May 18

1812

The assassination of Prime Minister Perceval

The English-speaking world has a mixed record when it comes to political assassinations. Unlike the more excitable Latin nations who off their leaders with depressing regularity, the Anglosphere is slower on the assassination trigger but even so, there are distinctions to be made. American politicians have a high mortality rate (hello, Presidents Lincoln, Garfield,  Mckinley, and Kennedy; Governors Huey Long, Charles Bent, William Goebel, and Frank Steunenburg; and a host of judges, congressmen, and state officials) and the situation in India and Pakistan is even worse. Only one minor politician has bit the dust in Canada; Australia records only one victim and New Zealand has no assassinated rulers on its watch. Clearly the difference is the presidential system — if you have a constitutional monarchy with an elected prime minister, you are pretty safe. With one exception.

In 1812 John Bellingham (1769-1812), a failed businessman who believed that the British government had not recompensed him for bad treatment at the hands of Russians, shot Prime Minister Spencer Perceval (1762-1812). At his trial he made the following speech in his defence:

“Recollect, Gentlemen, what was my situation. Recollect that my family was ruined and myself destroyed, merely because it was Mr Perceval’s pleasure that justice should not be granted; sheltering himself behind the imagined security of his station, and trampling upon law and right in the belief that no retribution could reach him. I demand only my right, and not a favour; I demand what is the birthright and privilege of every Englishman.

Gentlemen, when a minister sets himself above the laws, as Mr Perceval did, he does it as his own personal risk. If this were not so, the mere will of the minister would become the law, and what would then become of your liberties?

I trust that this serious lesson will operate as a warning to all future ministers, and that they will henceforth do the thing that is right, for if the upper ranks of society are permitted to act wrong with impunity, the inferior ramifications will soon become wholly corrupted.

Gentlemen, my life is in your hands, I rely confidently in your justice.”

Bellingham was found guilty and hanged three days later.

May 16

1943

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is crushed

As a prelude to mass deportations and extermination, the German government in occupied Poland moved the Jewish population into packed and disease-ridden urban ghettos. From there they were told they would be put on trains to labour camps in the East but in fact, these journeys led only to places whose names live on in infamy: Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz and Majdanek.

By early 1943 the remaining Jews of the ghetto in Warsaw knew what their fates would be — about 200,000 had already been deported — and began to resist sporadically. When German forces entered the ghetto in strength on Passover in April large-scale fighting began to take place. Various Jewish groups, separated by ideology but united in determination to go down fighting, had collected weapons, built strong-points and bunkers, and made alliances with Polish resistance fighters outside the ghetto.

For weeks they prevented the SS and Gestapo units aided by Jewish ghetto police and Polish police  from proceeding with the deportations until finally the Nazis resorted to burning down the ghetto, building by building. Some fighters escaped through tunnels to the outside where they joined the larger anti-German resistance, some committed suicide, and some surrendered. On May 16, the SS commander Jürgen Stroop (later executed for war crimes) announced the end of the uprising, marked by demolition of the synagogue, though minor incidents continued for weeks. German casualties were light but 13,000 Jews perished and a further 57,000 were deported. Stroop, who would late write a lengthy account of the battle praised the Jewish fighters. “The Jews surprised me and my officers with their determination in battle. And believe me, as veterans of World War I and SS members, we knew what determination in battle was all about. The tenacity of your Warsaw Jews took us completely by surprise. That’s the real reason the Großaktion lasted as long as it did.”

The next year, Warsaw would rise again in rebellion and again the Nazis would crush the resistance.

May 15

1948 Arab-Israeli War begins

The collapse of the Turkish Ottoman empire after World War I led to much of the Arab world being governed by Britain and France as “mandates”: the British were given Palestine and Iraq to supervise, while France took over ruling Syria and Lebanon. The most problematic of these territories was Palestine where the local Arab population resented Jewish immigration and where a number of radical Jewish groups wished to expel the British and establish an independent Jewish state. Terrorism and atrocities were the order of the day for both sides.

After the Second World War, Britain was desperate to be rid of its Palestinian mandate, having tried to keep the peace but ending up unpopular with both Arabs and Jews. In late 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition of the territory, allotting land for both a Jewish and an Arab state while maintaining Jerusalem and Bethlehem under an international regime. Both Arabs and Jews prepared for conflict, gathering troops, establishing fortifications and buying weapons abroad. Sporadic fighting broke out and terrorist attacks were undertaken. When the partition was to take effect and the republic of Israel was declared, war erupted on May 15. Irregular forces of Muslim volunteers from the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army, the Arab Legion of Jordan, and the armies of Egypt, Syria and Iraq descended upon Jewish-held territories; fighting lasted over 9 months. When the smoke cleared the Israeli state had survived and expanded its territory, Jordan had seized the West Bank, and a massive relocation of refugees begun. Seventy-four years later, the wounds have not healed.

May 14

1878

America’s last witchcraft trial

Daniel Spofford

It was, appropriately enough, in Salem, Massachusetts that what came to be known as the last American witchcraft trial took place.

Lucretia Brown was a 50-year old spinster, who had been an invalid since she injured her spine in a childhood accident, when she  became a disciple of  Mary Baker Eddy. She became convinced that Christian Science had healed her but when she suffered a “relapse” in 1875, Mrs. Eddy convinced her that Daniel Spofford of Newburyport, whom Mrs. Eddy had recently excommunicated for “immorality”, was exercising mesmeric powers upon her. Eddy’s term for these powers was “Malicious Animal Magnetism”.

Mrs. Eddy believed that Spofford was an enemy of her church and tried unsuccessfully to publish an attack against him in papers throughout the county. She directed twelve of her students to spend two hours each every day around the clock in concentrated thought against Mr. Spofford to prevent him from doing further harm to her patients. She had her lawyer in Lynn draw up a bill of complaint in Lucretia Brown’s name, setting forth the injuries that Spofford had supposedly inflicted and petitioning the court to restrain him from exercising his powers against her. The text stated that “the defendant practices the art of mesmerism and by his said art and the power of his mind influences and controls the minds and bodies of other persons for the purpose of injuring the persons and property and social relations of others”.

Mrs Eddy’s attorney refused to argue the case in court, so she ordered her student Edward Arens to do so and twenty of her followers to stand as witnesses. On June 3, 1875 they assembled at the railway station in Lynn for the train to Salem. The Boston Globe reported that one of the appointed witnesses approached Mrs. Eddy to complain that he knew nothing whatever about the case and would not know what to say, whereupon she assured him that he would be told what to say. At the courthouse in Salem, nearly two centuries after the witchcraft hysteria, the last charge of witchcraft in this country was brought to trial. Mr. Spofford did not bother to appear. When Mr. Arens rose before Judge Horace Gray and presented the bill of complaint, Mr. Spofford’s attorney Mr. Noyes objected. Judge Gray declared that it was not within the power of the Court to control Mr. Spofford’s mind, even if he were to be jailed. Mrs Eddy was not given any opportunity to argue that disease could be the work of mesmeric powers, and the case was dismissed due to “defects in the writ.”

Lucretia Brown lived out her life still convinced of her Christian Science beliefs, dying in 1883 of pneumonia after refusing medical care.

May 14

1878

America’s last witchcraft trial

It was, appropriately enough, in Salem, Massachusetts that what came to be known as the last American witchcraft trial took place.

Lucretia Brown was a 50-year old spinster, who had been an invalid since she injured her spine in a childhood accident, when she  became a disciple of  Mary Baker Eddy. She became convinced that Christian Science had healed her but, when she suffered a “relapse” in 1875, Mrs. Eddy convinced her that Daniel Spofford of Newburyport (pictured above), whom Mrs. Eddy had recently excommunicated for “immorality”, was exercising mesmeric powers upon her. Eddy’s term for these powers was “Malicious Animal Magnetism”.

Mrs. Eddy believed that Spofford was an enemy of her church and tried unsuccessfully to publish an attack against him in papers throughout the county. She directed twelve of her students to spend two hours each every day around the clock in concentrated thought against Mr. Spofford to prevent him from doing further harm to her patients. She had her lawyer in Lynn draw up a bill of complaint in Lucretia Brown’s name, setting forth the injuries that Spofford had supposedly inflicted and petitioning the court to restrain him from exercising his powers against her. The text stated that “the defendant practices the art of mesmerism and by his said art and the power of his mind influences and controls the minds and bodies of other persons for the purpose of injuring the persons and property and social relations of others”.

Mrs Eddy’s attorney refused to argue the case in court, so she ordered her student Edward Arens to do so and twenty of her followers to stand as witnesses. On June 3, 1875 they assembled at the railway station in Lynn for the train to Salem. The Boston Globe reported that one of the appointed witnesses approached Mrs. Eddy to complain that he knew nothing whatever about the case and would not know what to say, whereupon she assured him that he would be told what to say. At the courthouse in Salem, nearly two centuries after the witchcraft hysteria, the last charge of witchcraft in this country was brought to trial. Mr. Spofford did not bother to appear. When Mr. Arens rose before Judge Horace Gray and presented the bill of complaint, Mr. Spofford’s attorney, Mr. Noyes, objected. Judge Gray declared that it was not within the power of the Court to control Mr. Spofford’s mind, even if he were to be jailed. Mrs Eddy was not given any opportunity to argue that disease could be the work of mesmeric powers, and the case was dismissed due to “defects in the writ.”

Lucretia Brown lived out her life still convinced of her Christian Science beliefs, dying in 1883 of pneumonia after refusing medical care.

May 13

1619

The execution of a Dutch patriot

Johan van Oldenbarneveldt (1547-1619) was a Dutch lawyer who took part in the resistance to Spanish occupation, the so-called 60 Years’ War. He was a prominent politician who stood up for the rights of the province of Holland and those adhering to the anti-Calvinist branch of Protestantism known as Arminianism. Both of these brought him into conflict with Maurice of Nassau, leader of the Orange faction. In 1618 Oldenbarneveldt was arrested and charged with treason; the trial was infamous for its unfairness, Chamber’s Book of Days was still angry about it 200 years later:

His name is usually associated with ideas of national ingratitude. Another is evoked by it, that there is no party or body of men safe by their professions of liberal principles, or even their professed support of liberal forms of government, from the occasional perpetration of acts of the vilest tyranny and oppression. After William of Orange, the Netherlands owed their emancipation from the Spanish yoke to the advocate, Johan Van Olden Barneveldt. He it mainly was who obtained for his country a footing among the powers of Europe. As its chief civil officer, or advocate-general, he gained for it peace and prosperity, freed it from debt, restored its integrity by gaining back the towns which had been surrendered to England as caution for a loan, and extorted from Spain the recognition of its independence. It owed nearly everything to him. Nor could it be shewn that he ever was otherwise than an upright and disinterested administrator. He had, however, to oppose another and a dangerous benefactor of Holland in Prince Maurice of Orange. A struggle between the civil and the military powers took place.

There was at the same time a struggle between the Calvinists and the Arminians. In British history, the former religious body has been associated with the cause of civil liberty. The history of the Netherlands is enough to shew that this was from no inherent or necessary affinity between liberty and the Genevan church. Barneveldt, who had embraced the tenets of Armin, contended that there should be no predominant sect in Holland; he desired toleration for all, even for the Catholics. The Calvinists, to secure their ascendancy, united themselves with Prince Maurice, who, after all, was not of their belief. By these combined influences, the sage and patriotic Barneveldt was overwhelmed. After a trial, which was a mockery of justice, he was condemned to death; and this punishment was actually inflicted by decapitation, at the Hague, on the 13th of May 1619, when Barneveldt was seventy-two years of age.

May 8

1945  A very busy day

V-E Day

Victory in Europe Day. In the ruins of conquered Berlin, German Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitl signed the document to “surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.” This officially ended the European phase of the Second World War, though sporadic fighting continued for a few days.

Prague Uprising

One of those places where fighting continued was in Prague, the capital of Czecho-Slovakia, where citizens had risen up against the occupying German forces. Believing that American and Russian armies were near, the Czech partisans began attacking German positions in the city on March 5. Several days of heavy fighting ensued, including tank battles and air attacks, before an agreement allowed the German forces to slip westward to avoid surrendering to the Soviets.

Sétif Massacre

In the French colony of Algeria, during celebrations of the war’s end, fighting broke out between pro-independence natives and French colons (settlers) resulting in the massacre of over 100 French civilians. The military took revenge against Algerian villages believed to be involved and conducted a series of atrocities that resulted in thousands of deaths, souring relations between the French and their Arab and Berber subjects.

Halifax Riot

When news of the end of the war in Europe reached Halifax on May 7, the city was swollen with the presence of over 25,000 servicemen anxious to celebrate. The commanding admiral, Leonard W. Murray, against the advice of his officers, unwisely allowed 9,000 sailors to go ashore, asking them to “be joyful without being destructive or distasteful.” The men found there were no places they could legally drink and began a riot in which liquor stores were looted, shops were vandalized and robbed, streetcars were overturned and burnt and the police attacked. The next morning, the clueless Murray allowed another 9,500 men shore leave with a similar result. Finally, aware of the disorder, the military declared a curfew and herded men back into their barracks. The damage was three men dead (two from alcohol poisoning, and one a possible murder), 363 arrested, 654 businesses damaged and 207 establishments looted.

May 3

1469

Birth of Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a Florentine politician and writer whose name has become synonymous with the publication of the deeply-cynical The Prince but who had a much more interesting career than merely writing a tract on a conscience-free approach to public life. Of him, Chamber’s Book of Days says:

Machiavelli was born, in Florence, in 1469, of an ancient, but not wealthy family. He received a liberal education, and in his 29th year he was appointed secretary to the Ten, or committee of foreign affairs for the Florentine Republic. His abilities and penetration they quickly discerned, and despatched him from time to time on various and arduous diplomatic missions to the courts and camps of doubtful allies and often enemies. The Florentines were rich and weak, and the envy of the poor and strong; and to save themselves from sack and ruin, they had to trim adroitly between France, Spain, Germany, and neighbouring Italian powers. Machiavelli proved an admirable instrument in such difficult business; and his despatches to Florence, describing his own tactics and those of his opponents, are often as fascinating as a romance, while furnishing authentic pictures of the remorseless cruelty and deceit of the statesmen of his age.

In 1512 the brothers Giuliano and Giovanni de Medici, with the help of Spanish soldiers, re-entered Florence, from which. their family had been expelled in 1494, overthrew the government, and seized the reins of power. Machiavelli lost his place, and was shortly after thrown into prison, and tortured, on the charge of conspiring against the new regime. In the meanwhile Giovanni was elected Pope by the name of Leo X; and knowing the Medicean love of literature, Machiavelli addressed a sonnet from his dungeon to Giuliano, half sad, half humorous, relating his sufferings, his torture, his annoyance in hearing the screams of the other prisoners, and the threats he had of being hanged. In the end a pardon was sent from Rome by Leo X, to all concerned in the plot, but not until two of Machiavelli’s comrades had been executed.

Machiavelli now retired for several years to his country-house at San Casciano, about eight miles from Florence, and spent his days in literary pursuits. His exile from public life was not willing, and he longed to be useful to the Medici. Writing to his friend Vettori at Rome, 10th December, 1513, he says, ‘I wish that these Signori Medici would employ me, were it only in rolling a stone. They ought not to doubt my fidelity. My poverty is a testimony to it.’ In order to prove to them ‘that he had not spent the fifteen years in which he had studied the art of government in sleeping or playing,’ he commenced writing The Prince, the book which has clothed his name with obloquy. It was not written for publication, but for the private study of the Medici, to commend himself to them by proving how thoroughly he was master of the art and craft of Italian statesmanship.

About 1519 the Medici received him into favour, and drew him out of his obscurity. Leo X employed him to draw up a new constitution for Florence, and his eminent diplomatic skill was brought into play in a variety of missions. Returning to Florence, after having acted as spy on the Emperor Charles V’s movements during his descent upon Italy, he took ill, and doctoring himself, grew worse, and died on the 22nd of June, 1527, aged fifty-eight. He left five children, with little or no fortune. He was buried in the church of Santa Croce, where, in 1787, Earl Cowper erected a monument to his memory.

The Prince was not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli’s death, when it was printed at Rome with the sanction of Pope Clement VII; but some years later the Council of Trent pronounced it ‘an accursed book.’ The Prince is a code of policy for one who rules in a State where he has many enemies; the case, for instance, of the Medici in Florence. In its elaboration, Machiavelli makes no account of morality, probably unconscious of the principles and scruples we designate by that name, and displays a deep and subtle acquaintance with human nature. He advises a sovereign to make himself feared, but not hated; and in cases of treason to punish with death rather than confiscation, ‘for men will sooner forget the execution of their father than the loss of their patrimony.’

There are two ways of ruling, one by the laws and the other by force: ‘the first is for men, the second for beasts;’ but as the first is not always sufficient, cient, one must resort at times to the other, ‘and adopt the ways of the lion and the fox.’ The chapter in which he discusses, ‘in what manner ought a prince to keep faith?’ has been most severely condemned. He begins by observing, that everybody knows how praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his faith, and practise no deceit; but yet, he adds, we have seen in our own day how princes have prospered who have broken their faith, and artfully deceived their rivals. If all men were good, faith need never be broken; but as they are bad, and will cheat you, there is nothing left but to cheat them when necessary. He then cites the example of Pope Alexander VI as one who took in everybody by his promises, and broke them without hesitation when he thought they interfered with his ends.

It can hardly excite wonder, that a manual of statesmanship written in such a strain should have excited horror and indignation throughout Europe. Different theories have been put forth concerning The Prince by writers to whom the open profession of such deceitful tactics has seemed incredible. Some have imagined, that Machiavelli must have been writing in irony, or with the purpose of rendering the Medici hateful, or of luring them to destruction. The simpler view is the true one: namely, that he wrote The Prince to prove to the Medici what a capable man was resting idly at their service. In holding this opinion, we must not think of Machiavelli as a sinner above others. He did no more than transcribe the practice of the ablest statesmen of his time into luminous and forcible language. Our feelings of repugnance at his teaching would have been incomprehensible, idiotic, or laughable to them. If they saw any fault in Machiavelli’ s book, it would be in its free exposure of the secrets of statecraft.

Unquestionably, much of the odium which gathered round the name of Machiavelli arose from that cause. His posthumous treatise was conveniently denounced for its immorality by men whose true aversion to it sprang from its exposure of their arts. The Italians, refined and defenceless in the midst of barbarian covetousness and power, had many plausible excuses for Machiavellian policy; but every reader of history knows, that Spanish, German, French, and English statesmen never hesitated to act out the maxims of The Prince when occasion seemed expedient. If Machiavelli differed from his contemporaries, it was for the better. Throughout The Prince there flows a hearty and enlightened zeal for civilization, and a patriotic interest in the welfare of Italy. He was clearly a man of benevolent and honourable aims, but without any adequate idea of the wrongfulness of compassing the best ends by evil means. The great truth, which our own age is only beginning to incorporate into statesmanship, that there is no policy, in the long run, like honesty, was far beyond the range of vision of the rulers and diplomatists of the 15th and 16th centuries.

Machiavelli was a writer of singularly nervous and concise Italian. As a dramatist he takes high rank. His comedy of Mandragola is spoken of by Lord Macaulay as superior to the best of Goldoni, and inferior only to the best of Molière. It was performed at Florence with great success and Leo X admired it so much, that he had it played before him at Rome. He also wrote a History of Florence, which is a lively and graphic narrative, and an Art of War, which won the praise of so competent a judge as Frederick the Great of Prussia. These and other of his works form eight and ten volumes octavo in the collected editions.

May 1

1945

Mass suicide in Germany

By 1945 German civilians were well aware of the atrocities that their army had committed on the Eastern Front and the revenge that was being taken by the Soviets as they pressed toward Berlin. The media run by Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels stressed the inhuman waves of arson, rape and murder carried out by the Red Army, causing millions of refugees to flee west. Another consequence was the phenomenon of mass suicides, either in anticipation of Russian occupation, or after having suffered brutal treatment at the hands of Russian troops. One remarkable case of this took place on May 1, 1945, in Demmin, the day that Berlin was captured and the hammer and sickle flag was waved over the German chancellery.

On April 30 the Red Army reached the outskirts of Demmin, a town full of refugees from the east. Nazi officials and the police had fled and a large white banner flew from the church steeple signalled a willingness to surrender. Three emissaries from the Red Army approached with a promise of easy treatment but they were gunned down by Nazi diehards, and fanatic Hitler Youth continued to snipe at advancing Russian units. The retreating German army had dynamited the bridges as they went, leaving the townsfolk with no routes of escape and a vengeful enemy pouring in. The result was three days of ceaseless rape and looting while 80% of Demmin was burnt to the ground.

These horrors prompted panic and a rash of collective suicides. Whole families killed themselves with poison, gunshot, drowning or hanging. With the death toll placed at anywhere from 900 to 2,000 it was the largest recorded mass suicide in Germany.

April 30

Home / Today in History / April 30

535

Murder of Amalasuntha

One of the tragedies surrounding the fall of the Roman Empire in the West is the fact that it needn’t have been so catastrophic. The Ostrogoths who had invaded Italy and deposed the last of the western emperors in 476 were anxious to keep their territory peaceful and functioning — otherwise how could the population support their Germanic occupiers in the manner to which they would like to become accustomed? Under their king Theoderic (454-526), the trappings of civilization were maintained; using Roman administrators, they collected taxes, dredged the harbours, maintained trade, and kept the roads clear of bandits. Libraries were open, Christian worship (both Catholic and Arian) proceeded unmolested. However, in his last years, Theoderic lost faith in his Roman ruling class and executed a number of them for conspiring with the Eastern Roman empire in Constantinople.

Had Theoderic died with an adult male heir, things might yet have continued in a peaceful manner, but his only surviving child was a daughter Amalasuntha (495-535) and so the crown went to her ten-year-old son Athalaric, for whom she served as regent. Amalasuntha seems to have been well-educated in the traditional Roman manner, speaking Gothic, Latin and Greek, and she was certainly a friend both of her Roman administrative class and the eastern empire: a fact that vexed some traditionalist Gothic nobles. When her son died in 534, she shared her reign with her cousin Theodahad, believing that a male of the warrior class would lend her regime some authority. It was a fatal mistake — Thedodahad exiled Amalasuntha and had her murdered in her bath. This prompted a struggle for the crown; in the ensuing civil strife Theodahad was himself killed but, more importantly, the eastern empire was given an excuse to intervene.

The ensuing Gothic wars that began with the invasion of an eastern army under Belisarius went on for over twenty years and ended in Italy being ravaged in a worse fashion than the barbarian incursions had produced. The weakened Gothic and eastern forces were finally in no state to resist yet another wave of barbarians, the Lombards, who further devasted the peninsula.