Mutiny in the Continental Army of Washington

M.Streich

1781 began with ominous tiding sent to George Washington from Brigadier General Anthony Wayne in Morristown, New Jersey. Large numbers of soldiers from the Pennsylvania Line had mutinied and were marching to Philadelphia to demand an end to their deprivations. For Washington, the news came after the events of 1780, all of which pointed to despair for the Patriot cause: in the South, Charleston had fallen to the British; Benedict Arnold had defected to the British and would forever be known as a traitor, and the British seemed stronger than ever, waiting out the winter in heavily fortified New York. The mutiny of Pennsylvania soldiers merely added to the despondency felt by the leaders of the Revolution.

 

Payment Grievances and Camp Conditions

 

By the end of 1780, morale in many of the regiments was low. Soldiers had not been paid and when they were, it was in Continental currency, issued by the Congress in Philadelphia. This paper currency was practically worthless. Historian Carl Van Doren comments that, “…a soldier’s pay for an entire year was worth only about a dollar in silver.” The phrase “not worth a continental” was rooted in this period of American History.

 

Many mutineers in January 1781 complained that they had never received promised bounties for enlisting. Others that had received bounties were cheated out of their money, often by their own officers. Their own state government in Philadelphia had exhausted all financial resources. According to Van Doren, “Pennsylvania might be, as Washington said, full of flour, but had no money to buy it with…”

 

The soldiers that finally mutinied in Morristown and marched on to Princeton had no fresh bread, no meat, and little alcohol to consume – all part of their daily ration. One of the first tasks General Wayne accomplished after accompanying the men to Princeton was to prevail upon the local inhabitants to feed the hungry men. This did much to dispel angry feelings and avoid their pillaging the countryside.

 

British Attempts to Recruit Pennsylvania Mutineers

 

Sir Henry Clinton in New York endorsed a concerted effort to send appeals to the mutineers at Princeton and later at Trenton. These appeals offered amnesty, cash bounties, and promises of employment – on paper, British soldiers were paid far less than the Continentals, but in reality their pay was still worth something as the patriot currency kept declining in value.

 

British agents managed to bring Clinton’s proposals to the mutineers, led by a committee of sergeants, but were apprehended and turned over to Anthony Wayne. Eventually sent to Trenton under heavy guard, the two captured spies were tried and hung. But there were other efforts on the part of the British as well as double-agents that worked both sides of the conflict for a price. There is ample evidence, however, that the mutineers had no intention of supporting the British or loyalist cause.

 

End of the Pennsylvania Line’s Mutiny

 

Following several days of negotiations that began in Princeton, the mutiny ended in Trenton and more than 1200 men were discharged, based on their sworn statements that their enlistments should have ended sooner, that their wages had not been paid, and that some enlistments were tied to excessive drinking! Recruiters used rum to seal the enlistments when the Revolution first began.

 

As the mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line was ending, another, smaller mutiny erupted among New Jersey troops encamped at Pompton. Although their grievances paralleled those of the Pennsylvania Line, reaction was swift and decisive. Washington himself dealt with the uprising, surrounding the men at Chatham and authorizing the execution of two ringleaders. Rumors that more units were close to mutiny contributed to Washington’s prompt response.

 

Results of the 1781 Mutinies

 

Discipline within the Continental Army strengthened as a result of the early 1781 mutinies. Additionally, colonial assemblies took a more proactive role in supplying Washington with supplies, especially in New England. Swift suppression of the munities may have also facilitated greater French support in terms of loans used to purchase clothing as well as ammunition from Europe.

 

Van Doren suggests that the mutinies contributed to greater unity among the colonies, pointing out that Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation at the end of January 1781 and that the Congress in Philadelphia published them on March 1^st.

 

The mutinies also demonstrated how vulnerable the cause of independence had become. Had Sir Henry Clinton sent troops into New Jersey, a risk he was reluctant to take, negotiations with the mutineers and their officers might have been jeopardized. At the same time, the leadership of Washington, Anthony Wayne, Lafayette, and numerous other officers characterized an effective command that used wisdom and decisive action to unify the Army while doing everything possible to address sincere grievances.

 

References:

 

Carl Van Doren, Mutiny in January (The Viking Press, 1943)

Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses:” The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (Overlook Press, 2002)

Page Smith, A New Age Now Begins: A People’s History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2. (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints require written permission]

 

 Beware the Demagogue in American History

The presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt began in 1933 following the "Great Depression" which saw millions of Americans left unemployed and in poverty. At the time, numerous groups from the so-called "far right" to the left clamored for power, each promising a new and permanent solution to the growing national crisis. This was also the time dictators in Europe capitalized on the worldwide depression. Hitler took power, for example, in 1933, the same year FDR became president.

One of the most vociferous demagogues of that time was Huey Long, the "Kingfish" from Louisiana who gained power and popularity first in his home state and then throughout the South. At first, he supported FDR but by the mid-term elections had begun to explore his own possible run for the presidency. Like other disparate voices at the time, Long was, according the historian Albert Fried, a "...master of dissimulation." If Twitter had existed during Long's life, he would have been disconnected for spreading misinformation.

Long was believed by millions. Yet, as Fried wrote, Long was, "an unprincipled rowdy, a threat to the American Commonwealth." Fried quotes another writer who called Long a "Pied Piper"..."leading America to dictatorship." Fortunately, before Long could cause more harm, he was assassinated in Baton Rouge. Long, however, was not the only threat to American democracy in our history. Such men existed ever since the founding of the nation. Men like Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

One of the primary duties of the citizenry is to constantly be aware of political and social events and to know the history of the American nation. Edmund Burke reputedly said that, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

For further reading, quotes taken from

Albert Fried, FDR and His Enemies. 1999, Palgrave; St.  Martin's Press. 

Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria: Mad or Just Eccentric? Michael Streich

The royal palaces of Ludwig II of Bavaria represented the king’s fantasy life and provided a retreat from the real world for a man historian Paola Calore equates with a narcissistic personality. Unlike the other great castles and palaces build by 18^th and 19^th century kings and queens, Neuschwanstein, Linderhof, and Herrenchiemsee never hosted official state functions. These extensions of Ludwig’s fantasy life demonstrated his infatuation with Louis XIV and France as well as old German legends and Nordic sagas. Neuschwanstein particularly conformed to the images brought to life by the operas of Richard Wagner over which the king obsessed. This was Ludwig’s tribute to the Holy Grail, a fitting resting place for his wandering soul.

 

Ludwig’s Early Life

 

Born into the Wittelsbach ruling family in 1845, Ludwig was never prepared to become king at the age of 18. His Prussian mother spent little time with him while his father attended to affairs of state. Influenced by the forests and mountains surrounding the family estate at Hohenschwangau, legendary home of medieval knights, Ludwig withdrew into his own world.

 

According to his mother, Queen Marie, Ludwig, as a child, developed an interest in art, enjoyed building, and “loved dressing up as a nun.” Unlike his younger brother Otto who played with tin soldiers, Ludwig preferred to read and became particularly interested in the Gothic romanticism of Sir Walter Scott. He admired William Tell and as a teen began to read Richard Wagner’s libretti for Lohengrin and Tannhauser. Shy, introspective, and hypersensitive, Ludwig hated to be touched by others.

 

Ludwig’s “Sacred Places”

 

Ludwig became king of Bavaria at 18 following the unexpected death of his father Max. It was a time of war as Bismarck was beginning the process of German unification. Unprepared for political leadership, Ludwig retreated whenever possible into his dream world, beginning the construction of Neuschwanstein castle September 5, 1869. In conjunction with his Wagnerian infatuation, Ludwig’s Romanesque castle would glorify the old German legends of Parsifal and Lohengrin, the latter a mythical knight of the Swan.

 

This “temple dedicated to Wagnerian creativity,” according to one historian, became Ludwig’s private fantasy retreat. The Festival Hall was a recreation of the Room of the Bards at the Wartburg Castle. The walls were filled with symbols and images of Germanic legend. Days before his death on September 5, 1869, Ludwig requested that his sacred places, so named by Cabinet Secretary Friedrich von Ziegler, be destroyed after he died.

 

Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee

 

Both Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee were Ludwig’s monuments to his idol, Louis XIV of France, the “Sun King.” The smallest of Ludwig’s castles, Linderhof was the only one completed before his death. Modeled on Versailles, Linderhof was Ludwig’s private place of retreat where he could relive the past. Paintings throughout the palace glorify court life at Versailles as well as the men and women that dominated court life both under Louis XIV and Louis V.

 

Ancillary structures added to the ambience. The grotto was a tribute to the Mount of Venus and may have been influenced by the Blue Grotto of Capri. The Moorish Kiosk reflected an Arabian influence. One of Ludwig’s never-begun projects included a Byzantine Palace.

 

Herrenchiemsee represented Ludwig’s attempt to reproduce Versailles. Like Linderhof, the underlying ideological foundation was royal absolutism. This is best seen in the construction of the 300-foot grand gallery of mirrors, a reproduction of the famous Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. In both palaces, the king’s bed chamber served as the central room, conforming to the life of Louis XIV. The staircase in the southern wing of the palace is an exact reproduction of the Ambassador’s Staircase at Versailles.

 

Death of Ludwig

 

In 1886 Ludwig was deposed and declared mentally incompetent. Several days later, he mysteriously drowned in Lake Starnberg. Neuschwanstein was opened as a museum three days after his death.

 

Sources:

 

Wilfred Blunt, The Dream King: Ludwig II of Bavaria (Viking Press, 1970)

Paola Calore, “Neuschwanstein,” Royal Palaces (Barnes & Noble Books, 2006)

Christopher McIntosh, Ludwig II of Bavaria: The Swan King (Barnes & Noble Books, 1982)

“Royal Castles of Ludwig II,” German Embassy video, West Glen Communications

 

 Teaching the 1950's

 

 

It was the time of Elvis, the birth of McDonald’s, TV dinners, bomb shelters, and consumerism. White Americans were moving to the suburbs, leaving people of color in the cities. Detroit was developing new lines of popular autos, and the nation was at peace. For many decades after the 1950s, Americans looked back on this time of conformity with nostalgia as the “good old days.” Teaching the 1950s probably offers more creative opportunities than any other era in American history. It should be noted, however, that this decade of conformity was unequal and segregation still played a major role in dividing people.

 

Fun Projects and Activities that Highlight Life in the 1950s

 

Highlighting foods associated with the 1950s is a good way to show changes in social and cultural habits. Students can bring in aluminum trays to simulate TV dinners. Divide the students in groups so that each group is responsible for bringing in finished ingredients to put into the trays. Using video or DVD, teachers can show TV shows popular with Americans at meal time. Laura Shapiro’s excellent book, Something from the Over: Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America (Viking, 2004) gives a wonderful history of food and how it was prepared and served during this decade.

 

If the teacher has access to books from the 1950s, a very creative lesson plan can highlight how certain literature affected life and thinking in the 1950s. These can be history books, parenting books (such as the Childcraft series), and even magazines from the 1950s. Divide the sources among student groups with instructions to identify specific 1950s advice, advertisement, and, in the case of old history books, what was left out (African American contributions, women’s contributions, etc.).

 

Using 1950s and early 1960s board games as part of a lesson plan can be very rewarding. The original, vintage board game Life, although making its appearance in 1961, is an excellent example of how such games were used to teach social expectations: getting married, making money, buying insurance, and working toward the American Dream of “Millionaire Acres.” The game also includes warnings for the non-conformist: nobody wants to end up at the “poor farm.”

 

Another fun class room project can involve turning the room into a mock bomb shelter. Have students research family bomb shelters and bring into class as many items as possible to turn the class into a shelter. Students can explain their artifacts (or modern equivalents). Focus the lesson plan on the birth of the atomic era, the fears of atomic war, Civil Defense, and why Americans no longer follow such practices. End the class showing the famous “Duck and Cover” commercial that can be obtained on YouTube.

 

Individual or Group Presentations

 

Although there are many creative activities that can be formed into a daily lesson plan, allowing students to do presentations on a variety of aspects of the 1950s encourages classroom engagement and student creativity. In order to avoid duplication and highlight the most salient elements of America in the 1950s, teachers can post and distribute project topics that students can select from.

 

Using the 1950s as a contrast to 2009, students can explore why the 50s decade was prosperous in contrast to contemporary times. Lessons in consumer spending, manufacturing, and consumer credit may produce good discussion and analysis. This can also include comparisons of the early Cold War years with the current “War on Terror.”

 

Teaching the 1950s can be the most exciting and interesting unit students will explore. For contemporary teens, the 50s marks the first step in young America achieving a unique and distinctly different identity from earlier decades. This may be one reason students can’t get enough of the 1950s.

 Attila the Hun Confronts Pope Leo the Great

Michael Streich

The meeting between Attila, the “Scourge of God,” and Pope Leo the Great on the banks of the Mincio River in the summer of AD 452 has become the subject of sermons, works of art, and Hollywood movies. The pope’s turning back of Attila the Hun was, in the words of 18^th Century historian Gibbon, a “noble legend.” Both men benefited from the arrangement yet Attila’s reasons are still largely unclear.

 

Attila, King of the Huns

 

The Huns originated in eastern Asia where they were known as Hsiung-Nu, attacking northern China and causing, in part, the building of the Great Wall. Superb horsemen, Hunnish cavalry was unequaled as was their ruthlessness. The Huns arrived in the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5^th Century, originally trading with the Romans and accepting tribute.

 

As relations deteriorated and tribute was ended, the Huns invaded the empire. Attila, whose kingship was consolidated after murdering his brother, entered the Eastern Empire in 447. In 450, he crossed the Rhine, in the Western Empire, with 300,000 to 700,000 men, depending upon which source is to be believed.

 

At the battle of Chalons, considered an historically decisive battle, the Roman General Aetius defeated the Huns with substantial help from the Visigoths. Temporarily defeated, Attila withdrew. By 452, however, he was ready to invade Italy with the intention of taking Rome.

 

Pope Leo the Great

 

Catholic historian Gustav Schnurer writes that Leo I “signifies…the high point of the papacy in Christian antiquity.” Pope Leo has also been referred to as the “father of the medieval papacy.” Part of this accolade stems from his meeting with Attila, yet Leo was also a superb church administrator.

 

Leo’s meeting with Attila occurred half way through his 21-year pontificate. A spiritual man who had fought the Manichaean heresy and championed the sanctity of Christian marriage, Leo was trusted and appeared the logical choice to confront Attila.

 

The Pope and Attila at Mincio

 

Pope Leo was joined by Trigetius, Praetorian Prefect of Rome, and Gennadius Avienus, a politician. Contrary to the works of art, such as Raphael’s “Repulse of Attila” in the Vatican Stanze which shows the Hunnish king and the Roman pope meeting on horses, the parlay was conducted in Attila’s tent.

 

Given the absence of written records of the meeting, not much is known about the conversations. Pope Symmachus, writing at the end of the century, mentions Attila’s return of prisoners which may indicate the payment of a ransom. The Huns were often bought off with gold. One legend, recounted in the Gallic Chronicle, relates that Pope Leo was flanked by the spirits of St. Peter and St. Paul, frightening Attila into submission.

 

Attila Withdraws from Italy

 

Financial payment is the most likely reason Attila spared Rome. Yet historians have identified other important factors. Attila’s army had entered Italy in the midst of famine and plague, most likely malaria. At the same time, the Eastern Emperor, Marcian, had dispatched troops across the Danube, threatening to cut-off the Huns.

 

Finally, Attila’s own advisors recounted the tale of Alaric who had earlier plundered Rome but died soon thereafter. The Pope’s visit to Attila’s tent occurred amidst all of these elements. It is very possible that at the time of the meeting, Attila was already predisposed to withdrawing north.

 

Attila died shortly after these events from a nosebleed on his wedding night and was buried in a secret spot. The Scourge of God, however, would be long remembered in legend and myth, as would his meeting with Leo the Great.

 

Sources:

 

Patrick Howarth, Attila the Hun: the Man and the Myth (Barnes & Noble, 1994)

Philip Matyszak, The Enemies of Rome from Hannibal to Attila the Hun (Thames and Hudson, 2004)

Gustav Schnurer, Church and Culture in the Middle Ages (St. Anthony Guild Press, 1956)

 [copyright owned by michael streich]

 Judas the Betrayer   Michael Streich

History contains many stories of heinous betrayal. Brutus betrayed Caesar for misguided reasons; Benedict Arnold and Vidkun Quisling are modern examples of men that betrayed a cause and their countries. Yet the greatest betrayer is Judas Iscariot, one of the chosen twelve disciples of Jesus. The medieval poet Dante consigns Judas to the lowest level of hell in his Inferno. The story of Judas is not only one of betrayal, but of how greed and selfishness led to hypocrisy and ultimately separation from God.

 

Who was Judas Iscariot?

 

Judas was the only one of the twelve who was not Galilean. The name “Iscariot,” attributed also to his father Simon, links him to southern Judaea, most likely identified with Kerioth. Scholar Colin Kerr cites Judas’ “nefarious character” from the very beginning of his call to be one of the twelve. He was assigned the task of treasurer for the group – the keeper of the purse. Most Bible scholars suggest that Judas had a good business sense and was thus entrusted with the responsibility.

 

But Judas was an embezzler. John, writing in 12: 4ff, comments on Judas’ response to Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet during a Passover visit to Bethany: “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” John makes it clear that Judas was not thinking of the poor, but “because he was a thief” and coveted the lost revenues.

 

At the time of Christ, one denarius represented a day’s wages. John also points out that the “genuine spikenard-ointment” was “very costly.” Charles Williams’ 1937 translation rendered the cost at sixty dollars. By most accounts, the implication was that Mary had wasted a small fortune in the eyes of Judas.

 

The Last Supper and the Betrayal

 

Jesus had always known that Judas would betray him, yet he held open the door until Judas’ departure from the last meal. In John 6:66, many of Jesus’ disciples left and walked “with him no more.” Although the twelve remained true, Jesus stated that “Did I myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil.” The same term is used by John in chapter 13 when he wrote that during the supper, the devil had already “put into the heart” of Judas the act of betrayal.

 

Before the meal, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples saying that “you are now clean, but not all.” During the meal, Jesus inaugurated a debate after stating “one of you shall betray me.” “Lord, who is it?” asked John. Jesus dipped a morsel and gave it to Judas. After taking the bread, according to the Scripture, “Satan entered” Judas.

 

The interpretation of this passage has proven most difficult within various Christian faith traditions. Was the “morsel” or bread the Eucharist? John only states that Judas took it from Jesus. Was his possible rejection of the given bread the final separation – he left the room immediately after the event? Judas never approached the last supper with a pure heart. He had already contracted with the high priests to betray or give up Jesus to his enemies.

 

The Kiss and Thirty Pieces of Silver

 

The height of blasphemous behavior was the betrayal with a kiss. In the history of church formation, the kiss of peace, an important part of the liturgy, represented the love Christians had for each other, the same love John would later detail in his epistles. Yet Judas’ kiss was an act of hatred. For this he was paid thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 27). How typical is Judas of those who outwardly profess faith yet strive to “gain the world and lose their soul?” As one scholar noted, “the cancer of his greed spread from the material to the spiritual.”

 

Sources:

 

Colin Kerr, “Judas Iscariot,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Volume III)

Herbert Lockyer, All the Men of the Bible (Zondervan Books, 1958)

New American Bible (World Publishers, 1970)

The New Testament in the Language of the People, Charles B. Williams (Moody Press, 1963)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints require written permission]