His son died with him, and many prominent Romans were carried into captivity.

Though Decius' persecution was neither as long nor as bloody as those to follow half a century later, they made a formidable impact on the ancient Christian psyche. Lactantius, writing during the reign of Constantine described his death as a 'fit end for an enemy of God' after smugly observing that his corpse was left naked and eaten by wild animals.

Just how conscious Decius was of the persecution his Edict caused is unclear. Surely he must have been well aware that some Christians were defying the Edict, and he obviously either ordered their subsequent punishments, or at the very least did not try to stop them. The fact that the 'pope' was killed only a few weeks after the Edict was published would suggest that Fabianus was a high-profile figure who would have been readily identifiable in Rome - his execution is something Decius could have hardly failed to know about.

Decius must have agreed with the general belief that the Christians were 'unpatriotic'. Their failure to acknowledge tangible gods caused mainstream Roman society to few them as anti-establishment, perhaps even anarchists in modern terminology. Early Church fathers zealously attacked this notion; Tertullian and Eusebius claiming that Christians prayed for the health of the emperor and the succcess of his legions on the battlefield. The devotion of the Christians, praying privately or in modest churches to their invisible God, was hardly visible to their 'pagan' neighbors - who thus assumed they were atheists.

The Emperor Decius published his 250 Edict not to harass the Christians, but in an attempt to restore old-fashioned Roman pietas. It proved to be the most terrible misjudgment of his short reign, as it secured his everlasting infamy as one of history's villains. History is written by the winners, and Decius unleashed a persecution on the very religious community that would win the heart of Rome in the following centuries. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1477-decianic-persecution.html http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1474-senatorial-emperors-pupienus-balbinus.html Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:57:04 GMT The 'Year of Six Emperors', 238 CE, was probably one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of the Roman Empire. In fact, seven different men held the ranks of Augustus or at least Caesar at some point in the year - the 'barbarian' emperor Maximinus Thrax, his son Julius Maximus, the senatorial nominees Pupienus and Balbinus, and the three Gordiani. Of all of these men, only the teenaged Gordian III would live to see the end of the year.

Pupienus and Balbinus, who ruled jointly from April to July of 238, were a unique phenomenon in Imperial Roman history. They were declared joint emperors in direct opposition to Maximinus, who had been outlawed by his own Senate; they quickly found themselves tasked with bracing Italy for the storm of his wrath. Unfortunately these senator-emperors proved unable to cooperate - or hold on to the Empire their colleagues had entrusted them to save.

Pupienus

Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus was probably born during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180). The Historia Augusta paints a fanciful picture of his background, claiming that he was the son of a blacksmith who owed his social advancement to a successful military career. Modern scholarship prefers to think that Pupienus came from a moderately prestigious patrician clan. An inscription coming from Volaterrae, honoring his daughter, is believed to suggest Etruscan origins for the family, though they are also known to have had unspecified connections in Athens.

The Historia Augusta credits him with the governorship a variety of provinces, as well as a famous victory over the Sarmatians. A more conservative source, the contemporary Syrian historian Herodian, remarks that Pupienus was a former governor of a Germanic province. He is known to have held two consulships, one in 207, the other in 234, and he seems to have been the Urban Prefect of Rome either late in the reign of Severus Alexander (222-235) or under Maximinus Thrax.

Pupienus Maximus is known to have had three children. The eldest was a son, Tiberius Claudius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus, who held a suffect consulship under Severus Alexander. Pupienus Pulcher married the daughter of Quintus Tineius Sacerdos, himself the son-in-law of the famous Syrian general and usurper Avidius Cassius; the marriage produced at least one son, Lucius Clodius Tineus Pupienus Bassus. Pupienus' second child was a daughter, Sextia Cethegilla, who is known to have married a Greek noble from Hypatia, Marcus Ulpius Eubiotus Leurus. Pupienus' third and youngest child was Marcus Pupienus Africanus Maximus. He was old enough to hold a consulship of his own in 236, and he had a son, also a Pupienus Maximus, but otherwise unknown.

According to Herodian, Pupienus was around seventy in 238. Though modern scholars suspect that he was less advanced in age, his son's 236 consulship suggests that he was definitely past his prime by the 230s. His busts and coins depict a man with a long face, a receding hair line, a long, curly beard, and a melancholy facial expression. Little is known about his personality and talents, but the Historia Augusta claims that he was a man with conservative values who drank little and showed restrain in his sex life.

Balbinus

Decimus Caelius Calvinus Balbinus was probably born between 165 and 170 CE, fairly early in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Like his colleague Pupienus, he was past his prime, if not elderly, by the time he reached the Imperial purple. His father was also a Caelius Calvinus, though there seems to be some doubt as to whether Balbinus was his blood offspring or an adoptee.

Even less is known about the career of Balbinus than that of Pupienus. The Historia Augusta also provides a probably bogus listing of provinces he governed, and it claims that he was of higher birth than Pupienus. He seems to have enjoyed the patronage of the Severan emperors, as he held two consulships under them - one in either 203 or 211, and the other with Caracalla in 213. We can assume that he was married and had children, but history have preserved no information about his family.

The remaining contemporary depictions of Balbinus show him in contrast to Pupienus. He seems to have been a stouter, heavier man, with large ears and a heavy brow. His hair and his full beard and mustache were all trimmed short - his bust depicts a slightly obese and almost slovenly-looking figure. Nonetheless, he seems to have been held in high regards for both his experience and his competence, and he reportedly had a talent for oratory.

Reign and Death

The Emperor Maximinus Thrax, ruling from 235 to 238 CE, both hated and was hated by the Senate and the nobility of Rome. At the beginning of 238, Gordianus, the senatorial governor of Africa, revolted against Maximinus with his son of the same name. The Roman Senate rashly sponsored this revolt, which resulted in the defeats and deaths of the Gordians by April.

The Senate found itself in an ugly position - the enraged Maximinus was marching on Italy with an army, intent on establishing his position and likely taking his revenge on Rome herself. A counsel of twenty senior senators had been governing the city, and on the 22nd of April they met at the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus to discuss their next move. They elected two of their own - Pupienus and Balbinus - to rule as joint emperors in opposition to Maximinus.

Pupienus had incurred the wrath of the people because of his reputation for harshness during his tenure as City Prefect. Taking advantage of the popularity of the Gordians, Pupienus and Balbinus deified the elder father and son, while declaring the younger Gordian's teenaged nephew, also a Gordian, their heir and Caesar. Having thus secured their position, they now prepared to move against Maximinus, who was beginning his invasion of Italy.

Pupienus marched into the north of Italy to gather an army - apparently a force of raw recruits, whose ranks would have been stiffened by cohorts of the Praetorian Guard. By July, Maximinus had besieged Aquilea, whose garrison was commanded by Crispinus and Menophilus (their full names may have been Gaius Bruttius Crispinus and Tullius Menophilus - both were members of the twenty-man senatorial counsel). Maximinus' army was already on the brink of mutiny, when Balbinus and the Senate sent word that their families, based in Albanum, had been besieged by the Praetorians. As a result, Maximinus and his son were murdered in their tent.

Shortly after the killing, Pupienus marched into Aquilea, where the army of Maximinus acknowledged him and his colleague as emperors. Balbinus, governing in Rome, was not so fortunate. Ugly street fighting had broken out in the city. Supposedly, two other members of the senatorial counsel, Gallicanus and Maecenas, had murdered a group of Praetorians for unclear reasons. The comrades of the murdered men reacted with a bloodthirsty rage, and the senators replied by recruiting a force of gladiators to combat them.

Pupienus returned to find Rome engulfed in near-anarchy, and relations between himself and Balbinus became cold. The emperors planned to launch a series of campaigns against foreign threats, Balbinus moving against the Goths in the Danube, and Pupienus heading east to fight the Sassanids. In reality, the rift between them was widening quickly, and the Praetorians were on the brink of mutiny. The guardsmen had been further agitated by a bodyguard of Germans that Pupienus had created from Maximinus' army - they were afraid that he would use this barbarian unit to replace them.

On the 29th of July, a band of Praetorians assaulted the palace. Pupienus wanted to call for his Germans to rescue them, but Balbinus feared the entire episode was part of a plot assassinate him. While the two emperors argued with one another, the Praetorians broke into the palace, stripped them naked, and carried them through the streets of Rome back to their own camp, beating and verbally abusing them the whole way.

Word reached the Germans regardless, and they made haste to rescue their liege - presumably, despite Balbinus' suspicions, they intended to rescue both emperors. Unfortunately, they arrived too late. The Praetorians, hearing the Germans were coming, hacked the elderly emperors to death and left their naked, mangled bodies lying in the streets - a scene worthy of the late Republic. Gordian III was subsequently hailed emperor; he would reign for six years.

Little is known about Pupienus and Balbinus; they are only believed to have reigned for ninety-nine days. Nonetheless, it seems clear that both men were competent, and deserved a better fate than they suffered. ]]> Salah http://historum.com/blogs/salah/1474-senatorial-emperors-pupienus-balbinus.html