Great Feuds in History ~ Colin Evans ~ 8/02 ~ Hist Export

Welcome to GREAT FEUDS IN HISTORY
by Colin Evans

" The author knows how to write a lively narrative, swiftly paced but always clearly directed. Everywhere there are consequences to pay, both for the victor and the vanquished: Moldy old Queen Elizabeth doesn't stand a chance against Mary, Queen of Scots, on the popularity front (but that didn't keep the redhead's melon attached to her neck). Aaron Burr's good aim killed more than Alexander Hamilton-it assassinated his own public reputation, as well.

Equally malignant was the battle between the Hatfields and the McCoys, which all started with a pig and ended generations later in the Supreme Court. There are the creepy turf wars of Patton and Montgomery that may have directly led to the death of thousands of troops, the ugly little tiff between LBJ and RFK that sent both down in flames, and Hoover's grotesqueries in his struggle to subdue Martin Luther King Jr. The match between Stalin and Trotsky best sums up the ruinous and tawdry nature of these affairs-the real prize sought by such elephantine egos (i.e., power beyond the scope of all adversaries) was simply too big to be wielded with decency, much less greatness. Everyone loves a good fight, especially on the world stage, and Evans calls these contests with skill and flair." ----------From Kirkus Reviews

LINKS

Mary, Queen of Scots
Queen Elizabeth
Images of the Face of Elizabeth Hamilton and Burr
The Hatfields and McCoys
Bernard Law Montgomery
George Patton
Wallis Simpson, The Duchess of Windsor
LIFE/ Hatfield & McCoys with Photos
"Devil" Anse Hatfield
Hatfield/McCoy Photo Gallery
Perspectives on RFK
Lyndon Baines Johnson

Comments? Write Harriet

Readers' Guide for Great Feuds in History

Click box to suggest books
for future discussion!

Doesn't this sound fun? "Ten of the liveliest disputes ever" - we could choose up sides? No? Just decide for ourselves why the people involved couldn't work out a compromise, what we would do in a similar situation - could we ever be this harsh toward another human being?

These are high-stakes personal conflicts that had a lasting impact on the societies around them and on generations that followed.

If we get three people who are interested, we can decide on a date convenient to all.

Here's a new members first try in the club. The possibilities for discussion look good.

Another book I've looked at is "Toqueville in America" by Georgen Wilson Pierson, in which his travels to parts of this new country and reports of his feelings about it to France.

Marv Tower6

Hi, Marv and welcome! Is this your first book club venture with us? If so you will really enjoy it and I hope it gets a quorum so it can.

Our Fearless Non Fiction Coordinator Ella is awaiting a brand new computer by mail, hers fried (I think from all the energy she shares with us all, but you definitely have come to the right place and Ella will be so excited to see you here.

Robby Iadeluca led a terriffic discussion about a year ago about Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America and you might enjoy his current discussion the Story of Civilization, just click here to make his acquaintence, you all think alike: The Story of Civlization.

Wherever you go you are welcome here and in aplendid company, welcome aboard!

ginny

Hi, Marv! Saw your post and wanted to welcome you in here.

This looks like it might be a really fun discussion. I think I'll order the book. I'll keep looking in to see if we can get a quorum.

Lorrie

HELLO MARV! AND LORRIE!

I'm in the process of learning a new computer that is more complicated than my old one and somewhat regretting my purchase! Perhaps I should have repaired my old one?

Oh, I do hope both of you will stay interested in this book until we get one more participant and then we can set a date - possibly in July???

What do you think? Would August be better?

WE DO WANT TO WELCOME YOU, MARV, INTO OUR BOOKS and hope you will join us and feel right at home, as we all have done, it's a family!

Do stop by again real soon and we'll see if someone else has posted of their interest.

Hi MARV. I want to add my welcome to all the others. We love meeting new folks. Great to have you aboard!

We always need at least three people (aside from the discussion leaders) to express interest in a book before it is scheduled as an actual discussion.

Are you still planning on joining us? This book looks like so much fun and we hope to get it on the discussion schedule sometime soon, providing we find enough potential participants.

Please let us know if you're planning on discussing the book with us. Every interested party brings us closer to what looks like an amusing and lively account of people and their peculiarities.

DO plan on joining us, MARV.

Harriet

Count me in, Harriet!

Lorrie

LORRIE!

How very nice to see you here. I hope we get a quorum because this book looks like fun.

Harriet

This looks like fun! Count me in too.

Marvelle

How great! Welcome, MARVELLE! We're moving right along here.

Hopefully, we'll soon be deep into the disputes of OTHER people. I've noticed that those are the ones that are usually the easiest to solve. ( tee-hee)

Harriet

This looks like an interesting book...so I think I will join, if you will have me.

Oh, THIS IS JUST GREAT! HELLO NELLIE - WE ARE SO HAPPY YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND I THINK WE NOW HAVE THE REQUISITE NUMBER TO SET A DATE!

WHY DON'T ALL OF YOU TELL HARRIET AND I WHEN YOU WANT TO START AND WE WILL SEE IF IT'S A GOOD TIME FOR US, OKAY?

DOES EVERYONE HAVE THE BOOK!

HARRIET - that was funny - and so true!

Looks like August is open for me but will squeeze this book discussion into July if that's better for the group. I ordered the book and hope it comes in soon. (I wanna choose sides and play Moldy Olde Queen Elizabeth cause I'm tired of losing my head.)

Marvelle

Harriet, and Ella!

I ordered the book, and it looks like either July or August is fine with me. Ta, Ta!

Lorrie

Hahahaaa Marvelle! Let me check out August in our schedule and I'll get back with all of you. The book describes Queen Elizabeth as being jealous, spiteful and hypocritical - now I know you are none of these, but you might still choose Elizabeth because Queen Mary was hotheaded, amoral and probably an accessory to murder!

What a decision!

Hey, MARVELLE! I'm picking up the book, ORCHID FEVER, at the Library today! So be expecting to see a new PROPOSED DISCUSSION soon!

An August date for this discussion seems to be fine with our Schedule Coordinator. We will be looking forward to it!

August sounds good...it will give me time to get the book.

Wont it be fun to play "Off with her head!"?? Wonder how we'll really feel once we starting reading about Liz & Mary?

Marvelle

Hi all,

I hope this discussion is still a go. I just got the book today! It looks pretty good.

Becky

Welcome, BECKY

It certainly is a go on the discussion, Becky. We start on August 1st... with bells on. I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions.

See you then, BECKY!

Harriet

What a gorgeous heading! Very original indeed and I already have an answer to that first question.

Mustn't rush though, we'll have plenty of time to talk about (gossip?) these unique people in history.

Too hot to do anything else but stay inside!

It's strange that you use the word "gossip," Ella. It's always been my private mind set that all history is really just gossip that's a little bit out of date., That's part of why I enjoy history so much. I feel it's such a vital, pulsing story of people and events. Many years ago I sat, enthralled, in a history classroom while my instructor described how Queen Marie Antoinette had fled her pursuers in her nightshift during the French revolution. What delicious scandal for that era! What terrifying problems! I do love the humanizing of history.

Let's look at two fascinating monarchs: Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart. Both women were royal cousins of similar age. They each wore a crown and were accomplished, bright women. One would think that there would be much to spur a friendship. So then, WHAT HAPPENED? Why would each of these cousins have wished for the death of the other? Why did Elizabeth finally sign the death warrant of Mary Stuart? I wonder how this episode of history might have changed if these two cousins had allowed themselves some personal contact?

For any beginners to SN book discussions: of course you can read ahead in the book as much as you wish but please, let's all talk about the same Feud sequentially at the same time, following along the framework of the reading schedule posted above. Let's talk to each other, and most of all, let's have fun with this.

Each feud is suffficiently complex so that many whole books can and have been written on it. However, the pace at which we will discuss each one here suggests a lighter approach, so feel free to give your personal opinion on the character and proclivities of the principal characters and let's allow ourselves the luxury of indulging in a few fun speculations and "what ifs." For instance, although they were cousins, Elizabeth and Mary never met personally in their lifetimes. Imagine if these two royals had played together affectionately as children? Would history have been changed? How? What similarities do you see in these two queens? What differences? Would the course of Mary Stuart's queenship have changed if Mary had accepted Elizabeth's suggestion to marry Lord Robert Dudley instead of Lord Darnley? How?

I'm so eager to hear your opinions.

Harriet

HELLO HARRIET!

Good questions you supplied us with to begin this book discussion, I'm hoping several will stop in and join in the fun. Because in a sense we cannot alter the main facts of history, we can only wonder why and that's just what we'll do.

Why these two women were so spiteful toward each other - of course, a throne was in jeopardy - but I couldn't begin to decide which was the worst example of femininity, shrewdness, spitefulness, jealouly.

I rather imagine that being an American one cannot possibly understand what a throne means to an individual; can we compare it to the presidency in our country?

Of course, it means power and that is just what these women wanted, don't you think?

Religion was involved - true; protestantism vs. catholicism, but I wonder if we would remove the religious aspect of this feud if these two women would not have had the same relationship. They are just nasty women!

So many aspects to consider in the story, but when I first opened the book and read about Martin Luther (you do forget these names easily and the consequences one person can have on history) it reminded me of Dr. Martin Luther King and the possibility that he was named after Martin Luther - think so?

I could talk on and on about these women - why didn't Elizabeth just marry and have an heir? The book said she was distrustful of heirs - well, if I were one of her children I would have had good reason not to love this woman. Or can we believe everything we read?

Enough, enough, this is going to be such fun!

Oh golly, starting on the 16th you begin taking up four of my favorite people, Patton (whose grave in Luxembourg I just visited) and Montgomery and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

I bet you I have read 10 books on Wallis and Edward, did you all see that documentary on PBS last Sunday The Windsors? I have never known so much movie footage of George V existed. I'm going to have to get the book and catch up. Never understood the Hatfields and the McCoys and remember crying over Mary Queen of Scots but can't remember why.

THIS looks like an absolutely super discussion, I'll be back!

ginny

Harriet, you ask what if?

My sister and I fought like cats and dogs all the while we were growing up. If Elizabeth and Mary were anything like us, it's lucky that Mary was even able to keep her head, and I mean that literally!!

This is a fun discussion----I'm going to get the book!

Lorrie

For many years I have been interested in the Elizabethan Renaissance. So, this discussion sounds great to me. My first thoughts concerning question 1. Do you see the dispute between Elizabeth and Mary as primarily personal or ideological? Why? Both. Elizabeth was very jealous of her crown. She stayed married to England rather than share the throne. Elizabeth really didn't think that her cousin wanted the crown of England. Elizabeth 'put up with' her cousin because they were family.

I do not have a copy of the book. However, this discussion sounds fun, so I hope you don't mind if I jump and give my humble opinion.

I'm halfway through the book and enjoying it immmensly -- the book is fast paced, focused, full of information. Each chapter starts figuratively with a racing tout handicapping the race -- telling us if the horse is a mudder, or shies at noise (strengths/weaknesses of the competitors) and the prize at stake.

Elizabeth was jealous, hotheaded, and had to be the 'fairest in the land'; flighty, amorous Mary was too much the rival in looks and in accomplishment of the social graces.

I don't think the results of this rivalry would have been any different even if the free-loving Mary had accepted Elizabeth's choice of a husband for her. Elizabeth would have schemed to influence Mary through the new husband, Mary would have her affairs and everything would become messy and tragic. These are two headstrong women. We know who keeps her head and who loses hers but how this happens is what fascinates.

Those shoddy clothes are horrifying symbols of the advantage won through psychology and pure malice.

Marvelle

Many Welcomes, Ginny!! and GinnyAnn!!

Twice as many Ginny's are twice as nice!

HOW LOVELY TO COME IN AND SEE ALL YOUR POSTS. You present such interesting points to consider. ELLA points up how shrewd, manipulative and jealous Elizabeth was. I do agree, and I also do wonder if Elizabeth Tudor could have survived long enough to ascend the throne of England if she had not actively nurtured those negative traits in herself.

If we look at her childhood, Elizabeth's mother was beheaded by her father in her very early childhood. So, maybe Elizabeth learned to distrust male power within marriage? Then she herself was disowned by that same adored and feared father. The precocious child became aware of her diminished status when those around her began to address her as the lady Elizabeth instead of Princess Elizabeth. She grew up associated with a royal court headed by her erratic, all-powerful father, and surrounded by hotbeds of threatening, political intrigue. She saw three more stepmothers displease the king and be discarded or lose their heads. She watched one final beloved stepmother cling tenaciously to life and power. Elizabeth wanted passionately to keep her own head on her shoulders. She grew into a survivor...a consummate politician, guileful and manipulative, jealous of her status and very, VERY wary of men.

LORRIE, you made a perceptive statement about childhood intimacy Yet, in the case of Elizabeth, the warm feelings that existed between herself and Lord Robert Dudley originated when they shared many of the dangers of growing up together. Oh I hope you do get a chance to get the book, please. I'll be so delighted if you're able to stop by and visit here.

more...

Thanks, Hariret, I agree with Lorrie, what an exciting group and book assembling here! I wish the book would come!

Those of you who have it, does the book mention anything at all about Bloody Mary? This dynasty thing is quite complicated, does the book take up...have you all seen the painting of Henry pointing to his son as heir? What was the actual succession when Henry died?

Keith Michell's wonderful portrayal of Henry VIII on PBS is available on video, for those wanting super background, it's smashing.

I simply can't recall, wasn't Mary the first born? Who ascended the thrne upon Henry's death? I think she also (wasn't she the daughter of Katharnie of Aragon?) was called The Lady Mary? Not sure? Her mother was put aside by Henry citing scripure, the Pope's refusal to grand an annulment causing the break with Rome and the beginning of the Churdh (Episcopal: Protestant: in England) but apparently she preceeded Elixabeth to the throne.

I've always been confused on the Marys and when they came to power: Mary Queen of Scots, and Bloody Mary, does the book take up the "other Mary?" Talk about Elizabeth's having stress hahahahaha

There's also a fabulous "Elixabeth" by....is it one of the Redgraves? Another PBS series, think I will see if I can get it and if it will add anything at all to my understanding of what's going on with Elizabeth and the two Marys.

Would anybody like to borrow the Keith Michell videos of The Six Wives of Henry VIII? It's a set, brilliantly done?

ginny

Good morning, everyone! My daughter is here visiting so don't want to take much time posting. However, Ginny, I'll tell you what this book states in regard to Henry VIII - who can remember all the details of the man's life, mistresses, wives, children, his successors. He was such a brutal man - do you remember the Beatles' song "HENRY VIII I AM, I AM?"

Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon; then as a result of Henry founding the Church of England as the Pope would not grant him a divorce, he married Anne Boleyn (who was already pregnant) who produced a daughter, Elizabeth, (eventually the queen), but first her demented half-sister, daughter of Catherine, - Bloody Mary - was on the throne for 5 years and she must have inherited her father's cruelty as she had 250 Protestants burned at the stake.

Elizabeth was crowned Queen after Mary's death and hence our tale begins.

Both Elizabeth and Queen Mary of Scotland (cousins) at times attempted to kill each other and eventually Mary was convicted of treason and Queen Elizabeth signed her death warrant.

Do the children of England read about this brutality, this scheming for the throne, in their history books? Well, of course, they would have to - we, too, have had a few incidents in our history of political leaders that are shameful.

But in the era that we know of - the 20th century - they crowned heads of Europe, or England, were more civilized do you agree?

One quote, perhaps, puts Queen Elizabeth in perspective:

"Few would deny Elizabeth's place in history as one of the first truly 'modern women', emancipated, powerful, not just some sexual chatterl, but a vibrant, independent ruler who left her country in far better shape than she found it."

In what ways? Who knows? Don't have the time to do the research?

later, ella

GINNY, I absolutely ADORED the TV special on the Six Wives of Henry VIII. Where did you ever find it? Is it in the video stores? It started me on an exploration of Tudor times and the reading of a whole bunch of related books. I haven't seen that production in years. I was also fascinated by the PBS series on Elizabeth I, starring Glenda Jackson. I've always thought that Jackson was the ultimate portrayer of Elizabeth. What a dynamite performance! Again, it exists only in my memory. I think those TV specials were current before I ever owned a VCR. Boy, I sure wish I had taped those two series. I would take you up on your offer to borrow the set on Henry VIII, but it seems like dangerously hot weather for entrusting video cassettes in the mail. I'm going to do a hunt in the local video stores.

GINNY ANN, How right you are! Elizabeth was wary of the all the power that might descend on any man that she married. She solved it all by telling her subjects that she was married to England. In her realm, there was only one source of ultimate power, the queen...herself. Naming an heir, or even giving birth to one, would have divided the power. Elizabeth understood well the pressures on an heir presumptive to the throne.

Her cousin, Mary Stuart, had a much more royal and less dangerous childhood. I guess she never developed Elizabeth's survival skills. I do agree with your analysis, MARVELLE. Elizabeth would have schemed against Mary Stuart no matter who her cousin married. Elizabeth may have felt her claim to the throne was vulnerable because her father had disowned her in her childhood and declared her to be illegitimate.

Mary Stuart, on the other hand, had impeccable family credentials and her legitimacy had NEVER been questioned, so she was a center for restoring Catholicism in England. Mary Stuart had been taught, from her earliest years, that SHE was the rightful queen of both Scotland and England because Elizabeth's daddy had denied his daughter's claim to the throne of England.

What a dysfunctional family, right? Can the current royal family of England keep up with the Tudors on alternative lifestyles?

Harriet

ELLA, I found your wonderful comments waiting when I finished my post. One thought occurs to me spontaneously. Maybe the modern civilized demeanor of the crowned heads of Europe is connected to their lack of actual power? I wonder...would they all have behaved in such a civilized way if the stakes were ABSOLUTE power, as it was in the Europe of the 1500's?

GINNYANN you've done a lot of research into Tudor times, right? Can you help us out on any other of GINNY'S questions in her post #29?

Harriet

House of Tutor

Henry VIII's (1509 - 1547) sister Margaret married James Stewart of Scotland. They had James the V (1512 - 1542).
James married Marie de Guise (1515 -1560). James' daughter was Mary Queen of Scotts (1542 -01587)

Henry VIII had three children all by a different wife.
Katherine of Aragon bore Mary I (1516 - 1558). She was called Bloody Mary
Anne Boleyn bore Elizabeth I (1533-1603).
Jane Seymour bore Henry's only legal son Edward VI. (1537-1553).

WOW, GINNYANN! Just wow!

Love your format also. That's all so nice and clearly presented. You have brought Daddy's favorite child, Edward VI into the discussion. I guess that's the only child that Henry VIII was consistently affectionate toward?

You know, some men jokingly say they would "kill" to have a son, but Henry VIII meant that literally, didn't he? He disbanded the Catholic church in England because the pope wouldn't let him divorce his first wife and get another try at begetting a son. He divorced or beheaded successive wives who failed to give him a son. He disowned his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, to clear the way for little Edward. That poor child died young and the battle for the crown and the religious direction of England was on anyway.

Daddy didn't put much value on his daughters, did he? Now THAT'S a tough father to get along with. It makes me wonder if I should be sympathetic toward that manipulative, charismatic Elizabeth?

Harriet

Great work ginny ann, and very well presented, makes a heck of a lot more sense, I always wondered where Mary Queen of Scots came from!

And look at what I jsut found!

It's Henry VIII's last will and testanent.

This is from the book Henry VIII and His Court by Neville Williams.

Of this will, the author says,

The opening of Henry's will, signed at the head with his wooden stamp, since the King was too weak to make a holograph signature, 30 December 1546.

This document provided for a council of Regency for Edward, and settled the succession to the Crown, after Edward and his heirs, in turn to Mary and Elizabeth.

So that's Bloody Mary they're talking about there, and Edward as I recall died very young, not long after his own father, and of course had no children, so it came to Bloody Mary.

ginny

GINNY, I have to get serious when I see that Will. Something about looking at a facsimile of the signature of that long-dead tyrant, Henry VIII, makes me feel the winds of time around me.

Great link, GINNY. Great information, GINNYANN. Thank you both.

This is being posted at Harriet's request {DLs have permission to insert photos of particular importance to their discussions}

This picture is from the book Henry VIII and his Court by Nevllie Williams. It shows the death-bed of Henry VIII.

Here is what Neville Williams says about it:

"This picture is an anti-papal allegory, probably painted in 1548, after Archbishop Cranmer had ordered the destruction of all religious images. Henry VIII gestures to his successor, his son, Edward, while to Edward's left is Somerset and below, the council, Northumberland, Cranmer and Bedford."

Oh fun, Harriet!

But Henry doesn't look feeble or dying to me. And the pope is symbolized at the bottom there - being knocked in the head? Is that what we are to supposed to think?

Must ask this before we go on to another story - if Prince Charles marries (what's-her-name, you'll know and I can't recall at the moment) who is now divorced, and his mother gives up the throne or dies, will he be allowed to ascend the throne of England?

Is England any more tolerant of divorce?

Thanks for that picture! That was great!

I've read a couple of biographies of Elizabeth, "Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne" by David Starkey and "Elizabeth I" by Anne Sommerset.

"The Feuds" tale is a "cut to the chase" description of Elizabeth's feud with Mary Queen of Scots. It's quite good, imo, a lot is cut out, but there's a lot there in the details of this particular episode that I hadn't got elsewhere.

Elizabeth's background and that of the Protestant/Catholic struggle is one thing that is missing for lack of space in a book of this type. The battle between the Catholics and the Protestants was very bloodily real, and Elizabeth felt it both deeply and personally. From what I've read she truly was religious, as her father, King Henry VIII had been. Prayer and study was a part of her daily life. I think that wanting to be a saint (!) was a part of why she never married as well as the conflict about husband/queen roles and the giving away of power. She knew first hand what a problem heirs to the throne can have and wanted nothing to do with it, yet she battled it anyway in terms of cousins.

I think if I didn't know already from prior reads, this feud tale would have me heading to the library for more on the Tutors/Stuarts history. (That's high praise.) (g)

Becky

Question 2:

Poor Charles Stuart, what with his particular personality and deeply held belief in the "divine right of kings;" He had no choice but to do battle with Parliament and Cromwell. Had he been a different sort, he could have been a tad more diplomatic, played the game a bit closer to the cuff, learned about compromise and waiting, but that wasn't the way of this arrogant monarch. He went to war with France and Spain at the same time, stocked up on expensive artists and art work, married a French Catholic woman and then willfully cancelled Parliament (for 11 years as it turned out) when they weren't supportive. This was in the first 4 years of his reign!

And then the other "taxes" were laid on, the civil wars started, and Oliver Cromwell, the brilliant, obsessed and tyrannical Puritan, stepped in to fill the power vacuum.

When Americans read about our history we have only ourselves to blame as our leaders have always been elected. In other countries where an hereditary monarchy has ruled, genes can be blamed. They have an out, we don't! (g)

Oh well, sorry for rambling, I'm enjoying the reading. I hadn't known much about Cromwell and Charles, this reading was a lot of new stuff. I'd liket to read a bio of Charles, poor man. (I really do feel sorry for him.)

Becky

The painting came from a source provided by GINNY. Isn't it wonderful? Thank you, GINNY!

I understand it was painted a year after the actual death of Henry VIII and its intent was to slam home to the illiterate and hoi polloi of England that Edward VI was the rightful heir and personal choice of his father for the succession to the crown. Remember, Edward's older sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, were waiting in the wings for their turn in the succession. All of the Tudors were very careful about establishing their royal priorities?

ELLA, I believe Henry VIII was grossly overweight and swollen with dropsy and gout at the time of his death, so he couldn't have looked as spry as the painting portrays him. He looks ready to leap out of bed for his shower and a round of tennis in that painting, doesn't he? It was surely an idealized portrait of the dead king?

Can't read the sign on the bottom figure very clearly, ELLA. Is it the rejected Pope or Archbishop Cranmer? I just don't know. My memory fails me on the part Cranmer played in Henry's life? Can anyone here help?

more...

BECKY, I love your analysis of the first feud. Actually. I believe you've hit on the essence of the whole book. Each chapter, for reasons of space is a "cut-to-the chase" analysis of a feud, providing succinct but brief information. The very brevity allows us to enjoy, I feel, a flexibility of interpretation that might be inappropriate with a longer, fully annotated scholarly book. In other words, I feel we can relax... and inquire or opine or divert to related subjects... as we please.

Of course you are right in that the scope of the Protestant Reformation is missing. Mary Stuart was a big threat to Elizabeth precisely because she was a Catholic of impeccable lineage, descended from the sister of Henry VIII, and supported by the Pope. She was the focus of Catholic hopes in England after the death of "Bloody" Mary. Catholic factions felt Elizabeth was not the rightful queen since she was the "bastard" offspring of a marriage unsanctioned by the Pope and was then also disowned by her father. Perhaps those were strong factors in the animosity between Elizabeth and Mary?

ELLA, I've been interested in the progress of Prince Charles and Camilla also. When the Queen Mother, Charles's grandmother died, I think a pathway began to open for Charles and his long-term love. I suspect much is going on behind the scenes to smooth the way for Charles' wishes. Time will tell. I wonder, when he becomes the king, who will tell him "No!" about his marital choice? Any takers?

Let's use today to finish up any opinions, questions, comments about Elizabeth vs. Mary Stuart, and tomorrow let's begin Parliament vs, Charles I. BECKY has provided a marvelous reference point in her well thought out post #40.

Meanwhile, let's give a brief amount of attention to Mary Stuart who lost both the feud and her head. I find it interesting that history, and even we here in this discussion, have spent little time on her compared to her victorious cousin, Elizabeth. In her time Mary was considered to be a "sexual enchantress." YET, ALTHOUGH SHE COMMANDED THE ROMANTIC FANTASIES OF THOSE WHO SERVED HER, SHE DID NOT COMMAND THEIR ULTIMATE LOYALTY. I WONDER WHY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT?

ELIZABETH HAD A KNACK FOR CHOOSING EXCELLENT ADVISORS AND MAINTAINING THEIR LOYALTY. I WONDER HOW?

Elizabeth told her subjects that although she was "only a weak woman" she had the spirit and courage of a male king. I WONDER, WAS SHE THE FIRST WOMAN OF HER TIME TO RULE WITH ALL THE POWER OF A MAN?

When Mary was beheaded at Elizabeth's command, Elizabeth mourned intensely. WERE HER FEELINGS GENUINE? DID SHE MOURN BECAUSE SHE FEARED POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS? PERSONAL ONES? DID ELIZABETH FORESEE A PROBLEM IN PERMITTING THE EXECUTION OF A MONARCH ORDAINED BY GOD?

I truly don't know much about those points and I'd be glad of any input from you all. Also, please feel free to bring up your own points about the first chapter.

Harriet

Great painting!!

This whole segment about the tormented life of Mary, Queen of Scots, is full of melodrama, isn't it? Here's an excerpt from a website about Mary Stuart that is sort of sad, I think:

The following year(1567) Mary was caught up in the scandal surrounding the murders of Riccio and Darnley (1567). Mary made mistake upon mistake. Soon after both deaths, Mary made a scandalous marriage (3) to James Hepburn, 4th Earl Bothwell (c.1567), who just happened to have been recently acquitted of Darnley's murder, was then hastily divorced from his wife, and was swiftly promoted to the Dukedom of Orkney and Shetlands. There was an immediate uprising of Scottish lords which resulted in military defeat for Mary at Carberry Hill and Langside (1568).

Mary fled Scotland for England, and threw herself on the mercy of Elizabeth I, who kept her imprisoned in various strongholds. Following intrigues to rescue her and place her on the throne of England, Mary was placed on trial (Oct.1586). She was found guilty of treason and sentanced to death (25/10/1586). After delaying for as long as possible, Elizabeth reluctantly signed Mary's death warrant (1/2/1587) and Mary was executed at Fotheringhay (8/2/1587).

(Copyright Melisande----1998-2002)

I wonder how all the present members of the Royal family must feel when they are taught history and read about all these escapades of their ancestors.

Lorrie

Thanks, Harriet, for remembering Camilla's name, one of those moments for me. What's the latest gossip there between the two? And, of course, as you asked, who will give them permission to marry either before or after Charles is crowned - if he is crowned. I believe there is speculation that Queen Elizabeth may be staying in power to skip Charles and go to one of her grandsons. Could she do that?

Many Americans are interested in the Royal Family, always have been, always will be. It's something we don't want here, but we do like the pomp and circumstances, don't we?

And on to Charles Stuart.......

I'm enjoying these segments of history so much! It's in capsule form allowing us to discuss the feuds of so many characters in history - and I think we get a peek into the details.

Hi LORRIE. Thanks for the excellent information about Mary Stuart. The FEUDS book tells us that Mary plotted constantly against Elizabeth, even while she was her cousin's prisoner. She had the illusion that there was a contingent in England just waiting to overthrow Elizabeth and install herself as Queen of England. It never seemed to occur to her that Elizabeth was as guileful as herself and had servants who reported Mary's every plot to her. Elizabeth always resisted condemning Mary to death until she learned that Mary was plotting to murder HER.

As to the opinion of the present day Royal family about their exalted forebears, aren't a lot of them kind of busy attending to their own modern day scandals? I wonder if they're really shocked by their ancestors? You know, I love delicious stories, both historical and contemporary, except...sigh...contemporary scandals are called Yellow Journalism and are best read in supermarket tabloids. So I'll tell you a big secret...sometimes I brave the contempt of the supermarket check-out person and actually BUY a tabloid. Please don't tell anyone. And I'll pass the latest information on to you all, and especially ELLA, right now.

I read that Prince Charles and Camilla Shand-Kyd went through a private ceremony of commitment and consider themselves to be husband and wife now. Except that HE still flirts with other women?! I understand that Queen Elizabeth plans on outliving her own mother who died at 101, and hanging on to the throne every minute of it. If she does that, Charles will probably never live to ascend the throne? They say that Princess Diana's younger boy looks exactly like the red-headed officer she once had an affair with...and he invites adolescent girls to his digs by asking them..."Want to come by and see my castle?" Now you all are updated with the latest!

Never say that my information isn't current!

Harriet

OH, I LOVED THAT GOSSIP! haha

Must buy those tabloids!

Though out my research into the Elizabethan Renaissance it became obvious to me that there were more than one factor to effect an outcome. The beginnings of Nationalism swayed the general population of England to think of themselves as Englishmen. The Scotts were also very proud of their heritage. Both countries kept an eye on France and Spain. Loyalities were along religious lines and blood lines.

Women were considered the weaker sex and many women were not educated. Both Elizabeth and Mary were educated. Elizabeth was also educated in the precarous situation of wives. Mary didn't have the 'fear' that her power would be taken by a man. Elizabeth had little taste for executing her cousin. After all she was a woman. It was only Walsingham and his spy net work's edivence that pushed her to sign the paper to have her cousin beheaded. If I remember corectly Elizabeth was in a foul mood for many days afterward.

Oh, my Goodness, Ginny Ann, what a wonderful memory you have!

Just kidding, of course. LOL

Lorrie

HAHAHA! Oh LORRIE, wouldn't it be wonderful if we all have the health and longevity to remember distant historical events? I wish all of us such health and joy.

Yes, GINNYANN, isn't it strange how upset Elizabeth was over the death that she herself had mandated? I do wonder if part of her agitation may have come from her doubts about treating her cousin who was an ordained queen, just as Elizabeth was herself, as if she were merely a subject. Elizabeth surely believed in the "Divine Right of Kings" herself? Mary Stuart always maintained that her trial and sentence were illegal as she was a sovereign, and not subject to ordinary laws.

Nearly one hundred years later, another British monarch, Charles I, would step upon a scaffold for execution...still adamantly convinced that "a sovereign and a subject are two clean different things." History has a way of building upon itself...I do wonder, did Elizabeth Tudor unknowingly contribute to the climate that made possible the thought of the execution of another future anointed monarch, Charles I, ...when she sentenced Queen Mary Stuart to death for treason?

I need help from you all here. Just about all that I know about Charles I and Parliament comes from reading chapter 2 of FEUDS rlght along with all of you. Oh yes, long ago I also saw a fascinating 1970 movie called "Cromwell." Alec Guinness played the stubborn King Charles and Richard Harris portrayed the equally intransigent Cromwell. I loved the movie and the llttle nugget of history provided in our gem of a book, but any additional help or knowledge you guys can provide would be deeply appreciated.

BECKY made an interesting observation about the relative responsibilities of the people in a Republic and in a Monarchy:

"When Americans read about our history we have only ourselves to blame as our leaders have always been elected. In other countries where an hereditary monarchy has ruled, genes can be blamed. They have an out, we don't!"

Do you all feel that civil war was the only alternative in Charles I's England?

Harriet

P.S. If you take a look at the heading to our discussion, I've added an indication of which feuds will be discussed each week. We'll be talking about roughly 3 feuds in some weeks, and 2 feuds in others. I hope that's helpful to you all.

Harriet

Harriet asked,

"Do you all feel that civil war was the only alternative in Charles I's England?"

The key to my answer here is the name "Charles I." GIven that it was "Charles'" England, then the answer is "yes," civil war was the only way.

What we have here is your basic struggle for supremacy. The issues were as usual: religion (he called for a new, more Catholic, prayer book for Scotland) and money (the Scots objected to this change so he went to war but Parliament would not give him the needed money). He only called Parliament when he was in dire financal straights anyway.

This deadlock could have but one result. They said, "No money, Honey." And he said "Arrest them!" And everybody went to war. Charles I was opposing the rising middle classes who were more numerous in the south and had more money to finance a prolonged military action. Charles was doomed by his own temperment and soulfully held belief in the Divine Right of Kings coupled with the continuation of his father's expensive war policies and his French wife's Catholicism.

Charles did not see that the times were changing, that the Puritan middle classes had more money and had their own agenda. So almost unavoidably, Charles was the lesson that subsequent English monarchs learned.

Becky

I think Becky has summed it all up neatly, and I agree. One of the things that I read about Cromwell infuriated me, because I am the descendant of Irish-Catholics, and from what I read, Cromwell was prticularly brutal to these people. Up the rebels!!

Lorrie

The United States had a civil war which separated into two nations over issues of self-rule by states. With Charles I and Cromwell the country stayed together but the issue was still power. Was the monarch supreme as God's designated ruler in church and state or could Parliament, and the rising middle class, establish some limits? Cromwell ended up a despot which is no surprise considering his fanatacism but the power of monarchs had been forever altered. I'm beginning to see that this civil war had a lot to do with the present form of monarchy and government.

Marvelle

is a naughty word for me. What he did to the Irish was a crime. When modern leaders try to do the same thing we call it genocide

This is fabulous, I am learning so much from you all about the Stuarts, when you're in London you can visit the ....palace from which Charles was taken to his death, very dramatic, the scaffold I believe was built outside it, what IS its name, history buffs?

Weren't there TWO Cromwells or am I totally confused?

ginny

Ginny, isn't that the Tower of London? Have you ever visited there, on your travels? Isn't that where they kept the two young princes, I forget their names?

Lorrie

Richard Cromwell was the third son of Oliver Cromwell, and there's quite a bit of history connected with him:

RICHARD CROMWELL

Lorrie

GINNY, according to the book GREAT FEUDS, Charles was executed on a scaffold outside the window of the Banqueting Hall in Westminster.

Here's an interesting comment from the internet. Edward Hyde, author of the History of the Great Rebellion, acknowledged Charles' faults, but offered this intuitive(?) observation: "... he was, if ever any, the most worthy of the title of an honest man - so great a lover of justice that no temptation could dispose him to a wrongful action, except that it were so disguised to him that he believed it to be just."

I don't know, folks....if that accolade is true, then the notions of Charles I about justice were not at all in tune with that of all the rest of his kingdom. We might just have to consider that this particular honest man was not as bright as he might have been, and wholly out of touch with his people?

LORRIE and GINNYANN, thank you for your comments on the dark side of Oliver Cromwell. As both of your emotional statements attest, Cromwell's cruelty surely led to the present day strong anti-British sentiments in Ireland.

Here are some more links, notable for paintings, images and information. Do feel free to explore at your leisure. As GINNY and LORRIE pointed out, Oliver Cromwell was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Richard, as Lord High Protector for a brief time. LORRIE, love that link! There are more links below and there's also a whole slew of other links for different historical feuds up in the heading.

Charles I

Oliver Cromwell

Marvelle, I'm intrigued by your comment on the long reaching effect of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell on the present day British government. Sometimes it is possible for flexible men of good will to come together and avoid bloodshed or disaster through an intelligent meeting of minds. In the case of these two adversaries, flexibility and religious tolerance was a characteristic in very short supply. Do you think that the present system of figurehead monarchs had its seeds in that era?

Yet, during the royal Restoration that followed the death of Cromwell, I've read that King Charles Stuart II enjoyed a "honeymoon" relationship with his Parliament. I wonder, was that because England was so pleased to have a sovereign again, or was Charles II much smarter and more flexible than his father?

Harriet

Oh super, thank you SOOO much Harriet, sorry my book has not come half of the shipment came Saturday so I expect Monday will be the day. I could not remember the name of that Hall, ((kept thinking Whitehall and I was right, see below) it was part of a huge palace that burned down, and it's all that's left and it's pretty impressive, here's what I've found on it, when you tour it they are pretty dramatic about Charles having heard them build the scaffolding all night:

Whitehall

Along this road are the main administrative centres where The Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, Ministry of Defence, Civil Service Department, Cabinet Offices and other government-related offices are found. When Henry VIII came to the throne he moved to Whitehall into The Royal Palace of Whitehall where future monarchs lived until that was destroyed by fire in 1698.

The Banqueting House survived that fire and contains beautiful ceiling murals in the upstairs Banqueting Hall, painted by Rubens and commissioned by Charles I as a tribute to his father James I. Ironically, it was outside this building that Charles was beheaded, having been passed through a window of the hall for his execution.

The Cenotaph, the national memorial to those who lost their lives in both World Wars, stands in the middle of Whitehall’s road.---From London's Villagea

And thank you, Lorrie, I seem to always get the Cromwell's confused also, hahahaha what DON'T I have confused! And there were others, too, Henry, another son of Oliver who ruled Ireland, and Thomas, the Man for All Seasons, HE'S the one I get mixed up with Oliver!!

Yes I have been to the Tower many times and the last time was when the Bookies went to England, we did something called the Ceremony of the Keys which they have done there for something like 900 years or something, it's when they close down the Tower every night, it's VERY impressive and you need to apply for invitations to get in and it's more than worth it, you're taken back in time thru areas the public does not normally go, and they manually lock the entire thing down, it's like...it's worth it. Fran M said it was the most memorable thing from her trip, it's quite an experience and takes half the night.

ginny

Ginny, your comments make me feel as if I'm at Whithall and the Tower. Thanks so much.

I do think that the figurehead monarchs of today started with Charles I and Cromwell, as Harriet questioned. There is a certain amount of fallout necessary before a system solidifies, however, and it took time to develop the current one. I think Charles Stuart II abilities and Parliament's desire for a monarch created the "honeymoon" that Harriet mentioned. THe interim rule of Cromwell proved that whether noble or commoner, claims of divine right to rule absolutely are dangerous. Then Charles II comes into the picture, after a sufficient interval, but not as the absolute ruler. What a relief that must have been to the country after years of strife and bloodshed.

That's how I see the present monarchy developing as there were enough checks and balances to power in place to assure, with a few bumps in the road here and there, a government evolving to a more democratic system. A political system of checks and balances may be the safest, and more lasting, type of rule.

Everything I say please preface it with the understanding that I am not a history buff so I am learning as I read. Also want to say that I enjoy the various links which are interesting and helpful. The book itself is a fun read and yet manages to provide significant information in the relatively short chapters.

Marvelle

I was at the big B & N store in San Antonio this afternoon and after taking a free read of the Hamilton/Burr chapter, I bought the book so you will see me here from time to time during the course of the discussion.

One of the first thoughts about “Great Feuds” that came to me as I examined the book is its similarity in design to the now two-year-old Joseph Ellis “Founding Brother’s” book. This was a very popular book that I read supplementing the “John Adams” Biography that we did last years. It consisted of about a dozen independent stories telling of the activities of the founders of our Nation during its early years. In one place the two books tell the same story. This is the account of the Hamilton/Burr rivalry that cumulated in their famous duel that ended in Hamilton’s physical death and Burr’s political demise. I will re-read the Ellis account and note any differences.

Another thing that attracted my notice was that of the 10 great feuds covered, 9 seem to carry rather serious historical importance. The one exception is the hill Billy shoot-out, the Hatfields v the McCoys. Somehow this well know mountain feud just don’t seem to reach the magnitude of things like, Parliament v Charles I, Burr v Hamilton, Stalin v Trotsky, Johnson v Kennedy, and etc. Yet last month when I first heard we were going to do Great Feuds,” that was the only feud that came to my mind that is actually in the book. I remember back in elementary school hearing

“Oh the Hatfields and the coys,

they were reckless mountain boys,

they could shoot each other quicker,

than it took an eye to flicker

Etc, etc, …….”

Welcome, HAROLD!!

It's certainly great to see you here. We'll all be glad to see you any time you care to join us. Apropos of your Ellis book, I watched the corresponding TV series on the History Channel on both Founding Fathers and Founding Brothers. I'm trying to remember the details...those two TV series each had a slightly different slant on some of the same historical figures, didn't they? Didn't one of them focus on the internal rivalries and personality squabbles between these American icons more than the other series did? If you saw those TV series, do you remember, Harold?

Loved your limerick. I had the same reaction that you did when I first heard the title of the book GREAT FEUDS. I spontaneously thought of the Hatfields and the McCoys right away. Yet the book really covers an impressive international array of historical figures, don't you agree? Such fun!

MARVELLE, it's a pleasure to read your thoughts. I feel that all of us here are attracted to the links that connect the past and the present in history. We don't have to be history experts...all we really need is to enjoy chatting with each other about it.

GINNY, visiting the Tower sounds wonderful. To walk through a place so filled with the shadows of past events has to be awesome. The fabric of time comes within reach...

Harriet

more....

Per an earlier question:

There was also Thomas Cromwell who was very important during the reign of Henry VIII. He held a variety of positions. He fell from favor and was executed. I don't think he was any relation to Oliver and Richard.

Becky

Last night I watched Part 2 of The Windsors: A Royal Family. I sat enthralled watching their relationships and peccadillos unfold throughout the 20th century.

Has anybody ever figured out how many years it takes for a scandal to become a reputable historical primary source? When some dubious personal event happens to a public figure, it's usually ignored, (or that's how it used to be until President Clinton's time) by the NY Times and other mainstream newspapers. Then 50 or 60 years later, some historian unearths it again, and claims it's a revealing insight into the character of the now-dead public figure. Within a hundred years, the ancient scandal is an esteemed piece of historical information, worthy of archiving and insertion into footnoted history books. Teehee! Interesting sequence?.

Anyway, I loved Part 2 of the the Windsor Family TV special. Afterwards, I went hunting through a bunch of precariously labelled video cassettes scattered in my house and actually found that I had taped the first two hours of the special a couple of years ago. What a treat! I'm going to watch Edward and Wally Simpson later today.

Let's use today to make any further final comments about Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. HAROLD, are you there and would you like to weigh in? ELLA? Anyone with an opinion?

TOMORROW, IT'S ONWARD TO BURR AND HAMILTON!

Harriet

HarrietM and all: There is noting new in the scandals and peccadilloes associated with the day-to-day activities of the current crop of Royals. Also there is nothing new about the active press reporting of the details of their lives. The press exposure of today’s Royals first appeared in the late 18th and early 19th century. Our well-loved King George III was an outstanding example of Royal modesty and decorum. There was scarcely a murmur of scandal or impropriety implicating him. King George and his German princess queen raised about 15 princes and princesses. It was these Royal Princes that first caught the notice of a budding press who made them open game for spicy stories not just of their romantic entanglements, but also their financial and other personal life dealings as well.

There were six or eight of these Royal Dukes. Though they had no troubled siring offspring through their numerous mistresses, they were noticeable unable to produce heirs through their German Princess wives. Take the Prince of Wales who later succeeded George III first as Regent and finally as King George IV as an example. He had one daughter by his German Princess wife, Charlotte, who would have succeeded him as Queen except for her death in 1820. The Prince was severely criticized for allowing her first delivery to be directed by a single country doctor and she died after delivering a still born child

The death of the Princess Charlotte set off quite a competition among the Royal Dukes to see which one would produce an heir. The Duke of Kent who was 3rd or 4th down the line won the prize when a daughter was born to a newly acquired German princess wife. The baby was named Victoria. As HRH put it, “I guess I won the lottery!”

About 1818 Prince George who had long been estranged from his German wife sued for divorce. The case was heard in the House of Lords where the peers rendered judgment against the Prince denying the divorce. George became King in 1820 and was succeeded by his brother, William when he died in1830. William reigned until 1837, and on his death Victoria became Queen. By the mid-19th century as the Victorian age matured the English press were still filled with stories of the Royal Dukes who they then refered to as a group as “Victoria’s evil uncles!”

Much of the material outlined above comes from a wonderful J. B. Priestly Book entitled “The Prince Of Pleasure” This is a coffee table style book with text and hundreds of pictures and illustrations of the Regency period 1812 – 1820. It is currently out of Print, but available through the B & N used dealer network (Click Here).

There is another publication in print with the same title by Saul David in paperback format that I have seen at B & N. Its text seems to parallel the Priestly account but it seemed to me to lack the color and impact of the Priestly version. Also it lacks the many color illustrations. Click Here For The Prince of Pleasure by Saul David

HAROLD. I love your post! Thanks for the great links.

Is THAT how the prim and proper Queen Victoria found her way into the world? I had no idea that all the Dukes competed in the sport they loved best, to see who could sire the next monarch?

There was an Arts and Entertainment Channel TV dramatized special a while back on Victoria and Albert. It indicated that Victoria's mother, I THINK her name was Adelaide, tried to keep total control over the soon-to-be queen. She pushed too hard on that royal fledgling and got years of polite alienation from her stubborn daughter instead. Once Victoria ascended the throne, she made it plain to her mother, and to everyone else that SHE was the Queen.

Such fun stories, Harold!

Harriet

Now that we're on the subject of "royal" gossip, wasn't there quite a bit of talk about Vicotia's grandson, or nephew, of somebody way up there, being directly involved with the Jack the Ripper slayings? Or was this simply rumors?

Lorrie

Hi,

Prince Albert Eduard, grandson of Queen Victoria has recently been named as a suspect. He was not anyone's suspect at the time, no one had any theories of "Eddy" as "The Ripper" then.

In 1962 (after all participants were dead) the idea of Eddy as a suspect was presented in a book. The idea has been worked on, publicized, used for attention, etc. and never in any real way substantiated.

Truly, there is little chance that he is a viable suspect.

http://www.casebook.org/

Becky

I don't think anything was ever proved, LORRIE. Prince Eddy was the oldest son of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra and he was the heir to the throne. He was said to be "slow" and had a few kinky habits. I suppose that now-a-days he would be called retarded? If he really WAS the Ripper, he would have had to have been deranged also?

He was said to be an avid hunter and skillful at butchering his kills, but that was true of a lot of the upper class back then. The palace gave out the information that he had died of influenza quite suddenly. It was all very mysterious. The Ripper slayings did stop after his death. If he really WAS the Ripper, the Royal Family certainly never admitted it. It remains a mystery to this day.

His younger brother became the heir and ruled as George V.

Harriet

Hi, Becky. We posted at the same time. Thank you for your link. I'm going to explore it now.

Later...Becky what a great site! I particularly liked the picture and article on Prince Eddy.

Harriet

Hi Harriet. I just finished reading all these fascinating posts, love the history, love the gossip - which, as you pointed out, will be history in the future and explored by future researchers. Before we finish with Cromwell and Charles, I am constantly amazed at how busy God is in times of war. Charles says - "I have a trust committed to me by God" - whereas, Cromwell believed - "This victory is none other but the hand of God."

The people had the best idea yet when the press (representative of the people?) printed this statement: - "For shall not we be happy when we ourselves make choice of a good and upright man to be king over us?" - they are attempting to form a republic.

Before we begin the Hatfields/McCoy feud, I have a personal note. Years ago in our area outdoor dramas, which afforded college drama students the opportunity of experience in the summertime, were quite popular and perhaps they still are, I'm not sure. However I remember 3 of them quite well - Tecumseh, The Steven Foster story and the Hatfields and McCoys. We took the children and went to them all - there were two others but can't remember them.

Harold brought back memories of that limerick he quoted, I loved remembering. Thanks, Harold!

Having recently read and discussed JOHN ADAMS, who plays an important role in our next chapter, BURR S. HAMILTON, I am a little familiar with the characters mentioned.

This book is well-written, don't you agree? It must have been difficult for the author to encapsulate so much history in short stores, but he did it well and I'm going to look up his two books listed on the cover.

Several phrases are great, one in describing Hamilton I loved: "Nourished by a keen appreciation of his own brilliance....."

I'm always envious of authors who can write like that!

This is a great chapter in history and in this book - back later. Ella

What a wonderful post, ELLA! You have provided an unfortunately too-true perspective on the rigidities and fanaticism of war. Time usually gives a more mellow perspective on the issues involved, but so many lives are lost in the interim. I loved YOUR comment!

"I am constantly amazed at how busy God is in times of war. Charles says - "I have a trust committed to me by God" - whereas, Cromwell believed - "This victory is none other but the hand of God."

Goodness, that isn't mediocre writing there yourself, ma'am! And it's certainly first class thoughts!

GOOD MORNING TO ALL! Today we begin to consider the Burr/Hamilton feud. Here are some questions to start you off. Of course you should all feel free to bring up any other points that interest you. I believe there will be several posters here who have considerable knowledge of this era and these historical figures.

All of you...please feel free to enrich the discussion with ANY of your thoughts.

Were you surprised by the unvarnished images of some of our Founding Fathers? If so, how do those images vary from your prior conceptions?

What form did Alexander Hamilton's political maneuvering take when he disliked a contemporary? Who were the main targets of Hamilton's hostility? Did Alexander Hamilton like ANYBODY?

In 1800, the election of the Vice President took a different form from that of modern day America. How did Burr become Jefferson's Vice President?

Why did Burr issue his challenge? Why did Hamilton accept?

Dueling was a legally sanctioned form of bloodshed until after the Civil War, when it finally began to lose favor. Years after their duel, Burr said regretfully that there SHOULD have been room on this planet for both himself and Alexander Hamilton. Can you think of any way that Hamilton and Burr might have settled their differences amicably?

Harriet

One more thing about Charles please?

I can't help but recall that the correct phrase for the relationship is, "The King *in* Parliament." It's not "The King and Parliament."

The King and the Parliament cannot exist separately and neither is one above the other. Charles found that he needed Parliament to implement taxes. Cromwell found out that he needed a King to be the give legitimacy to his authority. The King must be *in* Parliament for the government to work.

(That was then. Now there is far more power and legitimacy given to a Parliament / Congress alone. It's been developing.)

Becky

Good point BEKKA! Funny that the King could dismiss Parliament, as he did - too bad they couldn't dismiss him when they were angry! They were certainly not equal in authority - how about today? I know the Queen opens Parliament and is given daily reports, but that is all I know.

Does she have any authority in Parliament at all? What is her place actually in government, other than a figurehead?

HARRIET - you asked such good questions. I'll try to answer a couple of them as my book is sitting on my lap here and I did mark the line that says - "from that moment the hitherto unspoken hostility between the two erupted into open warfare."

This occurred when Hamilton suspected Burr of skulduggery in the ousting of his father-in-law from the position of New York Senator.

Perhaps at this point if Hamilton had faced Burr with the accusation in front of others they might have settled this situation, who knows?

Can anyone decide whose side they are on here? What scandals erupted from their feuds! Heavens! - worse than Clinton's recent sexual escapade was Hamilton's "affair" with the voluptuous (first time I ever typed that word-haha) Ms. Reynolds. He paid blackmail to keep it out of the papers!!!!

Had both men (Hamilton and Clinton) admitted to the public honestly about their frolicking with the opposite sex, they might have survived the ordeal with less harm to their reputations, do you agree?

Why don't they learn from history?

I cannot decide which man I would most like to read more about - I know Harold has read a biography of Aaron Burr, so will wait to hear more about him, and then I have a little story to tell.

Ella laments in message #74, “too bad the Parliament could not dismiss the king.” I would point out that they did dismiss the King. They cut his head off. There cannot be a much more emphatic dismissal than that. The problem was that after some dozen plus years of living under the Puritan Regime, the idea of living under the king didn’t seem so bad after all, and before too long they were rather glad to have him back.

Regarding the Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton feud Joseph Ellis in “Founding Brothers” thinks the conflict had its roots in the Presidential election of 1800. Remember John Adams was the candidate of the Federalist Party for a second term. Thomas Jefferson, the incumbent Vice President was thought to be the principal (old) Republican opposition. Aaron Burr was also a candidate, I think from a splinter Republican wing.

During the campaign Burr expected the support of his fellow New Yorker Alexander Hamilton who was no friend of John Adams and particularly he was no political friend of Thomas Jefferson. Much to Burr’s surprise Hamilton actually supported Jefferson. Paraphrasing/quoting from The Ellis, “Founding Brothers” book Hamilton endorsed Jefferson as “by far not so dangerous a man who possesses solid pretensions to character.” In contrast Hamilton characterized Burr as, “ there is nothing in his favor……His private character is not defended by his most partial friends. He is bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his Country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement……If he can he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure himself permanent power, and with it wealth. He is truly the Catiline of America,”

The real fighting words in this statement come in the last sentence. Of course today absolute none of us understand the meaning of the word, “Catiline,” but it would seem every half way educated 18th century American did. Continuing to quote Ellis, “by accusing Burr of being (the American) Catiline Hamilton was making the ultimate accusation for Catiline was the treacherous and degenerate character whose scheming nearly destroyed the Roman Republic……….No one in the political leadership of the early American republic needed to be reminded who Catiline was. He was the talented but malevolent destroyer of republican government “

Burr came close to wining the Presidency in the election of 1800. In fact he and Jefferson tied with the same number of electoral votes. This threw the decision to the House of Representatives where Jefferson won on the 36th ballot. In accordance with the Constitution at the time Burr’s second place finish gave him the Vice Presidency. Burr attributed Hamilton support of Jefferson to be the cause of his loss cumulating almost four yeas later in the duel.

The author of "Feuds" had no hesitation in saying that Hamilton was the cause of Burr's losing the presidental and vice-presidental offices.

Hamilton "directed all his formidable energies to scotching Burr's presidential dreams. Flinging himself into the fray with inhuman relish, he organized cabals, whispered in ears, wrote scorching letters..."

He successfully ruined Burr's chance at the Presidency. Then Hamilton set himself to destroying Burr's chances at vice-president, until then an assured post.

"A blizzard of pamphlets hit the New York sidewalks, dripping with venomous accusations that Burr had conspired with certain Federalists to wrest the presidency from Jefferson and his Virginia cohorts."

Hamilton was believed to be behind the pamphlets and, through the planted seeds of doubt and hated, Burr's political career was effectively ended. But wait, the pamphlets said Burr had conspired to wrest the presidency from Jefferson. Burr? Hamilton was accusing Burr of the disgraceful behavior that actually he had done himself. This is the age-old strategy of attacking before you are attacked, most expedient to keep an opponent off balance and setting up a smokescreen to cover your guilt.

This doesn't mean that I am 100% on Burr's side but it does seem that he was wrongly denied a high political office. Or is this just politics as usual and we, the populace, shouldn't expect politicians to live up to moral standards? I'll have to think about 'sides'.

Marvelle

Hi BECKY, thanks for the historical point.

I understand Charles I ruled supreme for eleven years without Parliament. He enforced his Personal Rule and financed his reign in various ways that seemed to work for him. HE was content but I imagine the resentment and anger of Parliament must have been festering deep as that august body awaited a summons to convene that never came. As MARVELLE pointed out, you summed up the dynamics of the underlying struggle so well in your post #51, BECKY.

It was not just the twin bugaboos of religion and money that started Charles' final downfall. He might have continued his Personal Rule indefinitely... except for his clumsy determination to ram HIS religious preferences right down the throat of Scotland and England. Sadly, Charles felt he was looking out for the spiritual well-being of his subjects. Yet, in the eyes of a largely Puritan populace, that added up to fanaticism. It was probably inflexible religious intolerance that was the most dangerous catalyst between Charles I and Cromwell?

Once Charles had depleted his funds in Scottish skirmishes he was forced to once again convene Parliament and meet that OTHER religious do-gooder... Cromwell.

more...

Before reading GREAT FEUDS, I had the illusion that Alexander Hamilton was a high minded gentleman of admirable principles. It just never hit home to me what guileful politicians he, and many of the other Founding Fathers, were. This discussion is a revelation to me. Hamilton was not the only historical figure of that era who was fond of the ladies and an accomplished philanderer. I read an anecdote in the transcript of the PBS TV documentary, The Duel, that made me laugh. How modern it all seems...

"When several women claimed to be pregnant after passionate encounters with Burr, he quipped: "When a woman does me the honor to name me the father of her child, I shall always be too gallant to decline the honor."

That same transcript attributes a quote to Burr that justifies some of Hamilton's animosity. "Aaron Burr wanted to become rich and powerful. For those who criticized this self-centered approach, he had a ready reply:

"Great souls have little use for small morals."

REALLY? From his own mouth, Burr has described his ethics. Overweening ambition and fierce competitiveness seemed to be the rule among the Founding Fathers in America's earliest years. Yet, from these brilliant, but very flawed men came a remarkable nation.

Much of Burr's unfavorable reputation comes, not only from his fatal duel with Alexander Hamilton, but from his 1804 conspiracy afterwards, in which Burr tried to gain personal control of the Louisiana Territory with the hope of governing his own empire. He was determined to gain personal power at ANY cost. He was arrested and stood trial for treason in 1807 as a result of this plot. His was a "Trial of the Century" in its time and he was acquitted only because his actions did not meet the technical definition of treason as defined by the Constitution. Did he thus justify his reputation as the American Catiline?

MAP OF 1806 NORTH AMERICA

The culminating duel between Hamilton and Burr, both men of brilliance, capability and ambition, becomes even more interesting when I ask myself these questions.

DID ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S IDEAS CONTINUE TO AFFECT AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AFTER HIS DEATH?

WHAT DID AARON BURR LOSE AND/OR GAIN POLITICALLY FROM THE DUEL AND ITS AFTERMATH?

Harriet

ISN'T THIS FUN!

I am just enjoying this discussion immensely, but as I type those words I think this is not a fairy tale we are talking about, it all happened - beheading kings (hahaha, Harold, indeed!)and queens, and I loved this phrase from Harriet - "How modern it all seems..."

Not that we are quite as violent today, but the press and the politicians are as influential in our daily lives as they were then.

These men - these giants in our country's history, known to every school child in America - were politicians, ambitious, at times unscrupulous, with their own agendas, their eccentricities, their humanness (for lack of a better word)as we they are today.

I can't decide about Hamilton, whom I had always had admiration for the work he had done in the historical context of early America, who wrote this despicable letter to be published in the case of his death accusing Burr of murder, as he was not going to fire his pistol in the duel! But he did fire and lost the duel, lost his life. What nonsense this is!

A couple of summers ago we visited Blennerhasset Island, which is situated in the middle of the Ohio River. It is near Parkersburg, W.Va. and, incidentally, there is an adorable old but renovated hotel in the middle of the faded city (great food).

In the early 1800's a wealthy fellow, with wife, landed on our shores from England (being the second son he could not inherit the English title) determined to make their way in the New World. Eventually they settled on the island, after spending time in the East where they made the acquaintance of Aaron Burr and other prominent families. They built a mansion and entertained lavishly, until Aaron Burr, escaping from the "FEDS" stopped in hoping to stay awhile, but....in time....

All of them had to flee the island! The Blennerhassets went south with as much goods as they could put on the boat and later bought a plantation, but having no experience in farming they eventually filed for bankruptcy.

The poor Blennerhassets certainly did not benefit form knowing Burr and must have felt a bit of resentment, don't you imagine!

I'm sneaking a few minutes at work so can't research this question --was Hale's book "Man Without a Country" inspired by Burr's situation? Burr's actions deteriorated following the duel (although that's not gone into much in this section on Hamilton v Burr). Their conflict reminds me of another ond later in "Feuds" which I found illuminating and entertaining.

Discussing this book is like gossiping across a backyard fence, but since its 'history' we can have the gossip without the guilt.

Marvelle

Isn't this delightful? I feel the same way as you, MARVELLE. I'm enjoying talking to all of you sooo much. It's such fun to read all your comments.

ELLA, I can just visualize the disillusionment and dismay of the Blennerhassets at the way things turned out. I'm constructing this imaginary scenario in my head as that couple, newly arrived in America, wrote home to their aristocratic relations in England.

"Well, Pater, we're associating with the elite of society here in America, We've become friendly with the former vice-president of the United States... and we're entertaining only the BEST people....

Pater, I don't know WHY you wanted to warn us against settling in the Americas....?"

What a shock events must have been for them! Do you think it could have happened like that for the unfortunate Blennerhassets?

Harriet

"Gossip without guilt!" - that's great, Marvelle, I like that, you have a way with words.

And, you, Harriet, told that story so well! Hahaha You're a dramatist!

But I want Harold to tell us more about Aaron Burr - I know he read a biography about him. What about his later life, Harold?

I have been reading all of your comments. It is fun reading what you think of our founding fathers. They all had feet of clay just like us. lol

MARVELLE, I tried researching the origins and background of MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY by Edward Everett Hale. The only thing I came up with is that the main character of the story, Philip Nolan, is portrayed as an admirer and follower of Aaron Burr at the time that he disowns the United States. I wasn't able to find any written indication that Nolan may have been a thinly disguised surrogate for Burr himself, although I would think that this possibility might still exist.

Don't you all feel that Burr's public reputation must have been extremely compromised in order for his name to become entwined in this story as a symbol of lack of patriotism? I even found that some editions of MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY consciously paired that story with a written History of the Burr Conspiracy, recounting Burr's attempt to wrest the Louisiana Territory from the United States. What a scandal Burr's conspiracy trial must have been in its time! Acquitted only by some legal technicalities, Burr took refuge in Europe.

Alexander Hamilton comes down to us as a largely admirable figure, instrumental in the acceptance of the Constitution, and as the man whose brilliant economic policies set America on the path to a sound financial footing. I had no idea of the more venal side of his personality before we embarked on this discussion.

ELLA, your compliments turn my head. How nice you are!

Hi, GINNYANN! So glad to see you still with us. Please...do jump in whenever you want.

MARVELLE, don't forget to tell us the similarity that you noticed between the Burr vs, Hamilton feud and the upcoming one later on. There's more than one person here who is interested in comparisons, contrasts and similarities between the feuds, historical figures, and historical situations portrayed here. Any insights in that area are most welcome from all of you.

HAROLD, do you have anything to add? Love to hear it! I'm so interested in the opinions of all of you posting here.

TOMORROW WE BEGIN DISCUSSING THOSE FIGHTIN' BOYS, THE HATFIELDS & MCCOYS. Today is open to bring up any thoughts we've had on ANY prior feuds and any opinions, anecdotes et al, that may illuminate them.

Harriet

There are two current interesting source books relative to Aaron Burr. One is a current biography with a 2002 publication date entitled Aaron Burr: Conspiracy to Treason by Buckner F. Melton The author is a lawyer, not an historian and in my judgment its research quality did not seem up to recent works by McCullough Ambrose and others. Also even though the publication date is 2002, I purchased my copy a few days before Xmas 2001 at a Dallas Half Price Books store. Its early release as publishers overstock to used book dealers would indicate a rather low expectation on the part of the Publisher. Never the less it does tell a lot about Burrs career in the years after the famous duel.

I had forgotten about the second book that I had read back in the 1980’s though I barely remember it.. This is Burr, by Gore Vidal. Though technically this is a Novel, Vidal is noted for the high caliber of his research and his high regard for historical accuracy in his historical novels. One of my favorite 20th century novels is Vidal’s earlier tome. “Julian” the story of the Roman Emperor who though the nephew of Constantine the Great reverted from his Christian upbringing to restore Paganism. Gore Vidal as I remembered claimed descent from Burr himself, and did a good job of accurately novelizing his activities.

In my next post I will try to outline the main points of Aaron Burr’s post duel experience

Here is a brief outline of the post duel career of Aaron Burr largely taken from Aaron Burr: Conspiracy to Treason by Buckner F. Melton

After the duel Burr successfully avoided prosecution for his role in the death of Hamilton. He returned to Washington and presided over the impeachment trial of an associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the stoutly Federalist/ anti-Jeffersonian Samuel Chase. President Jefferson did not favor the constitutional life term for judges and independent Judiciary and expected the impeachment trial would be a kangaroo Court to remove him. As Vice President Aaron Burr presided and conducted the trial and a fair manner resulting in the Justices acquittal. We might well consider this trial to be Burr’s greatest, and his most permanent contribution to the character of our present society because it preserved the Independence of the Federal Judiciary, as we know it today.

When Burr’s term as Vice President ended in March 1805, his political future seemed ruined by the Hamilton duel. Yet ever ambitious he made a trip to the West and down the Mississippi during which he formulated a grand scheme of Western empire independent of the United States perhaps encompassing the Spanish territories of Florida, Cuba, Mexico and Texas. He actively conspired with a number of people including Harman Blennerhassett an English expatriate living in a mansion house on an island in the Ohio River, and General James Wilkinson the Governor of Louisiana Territory. He corresponded with British and Spanish diplomats even seeking British naval aid in the scheme. The scheme was defeated in early 1807 when Wilkinson defected revealing the details of the plot to Federal Authorities.

Burr was promptly arrested, but jumped bail in an unsuccessful attempt to escape to Spanish Florida. After recapture he was returned to Richmond charged with Treason. The charge was dismissed after Chief Justice Marshall (sitting as a Circuit Judge) ruled the Constitutional definition of the crime that required two witnesses had not been established. Also as I remember the Constitution it says Treason can only exist in Wartime. In any case, Burr went free as the charge was dismissed. Burr had escaped punishment because at that early date Congress had not yet got around to by statute establishing lesser crimes such as sedition. The Government therefore had to rely on the Constitutional Crime of treason and clearly the requirements given in the constitution had not been met.

The western venture and his trial left Burr in a bankrupt state hounded by his creditors and with out prospects for a successful return to public life. Burr first choose a self imposed exile in Europe, but in 1812 returned to New York to resume his law practice. In this profession he reestablished himself with moderate success until 1836 when he died.

I received my copy of the book yesterday and have caught up in the reading. I have a few general thoughts on what I have read so far: first all the feuds seem to come about because two people want the same thing; and second that in some way each of the 'winners' also ends up being a loser.

For instance, Elizabeth I wins the feud because she has her rival Mary beheaded. But to me she loses something because she gave in to her weaknesses, her fears and insecurities when it came to the English throne.

The feud between Charles I and parliament really comes down to a feud between him and Cromwell. Both are stubborn men who want their own way and in the end it is the one with the most skill in warfare who wins.

Charles did not want to be just a kingly figurehead, and yet somewhere along the way that is what the monarchy seemed to become.

The Founding Fathers -I live in a different country so I had different ones, but I think that they had the same feet of clay as yours.

Again in the Hamilton vs Burr feud, it is Burr who also loses, even though he seems to win.

I enjoy reading what everyone has to say.

What fascinating posts! Welcome Nellie to our group!

HAROLD - that was interesting about Burr's later life! I noticed the bit about Mr. Blennerhasset - my man on the island in the Ohio River. Dupont now owns that island but leases it the State of Ohio for $1 a year and the state rebuilt the mansion and charges people to ride the ferry over and visit it - leave it to states to make a bit of money here and there.

I've often tried to read a Gore Vidal book, but somehow I pick them up at the Library and fail to get too interested, can't remember why now.

Burr, as Vice President, tried a case in court? That wouldn't happen today, although our vice presidents probably have the time - hahaha

Treason can only exist in Wartime? Is that true, Harold? People can commit treason in peacetime can't they? I'm not real sure what the definition of "treason" is exactly. Crimes against the goverment? What about those militiamen that were plotting against the government in the last decade - WACO, RUBY RIDGE - would that be considered treason?

There is an expression in French that says, roughly, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." and that couldn't apply more than it does here. It's so true that history repeats itself, isn't it?

Harold, thank you for the very interesting follow-up on Aaron Burr. From the little of history that i remember, I had always thought of him as a traitor, and more or less admired Hamilton. After all, isn't his picture on our money somewhere?

But after learning more of what actually happened, and reading about the absolutely viscious attacks that Hamilton made on Burr, my sympathies lie with the latter.

Isn't it amazing how like events can be even two centuries later?

Lorrie

Ella: I think you caught me on my Treason definition. I should have looked it up. Here is the definition of Treason from Article III, section 3 of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act or on Confession in open Court.

In the Burr case the charge was dismissed because there was only one witness, General Wilkinson who was willing to testify to escape a similar charge himself. The two witnesses requirement is a significant problem. Apparently circumstantial evidence could never be enough.

My favorite Gore Vidal book was “Julian.” Somehow Julian comes through to me as one of the better Roman Emperors. Though he restored the old Pagan Gods he did not persecute the Christians and in a few more years they came back in power. I remember the “Julian” book as being quite long, much longer than “Burr.” Again that is from memory

Did you know the “Gore” in Gore Vidal comes from his mother’s family name, the Gores of Tennessee and Oklahoma? Yes Gore Vidal and Al Gore are 2nd or 3rd cousins. In the 1970’s Gore Vidal made an unsuccessful bid for a U.S. Senate seat from California.

Lorrie, I think you are right that Hamilton’s picture is on one of our money bills. I don’t know which one since it is apparently a bit higher the ones I am likely to carry.

Welcome, Nellie!!

You were worth waiting for. So glad to see you. You bring up the universal truth that, when blood is shed, winners often become losers. I wonder if the unhappy end of Charles I provided the impetus to both the Royal Family and Parliament to examine each other with a more tolerant eye.

What a treat it is to come in and find so many wonderful posts to read, and a new friend like NELLIE on board in addition. I do love it! HAROLD, you cleared up a lot of historical points. Such impressive scholarship and wonderful reading recommendations! So, Burr was still the Vice-President when he began his plot for more permanent power? Somehow or other, that seems to make the Burr Conspiracy worse in my eyes. What a betrayal for an elected official to plot to seize land belonging to the the United States. Burr is NOT growing in my esteem.

ELLA, I believe the necessary legal proof for treason is STILL two witnesses? Didn't John Lindt, the American Taliban, also recently escape being charged with treason because of the same legal technicality that acquitted Aaron Burr in 1807? He's being charged with lesser offenses which carry lesser penalties, I believe, but there is a greater certainty of the government being able to prove its case?

It has been said that those who want to avoid repeating history must first understand it. At the risk of sounding cynical, I wonder...because, with all the best intentions, leaders with "feet of clay" as NELLIE said, continue to appear, both nationally and internationally. LORRIE points out how history repeats itself, but...even though we understand the past, the present holds many more question marks. It's often so hard to determine how a current situation compares to its historical counterpart until it finishes playing itself out. Finally, when the whole sequence of events is clear... only then do we know what we SHOULD have done? If only all leaders were perfectly ethical and had wonderful foresight, how secure all our lives would be!

Ah, it's a dream, isn't it?

more...

TODAY WE BEGIN TO RUMINATE OVER THE CONVOLUTED AFFAIRS OF THOSE FIGHTIN', HOT-HEADED BOYS OF THE APPALACHIANS, THE HATFIELDS AND THE MCCOYS. Such complex family relationships! It's hard to keep it straight, at least for me. Ran'l is a McCoy? Anse is a Hatfield? They and their multiple relatives move back and forth over the West Virginia and Kentucky state lines, leaving murder, violence and hatred behind them. Do you really agree that everything began only over a pig? Seems to me there were quite a few other provoking incidents before that?

A few starting questions:

DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER PRIOR INCIDENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TENDED TO EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM WITH THE PIG AND PRODUCE DISLIKE BETWEEN THE TWO FAMILIES?

WHY DID THE COMING OF THE RAILROADS INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF THE FEUD BETWEEN THE TWO CLANS?

Please use these start-up questions only as a rough guide. If you're dropping in without the book and know something of the feud, I hope you DO feel free to jump right in with your anecdotes and folklore.

Harriet

Confused as I find myself to be on the interlinking family relationships of these feuding families, I found some help in these fascinating photo links. These feuders have always seemed like legendary figures to me but they actually lived in the era of photography, and a surprising number of pix have come down to us from the late 1800's..

The LIFE magazine link in particular, has several pages of marvelous photos, so, if you wish, do try to click on the successive page links at the bottom of the screens.

The Photo Gallery link has some wonderful photographic close-ups of our principal figures...such fun!

LIFE/ Hatfield & McCoys with Photos

"Devil" Anse Hatfield

Hatfield/McCoy Photo Gallery

Enjoy!

Harriet

Those are interesting links, Harriet.

I don't think it was only the pig that caused the feud, and the books lists a few other possibilities such as the raids on the McCoy farm by Logan Wildcats, a group begun by Anse Hatfield, or the killing of Asa Harmon McCoy, or simple jealousy.

I also wonder if the Hatfields didn't have something to do with the McCoys failure in the logging business? Anse Hatfield was a shrewd business man in the same business, after all.

But I think the main cause of the feud was two stubborn men with bad tempers.

At first, the Hatfield and McCoy feud seemed out of place with all the political feuds that we've been reading but it's really about power isn't it? Liz & Mare, Charlie and Ollie, Alex & Aaron -- they had to have power and this thirst for power demands complete victory if not total destruction of anything or anyone that stands in their way.

Money is power, unfortunately, in many parts of the world but certainly in the United States. The Hatfields wanted land to get rich from the railroads and there was a threat to their gold lust (namely the McCoys). Place money next to overbearing egos, isolation from 'civilization' and the law, and Civil War antagonism and we get a bloody feud.

The McCoys seemed to get the worst of the feuding. They certainly didn't get rich or own coal mines at the end. Is that why we see a lot of photos of the Hatfields, who could afford to pay for pictures, and almost none of the McCoys? Or did few McCoys survive? This was the one feud in the book that made me sad.

Marvelle

NELLIE, I always thought that all that hatred had to start with more than just a pig. You zeroed in on one of my pet theories when you mentioned the Logan Wildcats. Also, the Hatfields were shrewd, smart businessmen and certainly would not be averse to a little business negotiations that might obstruct McCoy interests.

Hahaha, MARVELLE! I love the way you named all of our buddies from the previous chapters of our book. Don't you all think that they all might understand each other pretty well if they were at a party together? What a concentration of stubborness, ambition, and lust for power would be concentrated in any room that held all of these people.

You made a perceptive point about the comparative lack of McCoy photographs, compared to the plenitude of Hatfield photos. I noticed it myself and wondered why, but you came up with such an interesting possible reason. Also, the McCoys were running out of family faster than the Hatfields and might be concerned with other things than cameras.

You know, as I looked through the photographic links I truly wanted to find photos of Roseanna McCoy and Johnse Hatfield. They were a kind of hillbilly Romeo and Juliet story, don't you think? They lived together against the wishes of both families, but didn't marry. Johnse later behaved badly, but Roseanna died as a tragic figure.

I hear that the local folklore in the area where both families lived is that the ghosts of murdered Hatfields and McCoys roam the hills. I do wish that someone who lived in that area of West Virginia was available to tell us the gossip that surrounds the two families and their lives. If there is such a person available, please won't you join us?

Later...

Harriet

I agree with marvelle in that the Hatfield McCoy feud made me sad, but I was also curiously disapointed?

My book, obviously, has come. The author's "way" with description seems curious to me, almost...a gloss over....I don't know, I've started with the Hatfields and the McCoys segment and don't have the others to compare to?

The "Feud" only lasted 12 years. I have known of family feuds that lasted generations, albeit with no deaths.

Do you historians in the group think that it was the times, the remoteness of the locality and the ignorance of the participants (or maybe the reporting of what really happened) which kept this so called Feud alive and that it deserves its place in the Great Feuds of all times?

The pistol whipping of the mother is just disgusting, at that point I lost all empathy for eitehr side, they are both ignorant and not worthy, in my opinion, to have ever been celebrated in any book.

Certianly not on a par with the other entries so far, does the author's style strike anybody as odd in this section?

I once had a fascination with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, so much so that I was actually a bidder and I have the Sotheby's catalogue of her last effects (about the size of two giant dictionaries) lavishly illustrated. I did not buy any of their effects at the last minute (the auction was delayed upon the death of Diana) but I have here in the house about 10 books on each party, etc. I think I will be able to judge the author's style by hie treatment of Wallis and the Queen Mother, this story of the colorful mountain men appears to be one of who is the most ignorant....and yet the author keeps trying to make the point that folks were astounded when these mountain men turned up in suits, some in COLLARS!!

Admittedy I read it quickly, in this case I don't think collars make the man. Was not sure what was meant by the "Ran'l," either, that's not a nickname like "Hoss" or "Little Joe," it is, rather, what appears to be the way people prnounced "Randall."

What strange names the McCoys and the Hatfields gave their children, did you notice?

All in all a very strange tale of very strange people, almost Mafia like in its result.

ginny

HARRIET! what marvelous pictures those are! Especially the ones taken for Life magazine. I keep going back to examine them. Those people look exactly like I had imagined them.

Can you believe the ego of a man, an ego so large that it compels him to order a full-sized statue of himself hauled up a steep mountainside just so he can put it on his grave?

Great pictures!

Lorrie

This chapter was one of the poorest in the book in my opinion. It's senseless murder and, perhaps, it was started because the principals in the story were on different sides during the Civil War? Who knows?

I found their names to be amusing - Levicy, Selkirk, Cap and a few others. We have a friend whose name is Ancil and we call him Anse - I don't think our gentle friend is any relation to these murderous folk.

This feud happened at a time when, as the author tells us, there were no railroads, no towns, no industry and scant law enforcement, and the little law enforcers and judges they had took sides and rarely did anything to stop the killing.

I was interested in the tree felling - early Americans were so narrow minded about our resources in this country. We once went to the gorgeous new historical museum in Michigan and I was appalled to read that in 30 years every tree in Michigan of any size was felled and the state was left with no industry at all, after enjoying a huge lumber industry which employed hundreds.

Such folly!

And we did the same in these Appalachians mountains when coal was discovered. Just stripped the land and it was not good for anything at all when they were through with it. I believe it was just in the last 20 years or so that the federal government passed a strip mining law that owners must reclaim the land.

Terrible what we have done to a once-pristine country.

Another Hatfield son (in the photo links) was Tennis, short for Tennyson. I found that name to be odd and touching. Did they read Tennyson??? Or was naming a holdover from England like their way of talking. Or perhaps we're seeing their love of sound and expressiveness. Most of the names are very musical.

One difference between the other feuds and the Hatfields and McCoys is that they weren't National Earthshakers, whose actions affect us politically and in the abstract, and that's why we are less forgiving of the West Virginians? National Earthshakers are removed from us, they are on a stage (but not a pedestal), and we don't feel the closeness of their actions.

I'm having trouble expresing this idea, but if I look over my shoulder I can imagine Hatfields roaring down the mountain, straight toward me. I don't get the same feeling with the Queen Mother.

Maybe too that's the cause of the sadness, the Hatfields and McCoys appear to me as real people involved in a senseless human tragedy. Could the author of "Feuds" have felt the same way and been inhibited in his writing because of it? He certainly doesn't have fun with the characters, unlike the other chapters.

Marvelle

Good observation, Marvelle, in your last two sentences. As always!

Marvelle writes:

"I'm having trouble expresing this idea, but if I look over my shoulder I can imagine Hatfields roaring down the mountain, straight toward me. I don't get the same feeling with the Queen Mother."

Well, Marvelle, you may have had trouble expressing this idea, but it seems to me you did a rip-roarin' job of describing it! Well said!

Lorrie

MARVELLE, it's a pleasure to read your comments!

Harriet

It's strange, but when I heard the title of our book, GREAT FEUDS, the first thing that came into my mind was the Hatfields and McCoys. I pictured a chapter or two of this book devoted to a light hillbilly recounting with perhaps a few witty cartoons thrown in.

If my reaction was the typical American response, perhaps that explains how these hillbilly families came to be included in such an eminent assemblage of world historical figures. Maybe our author was just making a concession to a familiar American association with the word "feud?" Evans did try to have fun with this chapter, using descriptive phrases like "itchy trigger fingers," and "liquored up," but the actual facts just aren't light-hearted or witty.

As Marvelle pointed out so eloquently, these are "real people involved in a senseless human tragedy" and ELLA also described the feud as "senseless murder." NELLIE, you are so right! These are "two stubborn guys, each with a very bad temper at the heart of this." There are no grandly scaled ideological stakes here...just money and revenge. It's hard to cushion the violence in any valid framework and I should have seen that sooner. GINNY, bless you, you called 'em like you saw 'em and wondered what the West Virginia contingent was doing between the covers of this book? You are all soooo smart and what would I do without you all?!

Now our irrepressible LORRIE, she pulled off a real bonanza. She actually found a FUN association in the middle of this. She says of "Devil" Hatfield:

"Can you believe the ego of a man, an ego so large that it compels him to order a full-sized statue of himself hauled up a steep mountainside just so he can put it on his grave?"

Just scroll down a bit to see LORRIE'S $3000.00 statue of the Hatfield patriarch looking down on everyone else in the graveyard. hahaha.

LIFE/ Hatfield & McCoys with Photos

more...

I have to be out of the house today, so I'll leave you all with a few links and starter questions about Stalin vs. Trotsky.

Murders, conspiracies, aggressive drives for power...all of these make our next feud a tough one to lighten up also, don't you think? If Stalin and Trotsky had limited the penalties for their political schemes to themselves alone, it would still have been a bloody saga, but they both had no hesitation in ruthlessly murdering others to achieve their goals of power. Stalin in particular seemed to think that the rest of the world was composed of non-humans who didn't matter?

Stalin's Funeral w/Biographical Links

Leon Trotsky

Trotsky Archives w/Photos

Please feel free to finish up any thoughts you may have about the Hatfields and McCoys. You can also begin to explore our next feud as soon as you feel ready. I'll look forward hopefully to seeing your opinions and catching up with you all.

IN THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, WHY, IN THE WORDS OF OUR AUTHOR, WAS TROTSKY "SIMPLY TOO POWERFUL TO BE WHACKED?"

WHAT EFFECT DID THE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES OF STALIN AND TROTSKY HAVE IN IMPACTNG THEIR RISE TO POWER? WHY DID THE ROUGH EDGED STALIN WIN OUT IN THE POLITICAL BACK ROOMS?

Harriet

This chapter in history is a fascinating one to me - 3 great people all involved in the future of Russia and what consequences arose because of their ambitions!

I never knew Stalin's real name did anybody? Think - 20 million people lost their lives, not from a war particularly (although it could be called that) but from Stalin's fear, ego, ambition, whatever. What a legacy and I wonder if he ever considered that or his place in history!

Which of the three men would most interest you in discussing a biography? I'm sure there are many bios of all three, we might propose one in our new BIOGRAPHY folder which will be up soon in the General Folders.

From what I remember of the meetings between FDR, Churchill and Stalin, only Churchill was somewhat reluctant to give any credence to anything that Stalin said or, in fact, to even include him in the conferences they had during WWII; but then, of course, they would have had to because of the part that Russia played in that war, taking the "heat" off of the Allies in Europe.

If Hitler had not attacked Russia and divided his forces there might have been a different Europe today, a far worse one than has ever been known.

Our discussion of Dr. Zhivago touched on the Bolshevik Revolution, it was a complicated civil war! Incidentally that book was also banned in Russia in the 1950's even though the author, Boris Pasternak, was awarded the Pulitizer Prize. Pasternak, although critical of Stalin's regime, declined to go to receive the award, although it was said that he had been given permission by the Russian government.

Harriet - I'll be back to take a stab at your questions unless some one else steps in first.

later - eg

Yes, this is a really stupendous era for feuds. Like Ella says, there was so much at stake. The whole Russian revolution was involved, and the future of not only one, but many European countries was involved.

They say that history repeats itself, but how do you picture any repitition of the events of the last 50+ years, after such sweeping changes in the countries formerly known as the Soviet Union? It's mind-boggling, isn't it?

I want to read a little more about that enigmatic character Lenin, and will be back.

Lorrie

Just a thought or two.

Did these men -Lenin, Stalin, Trotski-use fear and terror to control the populace of that vast country because it was the only way of control that they knew for it was the kind of control the Czar had used?

Does this fued seem more 'disturbing' because it took place in our own time and some of us were alive when it began, and others during it?

Now I have to think about my own questions...

There are some striking similarities between the feud of Hamilton-Burr and that of Stalin-Trotsky. Trotsky was so impressed by himself that he forgot about contacts or making deals or anything outside the brilliance of his own light. (Like Burr who was thwarted at becoming President, then complacently assuming he'd be vice-president.) Stalin always had his eye on the main chance and, like Hamilton, was a consumate schemer and glad-hander.

One telling episode that made me laugh: During the armistice negotiations with Germany in 1918, Trotsky was carried away with his eloquence and forgot the purpose of the meeting. As the author writes:

"While he [Trotsky] polemicized and coined phrases for the ages, shrewder heads met and negotiated, with the result that Germany got a great deal .... There was a frosty welcome for Trotsky when he returned to Moscow, for the reckless territorial concessions he had made."

I had to bring this up because it struck me as funny. Trotsky was so oblivious to anyone else or to events, so carried away was he by his own intellect. Stalin, on the other hand, was single-minded, never forgetting his ambition of becoming 'Our Great Leader' and he did whatever it took. He lacked Trotsky's brilliance but he made up for that with his consistent scheming. While Trotsky neglected party members as being beneath him, Stalin was one of the boys, joking in the backrooms and making important contacts and allies.

With Lenin dying, Trotsky passively thought he would be the next leader but Stalin took action like Hamilton against Burr. "...(D)ozens of damaging documents ... suddenly found their way into the public domain .... an avalance of his [Trotsky's] past writings now came back to swamp him.... While Trotsky sulked, Stalin whispered in corners, making promises, extracting favors, forever scheming." Step by step Stalin isolated, badgered, humiliated Trotsky. How like Hamilton with Burr whose ambition was the complete annihilation of a hated rival. I think a picture is emerging of what qualities(?) it takes to grasp power.

I have a sidebar about the murder of Trotsky, which is minor but interests me even if no one else. The sidebar can wait until the end of this chapter.

Marvelle

NELLIE, when you wonder about the brutality of the last Tsar, I found myself recalling a book that I read many years ago. It was titled NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA and was co-authored by Robert Massie and his wife, I think her name might have been Suzanne? The book was a sympathetic biographical account detailing the downfall of the last Imperial couple of the Romanov dynasty. It was also made into a spectacular movie, nominated for several academy awards.

The Massie book portrayed Tsar Nicholas as a mild-natured man, overwhelmed by his hereditary position. He had poor political judgement and some heavy-handed, greedy advisors. He was a classic example of the adage about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Yet one of the main components of his downfall was his beloved son and heir, Alexei...who suffered from Hemophilia.

Nicholas and Alexandra tried to preserve the illusion that their very fragile son was in robust health because they feared that the succession would be endangered, that their son might be rejected by Russia if his true state of health were revealed. The child's hemophilia was not at all controllable during that era of history.

When he was given the opportunity, Nicholas refused to abdicate in favor of his son because he and the Tsarina would have been sent into exile and not been permitted to oversee Alexei's health. The Tsarina's much criticized association with the hated Rasputin occurred because Rasputin had the ability to calm the mother's fears about her child. The royal couple were arrogant and not very bright...but NOT cruel?

It was a fascinating, beautifully flowing book. I wonder how accurate it actually is. I'd love to read it again.

Harriet

Ohhh, MARVELLE! Just got here with my post and then saw your post. You're really on a roll with your astute observations and comparisons! Looks like we're both night owls tonight?

See you tomorrow.

Harriet.

Marvelle, hahaha on the Queen rolling down the hill! Great point!

I was struck with Harriet's mentioning that she immediately thought of the Hatfield’s and McCoys when she saw the word Feud, I did, too and immediately thought of "feudin', a fussin' and a fightin'," and assumed the word was of US origin, so I looked up the word feud and find to my shock that it's from the 16th century, actually, the OED says, "feud ME, OF, OE, O Teutonic......The spellig "feud" occurs too late to account for the change in spelling.

1. Active hatred, hostility, ill will--1787
2. A state of bitter and lasting mutual hostility, especially such a state existing between two families, tribes, or individuals, marked by murderous assaults in revenge for some previous insult or wrong....1568
3. A quarrel, contention, bickering 1565

So it's pretty old.

Lorrie mentioned hubris in the Hatfield funerary monument and I can't help noticing the influence of Marx on both these men and that Trotsky got his name, Trotsky, from a fake name on a passport to London.

That reminds me that Marx is buried in London, a city whose funerary monuments tomb of Charles Barrett, Organist, are second to none in the world, and Highgate Cemetery (East) is the resting place of Marx.

Highgate, a virtual incredible City of the dead is filled with monuments which boggle the mind.

You have to take a tour of West Highgate, and there they will tell you of a man whose ego was so large that when he was refused a building which would cut off the view of the Londoners of scenic Highgate, upon his death erected IN Highgate, if I recall the story correctly, such a monument of huge proportion that it forever shadows the cemetery and the views of it. I can't recall his name (isn't that ironic?) or if in fact his huge monument is actually WITHIN the grounds, but I do recall it puts everything in Highgate in shadow. Talk about hubris!

Anyway....the story of Stalin and Trotsky was quite interesting and again parallels some of the feuds of the ancients, notably Cicero and Augustus, Cicero in exile, excoriating Augustus with his tongue until Augustus had him beheaded and his tongue pierced thru and the head and tongue stuck on the rostra in the Forum in Rome.

I think Caesar and Pompey's Feud would have made an additional good story for this book.

What can we say about Stalin and Trotsky?

Things haven't changed much in the Soviet Union have they?

Did you happen to see the documentary recently on PBS about Chechnya( SP?)

The photographers went into the area and filmed it. I guess I have been under a rock. I had heard of Chezyna or however you spell it but had no idea what was actually happening. I thought it was WAR?

As one young Russian soldier explained to the camera, we're NOT like the Nazis, we're only taking boys between 15 and 30 or whatever it was, we're not wiping out an entire race and it will take them that long to rebuild an army. The camera watches and manages hopefully to intercede, while rolling as another mother’s son is dragged away. I lost any desire I ever had to visit Russia with that documentary, recently shot.

What's the lesson in the Trotsky/ Stalin story? Pride goeth before a fall?

It seems to me that the stakes were much higher between these two men than maneuvering and plotting, once again, we have two very unadmirable subjects for a feud, it's quite interesting, I think, to make the comparisons between the Feuders and the reasons they Feuded, I'm enjoying this discussion very much.

Quite an eye opening book.

ginny

WHAT WONDERFUL POSTS TO READ!

I'm getting a great education from just reading all your comparisons and it's wonderful! There's one I can think of - well, nothing like those warriors - but a feud nevertheless; or, taking into account Ginny's definition of a feud, it was more of a contention I would say, and that was between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson!

They didn't speak for 15 years! Our two great founding fathers, both great presidents, both had tremendous egos.

One of you mentioned listing all the qualities that go into the making of leaders that can murder with no conscience whatsoever and murder on such a grand scale!

Ego, greed, power, revenge - just off the top of my head - what other qualities?

What I was so amazed at was the fact that Stalin was in training for the clergy!! Can you imagine such a fellow coming out of a school for the clergy?

This is a fascinating subject - chapter - must run for now, be back later! ella

I know Karl Marx is buried in London----at Highgate, and what a somber place that is, Ginny! But there is one thing that confuses me. I wonder why Marx is buried in London, and not in Germany. After all, he was German, wasn't he? You would think the German governament would want someone so historically important.

Lorrie

I read an anecdote about Stalin. I'll try to remember it.

Stalin was discoursing on how to rule a nation. He had a little bird brought to him. He held the bird firmly and plucked all the feathers from its body. When the bird lay in his hand helpless, dazed and shivering, he said: "See, the bird is under my complete control now...and it is even GRATEFUL to me for the warmth of my hand as I hold it.

Nice fella, huh?

NELLIE, ELLA, LORRIE, and GINNY, I have been trying to think of something to say about Stalin and Trotsky, but maybe my problem is that these men are just too hard to identify with. MARVELLE has been drawing astute comparisons between feuders and their methodologies and there are plenty of ambitious, power-hungry demagogues in our book. However, don't most of them prefer to believe that they have a laudable motive in their drive to power? Didn't all of them, with the possible exception of our hillbilly feuders have some regard for the sanctity of life?

I wonder, did the paranoiac Stalin really believe he was working for the benefit of anyone except himself? Did he do anything really good for Russia besides resist the German invasion during World War II? I really don't know. Was there an up side to his temperament? Embarrassed at my woeful lack of historical knowledge here. Is anyone here a history buff who can expound on the positive side of Stalin? IS there one?

When I was looking for links to bring you all for our discussion, I found one site that listed Stalin under the category of HEROES OF RUSSIA. Within less than five minutes, I found another link that categorized the man under MASS MURDERERS. What a remarkable diversity of evaluations on the web?

I also saw two photographs, I WISH I could find them again, that seemed to represent a symbolic loop of power. In one of the photos, a youngish Stalin reverently passes the bier of the recently deceased Lenin. Lenin is visible in profile in his coffin. In the next photo many years later, Stalin and Lenin lay side by side in their respective coffins, each seen from the same profile view, each "mummified" as the idols of their nation, except that "Uncle Joe" now looks old compared to Lenin. This was the final result of power for Stalin...the right to lay side by side in death with his old boss, Lenin?

I understand that as more of Stalin's murderous tactics were revealed after his death, he was removed to a more ordinary below ground grave?

Harriet

I think we should find a good biography of Stalin! And as we just happened to open a new BIOGRAPHY folder here in the Books, we could see how many are interested, eh?

This is a terrible comparison I know, but this sentence in the book - "Stalin cut deals, cajoled and threatened, schemed his way into the heart of the party."

When I read that immediately I thought of LBJ, who did the same but, of course, LBJ was an American and such things don't happen here. Let's pray they never do.

I just finished reading the Stalin-Trotsky chapter. It was particularly interesting to me because I remember the news accounts announcing Trotsky's assassination in 1940. At that time I was 13 and in Junior High school. I certainly was not aware of the details of the power struggle that preceded his death, but I was vaguely aware that he was Russian and had been a leader of the revolution. I had the ideal that the assassin’s weapon was a hatchet and was surprised to read for the first time today, it was an ice pick. Also this was the first time I had heard about the fate of the assassins who initially at any rate was well rewarded. In fact the actual killer after about 20 years in a Mexican prison appears to have lived until 1978 where he died an apparent natural death in Communist Cuba. Stalin promoted the NKVD colonel who led the plot to General, but afterwards he seems to have fallen into disfavor.

Of course struggle for power after the death of a revolutionary leader is quite the natural order of things. A similar though certainly overall less bloody struggle occurred in the Soviet Union again after the 1953 death of Stalin. At the time Nikita Khrushchev was initially shoved to the background while the struggle centered on Georgi Malenkov who became Prime Minister and the head of the NKVD, Lavrenti Beria. Within 3 monts of Stalins death, Malenkov with support of the army had Beria arrested. He was tried and executed before the end of 1953. The power struggle in the Kremlin continued untill Nikita Khrushchev emerged in control by the summer of 1954.

Lorrie, Karl Marx (1818-83) was not welcome in Germany. First, he edited a radical newspaper that was suppressed by the Prussian government and he fled to Paris, then Brussels, then England with the government hot on his heels. Second, both his mother and father are from a long line of rabbis. So, a radical and a Jew in those times through WWII would not make him appealing to Germany. Then the upsurge of Communism and a divided Berlin -- you get the picture. Karl Marx was always controversial and still is today.

Marvelle

Karl Marx wrote his "Das Capital" in the British Museum while he was living in England.

I agree, Harold, I was surprised on that ice pick too, that canNOT have been easy, think on it a bit.

Marvelle and Harold, you are so right, here's a bit more, Lorrie, about Marx. Marx was not welcome in Germany because of his radical ideas, primarily. His parents although of Jewish heritage, were baptized so that his father might keep his job and the "children were raised as part of the small minority of 200 Protestants in Catholic Trier." (Permanent Londoners)

Here's Marx's tomb in Highgate East Karl Marx, 1818-1883

According to the book Permanent Londoners, An Illustrated Guide to the Cemeteries of London, he had left Paris in 1843, "knowing that his future in Germany was dim." In Paris he met Engels and they maintained a friendship till his death.

He wrote The Communist Manifesto, the first words of which you see on his tomb, "Workers of all lands, unite," in 1848, but it was not published when the 1848 revolution broke out in Frankfurt, and Marx hurried there, too late. He quickly left but was arrested in Brussels as Marvelle noted, and fled to London and raised a family for more than 40 years in London.

He wrote Capital in 1867 as Harold noted, in London, and had such (sorry) hemorrhoids in the latter stages of writing that he could not sit down, lamenting, "I hope the bourgeoisie wil remember my carbuncles."

After the deaths of his wife and his older favorite daughter, he died in his sleep in 1883, in London and "there are always flowers in all shades of red left at the tomb, though the monument had sometimes been defaced with red, white and blue paint."

I have never seen it, have never been able to tear self out of Highgate West, but plan to try the next time I'm there.

Harriet, I agree, I am so woefully ignorant of Stalin and Trotsky, I don't know enough about either to comment, either, but am enjoying learning all this stuff!

ginny

What a treasure trove of comments to read! Thank you all!

Trotsky's influence was extremely pervasive in the early Revolutionary days. Trotsky had Lenin's ear back then, and Stalin, running second best, hatched plots, counter-plots and whispering campaigns to discredit his rival. Trotsky, infuriated, resigned from the Politburo.

Lenin valued Trotsky so much that he wooed him back, soothed his sensitive feelings, and gave him a signed carte blanche to display to anyone (I interpret that to mean Comrade Stalin!) who questioned his decisions or authority. (p. 92) That made Trotsky the #2 man for a time, the heir to the kingdom, a Politburo Powerhouse. For a while, Trotsky was untouchable as a target for assassination by his rival. However, time changes all things, doesn't it....?

It surprises me to see how sensitive this ruthless trio, Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were to each other's manipulations. They actually became offended and insulted by each other. It amuses me that Trotsky retired from the Politburo in wounded dignity until Lenin urged him to return.. The rest of the world could live or die, they couldn't care less...but, in their world of terror, they CARED about the insinuations of each other? That aspect of their mutual relationship was probably instrumental in sealing Trotsky's death warrant?

NELLIE, like you I found this feud particularly disturbing. The levels of violence, the paucity of conscience in the protagonists all served to shake up my normal world. We are so fortunate to live in a country where massacres are an unthinkable atrocity. This vision into a world where huge groups of people can be murdered on the whim of a brutal paranoiac has a nightmare quality.

MARVELLE, earlier you mentioned a sidebar involving Trotsky's death that you wanted to share? Please don't forget. I can't believe it's almost time to move onward to the next Feud. Each one seems to go so quickly, doesn't it?

ELLA, I'll add to your list of characteristics for dictators. How about a total lack of scruples as an additional requirement for the job?

HAROLD, wonderful post on Nikita Khrushchev 's ascent to power. I didn't know that Russia was still into political executions as recently as the 1950's.

Let's consider today as being available for both final comments on Stalin and Trotsky and the expansion of our discussion to include our Arctic explorers, Roald Amundsen and Robert F. Scott.

GINNY, LORRIE,everyone, have a great day. I appreciate you all.

Harriet

more....

Here's a link or two for our Antarctic explorers. As competitive and fierce as these two men were, they seem civilized to me after our last two feuds. Each was determined to earn the honor of "first at the South Pole" for their country and themselves.

Roald Amundsen

Robert F Scott

Scott's Big Chill

WHAT "DIRTY TRICK" DID AMUNDSEN RESORT TO IN ORDER TO ASSURE HIMSELF OF AN ADVANTAGE OVER SCOTT IN THE RACE TO THE POLE OF 1910?

HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET AMUNDSEN'S MOTIVES IN LEAVING A PERSONAL LETTER FOR SCOTT AT THE SOUTH POLE?

Please feel free to involve yourself with either the old feuds or the new one today.

Harriet

Just a couple of rambling comments before we begin the expedition to the antarctic which I have begun and which chapter promises to be a very lively discussion.

Were we all watching TV the night the wall started breaking up and the crowd in Russia pulled the statue of Lenin down? It was an amazing sight, a symbolic sight, and in reading this "Lenin's role as godfather of the revolution.....terror, he decided was the key; instill such fear into the population that submission to the state would be as natural as breathing."

We can hope that Putin's role as head of the present Russia will be more tolerant of its people - has anyone studied the present situation in Russia today?

I didn't know anything about Trotsky's life in exile - why Mexico? And who is this "American educator John Dewey?" - not the Dewey who ran againt Truman was it? It would be about the right time in history and what did he think he was doing going to Mexico to oversee a hearing about Trotsky's alleged crimes against Russia? Seems rather ridiculous for an American educator to be involved in such an endeavor.

Harold - our history guru - do you know anything this?

My final comment. I read a bio of Jackson Pollock who once studied and was a model for Thomas Hart Benton. Pollock could not draw well and eventually moved to postmodernism. He studied under David Alfaro Siqueiros in 1936. Siqueiros left the U.S. soon after to fight in the Spanish Civil War on the Communists side. The night before he left New York, Pollock tried to strangle him -- it was deadly serious. I always wondered if the cause was personal or political. Pollock's father was a leftist and Pollock seemed to be one although his art superseded everything. There have been rumors that Pollock was funded by the CIA but that's only rumor. I rather think the fight was political.

In Spain, Siqueiros underwent a lot of criticism from fellow Communists because Mexico was harboring Trotsky. I think that plus Siqueiros' need to solidify his shaky place in the Mexican Communist organization, led to his attempted murder of Trotsky.

Self Portrait

David Alfaro Siqueiros: Revolutionary Artist

Works

Siqueiros fled Mexico and ended up in Chile I believe. He was jailed 7 different times and many times his revolutionary murals were destroyed by governments. In later life, he admitted that he led the raid on Trotsky's house. Karl Marx, The Russian Revolution and Communist Party had a far-ranging influence!

Marvelle

in the building where i live, there are many Russian emigres, or I should say people from parts of what used to be the Societ bloc. Most of them are of an age who remember Stalin vividly, and when we talk to them about him their responses are quite revealing. Some of them still think he was a "great man" who provided for his citizens, even with all the negative stuff they have learned. It's interesting to note that many of these former Communists secretly miss the form of government they once had. As one of them put it, At least, with Communism you always had a job, a place to live, and food to eat." I think they equate freedom with poverty. It also seems to me that these same people must have had some sort of political government job, as far as I can tell they were well provided for.

I admit that these sentiments annoy me a lot, but then i compare them to the feelings expressed by the many former Ukrainians whom I am helping to pass their citizenship exams, and whose gratitude at being here is enormous. Josef Stalin was an ogre to many, a hero to some, apparently.

Lorrie

John Dewey was a well know late 19th/early 20th century American Philosopher and educator. He applied the new American philosophy known as Pragmatism to the development of a theory of knowledge. Click here fore a biographical sketch.

I think the principal reason for Trotsky ending up in Mexico was that no country wanted him. The Great feuds chapter mentions several countries before he ended up in Mexico.

I too remember watching the late 1989 TV shots of the Wall coming down and the Statues of Lenin being destroyed. Remembering my Marxist theory it seemed to me a “second rising of the proletariat,” an event Marx had not anticipated in his theology. The reasons for the change was outlined in a book Why Gorvachev Happened, that is probably still available in libraries. In brief the Communist bureaucracy had become so inefficient that the society imploded from its weight. The world owes Gorvachev a great debt for his peaceful engineering of the collapse and the creation of a budding Russian democracy. Today after 12 years under the present President the capitalist economy is showing signs of life and I am now optimistic for the future.

MARVELLE, what a marvelous story about Trotsky and David Alfaro Siqueiros. Those are extraordinary links to his art work and I very much enjoyed seeing his paintings. I thought they were filled with power and vitality.

One of your links mentioned that Trotsky stayed in the home of his friends, Diego Rivera and Fridah Kahlo while in Mexico. I had no idea that these two eminent artists were married to each other. I had also wondered where Trotsky obtained the resources to live in the huge villa which he fortified for his safety. Thanks for the fantastic art links and information.

How ironic that two noted Mexican artists, Rivera and Kahlo, offered safety and sustenance to Trotsky, while another gifted Mexican artist, Siqueiros, tried to take his life.

LORRIE, it must be fascinating to talk to Russian immigrants and hear their opinions of life under Stalin. That's really getting your history first-hand, isn't it?

ONWARD TO THE ANTARCTIC!

This chapter launches us into a world of adventure, competitive exploration, international rivalries and bulging egos that I had never known existed. I do love all the by-ways of knowledge that reading a book like GREAT FEUDS produces.

What is your opinion of Amundsen's tactics toward Scott? How do you feel about the way he never revealed his true plans to compete for the honor of First At The South Pole, even when Scott, under the illusion that Amundsen was planning a scientific expedition, offered to pool scientific resources?

Harriet

I thought that Amunsen's tactics were sneaky and underhanded -but I can understand this desire to be the first to reach the South Pole that both men had. The rewards were great after all.

Then there is that telegram. The one that Scott was not supposed to get until it was too late. I presume that Amunsen expected that he would have reached the South Pole long before Scott would even know he had gone there.

One question I have is: did Scott rush his preparations for the race to the Pole because of Amunsen and was that the result of his death?

I think lack of preparation was a Scott-trait and had nothing to do with Amundsen who'd prepared all his life for this trip. It's still hard to believe that Scott thought ponies would be great pack animals in the Antarctic. When the ponies turned out to be a failure, he and his man had to lug their gear themselves. Scott and his men did not lack in endurance, strength, or courage to get as far as they did considering the weather. Harriet gave us some wonderful links including "Scott's Big Chill" which shows just how unbearably bad the weather was for Scott's expedition.

Marvelle

Sorry to get here late, I missed the first part of the discussion.

Only the Brits could have made Amudsen out to be a baddy. Scott was second to the south pole because he was basically a fool. He relied on the British class system in every decision he made. There was the officer class and the 'other ranks' just like the British navy of his days. The officers made all of the decisions and the 'other ranks' obeyed orders. All of Scott's orders were obeyed, even when they were wrong.

Amudsen was much better prepared for the Antarctic, and used his people and equipment better than Scott. He was thorough and systematic, rather than the British attitude that 'character' would prevail. Remember that Amudsen left supplies at the south pole for Scott in case he needed them. Of course that was smrter than than hauling them back.

The attitude that the Brits took, that anyone who bested them had to have cheated, was a great diservice to Amudsen. All Amudsen did was to attack the problem in a 20th century method while Scott was mired in the 19th century. I don't think that praising someone for bravery, rigidity, and unwillingness to change with the times is really the right thing to do; anymore than damning someone for being smart, creative and just as brave was just and fair. The Brits had a much bigger audience for their views than the Norwegians, to much of the world Scott is a hero and Amudsen is a scoundrel.

John Z

Thank you JOHN Z! Your views coincide with my own. Scott was a fool and it is not due to lack of experience as the book tells he had previous polar experience, his problem was a bulging ego without proper knowledge or planning. PONIES!

I have just finished listening to the tapes of the Lewis and Clark expedition and they subsisted on dog meat for days and days having traded with the Indians for dogs. They ate dog and horse meat rather than the delicious salmon they could have had because it had made the whole company ill when they first ate it.

If Scott had all those dogs who could exist in extremely cold conditions he may not have starved for lack of food.

BEING FIRST! I'm sure you all remember how we felt in America when Russia put Sputnik into space before we did? How dare they be better than we - the superior and scientific champion of the world. Or so we thought! It matters being FIRST!

Hardly an excuse, however, for lack of planning that Scott indulged in and consequently lost his life and those of his team.

This was a rather mild "feud" compared with those we have previously discussed.

Amundsen might have felt it was more of a race between the two leaders rather than a feud (his reputation as an explorer was at stake). It was Scott who turned it into something worse in my opinion.

Yes, I thought Amundsen was well prepared and he considered it to be a great race. It isn't his fault that Scott met with disaster. Amundsen was so careful with finding the right men, equipment, provisions, animals, and plotting his course. I don't have my book with me -- besides ponies, didn't Scott also try machinery for hauling that immediately sank beneath the ice? Still, you can't disregard Scott and company's bravery offset by such very bad choices and preparations.

Amundsen felt guilty for not taking better care of Scott yet he did leave supplies for him. And it was Scott's job to look after Scott and company. This was a tragedy for everyone because Amundsen had to live with his undeserved guilt.

I agree that this seemed less a feud than the other chapters, even the Hatfields and McCoys had personal animosity going on. This episode was more a competition although we could say that England made it a "feud" after Scott's death. Not cricket to use lowly dogs instead of ponies, to be well provisioned, above all to be organized and PREPARED. It was national pride that made it a feud, of a powerful nation feeling bested by an 'underserving' and less politically powerful country. As Ella mentioned, the U.S. was quite offended when Russia was first in space -- how unfair of them when the U.S. deserved to be first.

Marvelle

I am so glad to hear all of these posts that feel as I do. I have read the book "The Worst Place on Earth" and have the videos from the PBS series from years ago. Amundsen prepared. He was realistic about what he would find. He chose men based on exploration.. I am amazed that anyone would consider him unfair. Scott ( and his wife, who was a pip in the videos) both seemed to feel that Great Britain should win on the sheer basis of superiority. What a mess. Just think of the people who died, because Scott did not plan. Sad.. When we were in Greenwich years ago, in the basement of the naval museum is a whole area devoted to Scott and his Heroism( they never mention that he did not get there first). Showed the tents, the gear, etc. Interesting but somewhat self serving.

After reading the posts and thinking it through again, the "feud" only existed in the minds of the Brits after it was all over. Certainly Amudsen felt no animosity toward Scott. Scott blamed Amudsen for stealing his glory but he probably would have been unsuccessful even if Amudsen had never existed. The Brits just couldn't cope with the facts in the case, so they "dissed" Amudsen.

John Z

Tonight I started reading a book I've had on my bedside table for a long time, Caroline Alexander's "The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition" which adds to my shock at Scott's modus operandii. There had been, of course, other expeditions, including one led by Scott with Shackleton in the party. This expedition was a failure too for they didn't know how to ski or how to drive the dogs. A later Shackleton expedition had with them 10 ponies and 9 dogs and the ponies all died and, again, no one knew how to drive the dogs. These were earlier expeditions.

Then Scott had his fatal last exploration and a year later Shackleton sets out in the Endurance. These are a lot of tries, not just one. But here is Alexander on Scott's last trip:

"Scott's party, bogged down by a bewildering array of modes of transportation -- ponies, such as Shackleton had already proved to be useless, motor sledges that didn't work, and dogs that no one knew how to drive -- slogged their way south, adhering closely to Shackleton's route and playing out the now traditional drama of starvation and hardship."

This is pretty shocking. No one learned from past failures except Amundsen who was puzzled that Scott still used ponies who had numerous times before proved unsuccessful in the Antarctic. Amundsen and his men knew how to ski and how to drive their 52 well conditioned and trained dogs. Alexander again on the public interest in Scott's "glorious failure":

"Scott's tragedy was commemorated in the press and in the pulpit. In the public telling, his party's fatal, perverse blunders were not merely forgotten but evaporated out of existence. A myth was born, and propagated by the eventual publication of Scott's diaries, subtly edited by Sir James Barrie, the author of 'Peter Pan' and a master of sentimental prose."

So began the myth and a year later Shackleton set out for the Antarctic on the Endurance for another failure as an expedition but successful in that he and all of his men, many stranded for 22 months before being rescued, survived.

I can now understand a quote I heard earlier -- if someone knows the exact quote please let me know -- "If you want a heroric adventure go with Scott, if you want to return go with Shackleton, if you want both go with Amundsen."

All of this leads me to question whether Scott was incapable of thinking 'outside the box.' He knew past experiences with ponies were a failure, he knew skiing and dogsleding were important skills, he knew the dangers of starvation.... all of these and more. Yet he stubbornly clung to old methods that had proved unsuccessful. Amundsen was gearing up to succeed and he studied what worked and what didn't.

Anyone with different impressions and opinions, please post here for I'm afraid we are giving Scott a hard time. As for me, I want to find a good book on Amundsen.

Marvelle

I've been fascinated by the comments here! WELCOME, John Z, and wonderful quote, Marvelle!!

I have several thoughts on this segment.

1. Isn't it true that recent findings show that Scott never actually reached the Pole at all? How does that fit in with what we're reading here, I wonder?

2. On biographies of Scott, Elspeth Huxley, of all people (she of The Flame Trees of Thika fame) wrote what was supposed to be the definitive biography of Scott ages ago, have any of you read it? I have it but have not read it, if I can find it I'll try to see what position she takes. I do like a discussion which sparks further interest and reading! Great work, Harriet!

3. I don't think I'd be too hard on Ammundsen at all. His "secret," etc. Explorers in those days were intensely competitive, and the Explorers Clubs in England were very ego filled highly competitve things, I can't imagine somebody from Norway being so ingenuous as to blurt his plans when the glory would have been all his.

However, the fsct that Scott sent him a compass or whatever shows Scott to be a rare and idealistic type of person, also.

Nor do I think Scott can be blamed for his theories gone bad, listen, if you do go to Greenwich, as Stephanie noted above, you can see in an instant that things were far from what we might think at those times.

The last time I was there about 2 years ago the big thing was the Shackleford exhibit and the Mallory. Both these men were exporing, one in the Antarctic and one on Everest in clothes you would not have worn to the supermarket on a cold day. When Mallory was found recently he was in a wool tweed jacket, both men would wear knee britches and wool socks. I stood literally for hours just wondering how on earth any of these people ever made it a day in those temperatures, much less what we've just read about. TRULY the conditions were quite different from what we imagine.

Let's not be too hard on Scott for his theories and heroism, nor Ammundsen for winning and careful plotting, let's be hard on the author who once again slanted the narrative.

I first noticed it when I personally became inflamed with the inhuman Amundsen for his horrid planning to eat the dogs while poor sensitive Soctt tried to care for the ponies, according to the author, at the risk of his own men.

I have all sorts of exclamation points next to this passage, for a moment I hated poor Amundsen, but then I rememebered Greenwich, they would probably have died, like Scott or eaten each other like the pioneers out west caught in the snow, can't think of the name of the Pass now, if he had not done that.

Scott sent Amundsen a compass or something to help him. That one thing to me signals his idealism. Maybe he was naive, but he was heroic, they both were, but I do think there is some new information that Scott did not reach the Pole, actually.

WHAT "DIRTY TRICK" DID AMUNDSEN RESORT TO IN ORDER TO ASSURE HIMSELF OF AN ADVANTAGE OVER SCOTT IN THE RACE TO THE POLE OF 1910?

None, in my opinion, I would not have sent a telegram at all.

HOW WOULD YOU INTERPRET AMUNDSEN'S MOTIVES IN LEAVING A PERSONAL LETTER FOR SCOTT AT THE SOUTH POLE?

Gotcha! And I think that was fair, considering, and I don't think he should have berated himself for not leaving food: Scott would not have left him any, how did he know Scott would need some, and he should not have set out to try to rescue the others out of guilt. We've seen that too much in our mountain climbers, and usually to ill effect.

Do the people of Norway consider Amundsen a blackquard as the author seems to?

ginny

Amudsen is a national hero in Norway, as well he should be! The Norwegians have never bought into the British propoganda. I remember visiting a monument to him in one of the cities in northern Norway where he had lived, and trained for the Arctic and Antarctic.

The author bought into the Brits story of what a lowlife Amudsen was. Eating the dogs or ponies was more or less standard practice for this type of exploration. They were recognized as a source of food in planning the trip.

Scott's giving Amudsen a compass to be used in a place (North Pole) where a compass is useless ranks right up there with Amudsen leaving food at the pole that he didn't want to haul back. They may be interesting stories but they don't have anything to do with anything. I am getting less and less impressed with Colin Evans.

Seeing how biased the author was with this story makes you wonder how impartial his other stories are.

John Z

WELCOME, John Z, and Stephanie!!

Perceptive comments, JOHN! So glad that you decided to join us. In 1910, the sun never set on the British Empire, and the British view of things certainly did have the eye and ear of the world. In the more current analyses of the Antarctic race, Amundsen is getting credit for his far-sighted organization and preparedness for Antarctic exploration.

STEPHANIE, you brought up an essential aspect of national pride. The British "spin" on Scott, portraying him as a hero in their Naval Museum is not an uncommon tactic. Seems to me, throughout history, if you polled the population of a losing nation in many international races or wars, it's surprising how many of them are unaware that they haven't won. Isn't it interesting that nowadays Saddam Hussein, in many of his current speeches, refers to how Iraq "drove out" the Allied coalition in 1993, and insists that Iraq will "win" again? It's hard for national pride to concede loss or failure, isn't it? Of course this tactic works best with semiliterate populations, but surprisingly it can also apply to more sophisticated, literate populations also?

When I first read this chapter I felt that Amundsen had pulled a few "fast ones" but as I learn more I begin to wonder. Did Amundsen really need Scott's permission to begin his exploration? Maybe it was a courtesy that he informed him at all? Now I question my previous suppositions... John, seems to me you are accurate in perceiving bias in our Evans book?

I must say I'm stunned by the idea of ponies also, ELLA. WHITE ponies, for goodness sakes, because they would be better adapted to the snow and ice? Yet, the tragedies of the death of the Scott Team remains real. I do feel for Scott's team.

The ABC news article on The Scott Expedition, The Big Chill quotes Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Charles Stearns of the University of Wisconsin. Writing in the Nov. 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Solomon relates:

In the past 15 years, only one year — 1988 — had temperatures as persistently cold as Scott’s expedition encountered. “It’s not unprecedented,” Solomon says. “It is unusual.” She reports that the temperatures Scott and his companions encountered as they trudged across the Ross Ice Shelf were 10 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit colder than usual. They might have returned safely had they not encountered these unusually adverse conditions, she feels.

Nevertheless, Scott's rigid thinking and unpreparedness had to contribute to his ultimate disaster. MARVELLE, thank you so much for the excellent information provided by Alexander's account of the Shackleton Expedition. It's an interesting summary on the dynamics of both Amundsen's and Scott's expeditions. One of your statements is worth repetition because it seems so true...and it was, I gather, a spontaneous association of past reading, activated by the Shackleton Expedition book? So sharp of you!

"If you want a heroic adventure, go with Scott, if you want to return, go with Shackleton, if you want both... go with Amundsen."

Sounds right to me!

Harriet

John, what a fabulous point hahah on the compasses, but I think I misquoted, doggone it, but super point anyway!

Thank you for that clarification, on the actual thing which Scott sent, I'm sorry I got it wrong but now I do want to know: on page 113 of the paperback, a "set of matched instruments so that comparative measurements could be taken of the North and South poles, " would those also have been useless? Super point on the compasses!! We can see who the explorer here is. hahahaha

Also thank you for the information on how the Norwegians see Amundsen, I agree with you, and rightly so.

So how, John, do you view Scott's attempts to contact Amundsen "with a view to pooling scientific resources," and the gifts?

Love this discussion, good points, Harriet!

ginny

Ginny, we cross posted. Terrific comments, I'll catch you again later, Love your perceptions! I've come around to a different point of view about that telegram. Nobody in Antarctic Exploration was trying to earn a Boy Scout Merit Badge, nor did they have to be trying to be Boy Scouts. I do agree that it was timed to be a Gotcha! kind of thing, as was the letter left at the pole, I would think.

Goodness, if Scott never reached the pole, how would he have gotten the letter Amundsen left for him at the Polar camp? How would he have left a British flag at the site?

Harriet

Ginny - - of course the Norwegians were proud of Amundsen. He used their usual methods of travel in the Arctic circle to get to the South Pole. They always took dogs - they all learned to ski, they were used to low temperatures & physical endurance. As an Englishwoman, I could never see the point of trying to make out Scott was some great hero. He actually divided his men into officers & other ranks! Shackleton was an even better leader - he worried about the health of his men & was incredibly proud they all returned alive. Scott was probably a nice man, but for such a hazardous journey, he was pretty stupid. You'd expect him to have done some research - taken some advice? Amundsen was much more intelligent - & experienced of course - it was Scott's arrogance led him to believe he could beat a Norwegian in polar exploration. We were brought up to believe in this heroic rubbish.

Welcome, VIOGERT!!

It's great to hear even more new voices. I sure hope that you, JOHN and STEPHANIE will continue to offer us your opinions and feel free to challenge the book wherever it seems suitable. Your opinions offer a fascinating glimpse into the different ways that history can be perceived.

Plainly, different authors and researchers can present varying interpretations of events and even within any country, some will agree with the popular view and some will not.

I feel it's the differences in points of view that help me to learn and are the most fun to talk about. Hang around, guys! Praise the author, criticize the author, but please... tell us what you think! I'm so glad to hear from each and every one of you in this discussion. I hope everyone is having fun... because I sure am!

Harriet

Just a reminder before we return to Amundsen and Scott tonight. Tomorrow we begin discussing the DUCHESS OF WINDSOR vs the QUEEN MOTHER

Now, I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait! That was a juicy, delicious scandal in its time. Our author might have to duck a few wet spaghetti noodles flying his way depending on how he has chosen to slant that piece of history.

So...decide who you think is right on this one...and tell the rest of us all about it tomorrow. This one ought to be a lot of fun!

Back to the Antarctic now.....

Harriet

"One has the feeling that if it had been Shackleton who lost to Amundsen at the pole, he would have met up with the Norwegians on the way back, and they would have all held a big celebratory party...." from 'The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition' by Jane Alexander

Amundsen reached the pole and survived. Shackleton failed but survived. Scott reached the pole second and died. There are some crucial characteristics which determine survival or death. We know Amundsen was better prepared and more organized than Scott. I didn't learn much more about Amundsen in this brief chapter in the book so I'll refer again to Shackleton to view other survival(?) characteristics.

For Shackleton, his men always came first before glory or pride. On a trip previous to the one on 'Endurance', Shackleton had come close to his Antarctic goal but he turned back because

[Alexander] "Shackleton resisted persuading himself that he could safely cover those foregone miles, or that they counted for more than life itself. Had he been less self-possessed, or more desperate for glory (he could have reached his goal and he and his trusting men would have perished close to where Scott's party did perish). Shackleton's decision to turn back was more than a singular act of courage, it bespoke the dogged optimism that was the cornerstone of his character. Life would always offer more chances."

I had to laugh at one line from Alexander's book where she said that Shackleton "had taken what were by British standards enormous pains with his preparations." Unlike Scott but still not as organized or prepared as Amundsen. Besides preparation and organization being necessary for the explorations, there's also leadership and decision-making. I think Scott failed on all counts.

Books devoted to the Antarctic race are many. There is one listed at B&N that seems to have all the bells and whistles: "The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen's Race to the South Pole" by Roland Huntford. Check it out. Has SN discussed this book? It's listed in the biblio for our Feuds book. There is another book "Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen: Leadership, Character and Tragedy in the Antarctic" by David Thomson, available on 10/15. Can anyone offer further reading suggestions?

My last thought on "Feuds..." treatment of Scott and Amundsen. This chapter was a failure as a feud. It would have been better if the author dwelled more on the real feud between nations and their pride -- more news clippings of the time, comments of leaders of both countries, etc. Then I could accept this as a feud.

Marvelle

P.S. I choose the QM over Queen Cutie!

HarrietM - - Thanks for the welcome - but I'm a bit of a fraud - I didn't read the book & only bobbed up because it's part of our history of which I am ashamed.

Marvelle - - You are right about Caroline Alexander's book - she is excellent on the subject - a lot of brilliant pictures by Frank Hurley the photographer Shackleton took along too. Her judgement of South Pole expeditions matches my own exactly. Shackleton wrote his own book - "South" which is still in print, & there's another book I have recently started - supposed to be the best on the subject, "The Worst Journey in the World" by Apsley Cherry-Garrard (1922) & still in print. He was the youngest member of the Scott expedition. Sara Wheeler's "Terra Incognita" is a very good book about her stay in the Antarctic & views on the explorers. (Like all the women who take an interest in the South Pole, including me, she fell in love with Shackleton). Her recent biography of Apsley Cherry-Garrard received very high praise.

I am sure when all the facts are released about The Queen Mother, Wallis Simpson will appear saintly by comparison. Wallis didn't feud with QM, the Duke of Windsor was her target for a long-term grudge.

Over the years, I've read a couple of books about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor; most Americans have always been fascinated by them - particularly a King giving up his throne to marry a commoner and one that had been twice divorced and was an American.

VIOGERT - stay with us as you have inside knowledge of this next story I'm sure!

Personally, I don't like either Queen Elizabeth or Wallis, so I cannot choose sides.

Do you believe that the Duke of Windsor truly wanted to be crowned King? I can't help but believe that the restrictions placed upon him by the position was too much for this fun-loving, handsome young fellow and when he met Wallis he knew she would never be accepted by the Royal Family and he pursued her. Just my theory.

His poor brother, obviously, didn't want the throne either and being shy and a stutterer was not equal to the task.

The last book I read hinted that perhaps both Wallis and the Duke were homosexuals and, of course, in tune with the times they had to disguise their sexuality - how better to do it than marry and one that was fun to be with as Wallis evidently was.

Can't remember exactly the truth of this assertion, but I believe Wallis wrote in her memoir (which I've never read, nor have I read the one the Duke wrote) that her previous marriages were never consummated. Impossible to believe that!

The Duke and Wallis' selfish life, with little consideration for England, its people, the Royal Family, is proof enough that they were not admirable people and it didn't help that Edward visited with Adolph Hitler and praised him. They were both obsessed with being socialites and being invited to the best homes and their constant bickering with the Royal Family over money did not help their image.

VIOGERT!! How is Scott viewed now, do you think?

Apparently I was wrong and it's felt that Scott DID reach the pole, but I recall distinctly that new findings put him off. At any rate, in looking thru google for it, I found this, it's excerpts from his own diary on his final days, I just post this in passing as we get on to the jucier Wallis vs England episodes. "Great God! this is an awful place"

And now off to the supposed greatest love story of all times, the man who gave up his throne for the woman he loved.

ginny

Ginny, remember that the man who wrote Peter Pan edited Scott's diary. Thanks viogert for the book recommendations.

Marvelle

I did not know that, Marvelle, what effect do you believe that had on Scott's diary?

ginny

Good morning everyone. It looks like we're launched on the Duchess and the Queen with an admirable variety of opinions already.

VIOGERT, please stay and enjoy, even without the book. Many of these feuds can provide much lively debate with a general knowledge of the subject. Your British background will provide an invaluable perspective. Here are some informational links:

The Queen Mother

Wallis Simpson, The Duchess of Windsor

The QM's link also connects to many members of the Royal Family, so if you enjoy that, as I do, there's some extra fun clickables involved in her site.

GINNY, I love your lead-in. "Supposedly" greatest love story? Can't wait to see where your opinions will go!

ELLA, your post is better than reading the National Enquirer. That's high praise, by the way. You've provided a wealth of fact and/or innuendo to sift through. Well done! Can't WAIT to talk about it all!

I'm off to the dentist. Will comment later...I'm LOVING the comments so far!

Harriet

The Wallis/Edward scandal was really the first breaking news event that caught my attention. First there were the radio news reports of the old King/s illness followed shortly by his death. I remember the B & W photo in the newspaper of the old and new kings both in Royal Navy Admiral uniforms. Before too long the news came regarding the Wallis/Edward affair that soon long came to dominate the news.

My family was moving back to San Antonio after a 5-year residency in Houston and 9 year old me was spending lots of time with both my paternal and maternal grand parents. The drama going on in England was a non-event so far as my first generation American German paternal side was concern. In contrast the English maternal side followed every news report despite the fact that the last English ancestor had crossed the pond before the 18th century had ended. While I may not have fully understood the detail, I certainly remember it and the abdication, which was followed again by the newspaper pictures of the former Edward VIII and the new George VI. Finally in May 1937, I at School in San Antonio remember in the auditorium hearing a Radio Broadcast of a part of the Coronation Ceremony.

Some of the facts that I discovered years later after reading things like the Duke’s memoirs have lead me to realize that Edward had no idea that the abdication would have the effect it had in completely isolating him from his family and the family role in the Governence of the British Empire. He actually intended that as Duke of Windsor his wedding to Wallis would be formal wedding at Westminster or Windsor. Specifically he expected his mother would be present and receive Wallis as a daughter-in-law. Also he expected he would have a key public role appropriate for a Royal Duke. He seemed truly surprised at the Isolations that resulted.

One of the great disadvantages Edward or for that matter any Royal, already then and certainly to day, is they have no Forum available in which to defend them selves. To do so would be to engage in politics, which under the unwritten Constitution they cannot do. In Edwards case one of his few Parliamentary defenders was Winston Churchill who at the time was a backbencher without the political stature necessary to mount an effective defense. About the most Churchill could do was to write an impressive abdication speech. Aside from the short Wartime term as Governor General in Bermuda Edward had no subsequent official public existence until the very end of his life at which time he and his Duchess were accorded little more than burial at Windsor.

I hope viogert stays here. She adds so much to the discussion. Before we get into the feud I have some basic questions.

Most importantly, I don't get the whole British Monarchy scheme. I know they are extremely wealthy and they get a lot of deference but what do they do? what's their job? I'm not talking the Queen Elizabeth Wave. Please understand that I'm not being a smart-aleck, I'm trying to get a grasp of the Royal purpose. There is a definite positive aspect to the royal family but what is expected of them and how does it benefit the nation? Once I understand that, perhaps I can see how Wally fits.

Marvelle

P.S. The same basic questions could probably be asked of the U.S. vice-presidency.

Marvelle9 - - a very sensible question. The answer goes back to the Great Chain of Being - the hierarchy of life where our islands believed we all had our rank or station in life - starting with God, archangels, angels - down through kings, knights through animals to inanimate objects. They believed in this so firmly, that when Shakepeare wrote King Lear, who planned to DIVIDE his kingdom, the audience felt the end of the world was nigh. The chain must not be broken was the rule. (If you want more, tap 'Chain of Being' into google & you'll be buried in info)

The modern version of this, is that British men in all walks of life seem to aspire to decorations, titles & signs of high rank. If they fawn sycophantically & grovel enough, & don't upset anybody in the Royal Family in any way, they can be knighted or given a peerage - this means business companies ask them to become board members & having their names on the letterheads, impresses the riff-raff. They are paid high fees for attending the board meetings. I am not joking. (Their wives are called 'Lady' which impresses shop-assistants & restaurants.)

Marvelle9 and all: The role of the Queen or King and Royal Family in the modern UK is hard for an American to understand. In short while he/she is the Chief of State, he /she is not Chief of Government. Though all governance is conducted in the monarch’s name, it is done through the Prime Minister and Parliament. Under the unwritten constitution, the king/queen and other Royals cannot in any circumstances engage in any act that might be interpreted in any way as political. Thought the various Royals may have a rather heavy work schedule their duties are best described as public relations emphasizing public promotions and charity. As Churchill said “when a Government is successful,” as he was in the successful conclusion to the War, “the people cheer the king,” and when the government makes major mistakes, “they throw out the government.” Click here for a short verbal description of the unwritten English Constitution

And Click her for a Canadian Government with information on the Queen’s Canadian role

In the book, "THE DUCHESS OF WINDSOR" written by Michael Bloch in 1996 who was an assistant to Wallis' French lawyer and who has written five books about the Windsors, there are a few comments which I shall quote:

"I should be tempted to classify her as an American Woman par excellence were it not for the suspicion that she is not a woman at all" - James Pope-Hennessy

From the author - "It is quite possible that the affair was not really sexual at all in the sense of being based on regular physical lovemaking."

Winston Churchchill - "He delighted in her company, and found in her qualities as necessary to his happiness as the air he breathed...The association was psychical rather than sexual and certainly not sensual except incidentally."

Walter Monckton, the Prince's trusted adviser, wrote - "No one will ever understand the story....who does not appreciate....the intensity and depth of his devotion to Mrs. Simpson. To him she was the perfect woman...It is a great mistake to assume that he was merely in love with her in the ordinary physical sense of the term."

Lady Diana Cooper, who saw much of them together, believed they had a non-sexual relationship, she wrote that "he worships her as a plaster saint."

There can be no doubt tha the Prince, who was immature in many ways, liked being treated as a little boy, and enjoyed being told of or told what to do. He also experience an "an unsatisfied craving for domesticity." - a British diplomat.

One more of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER quotes (hahaha Harriet - we all love a bit of gossip), but this is in a book:

"The fact that she was not an ordinary woman, that she could possibly not be made love to in the way that he had made love to other women, may well have been part of her appeal and fascination for him; in Freudian terms, it is possible that she satisfied a subconscious homossexual urge."

Certainly the Prince knew his love of and marriage to Wallis would in the end force him to give up the crown. He had a good education and knew British history and the laws pertaining to the Royal Family. His father hated Wallis, made no bones about it and Wallis seemed to know about it; she wrote often to her Aunt Bessie and friends that she must give him up or become the King's "favorite," sharing his private life, etc. Many of her letters are quoted in this hook.

Ella Gibbons --- That's a nice lot of quotes! Walter Monckton was closest to the abdication of Edward VIII - a devoted, diplomatic & honourable man. I would trust anything attributed to him.

Sir Henry (Chips) Channon was an American-born diarist who aligned himself with Edward & Wallis at the time of the abdication. After skinny-dipping with the Royal party on one occasion, he wrote of the King in his diaries, (Pub. 1967). "He had the smallest pecker of any man I've ever seen".

"Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother" & her advisers (& The Queen) took over a week to come to an agreement about what her title should be. She refused at first to move to Clarence house, considering it too small. No longer being Queen Consort, curtseying to her would cease, & all royal jewels were to be in the hands of the monarch. But as well as assuming her daughters title (& managing to be entitled 'Queen' twice,) she took a large quantity of jewels with her for her own use (& nobody elses), in 1952, & the curtseying continued. Penelope Mortimer wrote an interesting unauthorised biography of her in 1986, that was withdrawn on publication day & pulped. It was full of intriguing items - like nobody knows where the Queen Mother was born! Mortimer updated the book again in 1995, but it was either not reviewed, or allowed to perish from neglect, The Palace sycophants appear to have removed all mention of the book from search engines & newspaper archives, only in places like Australia is anything found.
http://old.smh.com.au/news/specials/intl/qmum/royal101.html

What fascinating posts, Viogret, Ella, Harold, and marvelle.

I'm hoping to find out what the historians among us think of this presentation of the facts? Note that the author mentions alcohol but not the Dutchesses subsequent illness, her almost imprisonment by Matire Blum, her lawyer, as she slipped into helplessness, so much so that the Queen Mother could not see her (tho urged mightily for PR reasons) during her trip to France, and that the Duchess of Windsor's oldest friend, the Countess of Romanmones, "after two years of trying to see the Duchess" ..The Duchess of Windsor by Charles Higham) and being begged by Wallis in letters to attend her, finally "succeeded in obtaining permission from Matire Blum to pay her a visit."

The countess remarked that the Duchess looked like a shrunken Chinese empress, which delighted Wallis, "People told me that when I was living in Peking in 1924," she said. The Duchess still referred to "David," tho long gone, calling for him to come see a leaf on a tree, etc. She did not leave the house after 1981 and seemed not in the world. She died on 1986, at 90 years of age, a pitiable shadow of her former self.

I think the Windsor story is a very sad one, I would say a tragedy but in order to have a tragedy you have to have a noble hero to start with, did this story have one in the Windsors?

Reading the private papers of the Duke it's fairly clear a good bit of childishness (and some creativity) existed, "Wenum" and "eanum" and all sorts of childish constructions fill his letters, and other such childish things, she referred to him also as if he were a child, according to those who knew them best. What a penance, to get what you want: the life of the boulevardier, the jet setter, which depends on your ability to float, what a strain that must have been. As Harold said, I don't think he realized that he would NOT be taking up a position in England, he constantly pressed for one from his brother.

George VI died of cancer and was a heavy smoker, that might be why Elizabeth blamed David for his death? The stress, etc.

The Duke and Duchess had a strange relationship, I think, forget the Chinese brothel rumors stuff, that's juicy but I bet you it was more a question of meeting his emotional needs.

He looked like a boy, he was small, I've forgotten who referred to them as the "little people," they were both extremely tiny in stature, his mother was cold and distant, Queen Mary, whom (viogert, attack me on this one) very few people know, spoke very few words of English, German being her language. (You recall that it was King George, who angrily said he was NOT a German during accusations of same, was it in WWI? or II, Historians?) and who changed the royal name to Windsor. (Strangely enough Mountbatten never gave up his fight to have the name Mountbatten be used in place of Windsor, and continued till his own death trying to get some of the royal stuff back from Wallis, THAT was a major feud not mentioned).... I believe Mountabtten is the Anglicanization of Bettenburg, isn't it?

Anyway....Queen Mary was....by all acccounts cold, haughty (I LOVE that wave she patented for the crowds!) distant, a "collector" of things, whether as a kleptomaniac as is reported or simply (how DO you spell this?? "leige majesty," (sp) if she visited you and saw something she liked, she went home with it, it's pretty well documented.

At any rate, it would seem that there was a lot of the child about David Winsdor, this excerpt, for all the books I've read on both of them, sure culls out some of the more nasty witticisms, it would seem in the "battle" of nasty bon mots, all I can see is that Elizabeth was either more circumspect or those she talked to didn't repeat what they heard.

Not sure on how this has been presented, and on the funeral, it sounds to me as if it was a pretty nice one:

There were 175 people attending the funeral in St. George's chapel, QEII and Prince Philip and the Queen Mother among them. Sizteen members of the royal family were present. "The duchess was accorded the honor of lying in the same postion and place as King George V, King George VI, Queen Mary, and the Duke of Windsor. The queen's wreath of yellow and white lilies lay at the center of the coffin. The Archibishop of Centerbury, the dean and canons of Windsor and the lord chamberlain, the Queen the Queen MOther, Prince Philip, Princess Anne and hte Prince and Princess of Wales followed the coffin through the nave an down the Great West Steps and the duchess was placed next to the Duke of Windsor's grave." (Higham)

Sounds like a pretty nice send off, to me, I don't expect to see them at my funeral? hahahaha

The Countess of Romamones published an article in the June 1986 issue of Vanity Fair in which she included, perhaps unwisely as a last jab, a great many of nasty remarks made by Wallis about the Queen Mother, "called her 'Cookie,' said she resembled a 'pudding,' said many other unflattering things about her dress, said she almost laughed in her face at David's funeral (this, if you've seen the photos of a very confused and disoriented Wallis at that funeral, is particularly a sad renark) and other sort of nasty last jab things that Wallis had said about the Queen Mother, sort of like a voice from the grave, so to speak. Not sure what her motivation was there, except to show herself an intime?

I'm not sure what you can say about the "feud," but in contrast to a couple of the others shown in the book, there's not much doubt who won? Or is there? Or who was "right," or is there? The woman who coined the phrase "you can never be too rich or too thin," vs the Queen Mother, that would seem an epic battle, in reality it was a bitter travesty, I think. I think I disagrew with the author that it was "power" which kept it going, too, I don't see ANY power for the Windsors.

ginny

VIOGERT, that's quite an article. I've heard the Queen Mum praised as a charmer of the first order, but that praise had always carried a non-sexual connotation. An extremely interesting sidebar on her.

I read some books about our principals many years ago and formed some opinions that are rattling around in my head, but there are no quotes with which I can substantiate them. I always felt that the QM's main grievance against Wallis was that, through her, she no longer had a "free ride" at the expense of the British Commonwealth for the rest of her life. When Edward abdicated, the QM had to EARN her keep.

When the Queen Mum contended that accession to the throne shortened the life of the King, what was she really saying? Was it that she felt it was the God-given right of her husband and herself to lead a luxurious, mostly work-free life at the expense of the British Commonwealth, absolved of major responsibilities or public expectations? That was the life she and Bertie were enjoying when Edward VIII abdicated.

The implication was, I thought, that she and Bertie DESERVED the quiet, extremely privileged, work-free, VERY royal lifestyle that went with being the heir to the throne, rather than the Numero Uno? Who among us would object to rank, privilege and wealth without responsibility, as Bertie and the QM enjoyed before the abdication? Do we, in our personal lives, know of someone whose health was also impacted in some way by the stresses of his job and responsibilities? Did that person conceive a life-long grudge toward anyone because of the need to work?

I'm assuming that Bertie wasn't a mental giant, but then neither was his brother Edward, and neither was their father, George V. Elizabeth, the QM, shrewder and brighter than all of them, now had to help her husband perform up to snuff on an extremely large public stage. She certainly had her work cut out for her. Her life of privilege now had intrusive engagements and responsibilities galore.

The lady was apparently annoyed?

Harriet

GINNY we cross posted.

I would suspect that it was the advisors surrounding the Crown that forced Bertie to distance himself from his brother... so that he could get out from under Edward's shadow. The Palace is always very discreet about the decisions made by and for the Royals, so it would be hard to ascertain whether that policy actually evolved from the QM. Also, the net of advice and solicitude that always surrounds the monarch enfolded Bertie and Elizabeth at the same time that it was withdrawn from the abdicated Edward.

Without the solid protective advice, PR spins, and image-making that had always been at his disposal, Edward, no rocket scientist, was now free to get into as much trouble as was available to him. He may have largely ignored those protections when he was King, but they HAD been available to him when needed.

By the way, how did it ever become public knowledge that Edward had been careless with official state papers and the Red Box that is submitted to the monarch each day? Betcha that didn't surface until AFTER his abdication. It certainly contrasted nicely with his brother Bertie's much touted sense of responsibility and duty, didn't it? Was it the Palace network...now bent on enhancing the new King, that leaked that information?

I can't help feeling sorry for Edward and his futile expectations after his abdication. Who can be more helpless and ignorant of the real world than a failed King? He comes from a past where trains are delayed to accommodate him, theater performances begin AFTER he arrives, his EVERY wish is considered someone's PLEASURE to solve...was Edward really aware of the pattern of the real world?

If Edward had remained King, would he really have cozied up to Hitler? Wouldn't the protective net surrounding the Crown have possibly saved him from that disaster? How could he have visualized that he would be foiled in his desires to strut the public stage of Great Britain to his heart's content? To tell you the truth, I really believe he thought, until almost the last minute, that he could have Wallis and remain King. NOT getting what he wanted was OUTSIDE of his life experiences...except in one area, his personal family life.

What strange cold people his parents, George V and Queen Mary were! Queen Mary watched her husband emotionally abuse and scare the wits out of her children and did nothing. "I have always to remember," she said later, that my husband is also my King and sovereign."

Wow........what an excuse for permitting the mistreatment of your children?!!

Harriet

So it seems that the British Royal Family is rich, fawned over, and with no duties or expectations from what I gather from viogert (thanks for the insight). They appear rather like aging rock stars who can no longer rock but the memories of their past linger on and become...what?...a memory of a memory.
Did it really matter then if Wallis Simpson married the King of England? I don't think so, not for the nation. This was a purely personal feud. The battle for power with Elizabeth (later QM) and Wally was for the power of the spotlight and the right to be adored by the masses. Elizabeth couldn't bear to see a flashy 'outsider' get star treatment.
I understand the argument that Elizabeth blamed Wally for putting the QM's husband on the throne and making them work for their living. Such work, poor things! If Elizabeth had led the country in accepting Wally perhaps the king would not have abdicated.
I would see this as a feud at the beginning where you have two equally strong antagonists but once the Crown of Rock Stardom goes to Elizabeth all the power shifts to her. Wally was no longer an equal or near-equal in power. That's when the real feud ends and the lifelong vendetta begins.

Marvelle

Marvelle9 used the term vendetta in her last post. I was thinking of the Amundsen-Scott thing as a rivalry. What is the difference between a feud, a rivalry and a vendetta?

John Z

I can't like either Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) or Wallis and her little boyfriend. I have a distaste for their egos and absolute lack of talent for being useful. I understand that as symbols of a nation, the British Royal Family, could stand for something but they don't work hard at it do they?

I remember reading that the 11th Duke of Devonshire kept a fine library with books of varied interest with the aim of entertaining any reasonably educated person. The duke was interviewed in the 1980s about his library and he pointed out that he had shelves on politics, biography, letters, classical fiction, Churchill, Bloomsbury and more. He said "I also have a Disasters shelf. The Duke of Windsor, incidentally, spends one year on the Disasers shelf and one on the Royal Biographies shelf."

All in all I don't take this feud too seriously as it's really a form of entertainment even for the Duke of Devonshire. I believe the author of "Feuds" was right in placing this story in his book because it fits nicely into the slot of 'gossip without guilt.' I'm amused that the Royal Family (so funny to put this in caps) apparently still believes their own mythology in the Great Chain of Being.

Marvelle

P.S. John Z and I posted at the same time. I know that Ginny had a great definition of feud. Perhaps she could recap and include the other definitions? Ginny?

Marvelle9 - - You are close to the truth suggesting the Duchess of York resented the competition. She 'came out' at Victory Balls after WW1 - everybody had great hopes for her - she was pretty & amusing, dainty & agreeable. No reason why she should not make a good match for the Crown Prince, but in spite of moving in the same circles, he didn't seem to notice her. His amour, Lady Freda Dudley Moore was no threat & she could have harboured hopes of eventually ensaring him with her demure sweetness. She was a commoner (though not as common as the rest of us oiks; her mother would have been Duke of Portland had she been a bloke). The Prince of Wales' younger brother who was a chain-smoker, who stammered & could be very ill-tempered, offered his hand, so after some dickering, she accepted. She was vetted by Oueen Mary - who took an entourage to Glamis to intestigate her fitness. The 11th Earl of Strathmore was known to have been hideously deformed at birth & kept many years imprisoned at Glamis - each succeeding Earl was taken to meet him. http://gank.fentonnet.com/invink/x261.html

Well, I'm in the minority here but I'll pipe up.

I think that this feud between the Duchess and the Queen did have very important consequences. And it was lucky for us that Wallis diverted the Prince.

Prince Edward was sympathetic to Nazi Germany, he thought Hitler was ok. They went to visit him and saw some kind of "glamor" there I think. The attraction of power? He may have even been a liaison to Germany at this time. In sending the couple to the Bahamas they were pretty much taken out of the loop there.

If Edward had been King with Wallis as Queen and they had joined the Axis powers we quite possibly may have lost WWII, found ourselves demilitarized, occupied? I don't know all that but it would have been bad.

This feud was more important than mere gossip.

Becky

Here's another:
http:

/www.fife.50megs.com/glamis-castle-scotland.html
All English aristocrats read stud books - & one look at the very long noses of 9 Strathmore brothers & sisters would be reassured Elizabeth was not of that line. As well as nobody knowing where she was born, the Earl refused to attend the christening until 6 weeks later, where a bunch of rather louche characters were assembled as godparents.* (The vicar made errors & crossings-out).

A little-known guide to the character of Edward VIII, "...one of the first acts of his reign was to order an immediate 10% wage cut for every employee in the royal service. . ".** Then he left for a long Mediterranean cruise with his friends - among whom was Wallis. The British taxpayers were kept in ignorance of how the civil list was being spent. The Paris newspapers reported what our government & our media withheld from the British public. The Duke's tight-fistedness was well-known so the extravagance of his gifts to Wallis of fashionable jewels revealed a uxorious devotion that overcame his natural parsimony.

The chic elegance of Wallis & the visible love from the Duke probably irked the new Queen. She was by then matronly, had the taste of a Pearly Queen & her husband - with his short-temper & stomach-trouble didn't quite have the same glamour as his brother. Revenge was wreaked by refusing to allow the pair to return to live in Britain, & a very firm refusal to allow the Duchess to be titled HRH. (It was characteristic of Diana that she gave up this 'honour' without a word.) But slights could be kept on the boil by suggesting the Duke took with him a big bagful of Queen Alexandra's gems. It has since been disproved he took anything that he wasn't entitled to - mainly because he wasn't bright enough to imagine his life would not continue as before - owning land & houses - & free use of the armed forces aircraft & personnel. Being used to loyal servants all his life, nobody warned him this attention to his needs would stop, unless he paid for it himself.

"Queen Elizabeth" by Penelope Mortimer (Viking 1986)

* "The Windsor Story" by Bryan J Murphy & C.V.Charles (Granada 1979)

I have to repeat again that I'm giving my opinions. If anyone is more historically knowledgeable than me, (which isn't hard to pull off), pu-leeze, come and set the record straight. I'll be grateful for the favor.

GINNY, I agree that it wasn't power that kept this feud rolling along. I always thought it was self-pity over her more public and responsible life on the part of the QM, and arrogance on the part of Wallis. Like MARVELLE, I think "vendetta" is a better descriptive term than "feud" for this episode.

Or WAS it arrogance? Since David Windsor had become such a useless pariah among his own family, perhaps Wallis's flipness and bon mots about her Royal in-laws served to inject some humor into her husband's pain?

ELLA, interesting supposition about the sexual immaturity of the Duke of Windsor. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that the QM and Bertie had initial difficulties with conception and may have had a doctor's help in inserting sperm into her womb. Maybe I'm all wrong? But if that was accurate, what a lot of damage their royal childhood and their critical royal father produced in these two brothers, Edward and Bertie. Apparently, being brought up in a palace is no guarantee against sexual dysfunctionality?

WHAT IS ALL THIS BUSINESS SURROUNDING THE TITLE OF "HER ROYAL HIGHNESS?" What a brouhaha! Was it the QM who thought of that one? Or the Palace courtiers? The only thing that's certain is that denying his wife this titular honor "hit" the Duke where he lived! It is reported that when he heard that the Palace had denied Wallis the right to be referred to as "Her Royal Highness," the Duke broke down and wept.

What an infantile man the almost-King-of England was! He undervalued his hereditary titles as long as he had them...and when they were gone, mourned their denial to his wife for the rest of his life. I have read somewhere that, until his dying day, he insisted that the staff of servants at their home always refer to Wallis as "Her Royal Highness."

Didn't the Royal Family dig out this old weapon with Diana. Princess of Wales, and also remove that titular honor from her, even though she was the mother of a future king? Maybe times have not moved on as much as one might hope?

Harriet

Just caught your post, VIOGERT.

WONDERFUL...you commented on many of the points that interested me so much.

Harriet

BECKY, you bring up a particularly interesting point about the Duke and Hitler. No question about it, if England had settled into a close relationship with Germany, the world might have had quite a different look.

I wonder if the Duke's enchantment with Hitler was based, at least in part, on the fondly remembered "Royal" pampering that abominable dictator offered him? Vain little man that the Duke was, can he have felt that finally somebody was treating him as the former King that he was?

BUT...If he had remained on the throne, would the core of advisors that always surround the King have permitted him to visit Germany? Would he have been allowed to write letters to Hitler, unsupervised and uncensored by the British diplomatic Corps? As someone pointed out so accurately in a previous post, the King is the Head of State, but he has little voice in the actual policies of the government.

Like you, I wonder how it would have gone if Edward had not abdicated.

Harriet

Marvelle9 -- I doubt the royal family give a toss about the Chain of Being, but there is a subliminal archaic heritage in the psyche of the British people, that is reluctant to get rid of the sovereign in case something frightful happens.

JohnZ - Words about squabbles have subtly different meanings.
Feud -- family & clans in dispute
Vendetta -- blood feud between the above - with retaliation.
Rivalry -- competition between individuals

Becka - The British royal family is German in origin. They have many relations in Germany - The Duke of Edinburgh is German - the name Mountbatten was changed from Battenberg during the war, so grovelling to Hitler was part of "Don't get rid of us if you invade". This resembles the Oxbridge toffs becoming communist spies -it was so they'd be safe if the Russians invaded. Perfidious Albion, our betters have managed to get us named.

HarrietM The title HRH means everyone has to curtsey to you. Princess Michael of Kent is HRH & during a short stay in the London Clinic almost caused a walk-out when she insisted the nursing staff curtsey to her. The really spiteful punishmnet behind the removal of HRH from Diana, was that she would have to curtsey to Princess Michael - if she met her anywhere that is - or felt like it.

The reason for the petty childishness of the royal family is due to the kow-towing, sycophantic hangers on around the palace. If we were treated like minor saints day after day - didn't have to look behind us before we sat down & never, ever put toothpaste on our own toothbrushes, there's a chance we'd think we were special.

England would not have been allies with Hitler because of their King's preferences. He had no power, legal or otherwise, to run the government; he is not a ruler; he doesn't establis policy or direct the military. He was a figurehead only.

I suspect his affinity for Hitler would have been quashed quite smartly by the Palace. He would have been an embarrassment, as he was the rest of his life as the duke, but they would have dealt with him. He might even have been forced to abdicate as the war loomed.

Of course we are dealing with ifs and mights and would've could've. I'll try later to look up Ginny's definition of a feud and marry that with vendetta and rivalry.

Marvelle

Ah, viogert you beat me to the definitions! And your comments are always enlightening.

Hi,

Viogert, that Albion phrase was great. I had to look it up to be sure but... you bet. (g)

Yup, I kind of think that Edward was such an ego-driven bumbler that the chances of him being able to maintain a reputable reign as King for long were limited. His association with Wallis was not unlike his prior behavior except that the relationship endured, Spoiled, arrogant, willful, everything Wallis wanted to be. He was trouble no matter where he went. He would have been in trouble with Hitler, if that had ever that become an alliance of any sort. (What if Hitler had sent Edward to Moscow and ... but no... because Edward would not have gone to Moscow no matter how much Hitler fawned.)

I wonder if the relationship between Edward and Wallis lasted because of shared anger at the rest of the family. They were both outcast from the Royalty. It was as close as Wallis would get and as far as Edward could be.

I do think that Wallis learned to use a bit of biting, sarcastic humor in that long-lived resentment. No wonder she ended her days as she did. I did think that Evans concluded the chapter beautifully, though.

Becky

I think Harriet asked the key question in her message #168 when she asked, “BUT...If he (Edward VIII) had remained on the throne, would the core of advisors that always surround the King have permitted him to visit Germany? Would he have been allowed to write letters to Hitler, unsupervised and uncensored by the British diplomatic Corps?” And I think Marvelle provided the correct answer when she answered in message 170 in the negative. As King, Edward VIII he would have had no power to initiate correspondence with the Hitler Government in Germany. I view Edwards’s reaction at the Hitler meeting as an opportunistic one with out much serious commitment so far as the Duke was concern. I suspect that Hitler filed the thought that should he conquer England perhaps The Duke might make a valuable puppet.

I think our author, Collin Evans grossly overstated reality when he wrote on page 130, "they (Wally and Elizabeth) changed not just the course of English history, but maybe that of the World as well." Of course the outcome changed the name, Edward VIII to George VI in a ream of publications and Legal Documents, but so far as the real history was concern including the course of WW II and the aftermath I think the effect was none at all.

I must agree with Harold that the outcome of the change of head of state of England on the world's history is very slight. Evans way overstates the importance of the Duke of Windsor's flirtation with the Nazis. As king Edward VIII would not have meddled in foreign affairs nor would he have been allowed to.

John Z

Harriet - A good question about how much the monarch is allowed to meddle in foreign affairs - they are not. They are invited as figure-heads to represent the country, but have no authority whatsoever.

Becka --Just looking at photographs of those years, it looks like a love-match. Wallis said "People expect us to be lovey-dovey all the time" - & they weren't, but they looked devoted. I liked her - people who knew her said she was good company, a good hostess & a very witty woman. The Queen Mother demanded total loyalty, or the subject was banished to outer darkness. She bore grudges to the grave.

Harold Arnold/JohnZ - the abdication was a blip - a break in the royal line, but essentially, all it changed was the face on the stamps & the coinage but little other than a lot of speculation & gossip at the time.

A small item in a South African newspaper this week is an example of how the British bureaucratic government - like the Mills of God - grind slowly, but grind exceedingly small.

http://www.news24.com/contentDisplay/level4Article/0,1113,2-10_1242685,00.html

Good HEAVENS what a vibrant discussion with so many points, I love it!

Marvelle, sorry sorry, I've been off, you asked on the original definition of feud:

The OED says, "feud ME, OF, OE, O Teutonic......The spellig "feud" occurs too late to account for the change in spelling.

1. Active hatred, hostility, ill will--1787
2. A state of bitter and lasting mutual hostility, especially such a state existing between two families, tribes, or individuals, marked by murderous assaults in revenge for some previous insult or wrong....1568
3. A quarrel, contention, bickering 1565

So it's pretty old.

Now that's an OLD OED< but the only one I could afford, and here's the new definition from WEbster's Tenth:

feud: a mutual emnity or quarrel that is often prolonged or inveterate esp. a lasting state of hostilities between families or clans marked by violent attacks for revenge.

Now how does that compare to vendettas and the other types of hostilities?

ginny

VIOGERT, wanted to comment on the "thrifty" Duke who cut the salary of his household staff before leaving on vacation. I see that as an indication of how much he and the rest of the Royals are out of touch with the real world.

I understand that the reigning Queen Elizabeth recently extended the courtesy of serving lunch to the Palace servants. These personnel do have a hard time making ends meet on their small salaries, since service to the Royal Family is apparently reimbursed with honor, rather than much money. The Queen did it reluctantly, after pressure from the Press, I understand. "Can't they keep a small garden and grow vegetables?" Elizabeth reportedly inquired wonderingly.

The remove between the Royals and the rest of the world is so significant as to render the Duke a sympathetic figure for his many diplomatic mistakes and astonished realizations after his abdication. I once read a quote from Prince Charles, the Heir Apparent, who was genuinely surprised to hear that any of his future subjects might be fearful for their civil rights in police custody. "I really can't imagine," the Prince opined, "why people just can't explain their point of view to the Police courteously." Well, I guess the Prince's theories would work just fine if the Police treated everybody the same way as they treat the Royals?

MARVELLE wanted to know what the Royals DO to justify their existence. I believe that what they do best is to provide a lump in the throat and a burning sensation close to tears in the eyes of devoted Brits. I saw a British woman explain her reactions on TV recently. It went something like this. "I feel kind of funny when I see the Queen, kind of like I want to cry. She means a lot to me..."

Personally I'm familiar with the feeling because I get the chills when the American flag goes by in a parade. Who can argue with devoted patriotism and the means by which it may be aroused in different nationalities? I suspect all of us will get an emotional reaction if the patriotic symbol that WE love is presented to us.

On a more prosaic scale, the Royal Family devotes itself to an endless round of PR type engagements and visits to public places, allowing their lives to be completely pre-scheduled for months at a run. That couldn't be easy, so I guess they do earn their keep in a way.

Later...

Harriet

Oh wow,, Wallis likers. I cannot imagine. I have read a lot of the books on the "Great Romance". Most of my sympathies were with the Queen Mum and her husband. David and his Wallis are not someone I feel sympathy with. Wallis never seemed to tell the truth. I read any number of biographies on her and she seemed to have changed her story for just about everyone. She was quite a different person in the Orient and seemed to have been something of a siren to the males. Then the fact that she and David spent their entire futile lives living to be bowed to and made of.. They supposedly did not like to pay bills, so they didnt. I did actually know ( a friend of my parents) someone who was a jeweler. David bought Wallis an anniversary gift from him. It took three years and a lawsuit to get his money.. The lawyers actually said, that the Duke was used to people giving him things if he admired them..Whew.. Not my type of people.

ELLA wondered in an earlier post if the Duke really wanted to be King. I wonder too. I rather think he innocently assumed that the perks of kingship would follow him into private life? Perhaps he visualized, as VIOGERT pointed out, all the conveniences of Royalty with all the privacy and freedom of a private citizen?

WAS it purely selfishness, or was the Duke of Windsor a victim of the lack of reality engendered by life in a Palace? I've even read that the current handsome, young idol of Great Britain, Prince William, has entertained ideas of how lovely life would be without a crown hampering his career choices and a network of Palace advisors hanging over his shoulder every minute? Oh, would HE be surprised also, I bet!

Why did the Duke and Wallis stay together? I just love BECKY'S statement.

"They were both outcasts from the Royalty. It was as close as Wallis would get and as far as Edward could be."

What a neat turn of phrase you used to present the pithy idea of mutuality of interest in Royalty, BECKY. Maybe they also understood each other well also. There are stories of homosexuality and atypical sexual habits surrounding those two.

I also wonder about the last minute thoughts of Wallis after the abdication. Sometimes I've played a "what if" scenario in my mind. What if Wallis wanted to get OUT of the situation when Edward was no longer King? What if she DIDN'T want to marry him? My goodness, what a scandal THAT would have been! What a tragic element that would have added to the whole episode for the former King and for Great Britain?!!

In actuality, I felt that Wallis behaved honorably after the King's course was set, and not as an adventuress. She had been placed in a situation where it would be unthinkable for her to change her mind about her feelings for Edward VIII. Regardless of what her true feelings might have been, she stood by her man, married him despite any personal doubts that she may or may not have had, and held to her decision all the rest of her life.

Harriet

That's a fascinating story, Stephanie. It's amazing how those with the most wealth often expect the world to extend MORE to them gratis free.

I'm glad your friends finally got their payment.

Harriet

I believe Wally said on hearing that the ex-King would be given the title of Duke of Windsor: "Better to be the mistress of a King, than the wife of a Duke." So much for what was touted in the press as the 'greatest love story of the ages'.

HARRIET, I can see that to much of Britain the royal family are symbols but I was interested in finding out if the did anything practical for the country and if they directed the government in any way. VIOGERT says no.

VIOGERT do you get "a lump in your throat and a burning sensation like tears" at the sighting of a royal? Seriously, do you think the royals still function well as symbols?

GINNY, here are my abridged Webster's definitions:

Vendetta -- a private feud, in which the family of a murdered person seeks to kill the murderer or members of his family. (Remember the QM calling Wally "the woman who killed my husband"?)

Rivalry -- the acts of a rival or competitior

Feud -- (I like Ginny's definitions but here is Webster's) bitter, continuous hostility between two families, clans, individuals often lasting for years or for generations; a quarrel or contention

HAROLD thanks for pointing out the hyperbole. This royal feud did not count for much in the direction of the country.

I don't like either of the parties. I actually find it hard to take sides with any of the feuders in this book. They are entertaining but their huge egos and ugly actions preclude likability. I liked what I read (which was little in this book) of Amundsen but I don't consider that chapter a feud. In any case, Amundsen was someone I could side with.

Marvelle

I thought LBJ and Kennedy were next but they're not so I took out my comments on that. Next is Montgomery vs Patton!

I added back my original "teers" question to VIOGERT. I took it out since I thought it might be rude to HARRIET but she said she giggled, so its back!

Did Wallis say that, MARVELLE? I always kind of expected that she might feel that way, but if she was hated in England when the King gave up his throne for her, what would have been the general reaction if Wallis refused to marry him afterward? OH, WOW!

I giggled at your question to VIOGERT. Well, only she can answer that. Who knows...sometimes life can hold surprises!I Oh, I see you rephrased your question. I share your admiration for Amundsen, MARVELLE.

Hey, it's a pity you took out your comment on LBJ and Kennedy. It really interested me and made me look forward to their coming feud. I did see it for the few moments that you let it stand. If you want to repeat it later, that's fine with me.

Harriet

So far, most of my contributions to this discussion have been from quotable sources. In my heart I am a Roundhead so my personal opinion of our monarchy would be unhelpful. But I have had pity & admiration for anyone who endured the obloquy of the Palace, so I respected Wallis for using Maitre Blum as a buffer between the avaricious Royal family - who had hoped to get access to her jewels. Oddly enough, the man who bought the Windsor's home, lost his son in with Diana in the Paris accident.

VIOGERT. who was the man who "brought the Windsors home?" Was his son in the death car with Diana and Dodie? You are a fountain of information ...I'm so glad you're joining us.

Please tell us more...

Did Maiitre Blum protect Wallis from not only the Windsors, but from ALL of her former friends and acquaintances...to his own advantage?

Your answer to MARVELLE's question was very, very tactfully phrased. I loved this exchange of opinions. I'm having fun, and hope you all are too.

Harriet

Harriet - - It was Mohammed al Fayed "bought" the house in Paris after the Duchess died. He was the father of Dodie. He also own Harrods.

He's also come out with a new line of furniture, copies of pieces found in the great houses of Europe, called, surprisingly, Harrod's. hahahaa,

Nearly bought one the other day but the burl and the woods did not fit in the room. Also don't particularly admire Al Fayed nor the Windsors and that's why I didn't rebid when the auction of their effects began again, having been postponed after Diana's death. But the catalogue still makes fabulous reading, it's lavishly illustrated.

Maitre Blum was not at Wallis's funeral either.

ginny

So al Fayed now owns the former home of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor? Thanks, VIOGERT.

What about Maitre Blum? I understood that he kept a helpless and sick Wallis isolated from the world?

Harriet

GINNY, can it really be that such a notable fellow was not appreciated by the Royals?

Good Grief! This is proving to be the most popular "feud" - or whatever - in the whole book and in my opinion is not worth the time - these two people, the Duke and the Duchess did nothing worthwhile in their lives but spend, party, gossip, bicker, and not one whit of their money was ever returned to England where it originated! The Duchess's estate at her death was auctioned and the proceeds went to the Pasteur Institute of France because the country exempted them from taxes while living there. (I don't have the book in front of me, so correct me if I'm wrong or I can look it up)

Wonder how that made the people of England feel? It was their money who kept these two in houses, servants, furs, jewelry, etc. At one time they had a house or apartment with 22 servants - forget how many rooms it had. Imagine!

VIOGERT! Stay with us as the next chapter will be on the Generals Montgomery and Patton! Now there were men with egos. But don't you believe that is necesary for ambitious men to believe that only they, and they alone, are the best for the job, to believe they can't be beat! I do believe that.

Our two countries, Viogert, are inextricably intertwined and may it ever be so! Two stories come to mind when I think of England and they will remain with me forever. I must have been about 10 years old when a new, young, adorable boy with dark, curly hair by the name of Matthew (you see, I was in love at that tender age), enrolled in our class and he was from England! (At that time the country was undoubtedly sending children over here for safety) And our teacher introduced him and asked him to tell something about his country.

I don't recall all he said - he wasn't a bit bashful - but he sang a song in front of us all (how many young children can do that!) and the song was - "There will always be an England."

I got chills! At that young age! He had a sweet high voice and our teacher was teary-eyed as she told us about what his country was enduring and all of us sat there enthralled! I have admired England from that day forward for their courage in that awful time.

One more story (sorry to be so long!)- David Niven! I adored that Englishman the first time I saw him in movies, he was everything I thought the British should be and then I read the two books he wrote!

If you haven't read them - do! They are wonderful memoirs and he loved England, left Hollywood immediately to join up in England and describes his experiences there during the Blitz. He met and married a young girl and brought her back to Hollywood - sadly, she died! READ BOTH OF HIS BOOKS!

Harriet It was Maitre Suzanne Blum - a highly respected advocate of the same age as the Duchess. Her reputation as a trial lawyer was 'quick,cool,clever,tough'. Lord Mountbatten made several exploratory visits to Paris to advise the Duchess what to do with the Dukes effects - "uniforms & robes (some two dozen, including his Garter robe & his uniforms as Field Marshall, Admiral of the Fleet, Marshall of the Royal Air Force & honorary colonel of various regimmets) & orders & decorations (well over a score) were all sent to England, for display at first at Windsor Castle & later in the National Army Museum. Mountbatten added, "The Oueen should have his papers, too - especially his papers" These were also sent."* Mountbatten, from the records, appeared to be planning to strip all the Duchess's assets & transfer them, on her death, back to the Palace. He suggested she form a Duke of Windsor Foundation to his memory & she agreed. She was delighted - planned to have her Will redrawn & to clear it with her French lawyer, Suzanne Blum.

The next word Moutbatten had was a letter stating that the Foundation had been abandoned, that she no longer required his services & from henceforth her sole legal advisor would be Maitre Blum. On receiving the news, "Mountbatten was outraged "Damn it" he said. The money was HIS, not hers'"**

/** The Windsor Story Murphy & Bryan (Granada 1979)

There was so much gossip & speculation at this time - even this book suggests Queen Alexandra's jewels were in the Duchess's possession & ought to be returned - Mountbatten insisted - as they were "Crown Jewels". After the death of Wallis, no such Crown Jewels were found - & it slipped unmentioned into the myths & legends with the stories of her erotic instruction in an Oriental Bordello etc. There was quite a lot of that rubbish, & enough eager people to believe it of her. How anybody, looking at her Aunt Bessie, could suggest such a respectable matron would accompany a niece with a questionable reputation, needs their bumps read. In her own way, Wallis was pretty guileless. He husband had convinced her they were poverty-stricken & she believed him. She really didn't know how rich she was when she was widowed & thought she was poor & didn't bother to check.

I've been reading the fasinating discussion you all have been holding on Wallis and the Queen mum.

While reading this chapter in the book my thought was that this was a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" sort of a feud. If you can call it a feud at all? For one thing, it seems to me that neither woman wanted the same thing: Wallis wanted the throne (did she?) and the QM did not.

A thought or so, as usual.

Thank you helping me out on the gender of Maitre Suzanne Blum, VIOGERT. It is much appreciated. I am embarrassed and you are an adornment to this discussion...seriously. Let me repeat Ella's invitation. Please do stay with us. Britain's General Montgomery, (definitely male in gender) is coming up next, either late tomorrow or early Tuesday AM.

ELLA, what a moving post you wrote...so glad to see you again. In addition to your usual excellent information, you bring up memories of a time when Bertie and Elizabeth really did pull their weight encouraging the people of England.

I read both of David Niven's books and loved them. He seemed to have been a brave, witty man who sprang to the defense of his country during WWII.

NELLIE, you bring up something of a puzzle. When I read VIOGERT's account of how the Queen Mother managed to arrange to have the title of "Queen" mentioned in her official designation two times after her daughter became the actual Queen ...QUEEN Elizabeth, the QUEEN Mother...I just wonder about her previous modest disavowal of the crown. Perhaps she grew fond of her exalted position after a time?

As for Wallis, it may well be that she believed throughout most of her relationship with King Edward, that such an elevation would be impossible? Perhaps, at Edward's instigation, she dreamed of a throne for a while, but then the public scandal broke....

VIOGERT, did you imply that the birth of the QM may have had some irregularity in it?

Harriet

This has been fun gossiping about frivolous people. The chapter on Montgomery and Patton disappointed me. Although I knew I didn't like or admire them as individuals I was surprised at their less than heroric qualities as commanders. There were two scenes in the movie Patton that I expected to read about in the chapter and apparently the movie was taking liberties with the truth. Imagine that!

The chapter after is my favorite and that's LBJ and Robert Kennedy. What I'd said earlier and taken back for fear of being too early was that I laughed outloud at one part and then I'd cringe a little later.

The last chapter is Hoover vs Martin Luther King and that'll provoke a hot discussion. IN some ways I equate Wally vs QM with this last chapter of the book.

Marvelle

There!

We have provocative advance reviews of upcoming feuds from our MARVELLE, who certainly has first class judgment...so stay tuned to this location folks, for thrills and chills to come!

Harriet

Unlike Ella, I can't get misty-eyed upon reading about England's foibles and citizens. I wouldn't be my Irish grandfather's grandaughter if I didn't mention how hard it is for anyone descending from Irish rebels to sympathize very much with England's "problems."

Lorrie

LORRIE, thank you for reminding us all that nations, like people, have more than one aspect to their behavior.

The history of England has been very different with regard to Ireland than it has been with the USA.

I have respect for your feelings. Thanks for sharing them.

Harriet

Here's one for our historians, and so apropos: there's a brand new (August 2002) biography of General George Patton just out, 848 pages strong, 11 years in the making:

From Our Editors You saw the George C. Scott Patton film and have read a few World War II histories, but if you think that you know General George S. Patton, Jr., think again. Stanley Hirshson's General Patton: A Soldier's Odyssey presents the famed commander in full relief, warts and all. This biography, 11 years in the making, reveals Patton (1885-1945) not only as a tactical genius but also as an extremely complex and sometimes hateful man. Hirshson documents Patton's lifelong anti-Semitism and describes how the general's staff suppressed or spun news of embarrassing incidents. Without minimizing Patton's courage or the brilliance of his battlefield maneuvers, the biographer places this soldier's soldier under intense and often revelatory scrutiny, and his account of Patton's dismissal from the command of the Third Army differs significantly from previous versions.

From the Publisher Few figures in American history have aroused such passionate disagreement as General George Patton. John P. Marquand, the novelist who as a journalist knew Patton, dismissed him as "a tactless, high-strung, profane officer with a one-cell juvenile mind." But one of Patton's own aides, Colonel Redding Perry, wrote of him, "The amazing thing about George was that he was just a bit of everything--brave and timid, tender and harsh, coarse and poetic, sacrilegious and religious--all the opposites mixed up into a really legendary, adorable character."

In his new biography, CUNY historian Stanley Hirshson encompasses all the different Patton personas in a fascinating and detailed study of this ebullient, pistol-toting, brilliant military tactician. For the first time, Hirshson explores the full story of the notorious slapping episodes in Sicily and the massacres of Italian civilians inspired by Patton's fiery speeches to his troops. The military campaigns throughout World War II are given in absorbing detail as are Patton's complex relations with Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery and others. Hirshson has consulted archives here and in England not used by other Patton biographers and comes to many fresh conclusions on his long and illustrious career. The result is a rich and absorbing book and certainly the most balanced biography of a fascinating figure.

I've ordered it, it looks smashing, to me.

ginny

To me when I think of Patton, I think, another Custer; when I think of Montgomery, I see Robert E. Lee. Here are a few comments concerning Montgomery similar to those Ginny has made concerning Patton. Monty as a Major General was a part of the British Expeditionary Force sent to France after the War was declared Sept 3, 1939. He was a division commander and in that capacity he participated in the defense of Belgium and Holland after the May 10 1940 assault by Germany began. Montgomery’s 3rd division participated in the effort first to stop the German offensive and when that failed, to delay it long enough to permit the evacuation of a large part of the British and significant numbers of French troops to England through the port of Dunkirk. Montgomery seems to have conducted himself quite well in these operations.

So far as Montgomery’s Dunkirk record is concern he is remembered most for his impertinent unsolicited advice to the BEF commander General Lord Gort who was about to leave France. At a meeting just before Gort’s departure for England, Montgomery criticized Gort’s Choice of Lieutenant General Barker as his successor. Monty said he was incompetent and suggested Major General Alexander as the most competent. Surprisingly Gort a WW I Hero, one of the few surviving recipients of the Victoria Cross, accepted Monty’s recommendations naming Alexander as his successor commander of the remaining BEF. Montgomery and his division were soon thereafter evacuated too.

Montgomery was not Churchill’s first choice to command the British 8th army in the Middle East. In a see-saw battle that saw the British successful in re-conquering Ethiopia and pushing the Italians nearly out of Libya the injection of German reinforcement under Erwin Rommel (another Division Commander in the French invasion), had forced the British back deep into Egypt with the Suez canal threatened. Churchill had chosen an outstanding Desert commander, General William (Strafer) Gott to command the 8th army. Unfortunately he was killed when the transport plane taking him to his command was shot down. Churchill then selected Montgomery who had spent the year since Dunkirk training British troops in England.

I think that Montgomery was quite successful in the role he played in the long trek to the final victory in Europe. From El Alamein on to North African Sicily, Italy, Normandy, Operation Market Garden, and finally at Luneburg Heath where he received the Surrender of North Germany his operations while not always successful, most often were and in the end made a substantial contribution to the final victory

Montgomery was certainly of a different mold than the other WW II military leaders. He was a long-time practicing tea-totaler and militant non-smoker. The Author properly notes Patton’s impatience with Monty on this account. Also he was an impulsive planner requiring every detail be fully thought out and every contingence identified and planned for. This is why I tend to compare him to Lee. In this respect Monty was very much the opposite of Patton. And most certainly Montgomery’s greatest and most obvious fault was that he was his opinion of himself as the greatest military leader of the day. In this respect he was uncompromising and immodest to the great annoyance not only of American associates, but British associates as well. I think Colin Evans does a pretty good job of conveying this character defect in the book.

Harold, I found your choice of civil war generals to compare with Patton and Montgomery very interesting. My personal choices would have been Patton vs Nathan Bedford Forrest and Montgomery vs. George Meade. Patton like Forrest was crude, profane and one hell of a tactical genious. Both of them inspired the men under them to do more than they thought they could, and the effects showed. Montgomery like Meade was in the right place at the right time once, and was brilliant. The rest of their generalship was good enough. I don't think that either one was in Lee's league, but who was.

I found the author's handing of Ike to be pretty harsh. To say that the war in Europe would have been over six months earlier if Ike could have made a decision is a claim I had not heard before. If all you knew about Patton, Montgomery and Eisenhower was what was in this book you wouldn't like or respect any of them.

Did this go on long enough to qualify for a feud?

John Z

HI LORRIE yes, an Irishman/woman would most definitely have strong feelings about England. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us - it's a case of "you don't walk in my shoes....." isn't it?

This is a complex issue and one I don't know much about - I wouldn't attempt to discuss it, but may I ask what Ireland's men did in WWII? Were they drafted and fought and, if so, where?

GINNY - the book about Patton sounds very good and let us know if you find it's a book which would lend itself to a good discussion. Thanks for the suggestion....

HAROLD - did you take note of the Patton book Ginny has ordered? I have about 17 books on my list to discuss someday, but am always ready for more.

JOHN an interesting post. Both you and Harold know your generals very well; whereas, I wouldn't even attempt to compare these men but certainly find your posts very interesting. In Harold's History Forum under GENERAL DISCUSSIONS (I'll bring the clicakable here in a moment) you might want to nominate a book for a January discussion. Harold is calling for nominations now.

Am behind in the FEUDS book - but will catch up. When I think of Patton I think temper, temper, temper - the famous "slapping" incident and an occasion where his tanks ran out of gas and he was furious at the delay, thinking that Eisenhower wanted to give the English the advantage (was it entering Germany or Berlin?) and purposely did not deliver the gas.

Back later.....ella

JOHN - here's the clickable to Harold"s HISTORY BOOK FORUM, often if people subscribe to discussions, they miss what all we have to offer on our BOOKS page. Nominate a book while you are looking it over.

HISTORY BOOK FORUM

Ella thank you for the plug for the History Book Forum. John and all of you are welcome to use Ella's link to participate in the selection of a history book for January discussion. We now have 7 nominee titles but the board is still open for additional nominations. The only requirement is that it be a non-fiction book on a history subject of general interest to history buffs. I would view a WW II title as appropriate. You are welcome to nominate a favorite.

Well, I dunno, John and Harold:

I can remember when some of the veterans came back from Europe after having been part of the Battle of the Bulge, general opinion of General Patton didn't seem too high. My two brothers, who served under him, and when mentioning Patton's nickname, "Blood and Guts" remarked, with derision, I might add" "Yeah sure, his guts and our blood!"

Lorrie

Lorrie, I might be inclined to agree with your brothers judgment. That's what I meant by comparing him to "Custer." The slapping incident and the second outburst literally threatening to shoot a sobbing wounded soldier should have been enough to send him back stateside reduced to permanent rank but it didn't happen. I don’t doubt there were many unnecessary causalities from improperly planned moves unreported by the press.

Montgomery though there is no record of him abusing wounded no doubt caused many deaths through planning mistakes. His "Market Garden" operation resulted in heavy causalities. This was the late 1944 attempt to cross the Rhine. Had it been successful it might have ended the war 6-months earlier with the Western Powers in Berlin. It was unsuccessful with heavy British losses when the air drop of British parachute troops and Glider troops found themselves dropped in the middle of a forest occupied by a crack German Division on an R & R period. This disrupted the Germans planned R & R but provided completely unexpected resistance leading to the failure of the operation.

Lorrie's comment about "Blood and Guts" Patton reminds me of Gen U.S. Grant who threw his men into battle and had high fatalities. I suppose that is a tactic in a way. Grant eventually succeeded and so did Patton but I found this chapter rather flat.

Both were good generals. England managed to break the German code and secretly feed Montgomery their military information. Montgomery knew in advance what the Germans were going to do which was quite an advantage to him but not of his doing.

What I got out of this chapter was that both had huge egos and wanted reknown. Patton was tactical and an action-man. Montgomery was tactical and a second-decision kind of man. If I read the history of a war, I would not be interested in the generals as the stars of the battlefield. There is so much more to the subject.

Marvelle

Having just finished this chapter, I have to remark that I am amazed and puzzled about the criticism of Eisenhower! Didn't he plan the D-Day invasion? And if Ike was so bad why was he made C-of-Allied Forces? Let me just quote a couple of statements:

"Ike had more of the office than the officer about him and lacked combat experience.

"Once again, Eisenhower had betrayed his lack of battle experience."

"...on this occasion he failed completely to coordinate the movements of both armies"

"....he (Ike) chose the soft option and probably extended the war by six months at least."

"To Eisenhower's eternal DISCREDIT, he had connived at the imposition of one dictator over another, meekly allowing Stalin to swallow up Czechoclovakia."

GINNY - didn't you mention previously that Patton was buried overseas? Or am I mistaken (as I was previously in relating incidents about Patton)? Why didn't they fly him home to be buried in America where he had a family - well, the book mentions a wife anyway.

At times, Montgomery and Patton admired each other and, no doubt, respected the other's strengths and tactics; however,their egos and the competition each was engaged in got in the way.

It would be interesting to make a list of all the qualities that a good general should have; however, on the other hand, as good a tactician, morale-builder, etc. that a general may be he is bound to make mistakes and if they are very bad ones, they will never be forgotten by historians.

My brother-in-law was wounded in the landing of the Anzio beachhead into Italy; recuperated from being shot in the leg and went back into battle. He has a Purple Heart, gets a tiny little check every month.

Like Marvelle, this chapter did not appeal to me as some of the others did.

In the back of my mind I think I remember that there were political reasons that Patton was buried overseas. The Americans in power were nervious that Patton's burial would generate a lot of sympathy. I'll see what I can find on that. In the meantime from the list of people who attended Patton's funeral you can see how popular and important he'd been:

General Patton's Funeral and Burial Site

Marvelle

Hi MARVELLE! I just read that site you listed in the above post! That poor little duchy (would that be a little village in America?) has seen too many battles, hasn't it - going all the way back to the Romans! Mercy!

That poem that Patton wrote is beautiful, sad! In essence, he is saying does it matter whether the dead are buried in glory with a magnificent funeral or thrown hurriedly into the ground after a battle - I found it very moving. An interesting fellow, we can't judge a man from what he did in the heat of battle can we?

Who would want the job? A job where you are required to send thousands of young men to possible death and at your orders and your battle plan - someone has to do it though and, perhaps, we shouldn't be so critical of those who tried to do a good job.

Probably both Patton and Montgomery tried, even if they were betting on the outcomes.

Ginny, I hope you can fill us in as to why Patton was buried overseas. Was he a political liability and it was thought best to not allow him a hero's return to the United States?

Your insights are enlightening Ella. Who would want the job? That is a good point. Even if you win battles you lose men and that must take its toll on generals.

Marvelle

I've been looking through the internet for more information on Montgomery and Patton. I found something that seems to be a Canadian War Diary
Some comments from these officers:

"One of the factors which one must consider when appraising the performance of any general officer on the continent that summer is that of politics. There were many pressures to bear on British, Canadian and American leaders from their own governments, and the resulting rivalries and attendant publicity tended to muddy the waters of command more than a little. Eisenhower was picked because of a perceived ability to moderate between these forces, and mostly he did a good job with some notable exceptions.

Oh yes, and regarding the gap... everything I've read suggests the Americans stopped Patton because their line of advance was stretched far too thinly, and they didn't want to risk his leading units getting cut off and chopped up."

Some of these opinions do seem to vindicate Eisenhower from the incompetent brush with which Colin Evans seems determined to paint him. ELLA. I wonder where Evans drew his information!

More...

"On scene interviews with the people who served with them all confirm that Patton & Montgomery had a definite & distinct personality conflict. It was made the worse because it turned out that Patton was by far the better tactician and strategist. This isn't just a US opinion, but one voiced by Brooks-Alexander and Mountbatten. Monty wasn't part of Overlord planning and Patton was (Bradley ran plans by him) because Patton, despite his temper - had a grasp of what had to be accomplished."

It appears that Evans, like most historians, picks and chooses his sources. Eisenhower definitely doesn't come out well in this chapter, but is Evans right?

Another quote from our senior military officers. Is one of them writing a battle history of D-Day,.... this is not totally clear?

"I'm fully aware of Monty's personality problems (I think it's in "The Generals" by Granatstein where the phrase "nasty little shit" is mentioned as a term then used in reference to Monty). So what? Patton had personality problems, too. All it means is that one should read carefully any accounts by people with a transparent dislike of Monty."

The officers go on to describe the rivalry between Lord Mountbatten and Monty. One thing seems to become visible. The major figures of WWII spent just as much time defending their political turf as they spent attacking enemy lands.

I agree with you, ELLA, and MARVELLE, that it must be a wrenching experience to knowingly send so many men to their death. I don't think I could ever envy any General his power or glory when I think of this aspect of his job.

Thought provoking posts, everyone! Thanks, HAROLD, JOHN and GINNY.

Harriet

However, despite the pressures of command I'm with Audie Murphy on his feelings towards generals (hint: he had a rather low opinion of them).

EVANS had a readable bibliography which he separates by chapters. It appears he took material from well-known books with traditional views but obviously did not get involved in careful research on his own. We've sort of lost the "feud" aspect on this one but I didn't find much of interest on either men.

Marvelle

Like others I had a relative who served under Patton in WWII. My uncle served under Patton with the Third Army in France and Germany. He had nothing but admiration for Patton, he is the source of my statement that Patton inspired his men to do more than they thought they could. The wide differences of opinion about Patton by those that served under him remind me of the violently differing opinions those serving under MacArthur had of him. I guess that anyone that stands out is bound to have big fans and big detracters.

The Scott/Amundsen chapter inspired me to get Amundsen's book 'The South Pole' from the local library. I am less than half way through it, and I am fascinated. I have never read a more humble autobiography in my life. He spends much of the book giving credit to everyone else for all of the things they accomplished in Antartica, with special notice give to the deeds of Scott and Shackleton. His relationship with the sled dogs is hard for us to understand in our world today, he loved the dogs and talks about how each one had its own personality, and then talks very dispassionately about planning to kill the weaker dogs as nescessary and feeding the to the remaining dogs and having a cutlet or two for the people. He talks about in the planning stage that one big advantage of dogs over ponies was that dogs eat dogs and ponies don't eat ponies.

More when I get farther into the book

John Z

Golly what fabulous posts and of course, I am totally out of the leagues of you historians and those whose relatives knew or served under Patton.

And since I was 2 years old when WWII ended I can hardly claim any sort of understanding of these events, I was also, however quite surprised about the anti Eisenhower slant, Ella.

Yes, I did just come back from visiting the American Cemetery in Luxembourg. I did not see any statue to General Patton, in fact I had been told that his grave was indistinguishable from all the others, it's not.

I am looking at the Cemetery information in front of me, I'll tell you what it's like now, if you visit this year?

You enter a gate and there's an office on the left and you stop off and ask where General Patton's grave is , it's not hard to find. There are 50 acres of white marble crosses and stars of David, and each is the same and of a very high quality.

You walk out on to a promenade, there are memorials of very fine calibre, to the right and left showing the progress of the war, there are lists of the dead carved in tall monuments, there is a very impressive chapel, there is the American Monument with the words: 1941-1945

IN PROUD REMEMBRANCE
OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF HER SONS
AND IN HUMBLE TRIBUTE
TO THEIR SACRIFICE
THIS MEMORIAL HAS BEEN ERECTED BY
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

you turn your head left and there you see it, tho: you see the rows upon rows upon rows of the crosses and stars, and it's a very stirring sight. There are more than 5,000 dead there.

There are two flag poles ahead of you and in the center of those flagpoles is what you came to see: Patton's grave. It stands alone and fresh flowers are on the grave. The other crosses and stars of David face Patton in formation forever. It's very moving, you'd be surprised. Supposedly the cemetery is maintained by Luxembourg volunteers and supposedly planes flying overhead dip their wings in tribute, I don't know, no plane came overhead.

I was unexpectedly moved and I was not the only one it's quite impressive and sobering.

Marvelle, my understaning in what I have read was that Patton wanted to be buried in Luxembourg with his men and Beatrice, his wife, agreed to his wishes.

I want to say here, and am open to correction from you history buffs, that the sources the author cites are, to me, not quite the thing. I know it's impressive LOOKING, but the author's scholarly background seems not, and when you look more closely you see some fairly disturbing patterns, I noticed it in the Windsor chapter, the sources cited are simply not what are regarded as the seminal and most authoritative works? I was quite surprised at what he cited, frankly, but that's a particular interest of mine, Patton is not a particular interest of mine, yet we have serveral books on him, none cited in the list of Bibilography, but all flattering? I wonder: if you were going to write a feud and you needed....sort of explosive things to say if the more balanced accounts left out would provide it? He seems to have read Patton's diaries and left off the nobler things Patton thought. I dunno, here.

I'm not qualified to speak on Generals Montgomery and Patton, but it's entirely possible that without Patton's drive we would not have won those offensives? And I imagine it's kind of hard to turn that drive and ferocity off and on like a light switch. Amazing that both Patton and Montgomery studied (not mentioned in this book) and compared themselves to Caesar (only mentioned in Montgomery's case), I do know a bit about Caesar and he was not one who could turn it on and off, either.

I think the author is a bit hard on these two men of war, I'm sorry, but I think in times of war you need a warrior, it's going to take a lot to diminsh my admiration for both men, and I think both were much more than portrayed. Maybe this new book of 848 pages which uses hitherto unpublished sources might, I hope not. When you're in war you need a warrior. Compared to some of the other warriors in history who preceeded and followed them, they were not so bad.

I won't give my comments on the slapping issues.

Interesting post, John!

ginny

Generals are needed but when you talk warrior I think it is men like Audie Murphy who qualify. This is my opinion only.

Marvelle

A little thought on the character of our allied generals leads me to the conclusion that they were a pretty curious lot, not just American but British and for that matter French also. Beginning with the American we know the story of our blood and guts Patton complete with his pair of pearl handled revolvers in the best wild-west tradition. I’m surprised he didn’t throw in a ten-gallon cowboy hat to top it off. Then there was General Douglas Macarthur rather far behind in my judgment with his relatively conventional scrambled egg cap. It was conventional in the Navy but not in the army at that time. And Ike with out any claim to originality appropriated the product of a long dead Crimea War general, Lord Cardigan and without so much as a thank you to his lordship, renamed it, the Eisenhower Jacket. This style seemed to score big remaining popular in this country through the 1950’s. On the British side our Monty ‘s claim to creative fashion design was his baggy pants and of course the signature beret sitting atop a rather grotesque face. Finally I was going to add Charles de Gaulle to this list because of his distinctive hat but come to think of it that was the usual French Army officer’s bonnet. It just looked funny because it was quite different from both the American and British styles. Of course de Gaulle didn’t really need a quirky uniform to make him stand out in our crowd. Certainly not, he managed rather well on his own to annoy his contemporaries both Brits and American leading Winston Churchill to remark, “the heaviest cross I had to bear through the war, was the cross of Lorraine!”

What an interesting perspective on the generals, Harold, many thanks for that!

Marvelle, I'm a big fan of Audie Murphy, too.

I've been thinking about feuds and wonder what it takes to get one up or keep one going? For instance, suppose two of us here violently disagreed? In order for it to become serious, what would have to happen? It would take two people, right?

And both of them, presumably, would have to be personally touched to the point that they would not back off or thought that they should not retreat or?

And that being the case the two of them or whoever they could get to help them or take their sides would have to continue this thing?

So under that understanding I don't think Amundsen qualifies? I'm not seeing on his part a continuation of hostility?

What do you all think? Is that the only Feud in the book so far which does not seem a feud?

Wanna "feud" over this one? hahahahaha

Seriously, what do you all think? It's interesting, it takes two to tango (or as my friend says, to "tangle.)"

ginny

Ginny, what a marvelous post last night! I feel like I've been to Luxembourg. Sometimes I become overwhelmed by the miracle of the computer, especially when it's combined with the inventiveness and descriptive powers of an enthusiastic correspondent like yourself. Did you consciously try to put together photographic materials to make a mosaic of your travels? How amazing to be able to draw on your recent travels and put this wonderful descriptive photorama together for all of us. Thank you, Ginny. I, for one, was fascinated and delighted!

I'm not truly up on my information about Patton and Montgomery so it's hard to judge the accuracy of Evan's account. What does seem plain was that both Generals were "prima donnas," with a taste for the spotlight and praise. I believe that each of them was a military genius in his own way, in strategy, or planning or whatever...and genius often comes wrapped in some colorful and unusual packaging. They were each bigger than life, and maybe that was what was needed during the height of WWII?

I do agree with MARVELLE that the most brilliant General can't get far without the ordinary soldier. It was GI Joe that did the fighting and dying during WWII. Audie Murphy was no ordinary GI Joe, though. I read Audie Murphy's account of his WWII days many years ago. That was turned into a movie starring Murphy himself, who was kind of a neat looking guy. The movie is one of the late night standbys on TV and is aired from time to time.

HAROLD, love your descriptions of our colorful allied senior officers. You described their "larger-than-life" aspect so much better than I ever could. That's a great quote about De Gaulle. Our military Commanders didn't seem to like each other much, did they? Thank heavens they managed to cooperate enough to win the war!

Harriet

GINNY, I would like to add two more qualifications for a feud: both opponents must have the ability to hurt the other and the utter desire to do so. They have to be on the same 'battlefield.' And the feuders have to have large egos which do not allow room for disagreement or other people in the limelight.

No feud here about Amundsen and Scott not being a feud. It was a competition as far as Amundsen knew. So far the Amundsen chapter is the only non-feud.

Marvelle

I think feuds come in many different degrees of intensity. Those that fall short of actual physical violence might better be described as competitions. Who among us who has went through 40 or so years in the modern social/business environment has not had many competitive encounters with rival over our careers. It is a part of the natural order of things in all phases of our lives from love to business and professions.

This would seem to be what was going on with the WW II generals. Most if not all were very capable men and knew it. Some more than others apparently felt the need to make their achievements known at every opportunity or to engage in spectacular activities designed to enhance their position. This seems to be what was going on with the principals in this chapter. Monty in particular was always blowing his own horn with the press. Often this went to the extreme resulting in the disgust of superiors, subordinates and the general public. Patton too did not miss an opportunity in this regard, but also had the propensity to get into trouble with ill advised acts such as the slapping incidents.

I love the different ideas of what constitutes a feud, I've been through the same thing in my mind. I might add duration to the definition, without duration its just a fight.

Half way through Amundsen's book and admiring him more and more.

John Z

Harold, fascinating posts; they give us things to ponder over - vanity-your name is generals! You know, I once read a book about Eisenhower (I think I bought it at Gettsburg when we toured his home and farm there) and he had a valet with him at all times who literally took care of all his clothes - dressed him - YES, THAT'S WHAT THE BOOK SAID! - dressed him. He was very particular about his bearing and his clothing. In one photograph where he was in uniform, it said under the picture that Ike would not sit down for the picture for fear he would get creases in his pants.

GINNY - I looked at your photos too and thank you! Sad, though, I don't think I could or would go to those cemeteries and I applaud you for your courage in doing so. I would stand and cry and think of all those mothers at home weeping for their little grown-up boys far away in a distant land. Too much for me to handle. The older I get the more emotional I seem to be, is that true for all of us or am I just the exception.

FEUDS - I agree that the Amundsen/Scott was a competition. And am not sure that the Duchess and the Queen was a feud? In order for something to be a feud wouldn't one have to be in contact more than they were? Wouldn't it need more "airing" by others or in the press? Maybe not. Good question, Ginny!

GINNY, a violent disagreement as a feud? I've thought about that and have a problem with the word 'violent'. What is violent when it comes to a difference of opinion? First, both parties would have to be 'violent' and then ... well, my Webster's says that a feud is a bitter, continuous hostility between people, esp families, clans, often [not always] lasting for years.

Obviously it takes at least two people to have a feud but that also means huge egos and the desire to do harm. So again, I don't think Amundsen fits in the feud. JohnZ, thanks for the recommendation on the Amundsen book "The South Pole". I've ordered it from the library and look forward to a good read. In the wintertime I like to read Barry Lopez' "Arctic Dreams" even though I have no desire to visit the Poles myself. Funny then how I like to read about it.

HAROLD, you know so much about history and politics and the military! Appreciate the information.

Oh, just thought! GINNY, what until the next chapter! To me that is a feud, both funny and sad.

Marvelle

I am reading "The Worst Journey in the World" by Apsley Cherry-Garrard (Constable 1922) - who accompanied Scott on the Polar expedition 1910-1913. In Australia before they set off he writes: "We went up Melbourne Harbour that evening, very dark and blowing hard. A telegram was waiting for Scott: 'Madeira. Am going South, Amundsen'".. . . . "Captain Roald Amundsen was one of the most notable of living explorers and was in the prime of life - forty-one, two years younger than Scott. He had been in the Antarctic before Scott, with the Belgica Expedition in 1897-9, and therefore did not consider the South Pole in any sense our property. Since then he had realised the dream of centuries of exploration by passing through the North-West Passage, and actually doing so in a 60-ton schooner in 1905. The last we had heard of him was that he had equipped Nansen's old ship, the Framm, for further exploration in the Arctic. This was only a feint. Once at sea, he had told his men that he was going south instead of north; and when he reached Madeira he sent his brief telegram, which meant,"I shall be at the South Pole before you". It also meant, though we did not appreciate it at the time, that we were up against a very big man".

According to The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1986):
FEUD
1. enmity; active hatred; hostility; ill-will;
2. a state of bitter and lasting mutual hostility, esp. two families, tribes or individuals, marked by murderous assaults and revenge for some previous insult, quarrel, contention, bickering (1565);

With Amundsen throwing down the gauntlet in this way, it became a challenge to a contest? a race? With no previous enmity, it doesn't match the word 'feud.'

Thanks, Harriet and Ella, no I actually take very few photos on trips, that's why you don't see the chapel here, just whatever strikes me at the moment and that did, so when you all mentioned it, thought I show you what it looks like a couple of months ago.

Ella, it's amzingly affecting.

Viogert, thank you for that super read and see, Marvelle, again the presence of "murder," it appears that our dictionaries disagree here over the physical violence needed. Of course we had none with the Windsors and despite a heavy handed attempt by the author to imply that Amundsen caused the death of Scott by not leaving food supplies (really!) we don't have one there either.

(This is fun, isn't it? We have two people, Joan Z and Viogert, reading more about the subject and me, when General Patton comes, they say it's been shipped) a very lively discussion on the issues here and am learning some SUPER things, I would say THE Successful Discussion of the Year, myself, what more do you want?

Such fun, and a learning exprerience, thanks to ALL of you!

ginny

Funny, "murder" isn't in my Webster's dictionary about feuds. In some ways though, the feuds in Evans' book are murderous if you consider the ego-driven animosity and blind hatred. They can cause a good deal of damage.

Technically, I don't think a feud has to involve actual physical murder. Even in Hamiltan and Burr, most definitely a feud, the death was not by murder but by a duel. Perhaps 'attempted murder of the spirit'?

Patton and Montgomery did everything they could to be top dog, even using their men in battle to gratify their egos. But the feud, the interaction, was dull although they were playing for high stakes. Will be glad to get in another chapter. This particular chapter was flat and uninteresting to me and I can find nothing else to write about with the two generals.

Marvelle

GINNY, I think it was Evans who didn't make this chapter interesting. His choices of what to include and exclude are sometimes baffling. I'm sure your book on Patton will reveal a lot more of the man as a human being and a general. It sounds like a good book.

Marvelle

viogert, I'm delighted to see you come in with another reference to Charry-Garrard's WORST JOURNEY. It is one of the best. And the display of human spirit and endurance in chapter 7 is unbelievabe. Thanks. Your reminder makes me want to read the book one more time. Over the years it has always surprised me how few have even heard about it.

This discussion just keeps getting better.

Jonathan

Welcome, Jonathan!!

Glad to see you. Please continue to join us. There's certainly a lot of interest in the history of Antarctic exploration here, and we do seem to have an Amundsen cheering section.

Do you have GREAT FEUDS? Even if you don't , the next upcoming chapter, starting TOMORROW, is relatively current history. Many of us in the so-called "senior" age group have lived through the years of LBJ and the Kennedys and have formed personal opinions about the people and events. All comments are welcome, so stay with us.

The next chapter certainly promises some lively debate and emotional memories. I'm eager ro share with you all.

Harriet

Does anybody have any knowledge of whether Patton or Montgomery deliberately risked the lives of their troops in order to compete with each other for glory? Evans says as much in his Introduction to his book, but he doesn't pursue any details of this in his actual chapter on the two Generals.

I feel that our author might have used a broad literary brush to increase the impact of the feuds. Like Ella, and many others of you, I was surprised at his portrayal of DDE. I have read in other sources that Eisenhower stopped Patton's steamrolling advance toward Falaise because Patton's lines had spread thin and were outrunning their supplies and back-up defenses? That's quite a different explanation than the one Evans cites in GREAT FEUDS. If this was true, caution for men's lives determined Eisenhower's course of action, not lack of battle experience?

It's a serious matter to accuse Patton, Montgomery and Eisenhower of not valuing the lives of their troops.

Harriet

I think that the detractors of both Patton and Montgomery, and they both have many, have said previously that they caused unnescessary loss of life for their own glory. The same has been said of Mac Arthur. If you are brilliant you could possibly save many lives by being either bold or cautious or whatever. The reason that this charge is so often made is that it is impossible to prove, it all depends on how you read the history. It is made to order for the critic in that, if it is true it is the worst thing you could be guilty of, and it impossible to disprove.

John Z

It's a serious matter to accuse anyone of anything not merely generals. GINNY, maybe you can look at the Patton book, see if it seems non-prejudicial either way (pro or con) and well researched. Can you then tell us if Patton established battlelines to out-trump Montgomery?

Marvelle

Jonathan! First Mate (from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner Jonathan or was that Crows Nest Jonathan!) haahahah Isn't it just a fine discussion? So glad to see you here!

I agree with you, Harriet, I am very doubtful of some of the claims here.

Marvelle, I will try, if it mentions it, our Fall Slate here in the Books is so exciting I'm afraid I've over committed (or should be committed ahahaha) right and left, so this 848 page thing might have to wait but as soon as I find something out, I'll let you all know.

We need a place where, when discussions are over, we can report back stuff like that? Because it's definitely going to take me a while unless it's really good and hard to put down.

I'll let you all know how it starts out, anyway, it's been shipped.

ginny

Thanks, Ginny. Now tomorrow on to LBJ and Robert Kennedy -- to me this was a feud by two interesting characters.

Marvelle

Ginny regarding a place to report back with later comments on the subject of closed discusssions might be the continuing discussions such as history, biography and non-fiction and others. I would welcome on the History Book Forum as very appropriate any future comment on the Patton Monty feud or any WW II subject. For that matter future comment on many of the Feuds relative to political or military history could properly be placed there. Future comment on the Hatsfields/mcCoys and Amundsen/Scot feuds might best be on non-fiction.

Those of you are are interested in Antartica, might want to peruse our discussion of "ICE BOUND" by Dr. Jerri Nielson, who was stranded at the South Pole research station and whose rescue made headlines around the world. Click here: ICE BOUND

There is great description of the hardships, the responsibilities and the people needed at this research station. This doctor (one of the necessary people at the pole) volunteered for a year's duty as do many of the people stationed there. They go through an extensive physical and psychological examination before being accepted as they live in very close quarters and cannot get out for several months while there. I forget the number of people the station can hold, but they are there to support the scientists; needed are cooks, mechanics, a doctor, etc. McMurdo was their base from which they took off for the research station.

The only other country that has a research station on the ice is Russia which I believe is about 600 miles from the U.S. station.

Ella Gibbons - - That is a nice link - good pictures, but there are in fact, twenty-six countries operating stations in Antarctica besides Russian & the USA - some have more active research stations than others - the last list I saw was in 2000:

http://www.asa.org/antsun/2000_0206/international.html

Sara Wheeler wrote about visiting several stations in "Terra Incognita" (Random House 1996) & David G Campbell's "The Crystal Desert" (Secker & Warburg 1992) describes three summers he spent in Antarctica.

JOHN, thanks for your perceptive and helpful comment, yesterday.

ELLA. I remember the ICEBOUND discussion with pleasure. What a terrific job you did leading it!

VIOGERT, many thanks for the Antarctic information.

MARVELLE and GINNY, it's so good to see you both.

This morning we begin discussing the relationship between RFK and LBJ. This particular chapter of history probably holds personal memories for most of us. For me, it almost seemed like yesterday that RFK was campaigning for the Presidency.

I was living in Brooklyn, N.Y. when Robert Kennedy swung through my neighborhood on a vote-getting visit. I can still see him on Coney Island Ave. of the Brighton Beach area, young, charismatic and vital, standing in his open car and bending to shake hands with residents. I can hear his voice....

"Some men see things as they are and ask WHY...others see things as they might be, and ask WHY NOT?..."

Equally vivid, I have an image of LBJ on the television news. He is jocularly holding forth to reporters on his recent gall bladder surgery and then he casually pulls up his shirt to reveal an ugly and vivid surgical scar.

Yet wasn't each of these men much more complex and multifaceted than these two images of them imply? Joe Kennedy said of his charming, urbane son, "When Bobby hates you, you stay hated!" Crude, crass LBJ launched the greatest surge of social benefits and civil rights legislation since Roosevelt when he came to power. Each, during his time of greatest influence, used his clout to damage the other.

WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, MOTIVATED THE ENMITY BETWEEN THESE TWO MEN OF ABILITY?

HOW DID THEY EACH SUCCEED IN FRUSTRATING AND BLOCKING THE AMBITIONS OF THE OTHER?

Of course, please feel free to pursue any other aspect of this chapter of FEUDS that interests you also. Here are some informational links for your pleasure. By the way, it was surprising to me how much of the internet information on RFK centered on his death, rather than on his life.

Perspectives on RFK

Lyndon Baines Johnson

I'm looking forward to all of your comments.

Harriet

Here is a link to the definitive biography of LBJ by Robert A. Caro . This now consists of three volumes of which I have one, “Master of the Senate.” I am not sure if it is now complete or if another volume is still in the process of preparation.

LBJ, of course is well known to all Americans, and particularly to us here in Texas. The name first became know to me during the primary election of 1948, the year I first voted in the July Democratic primary. In that year Lyndon was a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Previously in earlier posts on several discussion boards I have had occasion to describe the results of this election and how LBJ won by “less than 100 disputed votes.” As recently as a few months ago I doubted LBJ’s culpability in the fraud attributing the guilt to a well-known political ruler of a South Texas County. Now having read the Caro account of the election in the “Master of the Senate,” I have to recognize that LBJ was involved as was his main opponent the popular Governor Coke Stevenson. In Caro’s words:

He (Johnson) stole not thousands, but tens of thousands of votes, and when they weren’t sufficient to defeat Stevenson, he stole still more, and in this later theft, which culminated in the finding of the decisive “votes” (supposedly cast by 202 voters who voted in alphabetical order) six days after the polls closed, he went further than anyone had gone before, violating even the notably loose boundaries of Texas politics. (see Caro, "Master of the Senate, P116)

LBJ had a good New York attorney, Abe Fortas who successfully blocked Federal Court proceedings through brilliant legal ingenuity. The Caro material does not say how much Fortas billed LBJ for his service, but some 16-years later Fortus was appointed an associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Johnson thereby went to the Senate where his political skills quickly propelled him to the top leadership and eventually to the presidency. LBJ was no novice to political feuds and in this case RFK had taken on a worthy opponent when the feud erupted.

Finally for the record, I did not vote for LBJ in that critical 1948 election having cast my first vote ever for his opponent Governor Stevenson. In later elections I became a regular LBJ voter and in the election in November 1960, I voted for him twice since he was on that ballot for both Vice President and for reelection to the U.S. Senate. The dual candidacy was then allowed under Texas Election law. Of course when LBJ became Vice President he had to resign from the Senate opening the way for Republican, John Towers to succeed him in the Senate.

I was one of the millions of people mesmerized by their television screens and watching films of the President of the United States being shot, literally before our eyes. Yes, I wept also, not just because an important leader had just been assasinated, but a young, charismatic, idealistic and well-intenioned ideal of a younger and more hopeful generation had had his life ended abruptly. Camelot was indeed dead. In my estimation, a particular era ended that day, and has never returned. Gone is the feeling of hope and optimistic faith in our country that only showed briefly again on September 11.

Lorrie

LORRIE, I think Robert Kennedy felt obligated to continue the legacy of his brother, John, after the assassination, but Lyndon Johnson literally HAD to fill Kennedy's shoes as the new president. That had to be the most impossible job in the world for both of them, given the grieving and emotional climate of the times.

By the way, this Sunday at 8pm, the FX network is running an original two hour biopic drama on RFK during the post-assassination years. His relationship with LBJ is supposed to play a significant role in the production. I don't know how consistent play times for TV are across the US but, in my area, TV Guide is running a fairly lengthy feature story on the show. If that's true in your area, the TV Guide article might clarify the airing time in your area for anyone who's interested.

HAROLD, when a Texan with your historical knowledge talks about Lyndon Johnson, it's worth listening carefully. I feel Johnson had exactly the kind of pragmatic thinking that would have resulted in helping a friendly figure get a significant appointment to the Supreme Court. Forgive my ignorance, Harold. Did Johnson appoint Fortas and did you feel that Fortas was a good choice for the Supreme Court?

Harriet

This chapter is fascinating to me as I didn't realize this feud existed between LBJ and Bobbie and that is was going on during the Kennedy presidential years; undoubtedly all of us (well, some of us) had their eyes and ears on "America's first made-for-TV politician." When RFK was appointed Attorney General I did think that was an error on JFK's part - who else could ever get away with that except a Kennedy?

Liked this sentence: "With his youthful vigor and dazzling smile, Kennedy could light up those television pixels in a way that made his rivals appear comatose, as if they had been dipped in formaldehyde." How true that was - he made Nixon appear stupid and he was not at all.

We've got storms coming, back later! Thanks VIOGERT for correcting my error - when I blunder, it's a major one isn't it?

Johnson's Treatment! His way of persauding would be near impossible to resist:

the target of persausion would see Johnson's "craggy face...loom in (within one inch of the target and) one bearlke paw would encircle the victim's shoulder, the other would reach metaphorically for other, more sensitive, anatomical regions. Which got squeezed the most depended entirely on the answers that Johnson received."

Such a Treatment! I laughed out loud at this near-stereotype of a politician. Certainly it was caricature, but initiated by Johnson's own actions.

Where RFK came off cold -- unlike his brother JFK -- Johnson seemed puppyish, sincere, and caring. He was even loyal to the late president in ways that surprised me.

However with two big egos, unwilling to share any of the spotlight, driven to having their own way -- they were destined to feud. This feud reminds me of Hamilton and Burr, even the Hatfields and McCoy because the animosity was so personal and intense. The feud of Patton and Montgomery was long range but for LBJ and RFK it was all upclose and 'squeezing the sensitive, anatomical regions.'

Marvelle

Of course that photograph of LBJ holding a puppy up by its long ears didn't make him all that popular with the canine lovers in the country, either!

Lorrie

Yeah, he was always so clumsy in his tries to be popular like a kid. He thought it was funny and never considered what it felt to the dog. RFK would never be caught in such a PR mistake and had a talent for covering up his excesses and those of his family. RFK seemed so sophisticated to me at the time; so perfect. I wince to say this now.

With their various strengths and weaknesses, these two men had a rip-roaring feud. Strengths would include well-developed egos, competitiveness, and goal orientation. Weaknesses would be the extremes of strength -- an overinflated, larger than life itself ego; redefining competition as war; and an obsessive drive to grind your competitor/war-enemy into the ground. I think they were well matched.

What about this chapter? Does it give us a feud? What was the feud about?

Marvelle

Evans writes about the return to Washington of the terrible Dallas flight. The body of the murdered JFK is aboard the plane as well as the newly sworn in President Johnson.

"Even so, he (Johnson) expected some acknowledgement of his newfound authority. But the younger man was having none of it. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy brushed past Lyndon Baines Johnson as if he didn't exist, intent only on reaching his newly widowed sister-in-law as she mourned beside the casket that contained her murdered husband's body.

"{Bobby} ran," said Johnson later, "so that he would not have to pause and recognize the new president."

This is how the feud is introduced. Yet, if we examine the incident I see possible author slants all through the paragraph. It seems that the initial bias is anti-Kennedy. The phrase "brushed past Lyndon Baines Johnson as if he didn't exist" is unnecessarily inflammatory.

I would think that a normal reaction for anyone who suffered a stunning loss of a beloved brother. as did RFK, might be two-fold: first, to confirm with his own eyes that this unbelievable event has truly occurred, and second, to be close to the people who would share the same grief as himself. DID EVANS REALLY BELIEVE KENNEDY WOULD SAUNTER ON BOARD, SHAKE HANDS, OFFER JOHNSON HIS CONGRATULATIONS, MAKE SMALL TALK? COULD JOHNSON HAVE CONCEIVABLY EXPECTED THAT? Seems to me Evans is busy looking for provocations in a very human and unpolitical reaction on RFK's part.

Evans quickly follows up with a slam-bang quote attributed to a Schlesinger source. Johnson said that Kennedy ran "so that he would not have to pause and recognize the new president?" I wonder in what context Johnson made that quote? How long after the plane incident? To whom? How many other political duels had already passed between himself and Kennedy?

Johnson is portrayed as a man veering between intense confidence and extreme supersensitivity. As you pointed out, MARVELLE, he was almost a caricature of a Texan, and a Texas politician as well. Yet the man was a genius at internal politics. I saw a biography of his life on the PBS series, The American Experience. I was stunned and impressed at his accomplishments in the first term of his presidency. When he was in a position to accomplish his ideals, he turned out to be a Southerner who wanted the best for ALL Americans.

Yet there was also a buffoon aspect to his personality. He publicly did things that were in questionable taste, like lifting a puppy by its ears...thanks for reminding us, LORRIE...or displaying a raw, ugly surgical scar on TV.

There is no question that serious differences really existed between RFK and LBJ, but I'm not sure of the validity of Evan's opening to his chapter.

What do YOU think?

Harriet

Aha! We cross posted, MARVELLE. Are you dissatisfied with Evans version of the start of the feud? Do you question whether it's a feud or rivalry or competition?

Harriet

Oh, I think LBJ vs RFK is a full-blown feud. I was a Kennedy supporter for many years but after reading various reports, many by people in awe of the Kennedys, I have had to recognize that a lot of my support was engendered more by the glamour and Camelot image. We always used to say in the 60s and 70s how much the Kennedys would've could've done if they'd lived. But the fact is that LBJ was the person who implemented so many changes in politics and society. When one looks at actions LBJ rises somewhat above his clumsy image.

I must qualify this statement by saying that I am not a "fan" of either LBJ or RFK. (Actually, I've only admired Admundsen in this book. Huge egos and nasty acts are not admirable to me.)

I think its hard to see these two men, LBJ and RFK, away from our own partisan politics. It's hard to see them as humans and to judge them as such but that's what I'm trying to do.

Perhaps Evans slants his reporting as Harriet wonders? One purpose and benefit of the book may be to encourage us to research futher on any chapter that grabs our interest and leads us to question the feuders. Long-held assumptions shouldn't be lifelong, set-in-concrete assumptions so I question what I assume is truth and do research. Sometimes my initial assumption is right and sometimes not. Isn't that what we all do when we read?

About RFK and his running past Johnson -- well the animosity started with RFK much earlier and that I've read about before. It was rude of RFK to run past Johnson (which he did) and it was extremely excessive of Johnson to feel snubbed and disrespected. The sad part of this is that a president had died and a widow was grieving and the ongoing feud was not set aside on that plane.

Marvelle

Would you BELIEVE I have lost the book? Can't find it to save my life. That's what you get carrying the thing around with you hoping you can read a page or two as you do something else!

WHERE might it beee?

I'm keeping up with the discussion, LOVE all the points, of course I have not read Colin Evan's "take" on it, but it WOULD seem a bit egotistical and churlish to comment on somebody trying to get to his sister in law when his brother had been shot, jeepers. A bit much.

Harold, I loved your Caro information, THAT is fascinating and sort of disturbing. I don't know much about either Johnson or the Kennedys, does Colin Evans bring out JFK's remarks about Johnson before he was selected as VP? He didn't appear to think much of Johnson, I'm on FIRE to find the BOOK!

The discussion is excellent, anyway!

By the way, last night I was reading the latest issue of US News, The Art of the Hoax, and I was idly turning the pages about crop circles, etc., when I turned the page and came slap up against a full page photo of General Patton himself (page 43, it may be on the internet?) and across the title of the article it said "Making History: The D is for Deception" and appears to be #1 in a list of Seven Famous Hoaxes. The text on the photo of Patton says Patton was a reluctant decoy.

I have never seen the photograph of Patton shown there, he looks quite different from most of the photos I've seen of him, younger and not a bit like George C Scott, he's actually quite a striking and impressive man. If you get a chance to see it, do, I'll read it and see if this is another Colin Evans stretch or true.

ginny

Marvelle9, I agree the only really truly admirable person in the book in my opinion is Roald Amundsen. After reading his 'The South Pole' I admire him even more. He is also the only one in the book without an overinflated ego.

I also don't think much of Colin Evans as an author.

John Z

HARRIET - I was shaking my head in agreement with you when I read this statement?

"DID EVANS REALLY BELIEVE KENNEDY WOULD SAUNTER ON BOARD, SHAKE HANDS, OFFER JOHNSON HIS CONGRATULATIONS, MAKE SMALL TALK? COULD JOHNSON HAVE CONCEIVABLY EXPECTED THAT?"

And yet, maybe Johnson did! We don't know, I would like to read a biography of LBJ - Harold, do you know a good one?

In the End Notes, there are 50 that the author used to document this story, he has done his homework it seems to me; although some statements of necessity are the author's.

And we also have this statement when LBJ left the plane as the new President of the U.S>:

"The secret service agents who shepherded the new president off Air Force One on that grim Washington evening of November 22 were guarding one might scared man. During the flight Lyndon Johnson had babbled incoherently about all kinds of global plots and conspiracies; indeed, some reports claim that one aide had to actually slap Johnson's face in order to get some sense out of him.

There was a book circulated while LBJ was running for president that I had read and was aghast at some of the claims and thought certainly if they true, this man should never be elected, and, also, if they were not true why didn't LBJ sue.

I never liked him, but I admit his programs were good for the country - the Civil Rights Act (and from a southerner that is amazing) and we, most of us, have benefited from his Medicare program even though it may, in time, bankrupt the country.

VIETNAM! Is there anything left to say about it that hasn't already been said?

I found the USNews article, GINNY, though not the photo of Patton. I'm always so surprised and grateful to find articles from current periodicals on the internet. It's so generous of the magazines...

The Patton Deception

I understand that Patton was vain about his personal looks. His daughter once referred to him in an interview as being "the most beautiful man." I'm disappointed that the photograph was not available along with the article.

GREAT FEUDS describes how Johnson was the smart political choice for the second spot in JFK's 1960 presidential campaign. Bobby supposedly argued against the choice, but finally bowed to pragmatic brother Jack's wishes. According to the book. Bobby actually approached Johnson to try to convince him to back off on the Vice Presidency...puzzling, could he possibly have done this against JFK's wishes?!...and thereby tipped his hand to Johnson about the extent of his dislike.

According to GREAT FEUDS, Bobby's hatred began back in 1955 when Johnson refused an arrangement from Joe Kennedy that would have worked to his political disadvantage. Apparently, neither Joe Kennedy nor Jack felt as furious as Bobby did. Could that REALLY have been the beginning of Bobby's hatred?

Johnson was obviously an unscrupulous opponent, but why would that have been unusual in the political arena? Bobby was an expert at passing devious rumors about Johnson himself...?

ELLA, the impression I had about Johnson and Vietnam was that Johnson followed the advice of advisors who he believed understood more than himself. He felt inept in foreign policy and didn't trust his own decisions?

His tragedy was that if there had not been a Vietnam, he might have gone down as one of our greatest chief executives?

Harriet

I'm sorry if I seem to be interrupting this most interesting discussion; but it's with the best of intentions...to be helpful. Ginny, it ocurred to me that perhaps you're in the midst of another visit to Highgate, tarrying among the illustrious dead, and have put your book down on a stone, just long enough to take another gothic picture. And then another, and another. I share your enthusiasm for those unique burial grounds in Europe. I get my kicks in Pere Lachaise with all its monumental grotesqueris...and those cats...and mostly black.

It occurred to me that one would have difficulty convincing that puppy that there was anything metaphorical about a Johnson paw reaching for one. haha. To RFK, Johnson must have seemed like an intruder, understandably. It reminds of the lack of respect shown to the newly-sworn-in HST, at the funeral service for FDR in the East Room, at which no one stood up when the new president entered the room.

Jonathan

I do agree with you, JONATHAN, about the lack of respect shown by the Kennedy contingent to the new President Johnson. If any of them had held out a metaphorical paw of friendship and Johnson had let sleeping puppies lie, we might have had a different story?

I think that Johnson, an insecure man for all of his massive ego, would have been pleased by indications of Kennedy respect.

Harriet

Thank you, Harriet, for that link, and I FOUND the book, read the chapter on Johnson and RFK, took great exception to the author's unsubstantiated conclusions which are not cited or documented and I don't know enough about either man to even blink, but I know specious and unsubstantial writing when I see it, more on that tomorrow.

Jonathan, I’ve stumbled on one in Villeneuve in Provence that was splendid and one in Maggia, Switzerland that blew my mind,, but what WHAT, what is "Pere Lachaise with all its monumental grotesqueris...and those cats...and mostly black?" Is this the one in Paris I've heard so much about? Do tell and tell WHERE it is!

So glad you joined us here!.

ANYWAY....the new book on Patton has come, exhaustively cited, you'd expect that, tho, from a history professor. It took him 11 years to write and he had access to many previously unpublished papers, and it does look very interesting. (And huge!) and yes Harriet, the photographs show a very handsome tall man whose military bearing makes everybody around him look slouchy.

There is a good bit, Marvelle, on the death of Patton and the choosing of his burial site, it's awfully long and very well documented it appears as he lay in the hospital with a broken neck, paralyzed, "an ultimatum came from the White House. Patton must not be allowed to die in Germany. He was to be sent home immediately. Although the neurosurgeons at the hospital believed he should not be disturbed for another six weeks, Patton, bravely joking during the procedure, was fully encased on the morning of the twentieth in a coating of plaster of Paris. He was ready for the trip home." That is taken from one of the ex medical officers recollections. He never made it.

On the morning of the 21st he whispered to his wife “It’s too dark… I mean, too late.” She cheered him that he’d soon be home in the United States. He died at 5:55 that afternoon, and the factors of the decision of where to bury him is another page in itself. Like life, I guess, things are always more complicated than it appears.

Incidentally, this book says that the family was seriously opposed to the movie Patton and the release of his diaries and fought a battle over several years (I’m not to that yet but the figure 25 years has popped up!)

The book does not spare any negative comment about him, however, and it appears a very balanced account, I have read the conclusions at the end of the author but will pass on giving those on until I have read the entire book.

I don’t believe I will agree that the only admirable person in the book is Amundsen, what an excellent challenge that would make for all of us to answer! but it’s nice to be able to discuss our opinions with such well read readers.

Tell you one thing, I'm not going to base my answer to that thought on what Colin Evans says!

ginny

Ginny: The Kennedy’s did not figure much in Johnson’s career in the Senate, so there is not a great deal on material on him in this volume of the Caro book. JFK did not go to the Senate until 1953 after winning the seat in the election in November 1952. Caro in the biography says Kennedy did not impress LBJ because “he never said a word of importance in the Senate and he never did a thing.” Johnson thought Kennedy seriously ill” malaria-ridden and yellah, sickly, sickly” ( Caro, “Master of the Senate”, p 646).

And Harriet is right in suggesting the beginning of the RFK/LBJ feud began in events arising out of the 1956 election. At the end of 1955 it was widely expected that Ike would not be a Candidate for reelection in 1956 because of the serious nature of his heart attack. This gave rise to a number of potential Democratic candidates including even LBJ who in early 1956 was quite low in the polls of nationwide county party chairmen.

Yet his prospects did improve somewhat and the Kennedy patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy devised a plan to advance JFK’s prospects for the Presidency not in 1956, but in 1960, Joseph P. Kennedy believed Ike would run in 56, that Adli Stevenson would again win the Democratic Party Nomination, and that Ike would be reelected by a landslide. He sent the well-known 1930’s, 40,s 50,s Democratic Party power broker, Thomas G Corcoran, to the LBJ Ranch with an offer he thought could not be refused. Under the proposal Kennedy would support and finance the Johnson campaign to gain the 1956 Democratic Party nomination for President and Johnson if successful would choose his son, JFK as the VP running mate.

Joseph Kennedy wanted JFK to have national exposure to the voters in 1956. He realized that JFK was not yet ready. He also realized that Ike would win under any candidate and if the Democratic candidate were Stevenson with JFK in the VP slot, the defeat would be of landslide proportions. He then reasoned the Monday morning quarterbacks would attribute the landslide defeat to Kennedy’s catholic religion making him an unlikely Democratic choice in 1960. While he though Johnson too would be defeated in 1956, he rationalized a much closer race giving the VP candidate valuable national exposure with out being blamed for the defeat.

LBJ saw through the plan and refused the offer. As predicted Stevenson did receive the nomination. JFK did receive some consideration for the VP candidacy and made a last minute bid to get it, but was turned down Also as predicted Stevenson lost to Ike in a landslide.

Caro records that after LBJ refused the Corcoran offer, Joseph Kennedy, him self, called JFK; again he urged acceptance of the offer with LBJ again refusing. According to Caro:

Young Bobby (RFK) was infuriated. …. He believed it was unforgivably discourteous to turn down his father’s generous offer.

JFK, Corcoran recalled was more circumspect saying he called me down to his office:

Listen Tommy, Jack said, we made an honest offer to Lyndon Johnson through you. He turned us down. Can you tell me this; is Lyndon Johnson running without us? …. Is he running?

And Corcoran replied;

of course he is. He may not think he is. And certainly he’s saying he isn’t. I know goddamned well he is. I’m sorry that he doesn’t know it. (this and the above quotations are from Caro, "Master of the Senate,) p-647)

This, LBJ refusal of the Kennedy 1956 offer and RFK’s infuriation over the refusal, is apparently the earliest indication of the RFK/LBJ feud that intensified four years later.

Click Here for an Interesting Sketch on the New Deal Power Broker,Thomas G. Corcoran.

Harold, Thank you so much, I read and enjoyed reading about How are goverment works. Learning on S/N brings much Joy to me.

Ginger

Hi, Ginger!!

"CEAD MIL FAILTE"

...a hundred thousand welcomes...

I haven't talked to you since we shared Marjorie's lovely discussion on the Kimberly Cates book, FLY AWAY HOME. How nice it is to see you, Ginger!

Harriet

Harriet, Thanks for the Great Welcome. I Loved Fly Away Home. I am out here just do not post much. So Good to see you again also. I have been observing and patiently waiting for the LBJ RFK Feuds and learned alot. I always learn alot from S/N Books discussions et al.

Have my plane ticket for DC and am so looking forward to meeting More S/Neters.

Ginger

We're glad you're here, Ginger. I'm so glad you're enjoying the discussion...and I'm enjoying your comments.

Wonderful insights, Harold.

I had wondered if there was not some other origin to Bobby's dislike. I do feel that it reflects poorly on RFK that he couldn't adjust to Johnson's unwillingness to run against Eisenhower. Jack Kennedy certainly took it in HIS stride. I'm surprised that RFK, of all people, didn't understand the need to protect one's political viability.

Yet, I feel that it's hard to find a notable public figure who is not flawed in some respect. Power is not for the timid... and so many of the great figures of history have shared larger-than-life personalities, characterized by strong drives for praise, or sex or whatever. These negative traits often reside side-by-side with the more positive traits of intelligence, idealism or creativity.

I guess greatness comes from the balance of the positive and negative extremes, and maybe also from the perceptions of the eye of the beholder? Politics can be such a volatile subject because people differ in their definitions of the outer limits of ethics or pragmatism. Personally, I would be reluctant to trust someone with the virtues and attitudes of a Scoutmaster to negotiate with a Hitler!

Do any of you feel that the aggressiveness and shrewd manipulation that seem so deplorable in a politician during domestic congressional infighting could prove to be a valuable national asset under circumstances of international emergency?

Harriet

Gandhi and the Dalai Lama?

Marvelle

Welcome, Ginger, I agree with you, this particular discussion has caused me to learn a LOT, and now we seem to be sequing off into another super area and I guess....is this the first POLICICAL Feud we've done?

Isn't it interesting? What IS it about politics that brings out...I'm not sure, that actually, I guess, speaks to our own personal beliefs.

Harold, thank you for that, I recall a remark by JFK himself on the lack of desirability of Johnson as VP apparently it was either not true or these authors here have not chosen to repeat it, and it was pretty salacious, wonder why it's been left out.... like Ginger I'm fascinated to learn about how our government works, and am surprised but should not be, about Joe Kennedy. And this is the first time I have learned that Bobby was his favorite son!

Harriet said, "Personally, I would be reluctant to trust someone with the virtues and attitudes of a Scoutmaster to negotiate with a Hitler!"

I liked Marvelle's response, too. Good point/ counterpoint, the hallmark of any good debate.

Marvelle didn't the Dalai Lama lose his country? Isn't he in exile?

This discussion has caused me to do a lot of thinking, (which is the hallmark of a good discussion) about war, about the luxury of peace and about what it takes and who you want beside you in the foxhole, God forbid you have to be in one, what I would think as a parent if my own child had served under Patton (reading furiously I find a different Patton on the lines than has been portrayed here), always out with the men, not in the back with the other generals, out in the front, pushing, driving, yes some of them hated him, there are always two sides to every story, maybe we should discuss this new book sometime, historians?

The Patton family, rejecting the movie offer, stated this, "The family feels very strongly, that a motion picture on the life of General George S. Patton, to be of financial interest to the maker, would necessarily be based on current misapprehensions of hic character and outlook, and such a picture would be most repugnant to his family."

Current misapprehensions is right. The train taking Patton’s body from Germany found the sidewalks “packed with Germans” to the depot, and upon entering France, the train had to stop six times while guards of honor and bands mourned with the family.

In their tributes they referred without exception to the “General who won the war,” and the demonstrations were very touching and a clear proof of where he stood in the affection and esteem of the French.

At any rate, the author states, "Patton indeed personified the American version of his ideal, 'the warrior soul.'"

Whether or not you agree with Hirshson, I wonder what it says about us (my husband calls me the last of the flower children) if we seem to have two ideologies: in peace and in war.

What it says about us if we look with hindsight on not only those who did the job we wanted done, but EVERYBODY in the past, looking for Jefferson’s dalliances etc. etc., etc, always trying to find the skeleton in the closet which makes THAT person in history no better than we are?

Is this some kind of reverse putting people on a pedestal thing?

Fascinating discussion with fascinating and wonderful points of view, I love it.

ginny

Here are a few (not all) unsubstantiated and undocumented conclusions by author slipped into this chapter:

After enlisting the assistance of his favorite son, Bobby….(page 171)

Leaving Johnson to wallow in the self-pity that was always his closest ally…(page 177)

indeed, some reports claim that one aide had to actually slap Johnson’s face in order to get some sense out of him. (page 179)

For all his paranoid hatred of Bobby (page 181)

With JFK’s courageous handling of the Cuban crisis (page 189)

Bobby was perceived as having trampled underfoot his brother’s beliefs. (page 188)

Etc. etc., etc.

Evans CAN write, here’s a very nice passage:

….the world was starkly black and white, whereas Lyndon Baines Johnson wouldn’t’ even begin to count the shades of gray that populated his universe. It was all about getting along.

Of course, that, too, is undocumented. I think Evans might want to try fiction next time around?

ginny

The Chinese invaded Tibet with subsequent mass murder and the Dalai Lama escaped to another country with his surviving subjects. The Dalai Lama has been said to 'carry his country on his person' and he rules a country in exile.

Poor Evans! All he's giving us is history tinged with spicy gossip. I think that a short chapter has to encapsulate decades of history (Hamilton v Burr, the Queens, the Queen and wannabe Queen) that the author could not explicate or go into detail. Perhaps the intention is to raise interest and send the readers scooting off to a definitive resource? Which has happened here.

As a preview, I think the last chapter which follows LBJ v JFK is nasty but necessary. It really isn't a feud IMO. The necessity I'll wait to talk about when we get there.

Marvelle

Oh, my goodness! - HAROLD, we are getting so many wonderful ideas about books to discuss in the future, to put on our bookshelves that are already toppling over and this fascinating discussion has been wonderful in that regard.

There is LBJ - I'd love to find a good bio of him; and, thanks to Ginny, we have a long book about Patton, and now Marvelle is introducing the Dalai Lama and Ghandi. Enough already!!!

Also, thanks to Ginny, for looking up those quotes that are unsubstantiated in the NOTES.

And, Harriet, in answer to your question:

"Do any of you feel that the aggressiveness and shrewd manipulation that seem so deplorable in a politician during domestic congressional infighting could prove to be a valuable national asset under circumstances of international emergency?"

My answer is DEFINITELY!!! We shouldn't complain too much (hard not to however) about the endless political infighting and manipulation that goes on in Congress - it is all needed to reach a compromise that is beneficial to the country, and all its numerous factions - bureaus, states, military, etc. If we did not have the politicians, we would have a dictatorship - it is the nature of men/women to differ on many issues.

What our congressmen have not learned yet, and I have no hope they will ever learn it, is to debate the "pork" that is added to the bills they pass. "You pass this bill with 100 million tacked on for my state, and I'll take care of your bill next time." I can hear them, with their arms around each other's shoulders.

LBJ was a master of manipulation and it is, without a doubt, the biggest mistake of his life to have ever left the Senate to take a back seat in the Vice Presidency. What was the man thinking to agree to such a position; it is not as if he didn't know there was no force behind the job. And, of course, he didn't know that JFK's assassination would propel him into the presidency - did he, perhaps, think it was a stepping stone into that position someday?

John Kennedy did the right thing, or tried to, in including LBJ into affairs of the White House and the country. He admired LBJ in many ways, knew of his powerful friends and his skills. LBJ did write that the president was very good to him and did his best to elevate the position of the vice president.

But how old would LBJ have been after two terms of JFK's presidency?

I cannot leave the subject of LBJ without mentioning how much I liked Ladybird and her wonderful work on beautifying America. I believe I read that she was in the hospital not long ago - is she all right now?

I'm not sure that Evans is not writing a lot of fiction in this book.

John Z

ELLA, I'm not sure you connected my post #258 (where I listed Gandhi and the Dalai Lama) as a response to HARRIET's question. Perhaps I was too short in my reply? Sorry for the confusion.

HARRIET's question about qualities of politicians/leaders, paraphrased: 'Is aggressiveness and manipulation a valuable national asset in times of international emergency?'

So my Gandhi/Dalai Lama answer to HARRIET's question was saying that truly great leaders don't need those traits.

Marvelle

I think that by 1960 Johnson realized his best chance for the presidency was through the Vice President. True he gave up a lot of power as Senate Majority Leader, but his own 1960 campaign for the top spot had run into the road block posed by his southern origin. I am sure he rationalized he would sweat out 8 years and with increased National exposure try for one last chance in 68. As it happened he did not have to wait that long.

I am confident that Kennedy's completely unexpected move in wanting LBJ for VP and Johnson’s equally unexpected move in accepting the 2nd place slot paved the way for the Demo victory in 1960. Remember that year the Democrats carried Texas and 8 other Southern and boarder states with a total of over 100 electoral votes, twice as many as the number required to have given Nixon the Victory over Kennedy

I hope to obsever many more of our Presidents History and have enjoyed obsevering this one along with the other Fueds. Thanks All for Your input.

Thank you, Ginger.

I believe Lady Bird suffered a stroke a while back, ELLA? I looked her up on the internet and she is still alive at the age of almost 90. I always thought she was a charming, attractive First Lady. She wrote her memoirs many years ago, and described life with Lyndon. I tried looking up the book at B&N to remember the title, but perhaps it's out of print. The only listings I found were several books about wildflowers that Mrs. Johnson had authored.

I saw the new production of RFK on TV last night. Did any of you catch it? It portrayed the bitterness between Johnson and Bobby. It also implied that Kennedy had changed and matured in the years after his brother's death. He was portrayed as growing more flexible, more involved with people as he took his place on the world stage?

If the TV information is accurate, as the death count spiraled in Vietnam, Bobby went to Lyndon, took responsibility for his part in initiating Vietnam and suggested that Lyndon begin to decrease bombing and gradually back away from American involvement. According to this TV production, Lyndon misinterpreted Bobby's recommendation as an attempt to deprive himself and his administration of the prestige of victory in Vietnam. He accused Bobby of disloyalty when he later took a public stance against the war.

Another point that I didn't know: Bobby was apparently the first Democratic presidential candidate to actively campaign for the nomination against an incumbent President of his own party? Lyndon saw it as the ultimate sabotage and disloyalty. Harold, anyone, do you know if that's accurate?

Harriet

I've been sharing the computer with my son who is visiting for the last two days and I don't always have complete access to it. Also, much activity here as our son moves from one apartment to another. I'll be posting more extensively as soon as possible.

Meanwhile let's use at least part of today to wind up concerns about LBJ vs. RFK. When you feel ready, let's begin discussing our final feud about the G-Man and Martin L. King. Here are some links.

MartinLuther King

J. Edgar Hoover

DID THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HOOVER IN OUR BOOK DIFFER FROM YOUR PREVIOUS OPINIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY ACTUAL MEMORIES OF THE "GLORY DAYS" OF THE FBI TO SHARE? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY PLAYED A PART IN HOOVER'S ACTIONS?

MARTIN L. KING MADE NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF EQUALITY IN AMERICA. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE REVELATIONS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE?

Harriet

Harriet and all: “The master of the Senate book does not cover the details of the 1968 primaries, convention, or election or the Administration after JFK’s election. That is coming in the next volume. In the last chapter, however, Caro describes an LBJ scheme to retain many of his powers as Senate leader after becoming Vice President. He invited some 8 influential Senators to lunch at the Sheraton-Carlton Hotel where he proposed that he be elected chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. This was a post traditionally reserved for the Party Leader. Though it came as some surprise and some reservation on the obvious violation of the separation of powers doctrine, the group agreed to support the plan and Senator Mansfield the new Majority Leader agreed to make LBJ’s nomination.

Under the plan LBJ proposed to keep control of legislation including committee assignments and the actual bringing of bills to be voted on by the Senate. He would also keep the spacious Majority Leader's office known as the Taj Majal normally the spoils of the Majority Leader. At the first Caucus Mike Mansfield nominated Lyndon to the full democratic caucus and the plan immediately came under attack. As a carry-over of the 17th century struggle between King and Parliament the Senate in particular has always demanded total separation of its legislative powers from the President’s executive powers. LBK as Vice President was a part of the Executive branch. He was not a member of the Senate and ex-senators had never been allowed access to the caucus. One of the leaders of the opposition was Al’s father Albert Gore. It was apparent that the majority of the Democrat Senators in the Caucus were opposed to the arrangements, but surprisingly after Mansfield made an impassioned plea favoring the arrangement Lyndon was approved as chairman by a small majority.

But apparently Lyndon got the message, and afterwards he rarely attended the meetings of the Caucus leaving it to the Majority Leader where it belonged. I do not recall Caro mentioned whether he retained the Taj Majal office space, but somehow I suspect he did.

I cannot help but notice how LBJ”s quiet withdrawal following his luke-warm election to the Democratic Chair compares to his withdrawal from the 1968 Presidential race. After announcing his candidacy for reelection he quietly withdrew in March of 1968 after a single defeat by RFK in the Rhode Island primary. There again the got the message!

And a final word on LBJ after his retirement in January 1969, he returned to Texas and while living on the nearby ranch was often in the local news during his reaming 4 years. During this time he was active in the establishment of the LBJ Library and Museum at the University of Texas in Austin. He taught some I think at the State College at San Marcus. After his heart attack he had religiouslly followed the diet, exercise, and lifestyle regimen prescribed by his cardiologist, Dr. Paul Dudley White. After his retirement he resumed his old bad habits including smoking and I remember several items in the local paper telling us of LBJ’s residence at the Presidential suite at Brooks Army Hospital In San Antonio. He died there in January 1973 just 4 years after he retired. Click Here for the LBJ Library and Museum Home Page

That's fascinating, Harold, the old Master of the Senate attempting to keep all his triumphs as he takes on a new role - a role that was unsuitable for LBJ. We must read a biography of the man to understand him better.

Marvelle - yes, I did understand your point; I collect suggestions for future biographies of interesting people wherever I go, and our posts here have been the source of great ideas. I have long wanted to learn more about Ghandi, who was the source of all the passive resistance against government, especially in our next chapter - Dr. Martin Luther King. Do you agree?

Harriet - I looked for that TV show but couldn't find it. I don't watch a lot of TV and don't understand why we have two Fox networks on cable. One seems to be all news and then we have another listed which has re-runs most of the time. Are there more Fox networks? Who owns the Fox networks?

I should buy a TV guide that may explain all the channels a bit better than the paper does. I'm probably missing out on a lot of good TV, but I do know C-Span (we have two of them) and Joan Pearson just put this week's schedule up in the WElcome Center. There is one particularly I'm interested in and will watch tonight.

later, eg

You can get the C-Span 2, Book TV schedule at http://www.booktv.org . This is only shown on weekends.

Mary

Thank you Zwyram for the link to C-span 2 Books TV. I frequently watch C-Span Washington Journal on weekend mornings. I have known about the weekend books on C-span 2 but seldom am I available when interesting books are on. I made the link a favorite so maybe I can check and plan ahead when they have one that might interest me.

And Ella note Peter Hannaford’s, “Ronald Reagan and his Ranch: The Western White house” is scheduled for this weekend, but they don’t say when. This might interest you as biography. I think it would interest me for comparison to the LBJ Ranch..

Thanks, Zyram - I occasionaly will turn on C-Span on weekends - and always tune into Brian Lamb's interview at 8 p.m. Sunday nights. He has a nonfiction author and I like his way of interviewing; he lets the authors do most of the talking.

But there is a special on C-Span beginning Aug 26-Aug 30 at 8 p.m. with America's favorite authors presented. See the Welcome Center above - WELCOME CENTER. The authors are Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, Mark Twain, Steinbeck and Faulkner

Oh, golly, Harriet! I haven't read the last chapter yet, will do that tonight. How quickly summer is fading away.

ELLA, do you know who influenced Gandhi in passive resistance? Who gave him the idea? (I'm struck by how history connects seemingly disparate people and events.) The influence was Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi always carried with him Thoreau's "On Civil Disobediance." In turn, Thoreau I believe was influenced by Buddhist writings. Everything is circular and Thoreau via Gandhi's example returned to the U.S. to influence Martin Luther King. When the Biography chart is up and running I have a book to suggest. I haven't thought of one for Gandhi or the Dalai Lama although they would be excellent studies.

Someone was asking about a LADY BIRD book on LBJ. I'm not sure about this but you could check Lady Bird Johnson's "A White House Diary." It deals only with the White House years and includes personal and public events and is pretty frank. It was published around 1970 and may be out of print. Hopefully, used books are available.

Marvelle

It's been, or rather it is a great discussion. All of you have made it that despite the shortcomings of the book. I couldn't find it.

I would like to draw your attention to a book on the Johnson/Kennedy feud: 'Mutual Contempt' by Jeff Shesol, 1997. The 'feud that defined a decade' it says on the dust jacket.

Thanks for all the history, Harold. About Johnson scheming 'to retain many of his powers as Senate leader', I wonder that he didn't remind himself of John Adams' experience. Didn't he have notions of running the senate...with no luck. It seems to me that it was RFK's complaint that Johnson wasn't doing enough for the president in the senate.

Ginny, so glad you found your book. I know how annoying it is to lose my place in a book, not to mention losing the book itself.

Jonathan

Welcome, MARY!!

How nice to have both you and John commenting with us. Thanks for the C-Span information. I caught some of the Kerouac presentation late last night...I tried to hang in there for all of it, but I guess my day was long and the hour was late. Wish I had thought to tape it...

What wonderful posts you all wrote! What a fascinating glimpse of the wheeling and dealing Lyndon Johnson, HAROLD. I loved the LBJ library link also.

ELLA. the RFK TV presentation was on the FX network. I don't even know if that's connected with Fox, but the names sure look and sound alike. Our cable company has a lot of channels and FX usually does replays of MASH, old movies and a few made-for TV specials. I don't know how widely the FX network is distributed throughout the country. RFK made for interesting television Sunday night, and I hoped some of us in different parts of the country might have access.

MARVELLE, A White House Diary was exactly the book I was thinking of. I read it over 30 years ago, and couldn't remember the title. Thanks!

JONATHAN, I've made a note of Shesol's Mutual Contempt. It sounds good. I'll look for it in the library, I'd love to read it.

Colin Evans made sure he started his final chapter with an anecdote meant to shock and titillate. Yet, from things that I've read about Hoover and MLK in the past, this also might be a chapter with a fair amount of historical accuracy. If I'm wrong, please...anyone with more specific knowledge...do help me out. In this chapter I thought that Evan's history started at a low point and then progressed steadily UPWARD afterwards.

When I was growing up, an FBI agent was considered to be the height of integrity, daring and competence...a truly romantic figure. Who could imagine that the leader of the FBI, that intrepid, ultimate G-Man, J. Edgar Hoover, was a blackmailer with an insatiable desire for power and fame?

In 1963 my husband and I drove down to Washington for MLK's March for Civil Rights. We heard his stirring "I Have A Dream" speech as he delivered it in person. Crammed in with the thousands of people listening to him, hearing the metallic echo of King's voice over his microphone, I looked around me and suddenly felt a sense of being part of a historic occasion. We hadn't known what to expect when we started our drive, but that day we felt swept up in a significant and moving event.

If I had known...or was even able to believe... that the FBI was trying to bring down the man who told us of his dreams for America on that sunny day, I would have been deeply shocked.

Harriet

Jonathan, I found Pere Lachaise!!! Thank you!!!

Harold, many thanks for that impressive historical background, I enjoyed it very much!

Well another romp thru the muck, huh?

John I think you are right, it’s fiction all the way.

Harriet, how fabulous that you heard that speech, I am astounded, tell us more about the day and the feeling in the crowd!

Friends, this chapter exemplifies what I dislike about this author. I began by underlining the obvious undocumented conclusions? The pages are covered, scratch that.

Then I took one of the more scurrilous DOCUMENTED quotes, oh how we worship the footnote, and looked UP the book and author? I have previously commented on the texts chosen for the Windsor and the Patton entries?

The “F” remark on page 200 supposedly made by Martin Luther King, is labeled 12, and footnote 12 is credited to Anthony Summers and his book Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.

In looking up this book I found what I had suspected, that it, too is a shocking expose:

J. Edgar Hoover, Summers establishes, was a closet homosexual and transvestite. Mafia bosses obtained information about Hoover's sex life and used it for decades to keep the FBI at bay. Without this, the Mafia as we know it might never have gained its hold in America.

J. Edgar Hoover shamelessly accepted gifts and free lodging from millionaire oilmen, and appropriated FBI facilities for his personal use.

J. Edgar Hoover influenced the course of World War II by ignoring an early warning about Pearl Harbor.

J. Edgar Hoover used his knowledge of John F. Kennedy's womanizing to ensure that Lyndon Johnson became Vice President. He relied on dirty tricks to stay in office under Kennedy and subverted the Warren Commission's probe into the investigation of his death.

J. Edgar Hoover himself was the target of a Watergate-era burglary attempt - and perhaps even a murder plot.

and not surprisingly, the comments of the public are pretty telling:

Tabloid Style Hatchet Job,

unsubtle biased language ruins credibility

Not only are sources not quoted in a scientific historical way, but the book also rests heavily on the use of unsubtle biased language

If you like a good scandal, this is your book. If you want historical facts, look elsewhere --

In other words, the SOURCE itself may be flawed.

Do you realize that THIS BOOK may be quoted as “authoritative” some day too?

You’ll be reading along and WHAMMO, inflammatory thing FOOTNOTED, golly gee, to Evans!!!!!!!!!!!

I did not know all this about Hoover and the FBI and yes I am disillusioned, and Evans did his best to paint feet of clay on MLK too.

May I ask you intelligent readers for ONE instance of “feud” on MLK’s part? Just one? There was NO Feud except hatred and bigotry on the part of Hoover, I see nothing whatsoever on King’s part:

Premature Scorecard:

Feud between MLK and Hoover: no.

Evans and his credibility: 0

This discussion: 10+

Harriet’s leading of this discussion AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+

ginny

Ginny, you hit the nail right on the head! The discussion by the folks in this group is a whole better than than Evan's book.

John Z

I agree that this isn't a feud as we think of one. What may make it appropriate to this type of book is the depiction of the Supreme Professional Gossip of all time (Hoover) which illustrates how destructive and despicable gossip can be.

That MLK had mistresses and one-night stands is no surprise. This had been publicly known for a long while. It doesn't detract from his accomplishments. I had to laugh at Hoover being upset that MLK won the Nobel and that Hoover actually saw himself as deserving of the Nobel. I bet Hoover felt he could bully and blackmail his way to getting one more trophy, the ultimate Prize. I'm expressing my opinion here. I'm sure that some admire Hoover for all his years of service.

Marvelle

Marvelle - who admires Hoover? No one I know, the expose' of the man has been in public view for a number of years due to the Freedom of Information Act.

In fact, I do believe there has been a movement to have his name removed from the relatively new FBI building in Washington. And, although, it can never be actually proved, there were reasons to believe that Hoover and his constant companion (forget his name) were homosexuals, as if that mattered today?

This is the only chapter in the book where I can easily decide which of the two principals I admire the most and the nation would agree as we do have a national holiday in his honor. Dr. King was flawed, few of us alive are perfect but what he did for his country, for Afro-Americans, for desegration, for his leadership - for just being a great man among other great Americans his name will live on.

How many more years will J. Edgar Hoover's name survive? Just the present generation of senior citizens will remember the man - as Harriet said our generation remembers the G-men, every young boy wanted to be one, and his name was constantly in the news keeping America safe from all the bad guys, but I doubt if you can dispute this statement of Colin Evans?

"Of the more than 500,000 investigations carried out by the FBI on so-called subversives, not one resulted in a court conviction."

Nor this one:

"The time has come for the Attorney General of the United States to ask for the resignation of Mr. Hoover" - Majority Leader Hale Boggs in the House of Representatives

That came from the Congressional Record and was the beginning of the end for Mr. Hoover. I believe Hale Boggs was the father of Cokie Roberts who appeared on a Sunday morning news hour with David Brinkley for years.

I know that in every book we can find inconsistencies, undocumented sources of information - Good Heavens, even David McCullough had to apologize for misquoting Thomas Jefferson! But we are all aware of the fact that we should never take for granted anything written until we look at the source.

REgardless of that, it's a book that's been fun to read, talk about, and charge our memories!

Thanks, Marvelle, for your information about "passive resistance" - I have Thoreau's book in my bookshelves but, darn it, have never read it even though it was discussed here not too long ago. I didn't have the time to do it then which I regret.

There is a book on the market - a fairly recent book I believe, the title of which is "THE BUREAU-THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE FBI by Ronald Kessler" if anyone is interested. Click here:

THE FBI

I never get it said all in one post, but Harriet, I, too, would love for you to describe the day of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. We've all seen clips of it numerous times, but wish we could have been there.

Everyone, keep in mind that 1963 was nearly 40 years ago...

In a funny kind of way, I got a broader perspective on the day from the newsreels. There were sooo many people. When I stood in that mob, I saw the heads and shoulders of the people around me and not much else. MLK was a distant figure, and I had to jump up high to catch a glimpse of him. Also, his voice was affected by the electronics of his mike.

The real feelings came from the people all around us. You could "hear" the quiet at certain points when King spoke. I could FEEL good will all around me in that mob, but I could SEE virtually nothing. We had met with some friends outside of DC the night before, and, over dinner, we all worried about the possibilities of the police getting rough with folks during the next day's March.

One of the couples that we went to DC with... SHE was white and HE was a dark skinned Hispanic. She was so worried that her husband might be a target for police. Of course that never happened. The weather was ideal and people just kept coming and coming...throngs of them. I felt that the day was really special when I looked around at everyone near me. I felt that such a large number of people with a common goal just HAD to begin to make a difference.

We were as impressed by the newsreels of the March for Civil Rights as anyone else. That was when we got our first proper perspective of the size and density of the crowd.

Harriet

Oh, thanks, Harriet, for that description! 1963 - terrible year in many ways - we have lived through the worst of times and the best of times, don't you think?

And isn't it a shame that some 40 years later that dark-skinned people still are viewed differently by the police? They are! Do you agree? Will we ever change?

Did anyone beside myself read the Malcolm X book - it was many years ago that I read it and liked it very much but I can't think of the title now, must look it up.

Harriet, could you hear his voice well? You said the crowd was very quiet - was he the only speaker? Who introduced him?

As I am reading the TRUMAN book now I find it interesting to read this sentence on page 212:

"He (Hoover) served under eight presidents. Most were terrified of him; only Harry Truman ignored him. Theoretically, any attorney general could have fired him, but none dared!

Of course, Truman was squeaky clean and had nothing to worry about.

Do you think had JFK lived and been elected he would have found a way to fire Hoover?

I read something (gosh, my memory) about Hoover's last years and this "constant companion" on the day that Hoover died removed all of the "sensitive" files from his office and took them home - and I believe that his long-time secretary also destroyed some files before anyone could get to them.

Anyone interested in reading Kessler's book?

GINNY - if you come by this way again, I wanted to tell you that after spending about 3 hours today in B&N (time sure goes fast when you are doing what you love to do), I saw the Patton book by Hirshon and skimmed through it. It looks very good and it is one that I think our HAROLD should undertake to discuss sometime in the future, don't you?

After subtracting all the source notes and index from the book I think I found it had about 700 pages to read - isn't that about right? We've done a few that long - let me know if you continue on with you what you think.

Harriet on that day in 1963 you participated in history. That is something you must really cherish.

I did not get to read this chapter until yesterday afternoon and frankly I was sickened by the arrogance of Hoover. I cannot understand how he managed to hold on the better part of 50 years under 8 Presidents of both major parties. Such tenure for a political appointee is unprecedented. Of course as our Author told us initially he did build the agency from a second rate police force to a world-class organization.

I remember the FBI tour when on a family vacation in D.C. in 1940. An FBI agent led it. I remember him saying agents had to be lawyers and he took us through a museum section showing off machine guns and other paraphernalia taken from some of the 1930's mobsters. Apparently Hoover had something on everyone and they just didn't dare to let him go. Even RFK had 8 years as Attorney general during which he could have fired him but did not

ELLA the book you're thinking of is (not very original title" "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" by Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley. I read this book and also saw the film on him, I think it was called "Speak It Plain" or else "Tell It Plain" -- it was what Malcolm X told the men who were to introduce him when he spoke in front of crowds. He didn't want a rousing introduction, no fuss over him. Both the book and the film are riveting. I was surprised to find a man who progressed through hatred and bigotry to reach a much more open understanding of people. Except for his attitude towards women, he'd changed remarkably.

There is a school for federal law officers and it amused me that while the CIA attended with all the other federal agencies, the FBI had their own school in New York City. I always thought it would have been the CIA who'd be secretive and stand apart from other agencies. Does anyone know how the FBI now operates, do they follow the law or the old Hoover status quo? Do you think their reputation has improved or become worse since Hoover's death?

As far as history or biography goes, what about discussing a non-traditional subject or one less-traveled. Perhaps the new Czech government or something along those lines?

Marvelle

P.S. I didn't like the way my last message sounded, kinda snooty or something. Sorry. I was trying to cast my vote for a read outside of U.S. politicians or U.S. wars.

Marvelle

Harold, you, too? We toured the FBI too and saw some of the same thoughts, did they fingerprint you when you came in? They did us, now of course it all sounds most sinister, hard to believe, wasn't it?

The book mentions Walter Winchell and I seem to vaguely remember him, vaguely, would you say what Hoover did was blackmail then?

Harriet, thank you for sharing your memories of the day, you write so well, I feel I was there and that's how things usually are when you're taking part in them at the time, I, too, am interested in how his voice was heard, microphones?

Ella, sure, as I get into the book, as Marvelle says we might want a break (I couldn't do it now anyway at least not until the spring, too many other fiction entries in the fire) let me read it first, but I do think it might make an excellent entry, I will not be surprised to find it on next year's prize lists.

Super discussion here, Harriet, it's really one of the best, you have people doing outside reading and research and bringing things here to the table which were NOT in the book, and very interesting and informed comments, the discussion is WAY WAY WAY better than the book!

AAAA++++++ for Harriet!

ginny

I tuned into TV this morning...maybe it was the Today show... and the discussion du jour was the FBI and it's relative efficiency. Ronald Kessler, the author of "THE BUREAU-THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE FBI was talking about his book. I think you mentioned the book a few posts back, ELLA?

Kessler claimed that prior to 9/11/02, the FBI was working with computers so old and outdated that they weren't even suitable for donation to charity. Agents who needed a graphic image transmitted to them had to receive it on their home computers, because the office ones were obsolete and couldn't send or receive graphics. He claimed that these slow, sad computers were what our FBI was using up to last year, to sort through the security threats aimed at the US? If this is where our government economizes, no wonder a heckuvalot of foolish things happen. Remember a news story publicized last spring? It seems the flight school that trained some of the 9/11 terrorists received updated, validated credentials for those same now-deceased student pilots from the INS?!

It would seem the FBI, INS and CIA need a large jolt of money to update their computer systems? Kessler claimed that the FBI at least, got new, modern Dell computers. (Nice plug for Dell!) It all seems a far cry from the old image of the super competent, modern G-Man of Hoover's FBI. Or maybe it NEVER was that competent! Maybe Hoover was just a PR genius?

We could all use an effective FBI and CIA in these difficult times, couldn't we? The Kessler book sounded interesting.

Harriet