There Was A Brawl On The Senate Floor Between A Senator And A Congressman At The Onset Of The U. S. Civil War

If You Think Modern U. S. Politics Is Rough, Check Out What Happened Between Congressman Preston Brooks and Senator Charles Sumner In 1856 

 (Congressman Brooks Beating Senator Sumner, by John L. Magee (c.1820–c.1870), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Charles Sumner, a member of the Free-Soil Party and an ally of the Republican Party, was elected to the United States Senate in 1851. The top priority of Sumner and the Free-Soil Party was to quarantine slavery and not let it spread to new U. S. territories.

Though Sumner’s stalwart stance against the expansion of slavery gained him many enemies, it was a single speech in 1856, titled “Crime Against Kansas,” that would bring his life into mortal danger. In the speech, Sumner launched into a vitriolic verbal attack against the states (and state representatives) that supported slavery. He targeted two Democrat Senators in particular: Stephen Douglas from Illinois and Andrew Butler from South Carolina. Unfortunately for Sumner, by criticizing Senator Butler, he unknowingly drew the ire of South Carolina Democrat Congressman Preston Smith Brooks—Senator Butler was a relative and friend of Congressman Brooks. When he heard of the “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Preston Brooks, a veteran from the Mexican-American War, immediately sought to restore the honor of his tarnished relative.

In a rage, Congressman Preston Brooks marched into the Senate chamber on May 22, 1856. The Senate had just ended its business for the day, and Senator Sumner was gathering his belongings and tidying copies of his speeches, totally unaware of the approaching South Carolinian statesman. It was then that Congressman Brooks cracked Senator Sumner over the head with a metal-tipped cane. He continued to relentlessly bludgeon Sumner until the man fell unconscious, only ending his assault when nearby Senators pulled Congressman Brooks away from his prey.

Senator Sumner took more than three years to recover from the brutal beating. The assailant, Congressman Preston Brooks, faced very little repercussions for his actions; he only faced a moderate monetary fine. Brooks soon resigned from the House of Representatives and returned to South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union to start the United States Civil War in 1861.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

• https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm 
• http://www.history.com/topics/charles-sumner 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Sumner 
• http://www.ushistory.org/us/31e.asp 
• http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000885     

In ‘The Iliad,’ Achilles Had A Prophetic Talking Horse

(Xanthus and Achilles, modified and edited from Triumph of Achilles, c. 1892, by Franz Matsch, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Homer’s ancient epic poem, The Iliad, is filled with oddities of all sorts. From dramatic mythological stories to bizarre battles between men and gods, The Iliad has very few dull chapters. Out of all the strange events in Homer’s first epic poem, one of the most peculiar could arguably be Archilles’ talking horse, Xanthus.

Mind you, the horse is only given the ability of speech by the goddess, Hera, and only speaks for a short time before furies come and mute the beast. Before the horse Xanthus was muted, he delivered a prophesy of Achilles’ demise, stating the great Greek warrior was “destined to fall in battle at the hands of a god and of a man” (Homer’s The Iliad, Book 19, approximately line 410).

The prophesy of the horse proved to be true, but that would take place in Homer’s next epic poem, The Odyssey, where even more oddities of divine and mundane nature awaited the Greek warriors returning home from war.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Source:

• The Iliad by Homer, translated by E. V. Rieu and translated by Peter Jones. New York: Penguin Books, 2014.

Alexander the Great Had Great Mythological Ancestry

(Alexander the Great founding Alexandria, Egypt, by Placido Costanzi (Italian, 1702-1759), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Rulers have claimed political authority from divine lineage throughout the history of many cultures from all over the world. Alexander the Great (c. 356- 323 BCE) was no exception—his family claimed some of the greatest figures in Greek mythology as their ancestors.

The marriage between King Philip II of Macedon and Olympias from Epirus merged two families with formidable mythological ties. On his mother’s side of the family, Alexander the Great claimed Achilles as his ancestor. From Achilles, Alexander could argue that he was also related to Thetis (Achilles’ mother), an important sea-nymph who was well respected by Zeus, the leader of the Greek gods.

Alexander’s father, Phillip II, had an even more impressive ancestral claim. From his father’s side of the family, Alexander could claim he was descended from Heracles (also spelled Hercules). Through Heracles’ parentage, Alexander was able to claim he was related to almighty Zeus.

If being related to Achilles, Heracles, Zeus and Thetis was not enough, Alexander’s mother, Olympias, also believed that Alexander was not fathered by Phillip II, but by a god disguised as the Macedonian king. Alexander took his mother’s belief seriously and as his accomplishments began to accumulate without precedent, he began to publicly hint that he was a son of Zeus. Around 326 BCE, the year he defeated King Porus of India, Alexander had coins (or medallions) minted that depicted himself wielding lightning.

  (Victory coin minted by Alexander the Great, c. 326 BCE, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Source:

• Alexander the Great: The Story Of An Ancient Life, by Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

 

Pope Pius XII, Though Previously Thought To Have Been Indifferent to Nazism, Encouraged Multiple Plots to Assassinate Hitler

(Portrait of Pope Venerable Pius XII, c. between 1938 and 1958, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) became pope in in 1939, mere months before Hitler invaded Poland, starting World War II. He had a tense relationship with the fascist dictators of the Axis Powers and the government leaders of the Allies. Throughout the war, Pope Pius received requests from Jewish leaders and ambassadors of Allied countries to denounce the Nazi Party, and the systematic murders of millions of men, women and children. Nevertheless, for most of the war, Pope Pius XII refused to criticize Nazi Germany. When, by chance, he decided to voice any dissatisfaction with Hitler’s policies, he reduced his complaints to vague generalities about war and death, never mentioning the Jews.

Only after 1942 did Pope Pius XII begin to use his powerful diplomatic influence to save Jewish lives. When Germany sent its military to occupy Rome in 1943, thousands of Jews were hidden in Vatican buildings and its affiliate monasteries and convents. The pope, along with the Allied Powers and various other organizations and political leaders, were able to pressure Hungary into ending the deportation of its Jewish population to Germany in 1944. Pope Pius XII also convinced thirteen countries in South America to accept Jewish refugees and he aided thousands of Bulgarian Jews to reach what would soon become Israel. With all of these deeds, however, Pope Pius XII rarely, if ever, condemned Hitler in a verbal public speech or a published editorial.

Even though the pope did not openly refute or question Hitler, Pope Pius XII took a very different stance toward the leader of Nazi Germany from the shadowy realm of espionage and subterfuge. Before Germany invaded France, the pope encouraged a plot to assassinate the Nazi Führer, but before the conspirators could enact their plan, a separate assassin failed to kill Hitler. Security understandably tightened as a result of the attempt, and the conspirators working with the pope lost their nerve. Next, a man named Josef Müller, a member of the German resistance, made contact with Pope Pius XII and they began to conceive of another plot. This time they planned to blow up Adolph Hitler’s airplane. This assassination attempt also failed and the Gestapo arrested Josef Müller in 1943. The last assassination attempt Pope Pius gave his blessing to (but was not a participant of the conspiracy), was the Valkyrie plot spearheaded by Colonel Claus von Stauffenburg. The colonel planted a bomb in the same room as the Führer on July 20, 1944, but as always, Hitler stubbornly refused to die to any hand but his own. The Führer survived and Stauffenberg was executed the very next day.

Pope Pius XII remains a widely controversial person, and the debate on his deeds and misdeed will not end soon. Critics of the pope point out that he never challenged the Holocaust during WWII, and he only began aiding Jews once the war was nearing its end. On the other hand, Pope Pius was aware of, and sometimes involved in, multiple plots to assassinate Adolph Hitler spanning from 1939-1944, and he did, indeed, eventually help multiple thousands of Jews to escape the clutches of the Nazis. There is no simple answer on how to judge Pope Pius XII’s thoughts and actions.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

• “Pope Vs. Hitler,” directed by Christopher Cassel, 2016. 
• http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pius-XII

Two Different King Brians Almost United Ireland Into a Single Kingdom

(Brian Boru addressing his Army before the Battle of Clotarf 1014 AD, by James Ward (1851-1924), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Throughout its long, tumultuous history, Ireland has never truly been unified. Whether the people in Ireland were warring amongst themselves or against invaders, or arguing about religion, they always seemed to be divided by something, if not by national borders, then by irreconcilable beliefs.

In medieval Ireland, however, two kings came close to unifying the people of their island—Brian Boru (c. 941-1014 CE) and Brian O’Neill (r. 1241-1260 CE).

In 10th century Ireland, a second wave of Vikings were beginning to raid and settle Irish lands. Brian Boru, located in western Ireland, took advantage of the chaos, and began to conquer his neighbors, Vikings and native Irish, alike. By 980, Brian Boru had conquered Limerick and Munster; next, Tara and Dublin fell to him in 999. As Brian Boru continued to conquer small Irish kingdoms, he proclaimed himself high king of Ireland. He expanded into Ulster and Leinster, but died in the 1014 Battle of Clontarf, throwing his kingdom into disarray.

The other king, Brian O’Neill, lived less than a century after the Norman kings of England began spreading their influence into Ireland. In his time, England was preoccupied with matters away from Ireland, so Brian O’Neill benefited from a resurgence of native Irish influence. In 1258, Brian O’Neill was proclaimed high king of Ireland by a coalition of minor kings. Though some Irish kings withheld their support from O’Neill, the high king was able to raise an army to fight the English. The military campaign, however, did not go well—Brian O’Neill was slain in the Battle of Downpatrick in 1260.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Source:

• Ireland: A Short History (Third Edition) by Joseph Coohill. London: Oneworld Publications, 2008.

Lady Trieu, A Young Vietnamese Woman In Her Early Twenties, Led A Multiple-Year Rebellion Against The Chinese Kingdom of Wu

(Đông Hồ folk painting of Trieu Au, [Public Domain] via Pinterest)

Lady Trieu (Ba Trieu), also known as Trieu Thi Trinh and Trieu Au, was born around 225 CE in northern Vietnam. There are many versions of Lady Trieu’s childhood, but they all agree that she was orphaned at a young age and was raised by her brother.

While the young girl was in her brother’s care, China ramped up its campaign of suppression against local Vietnamese leaders in an attempt to assimilate Vietnam into the Kingdom of Wu. By the time Lady Trieu was nineteen (around 244 CE, if her birth date is accurate), she left the home of her brother to raise a sizable army to resist the Chinese.

The disgruntled Vietnamese population proved to be a valuable pool of manpower for Lady Trieu. For the next few years, the young rebel leader campaigned to liberate her homeland from the occupying Chinese forces. She was described as being an inspiring leader who led from the front (on or off an elephant) wearing golden armor and wielding two swords. She likely won around thirty battles before she was twenty-one years old.

By 248 CE, however, Lady Trieu had caused enough disruption to make her a top priority of Eastern Wu. A fresh army of Chinese troops was sent to the region to quash the rebellion and more funds were provided to pay informants and turn traitors in Vietnam. Under the increasing pressure, Lady Trieu could no longer continue her success. She was defeated in battle in 248 CE and died either a warrior’s death or by suicide.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Source:

• http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/trieu-au.html 
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ba-trieu-225-248-ce 
• http://asianhistory.about.com/od/vietnam/p/Lady-Trieu-Vietnam.htm 
• http://www.amazingwomeninhistory.com/trieu-thi-trinh-the-vietnamese-joan-of-arc/  

The Last Pirates To be Executed In The United States By Hanging Sailed On A Ship Called The Panda

(Sketch of Pedro Gilbert c. 1834 from Lemuel Gulliver, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

In the early 19th century, Pedro Gilbert captained a crew of pirates that hunted ships around the Caribbean, Florida and the coast of Africa. On their ship, the Panda, Gilbert and his band of pirates were known to use trickery to lure merchant ships into danger. One of the Panda pirates’ favorite tactics was to guide their unaware prey to sandbars, immobilizing the targeted ship. One such sandbar off the coast of Florida was nicknamed ‘Gilbert’s Bar’ after it was used by the crew of the Panda in their hunts.

Fate finally caught up with Pedro Gilbert in 1832 as he was seeking victims in the Caribbean. The Panda came across a ship named the Mexican, which was hauling a large cargo of silver. Gilbert seized the ship and captured the crew with little to no fight. With the Mexican immobilized, the pirates filled their ship with as much silver as they could haul, totaling around $20,000 in worth. When the Panda was filled with silver, the pirates tied up the captured sailors and locked them inside the plundered ship. Before the pirate crew set sail, they set fire to the Mexican, with the defeated crew still tied up inside.

Like a stereotypical, arrogant film villain, Pedro Gilbert did not stay to watch the death of his victims. Therefore, the pirates did not see the crew of the Mexican break free of their bonds, extinguish the fire and keep the ship afloat. The sailors were able to navigate their charred ship all the way back to their homeport of Salem, Massachusetts, in the United States of America.

When the Mexican reached the United States, news of Pedro Gilbert and the Panda spread quickly and the public was outraged. The U.S. government began a hunt for the pirates and they asked other countries to be on the lookout for the Panda.

It took three years (until 1835) for the manhunt to have a breakthrough. A British ship found and sank the Panda near the West African coastline. Pedro Gilbert and the other members of his crew that were captured were then transported across the Atlantic to Boston, where they would be tried for piracy. Gilbert and the crew of the Panda were found guilty of piracy in a widely publicized trial and nearly all of the pirates were executed by hanging.

Source:

• Outlaws of the Atlantic: Sailors, Pirates, and Motley Crews in the Age of Sail by Marcus Rediker. Boston: Beacon Press, 2014.  
• http://www.executedtoday.com/2013/06/11/1835-captain-pedro-gilbert-and-the-spanish-pirates/ 
• http://ageofpirates.com/article.php?Don_Pedro_Gibert