Greater Journey, The by David McCullough ~July Book Club Online

[JoanP]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome.

July Book Club Online

The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris
by David McCullough

"Magnifique! I should have known--McCullough is one of my favorite history writers, and he's writing about nineteenth-century Paris, one of my favorite places to read/think/dream about.  When I was young I always wanted to go to Paris--but not Francois Mitterand's Paris. No, I wanted Degas' Paris, Balzac's Paris, Toulouse-Lautrec's Paris. Well, this was an extended visit to that same Paris but through fresh eyes."  Goodreads review "In The Greater Journey, David McCullough tells the enthralling, inspiring—and until now, untold—story of the adventurous American artists, writers, doctors, politicians, and others who set off for Paris in the years between 1830 and 1900, hungry to learn and to excel in their work. What they achieved would profoundly alter American history." Amazon review                                    Discussion Schedule: Week 1 - July 14 - 20 ~ Part I/ Chapters 1 & 2 Week 2 - July 21 - 27 ~ Part I/ Chapters 3 & 4   Week 3 - July 28 - Aug. 3 ~ Part II/ Chapters 5 & 6 Week 4 - Aug. 4 - 10 ~ Part II/ Chapters 7 & 8 Week 5 - Aug. 11 - 17 ~ Part III/ Chapters 9, 10, 11 Week 6-  Aug. 18 - 24 ~ Part III/ Chapters 12,13,14

Relevant Links

David McCullough-Brian Lamb  Intervew (Books TV)  ; David McCullough-Charlie Rose;  Biography - David McCullough; Morse's Interactive Gallery of the Louvre

Some Topics for Discussion
Aug. 11 - 17

Part III ~  Chapter 9 ~ Under Siege

1. How would you characterize Elihu Washburne? What actions of his particularly impressed you? What in his background do you think influenced him to act as he did?

2. What are some of the hardships you read about that moved you which were experienced by various parts of the population in Paris during the siege?

3. How did most of Paris react during the siege? Did anything surprise you?

4. What are some of the medical issues that you noted in this chapter?

5. What other topics in this chapter do you find important or interesting?
 

Part III ~ Chapter 10.   Madness

1. Were you surprised that the German forces marched through Paris but only occupied it for 48 hours?

2. What details do you know about the Paris Commune?

3. Again, Washburne plays a significant role in trying to help the Archbishop and others. What is his reaction to the fighting and destruction?

Part III ~ Chapter 11.   Paris Again

1. We're reintroduced to Henry James, who speaks perfect French like only some of the Americans who come to Paris to study and work.  What do you know about Henry James and his writing?

2. Who are some of the artists mentioned in this chapter that you know about or would like to learn more about?

3. How would you compare the two painters, Mary Cassatt and John Singer Sargent, who are prominent in this chapter? How were their lives and work similar, and how were they different?

4. Who or what else impressed you in this chapter?

Discussion Leaders:   JoanP,  PatH  Barb,  JoanK,   Marcie

[JoanP]

Ella - I felt the same way...the Saint-Gaudens figure seemed so abandoned and alone in that empty cemetery, "STOICALLY"...as Barb sees it.
I read somewhere that her husband, Henry Adams, is buried here with her.  It's difficult to say - there are no markers to indicate who is buried there.  There is an office on the grounds...not open on Saturdays.  I could try to call tomorrow to see if he is buried there too.

There has been considerable interest as to why she committed suicide and why her husband buried her in this way.  There were many such deaths in Clover's family.  There was talk at the time that she was depressed because he had a roving eye for a younger woman.  I hope to hear more of him in future chapters.
The important thing here is Adams' choice of Saint-Gaudens' work to commemorate her death, I think.

JoanK - I have to admit I was so drawn to the "Grief" figure, that I had to climb the steps and stroke her arm - and then her face, as if to console her.  While up so close, I thought to photograph that face.  I hated to leave her alone like that...

[Jonathan]

'...the shocking sensation at seeing her sitting there silently...coming face to face with one's own mortality and the hereafter.'

How wonderful of you, JoanP, to drive down to Rock Creek cemetery and come back with your pictures and your impression. And it was your impression and your response that the artist was aiming for. It will be different for everyone.

I've found several other responses to this masterpiece. From two who knew Clover well, and were good friends of Henry Adams and his wife. John Hay, the Lincoln staffer, had this to say:

'It is full of poetry and suggestion. Infinite wisdom, a past without beginning and a future without end, a repose, after limitless experience, a peace to which nothing matters - all are embodied in this austere and beautiful face and form.'

And good friend, Clarence King, replied to Hay:

'Would it were not so appropriate, alas, that there is not a ray of faith, not a throb of hope in that gaze. The tangled complexity of modern emotions, of unilluminated doubt, of icy courage play over its nervous features. It is utter restlessness in complete repose. As if the poor woman was sitting there sheltering herself in the folds of her own shroud, trembling perplexed and tortured over the fate of her own shroud.'

I was reminded immediately of John Donne's, shrouded effigy in St Paul's, London, which has no mystery at all in it. I believe I'm going to get in my car and find more of the Saint's monuments. And find his studio in New Hampshire. Why did this artist who had grown up in New York, and lived so many years in Paris, choose this New England location? He had just got a commission to do a Lincoln, and heard there were many Lincoln types up there to serve as models.

[JoanP]

We were typing together, Jonathan- do we still call it typing?  What perfect interpretations of this inscrutable demeaner!

I don't know about you, but I'm having a difficult time keeping up with the time frame- like how much time goes by between the French Emperor, Louis NapoleonIII's illness, his defeat on the battlefield against the superior German Army the fall of his Second Empire...and the birth of the Third Republic?

How can the Parisians rejoice and just forget the Prussians are coming, the Prussians are coming?  Makes no sense to me!  The Americans in Paris seem to understand the danger and are leaving...with a few exceptions.

No Pat, I wouldn't have stayed...would you?
Why are the Prussians coming?...I just have to ask!

[PatH]

Hold on!  The French financed the Suez Canal?   I must read more about this.

Indeed they did.  The British only bought in later.  It was a tremendous advance for rapid transportation, not to have to sail around Africa.  The American transcontinental railroad was finished then too, leading Jules Verne to speculate that one might go round the world in as little as 80 days.  After he wrote Around the World in 80 Days, the American woman journalist Nellie Bly tried it, and did it in 72 days.  She was quite a remarkable person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly

[PatH]

JoanP, I have difficulty with the time line too, partly because McCullough shifts back and forth as he follows one person or phenomenon at a time.  Napoleon III was already ill when war was declared, and got worse as he fought with his troops.  France declared war in July, 1870.  Napoleon was overwhelmingly defeated and captured on Sept. 2.  The news reached Paris on the 3rd, whereupon the Empire collapsed, and the Third Republic was declared on the 4th.  Fast work.  Of course the war was far from over, as we'll learn.

The Empress Eugénie fled to the dentist friend, Dr. Thomas Evans, who, at considerable personal risk, smuggled her to safety in England.

[BarbStAubrey]

Knowing more about Prussia and what happened earlier centuries between Prussia and France I thought was helpful - this is a synopsis showing Prussia to have a warrior history and reputation for war.

The name Prussia is derived from people called Prussi, or Borussi. They were related to the Lithuanians. The Saxons, a Teutonic people, entered eastern Europe in the 10th century and failed in their attempts to convert the Prussians to Christianity. The Christian faith was not established until the middle of the 13th century when the Teutonic Knights, a military religious order, conquered the land and subdued the country. Prussians were exterminated. The Knights affected the Germanization of Prussia by bringing German and Dutch settlers into the conquered territory. By the end of the century the region was completely subjugated. Thereafter it was ruled by the Teutonic Knights as a papal fief.

During the 15th century, the Knights were driven out and many of the Prussian lands were brought under Polish rule.

Prussia in its modern meaning came into existence only in 1701, when the elector of Brandenburg assumed the title "king in Prussia." The margraviate of Brandenburg was created when the Holy Roman Empire conquered the area in the 12th century. Through the secularization (1525) of the domain of the Teutonic Order by the grand master Albert of Brandenburg, the domain became a hereditary duchy under Polish suzerainty. During the Protestant Reformation in the early to mid 1500s most Prussians convert to Protestantism whereas Poland remained, and still remains, solidly Roman Catholic. In 1525 Ducal Prussia became a hereditary duchy under Albrecht Hohenzollern, the last grand master of the Teutonic Knights.

The new dignity achieved By the Kings of Prussia in 1701 is by the reforms undertaken by Frederick William, elector of Brandenburg from 1640, known as "the Great Elector". He establishes a permanent system of taxation, removing from the estates general their main source of power; and he spends a large slice of the resulting revenue on a standing army. This combination of an absolute monarch with a large and efficient army becomes characteristic of Prussia. By the time of the Great Elector's grandson, King Frederick William I, the Prussian army amounts to 80,000 men, consisting of 4% of the population.

Napoleon’s successes were beneficial for Prussia. Prussia remained neutral but friendly towards France. The redrawing of the map over Germany meant that several smaller principalities, imperial cities, and church lands were confiscated and redistributed primarily to the medium-sized principalities…and Kleve was exchanged for Hanover, which Napoleon had occupied. This brought Prussia into a conflict with Great Britain whose king was also elector of Hanover. He responded ordering the British Navy to sink most of Prussia’s merchant fleet.

1806 is the darkest year in Prussia’s history. After Napoleon had forced the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia became an independent state. But when France promised to return Hanover to the British king in exchange for peace, Friedrich Wilhelm III (1797-1840) made the fatal decision to declare war against France.

The Prussian army was crushed and French troops occupied most of Prussia. It was only pressure from Russia that prevented Napoleon to dissolve the Prussian State altogether. When peace was concluded in 1807, Prussia was reduced to a second rate nation. When Napoleon’s Russian campaign ended in disaster 1812 Prussia joined France’s enemies and its status as great power was restored at the Congress of Vienna… The German Confederation was created at the same time as a replacement for the dissolved Holy Roman Empire, this institution would be more and more regarded only as temporary solution. Germany’s unification dominated the next half century.

Prussian Dominance in Germany

After the Congress of Vienna, Prussia emerged as the major German power of Western Europe. By 1844 almost all German states were economically linked with Prussia. Under King William I and his prime minister and imperial chancellor, Prince Otto von Bismarck, Prussia became the largest kingdom of the German Empire, containing two-thirds of the German population.

Supremacy of Prussia

In 1861, William I (regent since 1858) became king, and in 1862 he appointed, as premier, Otto von Bismarck who directed the destiny of Prussia and (after 1871) of Germany, until 1890. Bismarck eliminated Austria from German affairs and the union of Germany under Prussian hegemony with three deliberately planned wars.

• The first war (1864); fought in alliance with Austria against Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein.
• the Austro-Prussian War of 1866: The 1864 settlement furnished a pretext in which Prussia quickly and thoroughly defeated Austria and its allies gaining additional territory by the annexation of Hanover, Electoral Hesse, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and the free city of Frankfurt am Main. The German Confederation was dissolved and the Prussian-led North German Confederation took its place.
• Finally, in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), the North German Confederation overwhelmed France, and, in 1871, William I of Prussia was proclaimed emperor of Germany.

The feud over Schleswig-Holstein’s future proved hard to solve. Austria offered Holstein in exchange for territory in Silesia, but Bismarck, refused that offer. Instead, Prussia resumed the old issue of Germany’s unification, which the German princes then voted down. When the German Confederation took side with Austria, Prussia declared its secession from the Confederation whereby war became unavoidable. Prussia conquered vast territories, and the German Confederation was dissolved replaced by the North German Confederation that was completely dominated by Prussia, leaving out Austria and the southern German states.

France’s emperor, Napoleon III, disapproved of Prussia’s growth of power. He considered a unified Germany as a great threat to France but the war of 1866 ended before he could intervene. Napoleon III was determined to repair his mistake and in 1870 he used an insignificant diplomatic dispute as pretext to declare war against Prussia. However, to his surprise, the southern German states joined Prussia and the French army was decisively defeated. At Versailles, the victors declared the unification of Germany with the Prussian king as its emperor (1871). France was forced to cede Alsace-Lorraine, which was to be administrated jointly by the German part-states as an Imperial territory.

After 1871, the history of Prussia is identical with Germany’s since it comprised nearly two thirds of Germany's population and territory and the Prussian king and head of state were also Germany's emperor and chancellor. A major event in German history was the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, making Germany a world power. It was during this war that, in 1870, Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck orchestrated the unification of the German states. The German Empire was established under Prussian leadership with Bismarck as Chancellor. Wilhelm II, the last of the Hohenzollern dynasty, became Emperor of Germany (Kaiser) in 1888 and ruled until Germany's defeat in World War I.

[/list]

[marcie]

Thanks for that background, Barbara. It's a good lead-in to this next chapter, THE SIEGE. The American diplomatic minister to France, Elihu Washburne, plays a significant role. How would you characterize him? What actions of his particularly impressed you? What in his background do you think influenced him to act as he did? I love the photo of him at http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/12280

[Jonathan]

Quote from JoanP's post:

'How can the Parisians rejoice and just forget the Prussians are coming, the Prussians are coming?  Makes no sense to me!  The Americans in Paris seem to understand the danger and are leaving...with a few exceptions.'

Saint-Gaudens seems to have been one of those exceptions. Now where did I read it? His mother pleaded with him. Don't get involved in French politics. He would seem to have  aligned himself with the French republicans who felt it was time for a regime change. The Empire would seem to have been a great success, with Paris beautified, and the host of several World Expos. But not everybody was a Bonapartist. Or one with this or that political affiliation. So many rallying cries: Remember  '89! '30! 48! Were there some who were hoping for the Emperor's downfall when he took on the Prussians? Even DeGaulle was nervous about being accepted by Paris at he time of its liberation in 1944.

Barb's post gives a good idea of the convolutions of European politics.

[marcie]

Jonathan, you're right that the politics are convoluted. It's probably fortunate that McCullough doesn't get into the politics very much in this book. It makes it confusing to read about all of the events in this chapter if you don't know the politics/history very well (I don't) but I did find the chapter interesting, especially with its focus on Elihu Washburne.

[marcie]

The more I read about Elihu, the more impressed I am. He seems so sensible and caring and also a man of action. Apparently a lot of people didn't think he was suited to the role of a diplomat, especially to Paris, but it seems that it's precisely because he wasn't "raised" in diplomatic/bureaucratic ways that he was able to be so effective. What do you think of him?

[PatH]

I'm every bit as impressed as you are, Marcie.  He was also a very honorable, moral man.  He would do what was right, no matter how hard.  The family struggles when he was growing up, and the good teachings of his parents really prepared him for this effort

[JoanP]

Had you ever heard of Elihu Washburne before reading this section?  Don't you wonder how David M. decided which people to focus on...and which to just mention in passing - Mark Twain for example?  Not that I'm questioning Elihu Washburne's worthiness...he certainly proved himself during the siege of Paris.  David McCullough devotes the entire chapter to him...and to describe what the Parisians endured during this time.  I had no idea.

Mr. Washburne did more than protect the remaining Americans during the siege.  I was somewhat surprised to read of the numbers of German women, children and elderly depending on the protection of the former American Secretary of State...and now Ambassador to France.  

Not to question the fact that his conduct was admirable, but I have to wonder  why he decided to stay when he had the opportunity to leave...as most of the ambassadors from other countries did.

Did you miss reading about efforts of the French ministers in Paris at this time?

[Jonathan]

So much has been written about the Paris Commune of 1871. Karl Marx, I've heard, made a brilliant little study of it, with lessons for his political agenda. The account of it that we are reading is something special. Be sure to read McCullough's comments introducing source notes for Chapter 9, page 492. He's very pleased to have found new historical material on this defining moment in French history.

Appointed to be Minister to France by President Grant!! What did it take to get that choice appointment? Did Washburne expect to find himself embroiled in this volcanic Parisian scene? I remember Elihu Washburne from reading Team of Rivals, and being amazed at his political activity. It seems to me that it was his concern for the welfare of his fellow citizens that kept him in Paris. His experience of Paris makes for an interesting two chapters. He too was an American in Paris. Why is he never mentioned as 'ambassador'?  Always as Minister.

[PatH]

Why did Washburne stay on when most ministers left?  Because he took a strict, literal interpretation of his duty, and would not leave while there were still any Americans who might need his help.  He surely couldn't have predicted the mess he landed in, but he was really the right man in the right place at the right time.

One of his biggest accomplishments was the rescuing of many Parisian residents of German origin who, through no fault of their own, were being arrested or forced to leave.  Why was this his job?  It needed an ambassador of a neutral power, and he was the only one left.  But he did a much better job than anyone else would have.

You get a sense in this section that Washburne had a lot of power because of his character.  Both sides trusted him.  They gave him more privileges and entrusted him with more because they knew he was straightforward, wouldn't double cross anyone.

[Ella Gibbons]

Oh, I am so behind in everything due to  health matters that will heal in time; meanwhile visits to doctor, etc.   Behind in reading our chapters for discussion, but I have read your posts and will be so interested in everything. 

I can't believe JONATHAN'S memories of TEAM OF RIVALS (the Doris Kearns Goodwin book we discussed a few years ago)  Funny how one book or one or two characters stays with a person for a long time after reading about them.  My favorite of all time was John Adams in McCullough's book; I have him pictured in my mind.

I have Goodwin's latest book - THE BULLY PULPIT (Teddy Roosevelt).  Have you read it yet, JONATHAN?  Shall I recommend it for a future discussion?

[mabel1015j]

I vaguely knew the name of Washburne, but i don't know why. Just from studying American history, i suppose.

Much of Europe is in turmoil at the time. 1870 was the year Victor Emanuel unified Italy into the nation we know today. I know that because i was astonished in my college European history course that Italy was that young a country. In 1962, it was less than 100 yrs old. I just thought of European nations as being the way i learned them for at least a couple hundred yrs old. When Napoleon III had to leave Rome to protect Paris, it left the Vatican, who was the other power in the area, vulnerable and VE was able to take over that area and ended up making Italy the country we know today.

Jean

[marcie]

I appreciate everyone's insights and concur with you all about the moral character of Washburne and his decisive, compassionate actions that likely grew from his hard early years. His mother seems to have had every confidence in her sons. I laughed at her statement that no state was big enough to hold any one of her family.

Jonathan, good question about the terms minister and ambassador. I looked up an article in wikipedia and found the following though it doesn't explain why McCullough calls Washburne Minister since Washburne served from 1869 to 1877. Maybe the terms are used interchangeably.

"Historically, officials representing their countries abroad were termed ministers, but this term was also applied to diplomats of the second rank. The Congress of Vienna of 1815 formalized the system of diplomatic rank under international law:

    Ambassadors are diplomats of the highest rank, formally representing the head of state, with plenipotentiary powers (i.e. full authority to represent the government). In modern usage, most ambassadors on foreign postings as head of mission carry the full title of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. "Ordinary" ambassadors and non-plenipotentiary status are rarely used, although they may be encountered in certain circumstances. The only difference between an extraordinary ambassador and an ordinary ambassador is that while the former's mission is permanent, the latter serves only for a specific purpose."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador

[marcie]

How did most of Paris react during the siege? Did anything surprise you? I must admit that I'm very confused about the politics and governmental intrigues that are alluded to in Chapters 9 and 10.

[JoanP]

Ella, do take care.  Put the book aside until you feel like picking it up again.  Reading the posts, inspired by the book is an experience in itself!  What a find for the author!  It's not surprising that he used the diary entries to communicate the horror of the siege - and the integrity of this unflinching American in Paris at this time.

Jonathan - thank you for pointing out McCullough's source notes on Elihu Washburne's diary on p. 452.  I'm marveling ( is that a word?) at this man...and how he rose from that poor farm family in Maine - one of 11 children - on to Harvard Law School!  Are we to understand he made it through his mother's  efforts? We're told she had little education  herself, but had a qUick mind.  Was Elihu "homeschooled"? Did you notice that all of his brothers were successful?   We're told he grew up reading Shakespeare, Dickens, poetry.  This goes to show that there was opportunity to advance at this time - if motivated.  Class did not prevent advancement.  

Elihu was a bit rough around the edges - we're told he had "no diplomatic experience, no savior-faire" - perhaps this was the reason for his success?  He was tuned in to the suffering, the helplessness of the poor who found themselves trapped in Paris at the time.

TWO MILLION PEOPLE  TRAPPED in Paris!

"How did most of Paris react during the siege?"  An interesting question, Marcie! I think we need to consider who remained, who were unable to escape, who chose not to get out when they still could.  I imagine different groups reacted differently~

[PatH]

My memory isn't as good as Jonathan's.  I won't easily forget Team of Rivals--it was the first book discussion I ever helped lead, under Ella's expert tutelage--but Washburne didn't stick in my mind.  I won't ever forget him now, though.

McCullough seems to have two requisites for the people he concentrates on: they have to inspire his interest, and there has to be plenty of material about them.  Washburne wins on both of these.

[marcie]

JoanP, it does seem that Elihu Washburne and his siblings were greatly influenced by their mother. As a  young man, he spent some of his money on private education and took it upon himself to go to the library where he read Shakespeare, Dickens and poetry. He and his siblings had a "just do it" attitude.

I was surprised at the reaction of many of the Paris natives to the siege (in Chapter 9). They seemed to mostly take it in stride and continue with their promenades and zest for life.

[Ella Gibbons]

McCullough used the plentiful material (his diaries, his book, correspodence) on Washburne for Chapters 9 and 10 (see source notes).

I add my admiration of the man to the above posts.  Coming from a hardscabble childhood in Maine, one is reminded of  Abraham Lincoln in many ways.  

One of my sisters married into a family from Germany who had immigrated to Maine.  They had a huge house with barn attached - a usual way of building a barn.  The winters are long and the continual buildup of snow makes this an excellent decision as the farmer need not plow his way to feed and care for his livestock.  The parents still spoke German (I don't know which part, there must have been numerous dialects as Germany so recently unified into one country.

I was very impressed by the outdoor hospital tent for the wounded and how it was heated in the winter.

[Jonathan]

Ella, we are all wishing you back in good health, and, yes, the John Adams discussion has remained my favorite as well. I'm in the middle of THE BULLY PULPIT and really enjoying it. I would love to see it proposed for discussion.

There is so much to acknowledge and reply to in all your posts. Here's one thing from JoanP the other day:

'Don't you wonder how David M. decided which people to focus on...and which to just mention in passing - Mark Twain for example?'

There's nothing to wonder about, Joan. Unless one wants to wonder why Mark Twain had nothing to say about Paris. Well, very little. Mostly his surprise that the natives couldn't understand his French when he dropped in to see the exhibition in 1867, did not like the French and left for Turkey and points East after only a day or two in Paris. McCullough was looking for those who left a record of their Paris experience. He certainly found one in Washburne and the others.

Thanks, Marcie, for the information on diplomatic rankings. Interesting, isn't it. We're told the diplomatic corps in Paris left with the Thiers government when they left town and hunkered down in the Versailles area jut outside Paris. Washburne stayed behind and kept a record. How thoughtful. I would like to learn more about the American field hospital set up across the street from the Thomas Evans mansion. Staffed, no doubt, by many who had come through the Civil War only a few years earlier.

[JoanK]

JOANP: "I don't know about you, but I'm having a difficult time keeping up with the time frame."

I agree. I'm finding this fast movement through history makes me a little dizzy. Two weeks ago, we were with Morse, getting the first idea for the telegraph. Now in this section, people are so used to messages whizzing back and forth across the Atlantic, that it is a hardship when that's cut off.

The history is crazy: I agree with JoanP that it's too hard to keep up with it. I can understand why the Prussians came, but why did they leave? Probably they knew they didn't have the forces to occupy the whole country, so used Paris as a bargaining chip to get Alcace-Lorraine, which they could control?

And the famous commune had nothing to do with communal ideas? Did Marx know that?

In each of these changes, DM talks as if changing a few men at the head was changing the government of the whole country. but what was happening in the rest of France? My guess is not much: there wasn't time for country-wide changes.

[JoanK]

It looks like this war, declared by France, was great for Prussia. BARB's quote says Bismarck used the war to unify a bunch of small states into Germany and become a major power.

[BarbStAubrey]

Yes I could use another day or two to get caught up - almost finished with Chapter 8 but cannot get back to it till tomorrow night.

[mabel1015j]

It's hard to keep track of the timeline because DMc doesn't give us the year dates very often. I found that was true in The Great Bridge also.

On pg. 295, the menu for Washburne's Christmas dinner included "green corn." Does anyone know what that is?

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Not sure how green corn was prepared as a food for humans - what I know about green corn is that it is essentially colorless and therefore, called green - usually grown for fodder it is planted so tightly with no room to mature compared to sweet corn - the close planting means the stalks are not nearly as tall - today the entire plant is pulled for fodder where as in years past the husks were stripped and stalks were bound to dry just like hay - the kernels are small, rather than large as field corn grown for fodder.

Green corn kernels contain a soft mash rather than the hard dry kernel of typical field or cow corn which is left longer in the ground. Sometimes the stalks were plowed back into the earth to aerates the soil and provides nutrition - today there are sacks of prepared fertilizer or liquid sprayed by low flying small planes or even placed in center pivot irrigation systems -

Cows improved their milk quota eating green corn. Kids would nab some of the green corn just before harvest - it was not sweet but a pleasant soft chew. Have not gotten to where this is in the book - there may be other cues - it could also be giving adult guests a taste of a childhood memory.  

[mabel1015j]

I thought it might be what i know as field corn. My sister and BIL owned a dairy farm and they planted sweet corn and field corn. Sweet corn for us humans and field corn for hogs and cows and fodder.

Jean

[marcie]

Ella, it does seem that Washburne has a prominent role in this book due, not only to his moral character and actions but also because he kept such a detailed diary.

Jean, I think you have pinpointed one source of confusion for me. McCullough provides few dates!

Ella and Jonathan, I too would like to know more about the American "field hospital." I can envision a PBS dramatic series based on the technical and medical advances they brought as well as the human drama.

JoanK, I appreciate you sharing your theory about why the Germans left after only 48 hours. You say, "I can understand why the Prussians came, but why did they leave? Probably they knew they didn't have the forces to occupy the whole country, so used Paris as a bargaining chip to get Alcace-Lorraine, which they could control?" That sounds likely. I couldn't figure out why they marched through and then left the citizens to themselves.

[JoanP]

Interesting to see how people were getting out of Paris - the Americans who successfully escaped in the basket of a hot air balloon!  - while the Germans were firing up at them from the ground!  Didn't Gambetta escape that way too?  A miracle!

Then there was the American med student - Mary Putnam, who chose to stay behind and study for her degree in medicine, while tending to the sick and the wounded!  She was one of those who was dismayed at the surrender.  Thought it was unnecessary, as did the poor and "liberal left."
The terms of surrender really didn't affect them much, did it? The war indemnity of 5 billion francs would come from other coffers, don't you think?

I think what the Prussians really wanted was the Alsace-Lorraine territory - sitting right on the border between France and Germany.  And they got it!  We'll hear more about the struggle for this area shortly.  My ancestors go back to Strasberg, the capital of Alsace.  It's funny.  Some of them spoke German (as did my grandmother's family) - and many spoke French - depending on when they were born and who was in control at the time.  Today, French is the official language, though many speak German.

[marcie]

JoanP, yes the escapes by hot air balloon were fascinating. While the American minister to France, Washburne, stayed in Paris, the Interior Minister Léon Gambetta escaped. When I read that, I thought that the people would think him a coward but McCullough says that there were cheering crowds below. And a webstie site says:

The success of Gambetta’s escape gave a huge morale boost to those who remained trapped. After a bumpy landing, the Minister managed to jump onto a train headed for Tours, where he released a homing pigeon to take news of his success to the anxiously waiting city. Thereafter an extensive programme of siege breaking began, with the use of improvised balloons and homing pigeons, which greatly aided military communications.
http://www.bonjourparis.com/story/siege-paris-how-inventive-parisians-outfoxed-pruss/

Thanks, JoanP, for the info and map of Alsace-Lorraine.

[marcie]

Do any of you know much about the Paris commune? From Washburne's point of view they seemed ruthless.

[JoanP]

This is the first time I've ever looked upon the Commune as "ruthless"...still am not sure how to view these poor and starving captives in the city of Paris.

 Washburne's letters home are sincere and heartfelt.  I'm inclined to believe his viewpoint from the inside.

Here's some Wiki explanations which may help...

"Of the two million people in Paris in 1869, according to the official census, there were about 500,000 industrial workers, or fifteen percent of all the industrial workers in France, plus another three to four hundred thousand workers in other enterprises. Only about 40,000 were employed in factories and large enterprises; most were employed in small workshops and businesses making clothing and textiles, furniture, and in construction. There were also 115,000 servants and 45,000 concierges. In addition to the native French population, there were about one hundred thousand immigrant workers and political refugees, the largest number being from Italy and Poland.[6]

During the war and the siege of Paris, a large number of the middle class and upper class Parisians departed the city, and at the same time there was an influx of refugees from parts of France occupied by the Germans. The working class and immigrants were the sections of the population that suffered the most from the lack of industrial activity caused by the war and the long siege of Paris, and they were the basis of the popular support for the Commune
The Commune resulted in part from growing discontent among the Paris workers.

Many Parisians, especially workers and the lower-middle classes, supported a democratic republic. A specific demand was that Paris should be self-governing with its own elected council, something enjoyed by smaller French towns but denied to Paris by a national government wary of the capital's unruly populace. They also wanted a more "just", if not necessarily socialist, way of managing the economy, summed up in the popular appeal for "la république démocratique et sociale!" ("the democratic and social republic!")."

I can certainly sense the frustration and desire for a voice in their government but the anarchy and lack of leadership seem destined for failure...and violence.  Elihu Washburne seems acutely aware of this, yet continues to work for a solution...or at least he tries to look out for the victims.  Makes me proud to be an American...but not an American of French ancestry

[mabel1015j]

Oh, JoanP don't be so hard on your ancestry. Every single one of us has ancestors from a country or group that at some point behaved badly. That's history! Maybe i could say "that's humanity!"

Jean

[Ella Gibbons]

MADNESS is what it was - about 1870, don't you think?

First the Commune killing priests and executing hundreds of others, including children, and then the Versailles troops fighting back killing hundreds more. - even the Seine ran red with blood from the killing.

The Times of London declared "Paris, the Paris of civilization, is no more....Dust and ashes....smolder and stench are all that remain.

But Paris would not die - the hidden Venus de Milo was recovered and returned to the LOUVRE.   I wonder if the secret passages still exist.

[JoanP]

Thanks for those kind words, Jean!

Ella...they almost burned the Louvre too...did you read that?

[Ella Gibbons]

Yes, I read that, but it was saved,

[Ella Gibbons]

Page128 - "the U.S. Legation alone remained in Paris throughout the siege and the fearful scenes of the Commune of 1870 and 1871."

We have a timeline there.