Mimicking the Style of Rick Atkinson

                For this week we were assigned the problem of finding a paragraph we liked in a historical themed book, dissecting it to discover how it works and mimicking the prose in our own attempt at a paragraph. I decided to draw my paragraph from the book An Army At Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-43 (Volume one of The Liberation Trilogy) by Rick Atkinson.

               I read this book a few years back on a whim; it was the first time I had encountered the writings of Rick Atkinson. I had been looking to learn more about the North African campaign during World War II and the white and orange cover was eye catching. I discovered, upon reading the first chapter, what a truly great writer Mr. Atkinson was—In context it is not surprising that the he had been awarded the Pulitzer prize in the past.

               So when we were assigned this week’s problem Mr. Atkinson’s book was one of the first to spring to mind. It was a hard call, picking just one paragraph. It was made especially hard considering that one of Mr. Atkinson’s strong points in writing is alternating a paragraph with tactical details with one which focuses more on the human element and backstory of an individual. In the end I settled for one of the individual-centric paragraphs found in Chapter 4 “Pushing East” under the subsection Fat Geese on a Pond on page 187. The paragraph chosen flows like this:

This order greatly pleased the Americans, even if no one was quite sure what “tank-infested” meant or how to effect such a teeming condition. The 1^st Battalion—part of a regiment created in the 1830s for the Black Hawk War and still heavily drawn from Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia—was commanded by the handsome thirty-five-year-old John Knight Waters. The son of a Baltimore banker, Waters had attended Johns Hopkins University for two years before persuading a Chicago congressman, in whose district he had spent a single day, to appoint him to the West Point class of 1931. Water’s ambition to be a pilot was thwarted by imperfect eyesight; he settled for the cavalry and betrothal to the daughter of a crotchety major named Patton. “Waters, I don’t know you. Come back in three years,” Patton told the young lieutenant when asked for permission to marry. Waters bided his time, eventually winning both Patton’s deep affection and his daughter.

               The first element that popped out about this paragraph was how Atkinson interweaves factual information with personal, more sensory loaded, descriptions. The understated hyperbole utilizing adverbs and wording of the sentences where one thing is claimed then made ironic in the second half of the sentence, such as in sentence one,  lends to what would be a dry paragraph of exposition an underlying sense of humor and irony that keeps the reader interested. Adjectives are a favorite element of Atkinson and are spiced throughout this paragraph and the book in general in such a way that they paint a visual “scene” of what is being described. As the latter half of the paragraph shows, Atkinson does not work just with visual terms but with dialog as well. The quoted lines of Patton, terse as they are, help to lend personality to the person being painted and establish, better than any adjective, what he was like and how he thought. Syntax used in this way is a window into a character’s mental state, beliefs and soul.

               The grammatical elements of this paragraph are unique and invocative of Atkinson’s general writing style. He prefer to write in third person but skillful use of dialog and phrasing helps it to feel closer, like first person, instead of cold and distant psychologically for the reader. The lengths of each sentence vary, however he has a preference for long sentences linked with , —; and : (I also have a preference for this in my writing style, but I don’t manage to pull it off as coherently as he does). Often times extra information not strictly on topic to the sentence at hand is marked off  using , and —. Additionally, he wisely varies which grammatical element he uses to link ideas in his sentences together, never using the same one too often in a paragraph, making the structure of the paragraph on the whole more creative. Another quirk I noticed is that he prefers to start his sentences with a noun, usually the noun being the sentence’s subject that is being modified and described. For example “The order,” “The 1^st Battalion,” “Water’s ambition,” etc. Following the opening subject/noun almost always is the modifying verb of what the subject is doing “The order greatly pleased,” “The 1^st Battalion—…—was commanded,” “Waters had attended,” etc. Note that the majority of verbs are in past tense.

                The second part of this project is to take the style that has been explored and make it into our own. Accordingly, here is my parrot paragraph:

                It was “not a riot. It was an absolute massacre by the police” General Philip Henry Sheridan confided to General Grant by written word on August 2^nd, 1866; just days after the riot wound down. Sheridan, while officially in control of the area for the military, was being covered by General Baird during the time of the riot. He expressed an authoritatively definitive view on the New Orleans riot—having witnessed the atrocities in hindsight from his perch in Texas—and went on to proclaim that it “was not excelled in murderous cruelty by that of Fort Pillow. It was a murder which the mayor and police of the city perpetrated without the shadow of a necessity.” Necessary and its fleet shadow proved to be a slippery concept to define. The thirty-five-year-old Sheridan, being of the Republican persuasion, was not unusual in taking such a glass-half-empty perspective on the matter. His intuitive conclusion proved to be a bullseye on the element of corruption, yet far off the mark on other equally vital aspects. Time, and a congressional report or two, showed exactly where the truthfulness of his statement lay.

Driving the railroad of theory onto the tracks of history

This week we read Railroaded by Richard White. The question that was poised for our assigned problem related to the position of theories within the discipline of history as well as within this book. Theory in this context can come in two flavors, “small” and “grand” theories. Thank of the grand type as theory’s equivalent to infrastructure; in that it is a global and holistic entity that seeks to provide an answer to all sides of a historical occurrence. Small theories are less ambitious and more limited in scope, but often work in concert with one another to support a grand theory.

In Railroaded the author has a very clear global theory and several smaller supporting theories interwoven. This book focuses on the development of railroads, especially during the Gilded Age, and tries to discover how it influenced American development without and Railroad industrial development within. While workers are touched on, the real stars of this book were the railroad executives and politicians such as Jay Gould and Collis Huntington and to a lesser extent the bankers. The grand theory put forth by White is that railroads influenced American development and were, to some degree, successes despite being financial failures and corruptly run, but which would have been more successful and influential in the long run if they had not rushed and overbuilt ahead of social demands.

Every small theory this book provides is always within the context of this grander theory. Having generally outlined the grand theory it would be helpful now to explore some of the smaller, and personally felt, more interesting small theories that White puts forth. The largest of these “small” theories was that the railroads were political entities which included the concept of a system of “Friendship” among railroad executives, bankers, influential patrons and politicians. White emphasizes this theory again and again and draws a lot of his support from personal letters and existing records relating to railroad bond and monetary dealings (or the telling lack thereof). This small theory is used to help explain the puzzling occurrence of men getting rich as railroads go into debt and receivership and how railroads came to be the main source of traffic for some forms of cargo, despite other systems such as steamer which would have made more sense to use. Another small theory was that the spatial aspects of the railroad and the costs related to them had far reaching impacts of American social and economic development. By using travelogues, charting census data out on a visual map and looking at shipping costs and worker union activity White was able to creatively get an idea of who and what was being moved where and why, and presented the data (as seen with the visual displays in the appendix) in such a way that new insights could be gained. The final major small theory was of overbuilding, railroad competition and how American railroad construction compared in a global context to railroad construction going on in other areas of the world (for the purposes of the book, the other areas were Canada and Mexico). This comparative theory allowed readers to see how widespread corruption and other flaws were while at the same time highlighting what made American railroads and their systems unique from the others.

Overall Railroaded was an interesting book which, in trying to prove its grand theory, was  forced to ask unusual and searching questions about smaller aspects which otherwise might not have been linked to railroad development but which none the less showed correlations. By using a theory-based approach to history White was required to be omnivorous and creative in his use of defining and using sources. Additionally, the strength and weakness of the theory approach is that it gets at answers otherwise unattainable but relies on subjective logic and intuition. If done right the theory based approach can be very revealing and evocative for further research and can help to prove what one piece of evidence alone is unable to confirm. But historians must be aware of the inherent biases of spurious causality if they work in such a framework and strive, as much as possible to ground any grand theories they produce in smaller more concrete and provable theories, as White has done in his book.

What’s in a gun? An examination of “The Quilting Frolic”

For this week’s problem we looked at a painting from 1813 titled the “The Quilting Frolic” by John Lewis Krimmel and selected an item, or set of items, to research into. Krimmel was a German-born American who became well known for doing genre paintings. This painting in particular depicts a middle class family as they host a quilting party. Many of Krimmel’s paintings depict families located in Pennsylvania, and this one is no exception.  For this task I was assigned the gun, powder horn, and pouch over the door on the right side of the painting.

In the book War of 1812 by Miriam Greenblatt and John Stewart Bowman the function and positioning of these items is explained thus: “Ammunition consisted of cartridges, or lead, balls, that weighed about 1 ½ ounces apiece. Each cartridge was wrapped in paper and carried in a cartridge pouch that dangled from a soldier’s waist or shoulder. A soldier also carried gun powder in a horn.” (Greenblatt and Bowman, pp. 61)

The powder horn and pouch were the first items of the three I turned my attention to. The pouch is likely a cartridge pouch and would have held the ammunition for the gun. The horn was often home made from the horn of an animal, usually a bull. Powder horns could become quite the symbolic works of art with fine details and images carved in; however, it seems that the horn depicted in this painting is relatively dull outsides of the gilded tips. The best explanation I found relating to powder horns, muskets, and their symbolic relationship to their owners was found in the introduction for the book written by John Bivins in Folk Art of Early America: The Engraved Powder Horn by Jim Dresslar. Because I find it relevant, I have quoted the passage in full below:

The powder horns slung over the shoulders of these frontiersman-and those of the generations of riflemen that followed them-by virtue of having been “carved with a variety of whimsical figures and devices,” were no less symbolic to their bearers than the long rifles which they carried. In some respects, they were perhaps an even more powerful statement of the individualism of the rifleman, since these horns more often than not were the work of the owner himself. The business of producing “rifle-barreled firelocks” and long fowling pieces were the province of professional artisans skilled in several media and working with a host of specialized tools. The decoration of a horn by its owner, on the other hand, was not proscribed by any technical methodology or sense of design gleaned from a seven-year apprenticeship. Instead, it was art of the moment, cut into the surface with tools often no more sophisticated than the point of a small knife, yet with every intention to record a place, an event, even a state of mind. Horns became foreshortened road maps of the vast frontier, incised townscapes, flights of imaginative fancy, and sketches of noble game pursued and gathered-or lost. They also carried start messages fraught with the dark side of living in a new land. No travel narrative of the period ever could have produced a more poignant image of the harsh realities of the time and historical geography which that backcountry rifleman recorded on his powder horn.

The decoration of a horn, then, was an intensely personal experience, and expression of self and place, and a record of things not to be forgotten. That these objects so often were finely wrought, carefully scraped to exquisite thinness and cameo-cut with profiles at times rivaling classical architectural detail, is a measure of the importance of what their owners intended to convey, if only to themselves. The were often intended as a record, and there is certain didactic nature to many of their inscriptions. “I with my brother ball, hero-like, do conquer all” was not mere backwoods swagger, but an attribute of self-sufficiency that was absolutely necessary in an emerging society.

The men who carried these horns may have been woods-ranging long hunters, militiamen, serving hard duty in a far-flung string of back country forts, or simply yeomen and townsmen alike participating in shooting at the mark-the principal recreational sport of early America. They all shared a common ideology. Their rifles and fowlers were exceptionally visual symbols of freedom, of the ability to own and freely carry a weapon for protection, sport, or public service. Such a thing had been virtually unknown in Britain and on the Continent except among the wealthy classes or tightly-disciplined ranks of a standing army.

If the rifle or long fowler was an expression of freedom, the horn that was carried with it was a more extensive document of the individual himself, no less than his own signature, and no matter the degree of naiveté or sophistication that characterized its decoration. His longarm may have represented a pinnacle of American gunmaking skill, and today-if it has survived-a pinnacle as well among all objects of American decorative art. But the powder horn does not hang in the shadow of the longrifle or fowler now, any more than it did when it use. With a mesmerizing appeal engendered by their sinuous form, their velvet feel in the hand, an amber aura of patination, and above all their timeless incising-which carries all the mute power of prehistoric pictograms-powder horns quite rightly are a study unto themselves.

Finally I turned my attention to the main attraction: the gun. My first step in identifying this gun was to puzzle out if it was a hunting model or a war oriented model, such as might be used by the army of militia.  After this piece of information was discovered the next step would be to decide it if was a rifle or a musket.  Finally, the last step was to specify down, as much as possible, what make and model the gun might be and where it may have been employed.

The other military items and especially the military style uniform to the left of the mantle helped me answer my first question. Thanks to Jacob’s blog post, the uniform was identified as possibly being that of a Pennsylvania militia unit. My own brief research on that item done earlier in the week correlates with that portrayal. Furthermore, according to the Canadian sponsored Official War of 1812 Bicentennial Website, “smoothbore muskets were used by the vast majority of U.S. regulars and militia during the War of 1812, although a significant minority did use rifled weapons.” (http://www.visit1812.com/history/USRifle.html). War of 1812 also states that “From the 1500’s to the 1800’s, the most common weapon used by soldiers was the musket, or flint lock. It was five feet long and weighed about 10 pounds…Until the 1800’s, muskets were expensive. They were made by hand, and each musket took about one week to make. Moreover, no two muskets were exactly alike, so it was not possible to “cannibalize” parts…After the use of interchangeable parts was adopted in the early 1800’s, the situation changed. Now a single factory could turn out thousands of guns a year, and for a much lower price.” (Greenblatt and Bowman, pp. 61) If the military articles are militia in origin and most Americans who were in the militia used smoothbore muskets, it stands to reason that looking at smoothbore models might be a good starting point and so this is where I began my search.

The only identifying features I had to go off of were those shown in the painting, and these were limited by the fact that the gun is shown sideways and with the finer details unportrayed. I did check on hunting models at the start just in case my assumption was inaccurate using the Journal of the National Rifle Association’s visual guide online (http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/Hunting%20Guns%20in%20Colonial%20America.htm), but none of them matched and I was strengthened in my suspicion that this was a military style gun.

The best source I found for visual representations of military muskets was found in the form of George Neumann’s book Battle Weapons of the American Revolution. The Journal of the National Rifle Association’s webpage on the Brown Bess was also very helpful (http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/The%20Redcoat%27s%20Brown%20Bess.htm). After comparing many images, using what features I could make out in the painting, I came to the conclusion that it was likely a “Brown Bess” aka what is officially known as the Land Pattern series (came in short and long forms).      

The Land Pattern first came into being in 1722 with the Long Land Pattern, which was made from 1722-1793 and was the standard infantry musket until 1768 when it was replaced in part by the Short Land Pattern and later models. Although British in origin these muskets would have been used by Americans. There is some debate over how the nickname “Brown Bess” came about. While not a valid source for research, the gun’s Wikipedia page does produce one explanation which seems valid when it states that “More plausible is that the term Brown Bess derived from the German words “brawn buss” or “braun buss”, meaning “strong gun” or “brown gun”; King George I who commissioned its use was from Germany. The OED has citations for “brown musket” dating back to the early 18th century which refer to the same weapon. Another suggestion is that the name is simply the counterpart to the earlier Brown Bill.”  

In total there were seven types of Land Pattern models that were produced. The earlier models had no place to attach a bayonet and as such are likely not what is shown in this painting, since the gun in the painting does have a bayonet which is hanging in front of the uniform to the left. Earlier models were also longer, about 159cm in length while this gun looks to be slightly shorter. The painting is not detailed enough on the view of the gun to tell exactly which model it is but I can narrow it down with logic to three models. If the person was in the Navy it could be a Sea Service Pattern. Perhaps the photos over the mantle of the ships are trying to hint at such a reading. However, the uniform really makes it more plausible the owner was in the militia and not out at sea, so it is likely not this model. Two other possibilities would be the India Pattern used from 1797-1854 (by 1812 the standard infantry musket), or the Short Land Pattern from 1740-1797 which would still be in use for infantry by 1812 especially if personally owned before the war. Looking at images of each model, I think it looks more like a Short Land Pattern model, but it could be either since the features I need to clearly see are lacking in this painting.

The presence of this gun with the pouch, powder horn, and other military items indicates that someone in the family owning the house which is throwing the party likely served in the militia or military.  This tells me that they were likely patriotic.  It could also be a sign that they have sons, but it is just as likely the items belong to the father of the household.

Using the approach found in the book we read this week on Victorian culture relating to items, a fair amount can be said about these three items above the door and what they represent. As the passage quoted above on the powder horn shows, these items were more than just a gun and its equipment—they were a symbol of American freedom and masculinity. By placing them above the door (surely not the best place for such a heavy item as a musket), the family was stating that they wanted these items to be the last impression people had of their home and family as they left into the outdoors. This could also be a way of marking the path to the (perceived masculine) outdoors from the (perceived feminine) indoors.

Collectively, the items in the room tell the story of a middle class American family and reveal in the forms they take and the locations they are placed in, the values and viewpoints of the family on the culture around them. A gun and its instruments may seem dull to research, but they can speak truths to those who but listen to their tongue. The model can reveal information on how, when and why it was made. The possession of such an item with the knowledge of where it came from can help add context to the owner and where they have been. Noticing how such items were treated and what other items they relate to in a house reveals a deeper cultural and normative context about the family. By displaying this gun, which had become far more affordable by 1812, and other military articles this family was proclaiming their views on freedom, gender, stance in relation to their country, and perhaps stance in relation to the war of 1812 as well. It is highly unlikely these items would be displayed in such a public place had the family not been proud of their service and, at least to a degree, agreed with the USA’s participation in the war.

Barrow’s Plantation Then and Now.

As per request, I held off posting this till class. Attached below is my findings in a word document with hyperlinks and images.

barrow_blogpost_shaver

Spoken in Sight: Unusual images from World War II

For this week’s project we had to find two or more unusual images that hinted, by their oddness, at a mystery. I decided to use one of the German satirical cartoons produced during the war and published in a well-known German Magazine, talked about below in more depth, and an unexpected photo involving General George S. Patton.

Flipping between photos in a World War II archive I found online, I came across one with soldiers holding a fake tank. Images of real tanks are expected- false tanks not so much; I knew there had to be a story behind this and so I started to dig. Before I go on to explain what I discovered, let me include the image so you know what I am talking about:

  

The men pictured with the tank all seem serious and this does not look, at a glance, to be posed too terribly much if at all. But what were they doing carrying around a false tank? True, if seem from above this tank could be passed off as real- a tactic such as this is surely suited more to modern warfare than past conflicts. But who was Patton, and by extension the allied forces, trying to fool? And why?

Looking into the context of the matter this is what I learned: The image above was taken as Patton’s plan was about to be set into motion on D day, June 6 1944. It was called “Operation Quicksilver” and consisted of a real general (Patton) show to be at the head of a large (fake) army given the name of “First United States Army Group (FUSAG)” at a location different to where the actual invasion (involving the Third Army, which was a real army that Patton was also involved with) was to take place. In short, it was all a very dramatic decoy plan. The FUSAG was stationed in Britain and boasted not only fake tanks but fake trucks and other structures as well. The selection of Patton for this fictitious army, who was an allied general well-respected by the Germans who was also closely followed in the newspapers (and thus easy for the enemy to “track”), was a wise move by the allies. Even Patton realized has situation when he wrote a letter to Beatrice Patton on February 20^th, 1944 stating that:

Yesterday I went into Butch’s room and ran into the whole press, so I just told them I was a ghost and they admitted every one[sic] in town had seen me, no one would admit it. I wish I could stop being incognito but really it makes no difference as I am a very apparent entity.

The next image comes from the German satirical magazine called Simplicissimus which was originally produced by Albert Langen from April 1896 to 1967 (no issues were published between 1944-1954). I was fortunate and found a database with full text high quality image scans of the magazine in digital format on a German archival website at http://simplicissimus.info/ . To date the website has all extant issues from 1896 to 1944 uploaded. This magazine was well known for pushing the envelope with its subject matter. However, by the time World War II came into effect most of the production team had fled the country or been imprisoned and those that were left, namely Erich Schilling and Wilhelm Schulz, converted the magazine into a pro-Nazi war propaganda organ. As far as I am aware, there are no English translations for a majority of these images, and so I put my rusty German skills to use translating one for this post.

The political cartoon comes from August 18^th 1943, issue 33 of the Simplicissimus magazine (Issue 33 relates to pages 437-448). A pdf version including the corresponding pages that were bundled into the edition with this cartoon can be found here: http://simplicissimus.info/uploads/tx_lombkswjournaldb/pdf/1/48/48_33.pdf I will post the image in question below on my blog, but for those who wish to use the archive’s viewer please go here: http://dfg-viewer.de/show/?set[mets]=http%3A%2F%2Fweb2.6893-2.whserv.de%2Fsimpl_local%2Fcurrent%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D28%26tx_lombkswjournaldb_pi10%5Bidentifier%5D%3D2385  

Translated text: “The path towards victory”

(What looks to be the Italian line at the bottom seems to be saying the same as the German at the top…but I can’t be 100% sure as I don’t speaking that language. But the gambled stuff Google translate gave me seems to correspond to the same meaning)

In this cartoon we have two men sitting on top of a rabid bear with guns under their feet attacking a skeleton clad in red that is hold a red bloodied laurel while standing atop a burning globe that is racing from the light towards the darkness. Wow, that is going on here, the viewer may ponder.

First of all, there are several things that pop out about this image and what it seems to be representing. Going off the clothing, the two men sitting on the bear represent Britain (in red) and the USA (in blue). They are shown unflatteringly as old men, rushing forward with the power of the bear, and not their own power, and so focused on the bloody laurel that their hats are lost in the dash.

The rabid bear’s implied identity, as seen from the star, is Russia. Many of the German cartoons I glanced from 1942 onwards preferred to show Russia in this form. There are several reasons for this I can think of. An important fact to remember is that after 1941 Russia was an enemy of Germany and no longer its ally. One of the books we read for this week, believe it was the Roeder Jr. book The Censored War, astutely noted that cartoons showing enemies to the United States, Esp from cultures that were viewed as far removed (such as the Japanese), often portrayed them as subhuman using animal bodies and features in place of human ones. It seems the Germans as well used this feature in their visual products of propaganda. It is likely that the Germans did not viewed the Russians as having a culture far removed, like with the American portrayal of Japanese during the war, but that the Germans were trying to dispel earlier favorable portrayals, from back when the two nations were still allied, and so took to using harsher visual means when it came to dealing with Russia in order to distance themselves. The fact that the bear is the one being ridden is yet another jab at the allied nations, on several levels.

The way the lighting is in this picture as well as the grim imagery, like the guns below, surrounding the 4 main “people (and bear)” in cartoon suggests that the path to victory is also leading, paradoxically, to destruction and defeat. Victory for the allies would be victory over Germany—and so the skeleton could symbolize both the concept of victory, or more likely Germany itself (while the laurel is victory’s representation). In other words, the path towards victory, this implies, would be the path towards destruction for all sides involved. This is what puzzled me: Why was Germany starting to show such negative and grim cartoons in relation to themselves when earlier they had shown much more confidant propaganda? A dive into the context of the war surrounding this cartoon’s creation date helped shed some light on the matter. By later July and early August of 1943 things were not looking bright for the Germans. By early August of 1943 Germany had to concede defeat and withdraw from Sicily (this occurred around the 12^th, roughly 6 days before the cartoon appeared). The Germans not only had an withdraw on their hands but several key defeats in the Pacific as well. Not to mention that renewed challenges by the Kreisau Circle that occurred about this same time, hinting at some internal division that continued to persist. So perhaps this cartoon is not only an attack on the allied nations but also a call to gain resolve and fight on for the German people.

Territory v. Rehburg 1885: An abused child without an abuser.

This week we looked at court cases. Court cases can often give a glimpse into sides of society rarely recorded and reveal undelaying values and societal assumptions via displaying their deviation. The event that we studied for problem #5 was Territory v. Rehburg 1885. In this case, the “Territory” in question is Montana; this case occurs on the Rehburg farm 18 miles or so outside of the city of Helena in Lewis and Clark County.

Territory v. Rehburg 1885 was a suit brought against Edward Rehburg for the abuse and death of his 11 year old daughter Clara by the state of Montana. The defense argued that it was in fact the stepmother, Louisa, who fatally abused Clara; more on this in a moment. Both Edward (for the defense) and Louisa (for the prosecution) were called to the stand to speak their own words. Other “actors” to play a role in this court case included the family members who functioned as witnesses, such as Emma Rehburg (19 year old daughter, called by the prosecution) and Bertha Rehburg (15 year old daughter, called by the prosecution). Interestingly enough Emil, the young son, was not called as a witness. Even the farm help, Joe Tiebow (called for the defendant) got a moment in the lime light. Medical professionals as well had their say with Dr. Van Holzschuher, whom the defense objected to on competency, and who stated that Clara would not be competent of her oncoming death; Dr. Steele, whom was called by the defendant and while agreeing with the method of death (and giving more details) stated the opposite to Holzschuher in regards to Clara’s competency and moral understanding near time of death (setting the stage for the defense’s hidden ace, Clara’s dying will). The last two physicians called by the state were Dr. Hunter and Dr. Brown, both of which gave terse testimony that just clarified time of injury and method of wounding. Finally there were the attorneys. Mr. Hunt represented the prosecuting side while Mr. Carter represented the defendant.  Mr. Carter especially reminded me of Fitch from the book we read this week about Wyatt Earp, both in his use of provable during cross examination and his choice to present the dying will of Clara (much like Fitch’s choice to have Wyatt read a ghostwritten testimony for himself).

It was interesting to see how Clara, was a child, was viewed. Perhaps because of her family’s social class (from the hiring of the one workman, the fact the daughters worked at men’s farm work and the father’s long work hours on the hay with the workman it is pretty clear they were likely working class/small farmers) it was not unnatural she was put to work around the house at such an early age. There is also a gender influence on the childhood sense in this court case, because it was asked in several cross examinations if the son was out playing, but never of any of the daughters. This is not to say the son, who from testimonies sounded young, did not work. As we see in Tiebow’s testimony, Emil was by the stacks supplying water to the two men as they worked. Clara is also described as dependent and naïve, hence the calling of the doctors to decide if she was developed enough to understand her situation (which could influence if the dying will was believed to be her own words and if it was believed to be honest).

The evidence against both Louise and Edward is ambiguous at best. From this case alone, with the addition of the dying will, Louise comes out looking worse for the will states in great detail how the stepmother attacked the child. Additionally, the wife was not allowed to testify for herself, being blocked by a motion by Mr. Carter. Depending on if the will is believed to be Clara’s own words, this could have swayed the jury towards indicting her. Edward was at first suspect because of his gender (men would be more likely to be suspected of something as violent as abuse) and the other thing working against him would be his location during that Sunday. As Tiebow noted in his testimony, Edward was on the stacks all day but that does not mean he could not have snuck away without Tiebow seeing; Edward was not in full view and accounted for on all hours of the day, he was just assumed to be where he was supposed to be.

As a member of the jury, I likely would be suspicious of both, but the dying will as well as the timing, as stated by the doctors, of the assault would likely make me charge Louise. Looking at newspaper accounts it seems that in reality, when this case went before the grand jury, the outcome ended with both Louise and Edward charged as guilty. However, just as in this case, the evidence was ambiguous and so the two, on appeal, were able to refute the charge of guilt. We may never legally know who was legally guilty of the abuse, but the testimonies certainly do paint a suggestive picture against the parents.

War of the Hershfields (The Hershfield vs Hershfield Divorce Case)

Apologies for getting this up so late, I ended up being knocked out with a bad migraine yesterday and did not get this up when I planned to.

This week we looked at the 1894 divorce case filed by the plaintiff Aaron Hershfield against his relatively new wife Dell (also spelled as Della) Hershfield. The two both were residents of Helena, Montana when they met in 1893. Aaron, brother of Lewis, ran a private bank with his brother and taught accounting at one of the local collages.  Aaron was reported to be a very outgoing, if not the brightest, person and came from a Jewish background. Della, whose maiden name was Della Hogan, came from an Irish Catholic background and met Aaron during his work as a teacher by being one of his students; Opposites attract, as they say, and Della and Aaron soon fell in love. By September of 1893 they had gone off together to the world fair in Chicago and shortly thereafter gotten married in October. Within a year and a few short months, by November Della was pregnant with a daughter. Also around this time Aaron fills his divorce suit while residing in Cass, North Dakota. And thus the war of the Hershfields begins.

The story woven by Aaron, the plaintiff, was that Della was a woman without morals who coerced and threatened him into marriage (later he would add that her sister and relatives were in league with her machinations). Or, as an article in the St. Paul globe on Dec 3^rd, 1894 put it, “plaintiff claimed, he said, that two armed men forced him to accompany the defendant to the office of a justice of the peace, where they were married under duress.” He further claimed that she did this with an eye towards his fortunes, had always had a bad character and loose, and that she was faking ill health and draining him via over abundant expenses. Della, the defendant, for her part claimed that Aaron had abandoned her, that she was pregnant and that the costs incurred could not be helped due to her powerlessness to support herself and state of her health. In her affidavit she further denied the charges against her character and goes on to blame Aaron’s brother and step sister in turning him against her.

John McConnell was the judge who presided over the case. Many witnesses testimony was presented during the case and the evidence produced ran the gambit from testimonies to telegraphs, letters and hand drawn maps. Going off newspaper accounts of the case, it seems that the telegraph evidence was never examined and was struck from the record because Judge McConnell felt the jury had enough evidence and had come to a conclusion such that reviewing the telegraphs was not worth the extra few days it would elongate the case (from a cursory glance it appears that the telegraphs would have aided Della’s storyline of events). The letters did not reveal much either, save that Aaron stuck to his claim against Della’s character within them and was show, via letters, to be trying to persuade others to this same conclusion.

The real interest of this case and its related evidence came in the form of the witness testimonies. Many witnesses were called both for the defendant and for the plaintiff. The witnesses for the plaintiff claimed that Della was in good health, as seen during the fair and other times. This can be seen for example in the affidavit of Fred B. Morrill and testimony of the bellhop L. E. Bailey who was also a room clerk during the World’s fair. The problem with these testimonies is that they are claiming Della is healthy a full month or more (one puts the fair during august) before the time period in conflict- in other words they don’t seem very relevant nor, with the discrepancy in times given, very credible.

Several of the testimonies, like Bailey’s, go on to claim that Della was certain places or met certain people that made her seem corrupt and “showed to me that she was a fast woman.” (Bailey testimony, page 27). The testimonies placing Della at shady locations often were accompanied by a photo being shown to the witness in question. What later was revealed, as the St. Paul newspaper points out as well as the testimonies of S. A. Billig, Max Stein, and the three men from the detective agency show, is that there was a question of authenticity; going by the testimony of the tailor S. A. Billig that the man claiming to be Max Stein falsified a photo of Della and schemed to make him give false witness. Furthermore, the testimony of the detectives showed that Max Stein may in fact have been Lewis Michaels  in disguise,  working for the Holzberg firm for the plaintiff, and whom had a bad reputation for using underhanded means to win cases. The judge ruled to strike the evidence given concerning this by claiming that it did not show “that the Hershfields authorized hiring of perjured testimony.” Going by the newspapers, to sum the situation up, “The defense took exception on the grounds that the plaintiff’s own witnesses testified they had been engaged by Holzberg, and thus the agency was established. Bee is a Helena gambler, who came here as witness for the plaintiff, but testified for the defense,” (Dec 3^rd, 1894 St. Paul globe daily globe article). Even without this evidence counted, however, the fact also remained that no witness against the character of Della Hogan could be found from the city of Helena itself.  

When all was said and done, Judge McConnell ruled in favor of the defendant who was awarded damages including of which required the plaintiff to pay her debts and legal counsel. The prevailing perspective became that Della Hogan’s marriage was valid and that she had been unfairly dumped by her husband, who employed character assassination in an attempt to be rid of her. Keep in mind that in the 1890’s a case such as this would be biased, as far as the public mind was concerned, towards the position of the women unless it could be proved she was not worthy of being seen as a “lady.” As the Grossberg book we read this week points out, the public perception of women’s weakness and dependence could work for them in divorce cases. Even the newspapers touch on this element when they state that “when he spoke of the character of Miss Hogan as a maid, and the fate that awaited her if the whim of a heartless man were to be granted, the court room was filed with the sobs of the aged mother and ladies who have from the outset espoused the cause of the young bride.” (Dec 3^rd, 1894 article in the St. Paul daily globe).

So who was the victor of the war of the Hershfields? Undeniably Della was. But if all the evidence is taken into account, it seems that both sides had their own ambiguities. We may never know why this case was sparked, and so soon after the marriage was indulged, although I suspect from what I have read family involvement on both sides may have played a role in lighting the fuse. And while the case may have been closed and the marriage saved, evidence in newspapers suggests that the underlying animosity was still present afterwards and eventually boiled over into a bad outcome for both parties involved. All and all, this case was merely a prelude to a yet more tragic and ongoing tale, but it is important to study because of what it reveals about gender standards and perceptions of marriage during this time period when both were starting to become in a state of flux.

Saint or sinner: Who was mamie Grover and what was in her pocket?

Just like the “locked door” murders mystery stories are so fond of employing, Mamie Grover’s inquest tells of a woman who “supposedly” committed suicide with a pistol behind a locked door with people still in the house. To unravel the complexity of this death and get a better understanding of the type of person Mamie Grover was the ledger recording the items found in her pocket at time of death is essential. The testimonies of those who knew her on the night of her death are also revealing, in some ways but flawed in others, and thus present only an incomplete or influenced view of what occurred. But read together these two forms of evidence within this primary source can speak to the reader and weave a tale which may prove closer to the truth yet provokes more questions and quandaries.

I must admit, the handwriting was hard for me to decipher, but I tried my best. Going off of witness accounts, Mrs. Grover was alive until about 8 o’clock that evening. Accounts place the pistol in her hand and the door having been locked promptly being pushed down after the shot rang out. Activities such as playing pool and drinking alcohol are mentioned, lending the impression that the space talked about was somewhat social in nature. And yet Mamie was found behind a locked door in a private space- indicating more of an intimate home-like space. It is possible a house party was in progress- but it is equally possible this could have been describing one of the middle to upper level prostitution catering institutions; like the one Helen Jewett worked at as described in the accommodating book we read this week. Furthermore, there seems to have been an argument between Mamie Grover and the witness Mollie Arlington concerning a female and from the why it was phrased this unnamed girl was an employee of some sort, at one point in the past.

But what was the argument really about? What was the relationship that connected all the players involved in this night of tragedy? And finally, who was Mamie Grover and what did she do to make ends meet? These are some of the questions which came to mind while reading the testimonies. I will now use the ledger to throw some light onto the conjectures the witnesses raised.

Going by the ledger, jewelry and clothing and the most cited items. The property she owned must have had a fair amount of room, because several entries are listed as “board.” Interestingly enough, in addition to the board entry two other subdivisions were possible: “Cash” and “Room money.” It leaves one wonders what the difference between room money and board were and why Mrs. Grover felt the need to define them in such a way. It should also be noted that the room money is a steep $5, expensive for the time period. Three other interesting listings were “beer,” “ticket” (theater ticket maybe?) and “express.” Not only were people being lent rooms and given alcohol but also sent letters; more and more this parallels the book we read this week about prostitution in New York where men bought romantic play acting with no strings attached and yet this is taking place almost 50 years after the events of the book. The ledger is very organized and business-like with entries dated by day of the week and month.  

In hearing the voices of the testimony and ledger together I can cautiously deduce that Mamie Grover was likely an unusually sort of women who handled her own business and most probably a madam of a prostitution house. This reading gives one interpretation of why a married woman of this time period would be keeping the financial records, as shown by the ledger in her pocket, instead of the husband. It puts into context what the female worker argued over did and why it might spark a fight if she left for another place of work.  It also helps explain the various entries of “Cash” and “Room money” as well as why money was more often spent on items such as alcohol, clothing and jewelry and “Express” (mail service?) instead of food, linen or other essential but less glamorous items usually mentioned in wills and inquests. Finally, if Mrs. Grover was a madam it helps to explain why, despite owning property and  wealth, she did not have a will made at the time of her death and not many intimate details of her life are recorded (perhaps she wanted them to remain hidden and to become obscured by the wear of time’s passing).

The will of the wills: A comparison and contrast of the last will and testiment of Caroline Carson (1831) and Robert Christian (1857)

I debated between two sets of wills and finally decided to go with the wills of Robert Christian and Caroline Carson for this assignment. These two wills were roughly contemporary in terms of time to one another (1831 compared to 1857) and both seem to have belonged to well to do persons, financially. Also, I frankly was intrigued by how the gender differences of the writers would alter the contents of the wills (or produce mirror results, in certain situations).

The First will I looked at was the Caroline Carson will of 1831. Mrs. Carson was apparently a religious believer, given that she starts her will off by stating “In the name of God Amen.” She continues on the next line to locate herself in the “County of Adams and State of Mississippi” and the listing of slaves below adds further credence and evidence that she lived in a slave state and was likely of the upper middle to upper class going by the the fact that she names $4,500 to relatives in this will ($90,870.35 in today’s adjusted terms) as well as property including 65 acres of land.

Her age is not listed, however the line stating “being of sound mind though feeble in body do make,” leads me to wonder if she is an older lady. True, she could be young and terminally ill, that is a valid alternative reading. The only other clue we get to Mrs. Carson’s age is that at the time this will was written her only named child was not yet old enough to be considered an adult as seen from the line stating “distributed among the said slaves annually thereafter until my son James G. Carson attains his majority.”  So she is old enough to have had a child but not old enough that that child can be seen as an adult.

Within this entire document there is no mention of a husband or other children. This makes me wonder if Mrs. Carson was a widower. Finally, she ends her will by declaring “I hereby appoint my Brother James Green and my son James G. Carson Executors of this my Last Will and Testament” and further giving permission to the two to sell of certain named tracks of land. Unless my memory fails me, this is within the time period where common law is still in effect, and so it is likely intentional that she named the two man beneficiaries as the executors.

The final element of this will I want to point out and explore is the possessions given away, to who, and the treatment of slaves. Three siblings (Brother James Green, Sister Eliza C. Woods, and Sister Matilda S. Railey), her son (James G. Carson), and five slaves (Jesse, Mima, Jinney and Suckey, Ned Morris) are listed as being beneficiaries of this will. Her “carriage and carriage horses” was given to her brother but with a clause that Mrs. Woods her sister could also use it. Mrs. Carson’s furniture and jewelry was split between her two sisters. Various sums of money, some with conditions set in place on their spending, were split between the siblings, the son, and to a much lesser extent the slaves. Of the siblings, the brother made out best both in slaves bequeathed and money awarded (2,000). The money payout and amount of slaves was equal for the two sisters (1,000). The son was most favored and acquired at his maturity the “entire remainder of my real and personal estate.”

The treatment of the slaves was revealing. 500 dollars was set aside for the five slaves listed as beneficiaries, pending certain conditions. All were promised emancipation pending how the siblings of Mrs. Carson judged their faithfulness. A clause was put into effect for one, Ned Morris, to be emancipated with his wife Suckey, which struck me as a consideration typical of a female will but less common in men’s wills of this period, as will be seen when the other will is reviewed.

Robert Christian’s 1857 will is similar to Mrs. Carson’s but differs at telling points. Like Mrs. Carson he is a native of the south, claiming to live in “Augusta County, Virginia.” Given the amount of slaves listed as well as money, it is safe to say he was a well off man. In fact, by converting the amount of money listed in his will to today’s standards it appears he had around $18,492.80 to give away, to his daughters at any rate. This does not take into account the 41 named slaves, of which value would have ranged at this time period anywhere from $300 to $1100 (unadjusted sums) each.

From the fact most of his children are married it makes sense to assume he was likely older than Mrs. Carson when he wrote this. His will does not start with any religious language and quickly gets down to business. Unlike in the first will, this will makes mention of debts and dictates who will have control of the money given them (in the case of female beneficiaries) and who will be safe from the responsibility of repaying debts.  The vocabulary used is much more legal and authoritative in nature.

There is a stark difference in what the son and daughters are awarded in this will. The son is favored in that he is provided with all the lands Mr. Christian owns as well as “all my farm stock, utensils, household and kitchen furniture, and all the rest and residue of my estate and effects of any kind whatever as may consist at the time of my decease,” and responsibility for any debts. The daughters each are provided $200, two of which are for their “sole use” and one of which had conditions on the spending attached. In total one son and 4 daughters were provided for in this will. Only one daughter was given a provision for land, Sarah, and that was to be as much as her sisters got when they married (amount unspecified).

How Mr. Christian handles the passing of slaves is interesting. Unlike Mrs. Carson, Mr. Christian works in no provisions for emancipation for his slaves. Instead, he divides them among his children and works in provisions to ensure if the children die they will stay within the family, unless sold by the executioners, whom were given the power to manage their status. The son received no slaves while three daughters received 9, 7, and 10 slaves a piece respectably (the unmarried daughter got none).

Finally he ends his will, like Mrs. Carson, by appointing his “son John Christian, and my brother-in-law Samuel H. Bell” as the executioners. Once more, like the first will, it is a son and a sibling who are selected.

Annotated Maps for the post preceding this.

EDIT: Ninjafixed typo on second map.