Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Napoleon's Wives

Napoleon was a brilliant military, political, and marriage strategist. Yes, marriage strategist. The famous Frenchman married twice - first to Josephine de Beaumarchais, a widow whose husband was murdered in the Reign of Terror, and then to Marie Louise, daughter of Austrian Emperor Francis I. Both of Napoleon's marriages were predominantly governed by political and social calculations.

Napoleon and his first wife seem to have been motivated to marry by more than just love. Josephine de Beauharnais was a widow in search of a husband, father to her children, and a financier for her well-known shopping habit. In her relationships with the upper echelon of French society, Josephine was never able to satisfy all of her needs - until she met Napoleon, a major-general in the French Army.

In Josephine, Napoleon saw a mother to his future heir and a public showpiece whom he could mold to his liking. Napoleon began and ended his relationship with Josephine on his terms. He forced her to change her name from "Rose" to "Josephine" shortly after meeting her. Letters written between Napoleon and Josephine reveal sparks of love, but only amidst jealousy and a desire for control on the part of Napoleon. Perhaps his true emotions towards Josephine were expressed when she failed to bear him a son - and Napoleon proceeded to divorce her.

This image of Napoleon and Josephine captures the spirit of their marriage.
Once Napoleon was Emperor, his quest for a second marriage was governed totally by political savvy. Marie Louise was a pawn in the chess match being played amongst the leaders of Europe. Whereas Napoleon may have at least initially felt some attraction towards Josephine, he did not mince words regarding Marie Louise. Of his second wife he remarked, "I have married a womb." In fact, Napoleon was not even present for the marriage ceremony! Marie Louise's uncle represented Napoleon in the marriage which took place in Austria.

Marie Louise's interest in the marriage was one of survival. She did not wish to disrupt the delicate transaction in which she was involved. Had she rebuffed Napoleon's proposal, she would have disgraced both her family and country. Indeed, when Marie Louise was asked how she felt about Napoleon's proposal, she diplomatically responded: "I wish only what my duty commands me to wish."

Napoleon's second marriage was a much cleaner transaction than his first - for both parties. Napoleon was now allied with Austria. He also got an heir. As for Marie Louise, she reportedly found Napoleon more attractive in person than in portrait. She even became Empress of the French Empire. When things went sour for Napoleon and he was exiled to Elba, Marie Louise was made Duchess of Parma.

Friday, July 6, 2012

William Henry Harrison - Shortest Presidency and Much More



William Henry Harrison is perhaps best remembered for his death. Harrison was the first President to die in office, just 30 days after giving his inaugural address in 1841. He chose to not wear a hat or overcoat during his record-setting 1 hour and 45 minute inaugural address (which remains the longest to date). The day of the inaugural address has been described as windy, cold, and wet. Despite feeling quite ill after the address, Harrison still attended three inaugural galas before retiring for the evening. Over the next few weeks, Harrison's condition deteriorated from a cold to pneumonia, eventually resulting in his death. Harrison's Presidency still stands as the shortest in U.S. History.

Yet, Harrison's presidency is remarkable for more than just its brevity, untimely end, and record-setting inaugural address. At 68 years of age, Harrison became the oldest person to assume the office of President, a title which he kept until Ronald Reagan was elected at 69 some 140 years later. Harrison was also the last President born prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He probably seemed even older when standing next to his Vice President John Tyler, who was 18 years his junior. This remains the largest age gap between a President and Vice President.

It is tempting to link two of Harrison's records - namely the oldest President and the shortest Presidency. Perhaps his old age made him more susceptible to becoming ill. One wonders if 48 years later, Benjamin Harrison connected those two of his grandfather's records when he decided to run for President at the (relatively) young 55 years of age. Much like his grandfather's inauguration day, March 4, 1889 was marked by torrential rainstorms in Washington, D.C. The older Harrison's inauguration must have been on his mind when Benjamin decided to wear a coat and utilize outgoing President Grover Cleveland as an umbrella man during the speech. Yet, with such cautionary measures in place, Benjamin reverted to the Harrison way and delivered what stands as the third-wordiest inaugural address of all time - behind only his grandfather and James Monroe.


Benjamin Harrison's Inaugural Address.




Additional Resources:

Image and Brief Account of William Henry Harrison's Inauguration (Library of Congress)

Account of William Henry Harrison's Death (U.S. Senate)

Thursday, September 29, 2011

The Real Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre refers to the murder of five colonists by British soldiers on March 5, 1770. The Sons of Liberty, a group of colonists who resisted the Crown, dubbed the event a "Massacre" in order to incite anger towards the Crown. British officials, however, referred to the event as the Boston Riot. These names reveal more than just differing attitudes towards the same event. Indeed eyewitness accounts tell drastically different stories about what happened on the night of March 5, 1770.

The statement issued by members of the Sons of Liberty, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, painted the event as a malicious and unprovoked slaughter. They attest that the Massacre was retribution for a quarrel three nights prior between soldiers and colonists. Captain Preston, the British commander on duty on the night of March 5, was reported to have ordered his men to fire upon the colonists on King Street, "without the least warning."

William Taint, a Bostonian who witnessed but was not directly involved in the events of March, provided testimony during the trial of the British soldiers. He maintains that a group of colonists was gathered outside of the British Customs House when a formation of British soldiers took position outside of the building. Colonists were yelling, "Fire, fire, and be damned," and throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. Taint heard a musket discharge and then the word, "Fire" yelled by an unknown speaker, after which several more shots were fired.

Taint's account differs from that provided by Adams and Hancock in several respects. Firstly, Taint clearly states that the colonists were taunting and throwing snowballs at the soldiers, while Adams and Hancock portray the colonists peacefully going about their business. Taint also brings an element of uncertainty to the question of who yelled, "Fire." The former account clearly states that Captain Preston issued a direct order to fire, while the latter implies that it may just as well have been a colonist who shouted, "Fire."

Captain Preston's testimony during the trial offers a third source of information regarding March 5. He states that his men were protecting the Customs House from theft by the colonists when they were physically and verbally assaulted. While Taint saw only snowballs being hurled at the British, Preston reported that his men were also beaten with clubs. His soldiers responded by firing upon the colonists, later claiming that they heard the command to fire and assumed it came from Preston. Preston blames members of the mob for yelling, "Fire," and (unsurprisingly) denies issuing any such order.

Illustrations of the Boston Massacre are just as disparate as eyewitness accounts. Paul Revere's engraving shows innocent Bostonians being shot at as they attempt to flee. Captain Preston is clearly issuing the order to fire. Revere even included a small dog near the colonists to accentuate their innocence and vulernability. The color suggests that the Massacre occured in broad daylight, making it all the more heinous. This painting clearly coincides with the account given by Adams and Hancock, which is no surprise considering that Revere was also devoted to resisting British authority.
 
Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre.
 A depiction of the event by an unknown artist, contradicts Revere's illustration in several aspects. Firstly, the colonists are brandishing weapons and surrounding the British soldiers. Secondly, it is dark and there is a lot of smoke, which creates a sense of confusion. Thirdly, there is no clear order being issued by Captain Preston. The firing that is occuring in the image is just as likely to be out of self-defense as out of aggression. Thus, this portrayal supports aspects of both Taint and Preston's accounts.
Untitled image of the Boston Massacre.
Which account is factual? Which depiction is correct? Perhaps none are fully accurate - or wholly untrue. As Andre Gide once wrote, "The color of truth is gray."

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein dedicated his life to the study of physics. In pop culture he is known for the theory of relativity, the equation E=mc2, and his involvement in the development of the atom bomb (as well as his hair and mustache). What is remarkable about Einstein is that he published many of his major theories between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-six. In his biography entitled Einstein: His Life and Universe, Walter Isaacson recounts the events leading up to Einstein's publication of five monumental papers in 1905.

Albert Einstein, age 26.

"I promise you four papers," the young patent examiner wrote his friend. The letter would turn out to bear some of the most significant tidings in the history of science, but its momentous nature was masked by an impish tone that was typical of its author. He had, after all, just addressed his friend as "you frozen whale" and apologized for writing a letter that was "inconsequential babble." Only when he got around to describing his papers, which he had produced during his spare time, did he give some indication that he sensed their significance" (p. 1).

Einstein's first paper proposed that light could be considered not just a wave but also a stream of particles. The implications for this are that the universe has no "strict causality or certainty" (p.1).

The second paper attempted to determine the true size of atoms. This was a bold task indeed considering that "the very existence of atoms was still in dispute" (p. 1). Einstein decided that this paper would be the framework for his doctoral thesis. It is rather ironic that while in the process of changing the very nature of physics, Einstein's efforts to attain an academic position or get a PhD had to this point been met with failure.

The third paper used statistical analysis to explain the vibrations of microscopic particles in liquid, and in doing so proved the existence of atoms and molecules.

The fourth paper Einstein described in his letter contained the foundations of the Special Theory of Relativity. This theory, which makes up one half of what is commonly referred to as the Theory of Relativity, disproved "Newton's concepts of absolute space and time" (p. 2).

Had Einstein's accomplishments for the year ended with the forth paper, 1905 would have been considered a monumental year for physics. Yet, Einstein produced a fifth paper that year, in which he described the relationship between energy and mass which he would eventually articulate as E=mc2.

That Einstein produced five groundbreaking papers in a single year all while holding a full time job as a patent examiner is a testament to human productivity. Einstein would go on to publish a great many more papers and flesh out many of theories proposed in 1905. Yet, Einstein's biographers and successors in the realm of physics agree that 1905 was indeed annus mirabilis (wonderful year).

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Presidents and their White House Pets

Over 93% of U.S. Presidents had at least one pet during their administration. James Polk, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur are the only Presidents who were not known to keep a pet while inhabiting the White House. (It is perhaps worth noting that none of these men were elected to a second term). In fact, there has continuously been one or more pets living at the White House since 1885. While horses were popular presidential pets early in the nation's history, they have since fallen out of favor along with cows and other livestock. Since Nixon's term began in 1969, the White House has been home only to humans, cats, and dogs. Apparently the modern crop of Presidents are not nearly as adventurous as some of their predecessors.

The below compendium of strange animals living at the White House was compiled from raw data found at Presidential Pet Museum:

John Quincy Adams, for example, was the proud owner of one crocodile and a group of silkworms.

Martin Van Buren briefly owned two tiger cubs given to him by the leader of Oman, until Congress forced him to donate them to the zoo.

William Henry Harrison might have enjoyed different varieties of milk, as he owned both a billy goat and a cow.

James Buchanan owned a herd of elephants as well as a pair of bald eagles, both of which must have made his dog Lara seem rather bland.

Abraham Lincoln owned a pig, a rabbit, a pair of goats, and a turkey alongside some comparatively conventional cats and dogs.

Theodore Roosevelt owned a plethora of traditional pets in addition to a snake, badger, and five guinea pigs.

Woodrow Wilson had a herd of sheep including one which enjoyed chewing tobacco. During WWI Wilson  cut down on labor costs at the White House by letting his sheep pasture on the White House lawn, thereby eliminating the need for professional lawn mowing services (see image below).

Wilson's sheep graze the South Lawn of the White House.
William Howard Taft owned the last cow to call the White House home.

Calvin Coolidge, the most recent present to harbor unusual pets at the White House owned a goose, tiger, racoons, a donkey, and a bobcat. He also received lion cubs, a wallaby, and pigmy hippo and a bear as gifts from foreign officials! It is no wonder why the Presidential Pet Museum: declared that Coolidge "literally had a zoo at the White House."

First Lady Grace Coolidge with her pet raccoon Rebecca.



In the years following Coolidge's office Presidents became considerably more conservative both in pet and name selection. Gone are the days of hounds named Drunkard wandering around the presidential property. Long passed is the time when Adams' dog Satan called the White House home. Surely no modern candidate with a crassly named pet would make it past the primary elections let alone into the White House.


Although exotic presidential pets and politically incorrect presidential pet names have been in decline, pet ownership among U.S. households has been steadily increasing since 1956. Presently, 62% of U.S. households own at least one pet according to the American Pet Products Association.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Martin Van Buren's Many Nicknames

Martin Van Buren, the 8th President of the United States, was known by many nicknames. Perhaps the most well known was "Little Magician." "Little" is believed to have referred to both Van Buren's weight as well as his height. Although Van Buren was considered a slender man, there was speculation during his day that he might have utilized a corset or two to achieve his slim appearance. Congressman Davy Crockett went so far as to bring Van Buren's gender into question when he leveled, "[Van Buren] is laced up in corsets, such as women in a town wear, and, if possible, tighter than the best of them. It would be difficult to say, from his personal appearance, whether he was a man or woman, but for his large red and gray whiskers."

Naturally slim or closet corset-wearer? You decide.


Like Van Buren's figure, his relative height is also up for debate. Van Buren stood 5'6, which undoubtedly is short by today's standards. Van Buren would also be considered short compared to his predecessors in the office of President - whose average height was 5'10. Yet, Van Buren was only between one and two inches shorter than the average American male born during his era.

Van Buren may very well have deserved the second half of his moniker - "magician." Throughout his service as Congressman, Vice President, and President, Van Buren always seemed to be involved in the machinations of party politics across the country.

Despite his omnipresence, Van Buren was given a second and more unfortunate nickname of "Martin Van Ruin," by his political opponents. Van Buren took office 5 weeks prior to the Panic of 1837 and was criticized for his laissez faire attitude towards the financial crisis. His detractors claim that the depression would neither have dragged on for five long years or been as severe had Van Buren supported government intervention in the economy. Funny how government intervention in the financial markets was a hot topic for debate some 170 years prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

Van Buren's final nickname, "The Red Fox of Kinderhook," is similar to "Little Magician" in that it addresses Van Buren's physical appearance as well as political acumen. As Davy Crockett pointed out in his aforementioned attack on the eighth president's waistline and gender, Van Buren was indeed red-haired. Although both "silver fox" and "red fox" refer to hair color, the similarities end there. While "fox" in the former context refers an attractive middle-aged male, in the Van Buren's case it designates political prowess. Lastly, "Kinderhook" refers to his place of birth: Kinderhook, New York. Perhaps this was included to emphasize that Van Buren was the first President to be born an American citizen. Or maybe "Kinderhook" just sounds cool.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Constantine's Conversion to Christianity

The Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity shortly before the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 A.D. is quite controversial. Constantine's decision could have been motivated by any number of factors. The first and most straightforward explanation for his conversion is that he genuinely believed the dogma of Christianity and therefore decided to abandon paganism. Constantine's legitimate interest in Christianity is not inconceivable considering that his mother was Christian.

Yet, one must also consider ulterior motives for Constantine's conversion. He chose to embrace Christianity shortly before a large battle against another Roman ruler for total control over the Western Roman Empire. With the stakes so high it is conceivable that Constantine converted in hopes that the Christian God would aid him in battle. This explanation is supported by the contemporary account of the Battle of Milvian Bridge written by a Christian named Eusebius. Eusebius recounts that Constantine had a vision of a cross above the sun with the words "Conquer by this" engraved across it. Eusebius claims that Constantine instructed his men to represent this symbol on their shields and banners by superimposing the letters "Chi" and "Rho" on top of each other:

Chi Rho

Thus, Eusebius clearly saw Constantine's conversion as a means of achieving military victory.

Alternatively, Constantine may have hoped to gain political capital by converting to Christianity. Two years prior to Constantine's conversion Galerius, another ruler in the triumvirate of the Western Roman Empire, ended the Great Persecution of Christians in the Empire by making it legal to practice Christianity. Constantine may have sensed the fragility of the balance between Christianity and paganism. He also might have realized that he stood to gain the support of an increasing number of Christians within the Empire by declaring it the official religion of the Empire.

Which of these three explanations is most plausible? Perhaps a second account of the Battle of Milvian Bridge, authored by Lactantius, offers the most telling information. Five years after the battle he wrote:
Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top (P), being the cipher of CHRISTOS. Having this sign, his troops stood to arms.
Lactantius' account is decidedly more observational and less explanatory than that of Eusebius. He offers no clear rationale for Constantine's decision to follow the instructions given to him by God. Perhaps Constantine experienced a genuine conversion after seeing God in his dream. Or maybe he  followed God's instructions not out of faith but out of desperation for a winning edge during the battle. Lactantius leaves the decision to the reader.

Resources

Below is a rather well produced portrayal of Constantine's conversion and the Battle of Milvian Bridge. It combines elements of both Lactantius and Eusebius' accounts of the conversion and battle: