Why Did the South Secede?

Abe Lincoln Jeff DavisOver the last week, there has been a lot of discussion here in the U.S. following the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, over our nations history.  As someone who both has a degree in history and has read extensively about our past, it’s been a little troubling to see the degree to which history is misunderstood by so many people, both in terms of facts and context.  I thought I’d devote a post to discussing the root cause of the Civil War (I may add some additional articles later).

The ongoing argument I’ve seen, both on social media and among some columnists and talking heads, is that the Civil War was never really about slavery at all, but rather about “states rights.”  This is an old argument that I’ve read many times before, and each time debate around statues and Confederate flags gets resurrected, this argument inevitably follows.  I’ve seen numerous discussions regarding what this means, but generally the reasoning goes that Lincoln was a proponent of protectionist tariffs and wanted to tax the living daylights out of foreign imports.  Given that the South was an agrarian society with little manufacturing, and therefore relied heavily on imported goods, this would naturally be economically detrimental to them.  The North, being a heavily industrialized economy, would stand to gain since their products would be cheaper and therefore more Americans would use them.  So once Lincoln was elected, the South seceded on the grounds that they had a constitutional right to do so.

The problem with this theory is that it ignores multiple factors.  It ignores the inflamed tensions between anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces in the decades leading up to the Civil War.  It ignores the controversial nature of the Supreme Courts Dred Scott decision.  It ignores the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, which weren’t about tariffs at all but discussed slavery at length.  Most of all, it ignores the South’s own words as to why they chose to secede.  Like most monumental political events in history, we don’t have to rely on guess work to understand the reasons behind secession.  We can look to what the politicians said, what the articles of secession said, at what was written and spoken at the time.  In the case of Southern secession, the case is clear.

After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the first state to secede was South Carolina.  They issued Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, in which they quoted at length the Declaration of Independence in an effort to make the case that South Carolina was a “free and independent state”, and it was as such that they entered into a contract with the other states in signing the Constitution.  (Conveniently, they left out the part of the Declaration where it states all men are created equal.)

Their argument was that a binding contract is only binding as long as both parties uphold their end of the bargain, and in South Carolina’s view, the other states had failed to uphold their end of the bargain.  Exhibit A?  That the Constitution had guaranteed that escaped slaves who fled to non-slave holding states would be returned to their owners.  According to South Carolina: “…an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slave holding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.” They complained about the North being unwilling to enforce this provision in the Constitution or the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  “In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. “

From their declaration of Secession:

“We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

They don’t mention tariffs, or Republican economics.  They don’t mention states rights Am I not a man and a brotheroutside of their right to own slaves and their right to force non-slave holding states to return them if they should escape.

Other states followed suit.  Georgia seceded in January of 1861, and published their own articles of secession.  Their opening lines read:

“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”

Mississippi also seceded in January of 1861.  Their A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union states that “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”  Texas argued that they joined the Union under the assumption slavery would exist forever, and stated:

“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

220px-Alexander_StephensFurthermore, slavery was not just the motivating factor behind the secession of individual states.  It was literally the bedrock of the formation of the Confederacy.  The new vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, arose on March 21, 1861 at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, and left no doubt about the foundations upon which this new government was being established.  First, he singled out Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers:

“The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.”

Stephens argued that the U.S. was founded by men who assumed that slavery was wrong, that it would only be a temporary institution that would eventually be done away with. He stated that “They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races.”  This, he stated, was not the assumption that would be made by those forming the Confederacy. Instead:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. “

It is hard to argue, in retrospect, that the Confederacy was built upon anything regarding states rights, other than the right to protect the institution of slavery.  The narrative that has arisen in the post-Civil War era that slavery was not the sole issue upon which southern secession and the war was based arose from southern revisionist historians seeking to justify their “Lost Cause.”  The inescapable truth is that the South seceded solely over the issue of slavery.  They formed their new government upon what they perceived to be the fundamental principle of racial inequality.  The ugliness of those words is etched eternally, and no amount of argumentation will refute the justifications they themselves offered for what they did.

If you have an interest in further reading over this issue, I recommend this debate between Thomas DiLorenzo and the late Harry Jaffa.  I own both the books referenced in the transcript, and they are worth looking at if you are interested in a much more detailed version of their arguments.  (I will warn you that Jaffa’s book, in particular, is heavily academic and not an easy read.)  You can also watch the debate here.


Posted in history, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Misunderstood Lucrezia Borgia

Lucrezia Borgia 2There are few women in the Italian Renaissance more intriguing and more analyzed than Lucrezia Borgia, daughter of Pope Alexander VI.  She has been a controversial character for centuries, not only being written about by scholars and historians, but also becoming the subject of novels, operas, and films.  Many portraits of her character are unflattering, but through the years she has undergone an evolution of sorts, and the common understanding of her has become much more sympathetic, not only from scholars but also from popular culture. In order to come to a more complete understanding of Lucrezia, one must categorize what has been written about her, what changes her character has undergone, and what she means to popular culture today.  In analyzing her in this fashion, it is possible for one to come to a better understanding of her as a historical figure.

Lucrezia Borgia was born on April 18, 1480, the daughter of Rodrigo Borgia and his mistress Vanozza Cattanei.  Rodrigo Borgia was a powerful figure in the Catholic Church, the nephew of Pope Calixtus III, and in 1492, he was elected Pope Alexander VI.  He unabashedly used his children as political pawns, marrying Lucrezia at the age of thirteen to Giovanni Sforza, nephew of the powerful Ludovico Sforza who was the ruler of Milan.  Lucrezia’s marriage to Giovanni only lasted three years, when Alexander and the Sforza family forced him to sign a pledge stating he had never consummated the marriage.  Lucrezia went to a convent to wait for the marriage to be annulled, and while there, she was found to be pregnant, most likely by a messenger of the Borgias by the name of Perotto.  Her marriage was annulled, she was announced to be a virgin while she was still with child, and after giving birth, she was married to Alfonso of Aragon, who was the son of the King of Naples.  They were married only a short time before her husband was murdered, most likely at the hands of her brother, Cesare Borgia.  After a brief period, her father arranged another marriage for her, this time to Alfonso d’Este, the son of Duke Ercole and brother to the acclaimed Isabella d’Este.  She remained married to Alfonso for the rest of her life, finally dying after giving birth to her eighth child in 1519.

Lucrezia Borgia was not treated kindly by many writers of her day, primarily because of who her father and brother were.  Of the charges laid against her, many are spurious and were made without any evidence whatsoever, but they have been repeated both in a historical and cultural context so often that they have stuck, even growing immeasurably throughout the years.  Of the most heinous, it was said that she had an incestuous relationship with both her father and her brother, that she was immoral, and that she was a master of poison.  There is no real evidence to support any of these claims, but they have been made many times over in historical works, plays, and novels.  To understand the growth of the Lucrezia Borgia mythology, one must examine the chronology of works about her and how she has been represented in them, to come to a complete understanding of how and why we view Lucrezia Borgia in the way we do today.

Much of what we know of her life, particularly from the time that her father became pope, comes to us from several sources, the primary one being the Vatican scribe Johann Burchard.  Burchard was a German who acted as Master of Ceremonies under five different popes, including Alexander VI.  His diary, entitled the Liber Notarum, is widely considered by many historians to be a mostly accurate description of events that occurred during the reign of the Borgia pope.  However, there are still times Burchard must be looked at in a critical eye.  Borgia scholar Ivan Cloulas writes “Everything was noted painstakingly in this veritable ‘sacristan’s book,’ but between these descriptions Burckard maliciously sneaked in accounts of the excesses and scandals, the Vatican gossip, and the verses and pamphlets that inundated Rome under Alexander VI.”[1]  Cloulas recounts the increasing importance that Burchard’s journal took on in any work done on the Borgia’s, noting that by the late 1600’s, “…nothing could be written about the Borgia’s without reference to the ‘bible’ which Burckard’s day-to-day jottings had become.”[2]  Ferdinand Gregorovius, one of Lucrezia’s many biographers, writes of Burchard and Lucrezia:  “He must have called upon her frequently, but she could scarcely have foreseen that, centuries later, this Alastian’s notes would constitute the mirror in which posterity would see the reflections of the Borgias.  His diary, however, gives no details concerning Lucrezia’s private life—this did not come within his duties.”[3]  Suffice it to say that Burchard is probably the primary chronicler of events that happened during the Borgia reign.  Other chroniclers included Florentine author Francesco Gucciardini, who wrote The History of Italy and has an undoubted anti-Borgia bias, as well as Camillo Beneimbene, the legal advisor of Pope Alexander VI.  Letters, diaries, legal documents, and other records of the day comprise a vast collection of information with which historical facts regarding Lucrezia Borgia can be gleaned.  Given the controversial nature of the Borgia family and the apparent biases of many of their chroniclers, it is no wonder that many of the accounts of Lucrezia’s life have been tainted at times, and given that her brother and father both engaged in corrupt and immoral practices, it is also no surprise that some scholars have adopted an attitude of guilt by association.

Several early works were written about the Borgia’s in the century after their reign in the papacy ended, many of which were inspired by the Burchard journal and most of which recounted several of the salacious details within.  Such early authors include Paolo Giovio, Onofrio Panvinio, Geronimo Zurita, and Theodore Godefroy.  These all relied, to one extent or another, on the Burchard journal as a source of inspiration for their works.[4]  In 1696, a particularly sensational account of the Borgias was written by a scholar named Leibnitz, who published it under the title Specimen Historiae Arcanae, sive anecdotae de vita Alexandri VI Papae.  Lebinitz wrote “there has never been a court more contaminated with crime than that of Alexander VI, where shamelessness, treachery, and cruelty were the rule—three capital vices, all three crowned by villainy and covered with the sacred veil of religion.”[5]  Following this account was one written by British historian Alexander Gordon, who wrote Lives of Pope Alexander VI and His Son Cesare Borgia in 1729.  Of Lucretia he writes in the Preface “Lucretia, Alexander’s daughter…as famous for Lewdness, as the Roman Lucretia for Chastity.”[6]  Although he certainly personifies the anti-Borgia attitude of writings during that time, he did document his sources and his book is called by Cloulas “…the first example of a documented study on the Borgias.”[7]

Following the Gordon book, a number of other scholars wrote works regarding the Lucrezia BorgiaBorgia family.  Continuing in the vein of the works that followed before them, they were far from unbiased.  “If these writers aimed at objectivity in regard to their sources, their story was always told anything but dispassionately.  In that philosopher’s age, each one was intent on denouncing the Borgia’s crimes and their scorn for public and private morality.”[8]  One of these chroniclers was noted French writer Voltaire, who in his 1756 work Essai sur les moeurs, questions the charges of poison against the Borgias, but “repeats the accusations of incest against Lucrezia as well as Cesare’s crimes.”[9]  This accusation, mentioned in almost every account of Lucrezia Borgia’s life, does not seem to have any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support it, but it is not uncommon that it should be repeated by even such a famous author as Voltaire.

But perhaps one of the most influential works in shaping the legend of Lucrezia as a corrupt and evil woman was introduced by another noted French author, Victor Hugo.  In his 1833 play Lucrece Borgia, he wrote, “Who, actually, is this Lucrezia Borgia?  Take the most hideous, the most repulsive, the most complete moral deformity; place it where it fits best—in the heart of a woman whose physical beauty and royal grandeur will make the crime stand out all the more strikingly…”[10]  Hugo, perhaps as much as any other author, is responsible for promoting Lucrezia to heights of villainy which no evidence shows that she deserved.  Hugo made clear where his inspiration came from.  “The author will remain silent in the face of criticism…He could, no doubt, answer more than one objection….To those who reproach him for exaggerating Lucrezia Borgia’s crimes he will say, ‘Go and read Tomasi, read Guicciardini and, above all, read the Diarium.’”[11]  The play depicts Lucrezia as a murderous villain who accidentally even poisons her own son.  Lucrezia waxes eloquent in the play on her ability as a poisoner.  “A dreadful poison, a poison, the very thought of which makes every Italian grow pale—everyone who knows the history of these last twenty years.  And no one in the world knows the antidote to this terrible concoction, no one save the pope, the duke of Valentinois and myself.”[12] Maria Bellonci, in her biography of Lucrezia, notes Hugo’s role in bestowing the reputation of poisoner upon Lucrezia. “This was the epoch of the famous Borgia poison which was for centuries to be synonymous with the family name, and with which even Lucrezia’s name was to be associated—the dark imagination of the Romantics, and especially Victor Hugo, turning her into a poisoner and evil genius.”[13]  Hugo’s play was adapted into an opera by Gaetano Donizetti and was first performed in December of 1833.  The opera has been performed in famous concert halls around the world and helped to perpetuate the myth of Lucrezia as villain.

Other noted authors took up their pens to write of the crimes of the Borgia’s, lumping Lucrezia in with her brother and father.  Alexandre Dumas, celebrated author of works such as The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, wrote of the Borgia family in his popular series Les crimes celebres, published in the same decade as Hugo’s work.  Of Lucrezia, he intimates that her relationship with her brother Cesare was incestuous, calling her “the mistress of his illicit affection.”[14]  Of Lucrezia, Rodrigo, and Cesare, he states that “…the three composed that diabolical trio which for eleven years occupied the pontifical throne, like a mocking parody of the Holy Trinity.”[15]  Noted historian Jakob Burckhardt, in his The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, stated of the Borgia family “Those who were not slain by the Borgias’ dagger perished by their poison.”[16]

In the mid to late 1800’s, the Borgia reputation finally received somewhat of a defense.  First came authors who felt the need to swing in the opposite direction, among them Abbe Ollivier and Father Leonetti, who attempted to deny everything that had been written about the Borgia name.[17]  They sought to clear the Borgias of all charges.  This sparked an interest in a “documentary rediscovery of the Borgia story.”[18]  Guiseppe Campori released a study on Lucrezia in 1866 entitled Una vittima della Storia, based on documents taken from the Este family archives in Modena.  This was followed by German scholar Ferdinand Gregorovius’ work in 1874 on the life of Lucrezia Borgia, which “set a date for the scientific approach to the history of the Borgia’s.”[19]  Gregorovius’s work sought to examine Lucrezia in a historical light, and represented her much more kindly than most previous works had done.  In his final remarks, he states “The original sources from which the material for this book has been derived would place the reader in a position to form his own opinion regarding Lucrezia Borgia, and his view would approximate the correct one, or at least would be nearer correct than the common conception of this woman.”[20]  He certainly is not always kind, calling her “weak and characterless” and stating that she did not possess great qualities.[21]  But he deviated from most of the previous Lucrezia biographers in his attempt to portray her not as an evil genius or a corrupt and wanton woman, but rather he makes clear “We are endeavouring to represent her only as she actually was…a woman differentiated from the great mass of women, not by the strength, but by the graciousness, of her nature.”[22]  Gregorovius may not have been completely kind to the image of Lucrezia, but he separated himself from other biographers by attempting to portray her as she was.

Lucrezia Borgia Maria BellonciSeveral more works on the Borgia family followed, and in the twentieth century several authors dedicated themselves to trying to use psychology to analyze the Borgias.  Authors such as Louis Gastine, who wrote a historical novel on Lucrezia, and Milanese physician Giuseppe Portigliotti, who wrote a psychiatric analysis of the Borgia family, followed this approach.[23]  Then in 1939, Lucrezia found another biographer willing to champion her cause and in some measure, rehabilitate her image, in the form of Italian author Maria Bellonci.  Bellonci published a biography of Lucrezia, defending her against many of the charges that had been laid against her.  Bellonci’s work is perhaps one of the most important biographies in terms of rehabilitating the image of Lucrezia Borgia.  Gregorovius may be responsible for establishing a method for analyzing Lucrezia in a more historical light, but Bellonci is perhaps more influential in allowing students of history to rethink the Lucrezia mythos.  She offers explanations for the charges against Lucrezia concerning poison, incest, and the other accusations that she has so often faced.  Further, she represents her as a lady of intelligence and also somewhat of a tragic figure who was subject to misfortune and grief in her life.

Following Bellonci’s work, many other authors and even filmmakers have come to regard Lucrezia Borgia in a new light, although the idea of her as a villain still exists in much of popular culture.  The Abel Gance directed French film Lucrezia Borgia, released in 1935, represents Lucrezia in the much more sympathetic light of Bellonci and Gregorovius.  Both it and the 1953 French film Lucrece Borgia are much more famous for their all nude bath scenes of Lucrezia  than they are for any real groundbreaking work on the character herself, however.  Following the Bellonci book, most biographies and non-fiction works on Lucrezia seem to take much the same view as Bellonci on the famous daughter of Pope Alexander.  Rachel Erlanger, in 1978, published a somewhat sympathetic look at the life of Lucrezia Borgia.  In it, she postulates, like others before her, that the incest rumors were the result of Giovanni Sforza and his anger at being forced to declare that he had failed to consummate his marriage.[24]  She presents Lucrezia as merely a pawn of her fathers, saying of her first marriage, “…the experience would leave her with a realization of how little voice she had in her own destiny.”[25]  She also defends Lucrezia against the charges of poison, saying of accusations that Lucrezia kept a poison ring, “…the only so called poisoned rings which have come to light belong to a much later period.  So much for the poison of the Borgias.”[26]  Erlanger’s work is followed by a comprehensive look at the Borgia family by French author Ivan Cloulas, who published in 1989 his book, The Borgias, in which he attempts to tackle the Borgia mythos in a historical light, commenting in the prologue that “This caricature is the result of centuries of hostile writings.”[27]  He also treats Lucrezia in a much kinder light than her earlier biographers did.

The twenty first century has seen, in some respects, Lucrezia come full circle.  One of the most recent biographers, Sarah Bradford, published her work on Lucrezia Borgia in 2004, and she again follows the vein of most modern historians in presenting Lucrezia as a somewhat sympathetic figure who was a pawn of her father and brother.  She explains the incest as probably being due to the accusations of Giovanni Sforza, and believed because of the closeness of the Borgia family.[28]  Renaissance historian Christopher Hibbert, in 2008, released another comprehensive look at Borgia family and the conflicts they faced during their rise to power, entitled The Borgias and Their Enemies.  In it, he also defends Lucrezia against the charge of incest, attributing it to Giovanni Sforza, stating “The rumours of incest, a sin as offensive then as it is now, spread like wildfire through Rome and all of Italy.  Born out of Giovanni’s desire for revenge on the family who were taunting him so unfairly, the story stuck.”[29]  While he does not hold back from shedding further light on the crimes of Cesare and Alexander VI, Hibbert again treats Lucrezia as merely a puppet of their own power struggles.

However, contemporary popular culture sources have not always been so kind to Lucrezia.  The author of The Godfather, Mario Puzo, wrote The Family in 2001, a fictional retelling of the Borgia mythos, in which the Pope not only sanctions but actually observes Lucrezia and Cesare consummating an incestuous relationship in order to maintain control over the loyalty of his family.[30]  Celebrated author Gregory Maguire placed Lucrezia in the role of antagonist in his 2003 work, Mirror, Mirror, which is a retelling of the Snow White fairy tale.  In it, Lucrezia Borgia resumes the popular role of an incestuous poisoner.  She is angered at the protagonist, Bianca, because her brother Cesare is attracted to her; “Her own brother, the tenderest swift soldier ever to enter her bed—groping at a child.”[31]  Later, Lucrezia ponders the long history of poison in her family.  “So she fell back, at last, to the tradition perfected by her ancestors.  What a library of recipes they’d amassed—poisons that had killed cardinals and princes, dukes and their wives, inconvenient lovers overstaying their welcome.”[32] Other contemporary sources feature a different take, one much more in the Bellonci-Gregorovius mold.  Roberta Gellis’s 2003 work Lucrezia Borgia and the Mother of Poisons features Lucrezia in a sort of Renaissance Italian “who-done-it” murder mystery, where Lucrezia is forced to investigate someone else’s death by poisoning in order to defend her reputation.  In 2006, a Spanish language film entitled Los Borgia, directed by Antonio Hernandez, was released and also portrays Lucrezia in a kinder light, showing her again to be a pawn of her father and brother.

So in the future, what can we expect of the Lucrezia Borgia mythos?  It is unlikely that any new documentation will turn up exposing Lucrezia to be the poisoner and embodiment of evil that she is in legend, so future biographers will likely continue to follow in the Gregorovius and Bellonci form, since this seems to be the most likely interpretation of the character of Lucrezia Borgia.  In terms of popular culture, new works seem to have flourished depicting Lucrezia in this more sympathetic light, and this trend is likely to continue.  The latest screen depiction, Showtime’s series The Borgia’s, cast Lucrezia in a empathetic and not completely unfavorable light.   However, the idea of Lucrezia as evil villainess is too delicious for many writers to ignore, so it is unlikely that the Lucrezia of legend will completely go away, either.

So what can the body of work done on Lucrezia Borgia tell us regarding her character?  In her book, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, author Merry Wiesner-Hanks dedicates a chapter to talking about the subject of gender and power.  In it, she discusses Niccolo Machiavelli’s work, The Prince, in which he praises the actions of Cesare Borgia, Lucrezia’s older brother.  Says Wiesner-Hanks, “For Machiavelli, effective rulers—and effective men—had the ability to shape the world around them according to their will and used whatever means necessary to preserve order and security.”[33]  This is telling when taken in context with the vast body of scholarly work done on the Borgia family, because it seems evident, particularly in the works of authors such as Ferdinand Gregorovius, Maria Bellonci, and Rachel Erlanger, that Lucrezia was subject not to her own will, but rather to the will of her father and brother, who sought to use her as a pawn in their attempt to shape the world around them.  Early works about Lucrezia generally put her in the position of a woman using any means possible to control her world, but through the scholarly efforts of historians, the common understanding of Lucrezia today is that she was not the Lucrezia of legend, but rather a woman who was used by her family in the great power struggles of fifteenth century Italy.



Bellonci, Maria.  The Life and Times of Lucrezia Borgia.  Tr. Bernard and Barbara Wall.  New York:  Harcourt Brace and Company, 1953.


Bradford, Sarah.  Lucrezia Borgia: Life, Love, and Death in Renaissance Italy.  New York:  Penguin Books, 2004.


Cloulas, Ivan.  The Borgias.  Tr. Gilda Roberts.  New York:  Franklin Watts, 1989.


Dumas, Alexandre.  The Crimes of the Borgias.  Lexington:  Fearlesspublishing.net, 2009.


Erlanger, Rachel.  Lucrezia Borgia. New York:  Hawthorn Books, 1978.


Gregorovius, Ferdinand.  Lucrezia Borgia:  A Chapter from the Morals of the Italian Renaissance.  New York: Phaidon Publishers, 1948.


Hibbert, Christopher.  The Borgias and Their Enemies: 1431-1519.  Orlando:  Harcourt, Inc., 2008.


Maguire, Gregory.  Mirror, Mirror.  New York:  Harper Collins, 2003.


Puzo, Mario.  The Family.  New York: Harper Collins, 2001.


Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E.  Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe.  New York:  Cambridge University Press, 2008.

[1] Cloulas, The Borgias, p. 334

[2] Ibid., p.335

[3] Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia, p. 81-82

[4] Cloulas, The Borgias, p. 334-334

[5] Ibid., p. 335

[6] Ibid., p. 336

[7] Ibid., p. 337

[8] Ibid., p. 337

[9] Ibid., p. 337

[10] Ibid., p. 339-340

[11] Ibid., p. 340

[12] Ibid., p. 340

[13] Bellonci, The Life and Times of Lucrezia Borgia, p. 217

[14] Dumas, The Crimes of the Borgias, p.71

[15] Ibid., p. 27

[16] Cloulas, The Borgias, p. 340

[17] Ibid., p. 341

[18] Ibid., p. 341

[19] Ibid., p. 341

[20] Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia, p.231

[21] Ibid., p. 96

[22] Ibid., p. 96

[23] Cloulas, The Borgias, p. 342-343

[24] Erlanger, Lucrezia Borgia, p. 100

[25] Ibid., p. 104

[26] Ibid., p. 228

[27] Cloulas, The Borgias, p. vii

[28] Bradford, Lucrezia Borgia, p. 67

[29] Hibbert, The Borgias and Their Enemies, p. 113

[30] Puzo, The Family, p. 46-47

[31] Maguire, Mirror, Mirror, p. 121

[32] Ibid., p. 236

[33] Wiesner-Hanks, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, p. 293

Posted in history, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I’ll Take My History Films Half-Baked

DunkirkHow important is accuracy in historical films?  I guess that depends on who you ask.  I personally don’t mind if my historical films have only half-baked truths in them.  Allow me to explain.

Recently, Christopher Nolan’s new film Dunkirk was released to universal critical acclaim.  (Full disclosure:  although I intend too, I have not seen it yet.)  The film covers the evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk, France in 1940.  The true story is pretty amazing; the British military was in deep trouble, surrounded by Germans and on the brink of disaster, but a coordinated effort by the Royal Navy and civilian ships saw hundreds of thousands of lives spared.

I follow a lot of historians on Twitter, and I was interested in what they would have to say about the film.  I’ve seen every one of Christopher Nolan’s films, so I knew the movie would be enjoyable, but I was curious how historically accurate it would be.  Most historical films take a great deal of narrative license when telling their story, so I’m always interested in how close a film adheres to the truth and where it strays.

I could give you a breakdown of the licenses Nolan took, but it’s much easier to link to historian James Holland’s review of the film. He gives a detailed account of what he liked about the film and where he takes issue with the liberties they took.  Dunkirk is no exception when it comes to fudging the historical record.  But the larger question that should probably be asked about this film and every historical film is: Does it matter?

I could give a long list of historical films that I love:  Gladiator, Elizabeth, Lincoln, Tombstone, Braveheart, Schindler’s List, Lawrence of Arabia, Saving Private Ryan, Patton, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford…and that’s just to name a few. All of these films, in my opinion, succeed as pieces of art and entertainment, and every time I watch them I leave impressed and sometimes moved by the way in which they speak to the human experience.  But they all share the same common flaw; none of them is completely accurate.

Take Elizabeth, for example.  The first time I saw this film, I knew practically nothing Elizabeth_Posterabout Elizabeth I of England.  The defeat of the Spanish Armada and that she was the daughter of Henry VIII was about the extent of my knowledge.  After watching Cate Blanchett’s magnetic performance in Elizabeth, I was electrified.  There were so many great moments in that film (many of them involving Geoffrey Rush, who played Francis Walsingham).  In my eagerness to know more about Elizabeth, I got Alison Weir’s book The Life of Elizabeth I.  Imagine my shock when, at the end of the book, she gives a complete breakdown of all the film portrayals of Elizabeth I, and torches Elizabeth, pointing out the infinite deviations the film had from the historical record.

After learning about the true life of Elizabeth, I now realize that the film is deeply flawed.  Francis Walsingham did not poison Mary of Guise.  Henry, Duke of Anjou, never personally courted Elizabeth and wasn’t a cross dresser.  Robert Dudley wasn’t a part of the Ridolfi Plot.  There are many other historical inaccuracies that the film contains, and it also plays incredibly loose with ages and dates.  Nevertheless, I still enjoy the film and think Blanchett’s performance is one of the best by a lead actress that I’ve seen in a while.

The irony, however, is that I would never have bought Weir’s book if it weren’t for that film.  I realize, as I stated initially, that my experience is probably atypical.  I’m more invested in history than the average person, so most people probably won’t purchase a biography of a film subject.  But such people do exist.  It’s why a historian like James Holland writes lengthy posts on his personal site about the historical facts of Dunkirk; because people like me, who have an interest in the film, will do the research and find out the truth.

No one should be using a film as the basis of knowledge for historical fact.  While some films strive for accuracy more closely than others, film is first and foremost a vehicle for story, not accuracy, and as such a certain amount of narrative license is to be expected.  In some cases, you can probably make the argument that a better movie could be made sticking closer to the facts. But regardless, I think a historical film that plays with facts is still better than no historical film at all. There’s always a good chance that an entertaining film can awaken interest in a subject with which people were previously unfamiliar.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sam Lone Bear and the Danger of Assuming

Mark Spider Sam Lone BearIt can be dangerous to make assumptions.  That’s what a certain New York Times reporter found out when he tried interviewing several members of the Lakota Sioux at the 1935 Brussels International Exposition.

The Exposition was held with the involvement of 25 different countries.  Its theme was colonization, a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Congo Free State  (perhaps not the wisest choice given Belgium’s history of colonization in the Congo), but nevertheless it attracted some 20 million visitors.  The United States was not one of the countries officially involved in the expo, but Belgium wanted a village of Native Americans to be present at their celebration.  They contacted the US embassy and somehow managed to get a group together, represented by several Native American tribes, the primary ones being the Lakota Sioux.  Many of the Sioux who were involved were people who had traveled to Europe before, as entertainers and performers in a myriad number of Wild West shows, the most famous being Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West show.

One of the members of the group was a Lakota by the name of Sam Lone Bear.  Lone Bear had joined Buffalo Bill’s show in 1894 at the age of sixteen.  He was educated, and spoke at least three languages (English, French and German), and had continued to travel even after the dissolution of the Cody show in 1913.  This trip to the Expo in Belgium was his eighth visit to Europe.

In his book Lakota Performers in Europe, historian Steve Friesen records an encounter between an unnamed New York Times reporter and Samuel Lone Bear:

“A New York Times Reporter, also present at the Lakotas’ arrival in Paris, described the event somewhat flippantly: “They are en route to the Brussels exposition where they will set up a typical Sioux village to show the world how the Red Man solves the high cost of living.”

According to the New York Times reporter, he drew upon his own “Indian vocabulary” and asked, “Heap-big Injun likum Paris?” This stereotype-laden query was met with a reply from Chief Black Horn: “I think it might facilitate matters for you if I refer you to our interpreter, Sam Lone Bear.” At that point the reporter asked Lone Bear in English if he spoke French. “Oh yes, and I also speak German,” he replied.”

The reporter learned a powerful lesson that day, about prejudice, about preconceived notions, and about making assumptions without all the facts at hand.  His assumption that the Lakota could only communicate in an infantile stereotyped dialect was based on his complete lack of knowledge regarding the Sioux and how well traveled they had been over the first half of the twentieth century.  Not only could the Sioux speak English as well as the reporter, but Lone Bear himself could speak several other languages besides.

We all tend to make judgments at times about people and about situations, based on less than all the evidence.  We make a hasty evaluation, and many times it is later proven to be false because people are often more complex and far deeper than our first impressions would indicate.  We measure based on a minute amount of information, never understanding that each individual and situation is unique, and there is always more that meets the eye.

The challenge today is to look past that first impression.  Find someone that you perhaps have evaluated poorly, and dig a little deeper.  See if you can find something about them that might surprise you, and in the end, you may not only learn something about them, but also come to understand something about yourself.

Posted in inspirational | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wild Bill and the Destructive Influence of Pride

James_HickokOn this day in 1865, the legend of Wild Bill Hickok, one of the West’s most famous gunmen, was born.  The tragedy, however, is that it was over an incident that was entirely preventable, in which pride led one man to his death.

Hickok had arrived in Springfield, Missouri,  in the summer of ’65, recently finishing time served for the Union Army as a scout and spy during the Civil War.  His primary occupation was that of a gambler, and it was during his time at the gaming tables when he met and befriended a man named Dave Tutt, who happened to be a former Confederate soldier. They soon had a falling out, although it is not clear why.  Some accounts claim they fought over a woman, others that Hickok killed a friend of Tutt’s during the Civil War.  Whatever the reason, Tutt came to despise Hickok and tried to pick a fight.

The main account of the fight was published in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, by author George Ward Nichols, who did a feature piece on Hickok.  His primary source was one Richard Bentley Owen, a quartermaster at Fort Riley in Kansas whom Nichols labeled “Captain Honesty.”  According to Bentley, the feud between Hickok and Tutt reached a head one night in a poker game.  Tutt, by all accounts, had been funding Hickok’s opponents (Hickok had refused to play with Tutt himself) and Hickok was the winner of the game by some two hundred dollars.  Tutt demanded payment of an old horse trading debt, then claimed Hickok owed him an additional thirty five dollars for a gambling debt.  When Hickok disputed the amount, Tutt snatched Wild Bill’s prized watch from off the table and claimed he was holding it for collateral.  Although angry, Hickok refused to take action. Over the subsequent days, Tutt and his allies reputedly taunted him over the watch, until finally Hickok had enough.  He was told on June 20th that the following day, Tutt would be wearing the watch in the town square. According to Bentley, Hickok “said that Dave Tutt shouldn’t pack that watch across the square unless dead men could walk.” Bentley detailed a conversation he had with Hickok prior to the fight:

“Now, Bill’, says I, ‘you’re goin ter get inter a fight.’

“Don’t you bother yerself, Captain,’ says he. ‘It’s not the first time I have been in a fight; and these d-d hounds have put on me long enough. You don’t want me ter give up my honor,do yer?”

“No, Bill,’ says I, ‘y’er must keep yer honor.’

The Fight

The following day, as promised, Tutt was in the square with Wild Bill’s watch, standing near the Springfield courthouse.  A crowd had gathered, many of whom were Tutt’s friends.  Hickok spotted Tutt, and Nichols, in Bentley’s unique dialect, records what happened next:

“Just then Tutt, who’ war alone, started from the courthouse and walked out into the squar’, and Bill moved away from the crowd toward the west side of the squar’. Bout fifteen paces brought them opposite each other, and bout fifty yards apart. Tutt then showed his pistol. Bill had kept a sharp eye on him and before Tutt could pint it Bill had his’n out.

“At that moment you could have heard a pin drop in that squar’. Both Tutt and Bill fired, but one discharge followed the other so Quick that it’s hard to say which went off first. Tutt was a famous shot, but he missed this time; the ball from his pistol went over Bill’s head. The instant Bill fired, without waitin’ ter see ef he had hit Tutt, he wheeled on his heels and pointed his pistol at Tutt’s friends, who had already drawn their weapons.

“Aren’t yer satisfied, gentlemen?’ cried Bill, as cool as an alligator. ‘Put up your shootin-irons, or there’ll be more dead men here,’ and they put ’em up, and said it war a far fight.”

Tutt, for his part, called out “Boys, I’m killed,” and took a few steps before he collapsedhith-Wild-bill-harpers-3 and died.  As Bentley recalled “Bill never shoots twice at the same man.”  Hickok was arrested the next day, but after a trial the jury decided the shooting was justified and reached a verdict of not guilty.  Following the release of the Harper’s Magazine article, Wild Bill Hickok skyrocketed to fame.  The article was far from accurate in most of the particular’s about Hickok’s exploits, but it nevertheless went a long way in establishing his mythos as the West’s most famous gunman.

The sad reality of Dave Tutt’s final moments is that they were entirely avoidable. Other accounts of the shooting have Hickok warning him repeatedly to stand down, and the fact that Hickok himself felt compelled to be at the square so that Tutt could not put a stain upon his honor is certainly telling about the corrosive influence of pride.  Most people, and probably Hickok himself, would not have claimed that a watch was equal in value to a man’s life, but pride from both men demanded that they refuse to back down.

For most of us, pride will never lead us into a shootout, but it has destroyed relationships, wrecked homes, and separated families.  Pride is a killer (in Tutt’s case, literally).  Whenever you find yourself letting pride stand between you and someone else, ask yourself, is this worth it?  Take a tip from the life of Wild Bill, and do not let pride destroy you.


Posted in inspirational | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Abraham Lincoln Teaches Us About Grief

Abraham LincolnOn February 24, 1862, Willie Lincoln, the third son of President Abraham Lincoln and First Lady Mary Lincoln, passed away.  He was twelve years old at the time of his passing.  He contracted typhoid fever, likely from impurities in the Potomac River, which was where the water for the White House at the time was supplied.  Willie lingered for days, his condition fluctuating, but near the end he became steadily worse.

Elizabeth Keckley, a freed slave, seamstress, and author, who was a personal confidant of the Lincoln’s, wrote of that final hour of Willie’s passing and the President’s response to it.

“The night passed slowly ; morning came, and Willie was worse. He lingered a few days, and died. God called the beautiful spirit home, and the house of joy was turned into the house of mourning. I was worn out with watching, and was not in the room when Willie died, but was immediately sent for. I assisted in washing him and dressing him, and then laid him on the bed, when Mr. Lincoln came in. I never saw a man so bowed down with grief. He came to the bed, lifted the cover from the face of his child, gazed at it long and earnestly, murmuring, ” My poor boy, he was too good for this earth. God has called him home. I know that he is much better off in heaven, but then we loved him so. It is hard, hard to have him die ! ”

Great sobs choked his utterance. He buried his head in his hands, and his tall frame was convulsed with emotion. I stood at the foot of the bed, my eyes full of tears, looking at the man in silent, awe-stricken wonder.  His grief unnerved him, and made him a weak, passive child. I did not dream that his rugged nature could be so moved. I shall never forget those solemn moments—genius and greatness weeping over love’s idol lost.”

It’s hard to picture the unimaginable sorrow that must have flooded Abraham Lincoln’s soul at this time.  The Civil War had not even reached a full year, and things had not gone well in the early stages for the Union.  The Lincoln’s had already lost two close family friends to the war, E.E. Ellsworth (who was the first Union officer killed in the war), and more recently, Edward Dickinson Baker, who was so close to the first family that they had named their late son Edward after him.  Now, already grappling with the responsibility of being the head of state at a time when the country was in its most severe moment of crisis, Lincoln had to contend with one of the most cruel blows life can give, the loss of a child.  Not only this, but he also had his remaining family to console; his wife Mary, who was so distraught that Lincoln feared she would have to be committed to a mental institution; and his sons, Robert and most especially Thomas, who was the youngest and took Willie’s death hard.

It’s no wonder then, that Elizabeth Keckley marveled at how deeply this affected Lincoln. willie lincoln He was a rugged individual, a true frontiersman, born in Kentucky and raised on the Midwestern prairies, learning from an early age the principles of self-reliance and gruff individualism.  Lincoln was no stranger to grief; he had suffered many disappointments and defeats, both politically and personally in his life.  And yet, in an hour when the entire nation was at stake, Keckley noted that the President stopped and allowed himself the time to grieve for his son.

Anyone who has lost someone close to them has some idea of the depths of Lincoln’s pain.  We may not have the weight of responsibility that Lincoln had on our shoulders, but this does not mean we cannot identify with how he felt in that dark hour.  What I admire most about Lincoln is that in his grief, he allowed himself to become open and vulnerable.  Keckley noted that his grief made him a “weak, passive child.”  Too many times, when coping with loss, we attempt to “be strong.”  We try to force down any hint of invulnerability and make an effort to adult our problems away, either by getting lost in work, or by entertainment, or some other distraction.  But Lincoln reveals to us that in our hour of sorrow, it is permissible to open yourself up and allow your grief to show.  He teaches us that no matter the weight of responsibility we bear, no matter how much genius we possess, no matter how strong others think we are, that we are, in fact, only human.

There is much to admire about Abraham Lincoln.  We remember him as the statesman, the commander-in-chief, the emancipator, and many other things.  But Abraham Lincoln was a husband and a father.  He dealt with the same struggles that many of us do, and despite his profound historical reputation for greatness, it is in this intimate, heartfelt moment from which we can draw our own personal lesson.  If a leader such as Lincoln realized the importance of allowing time to grieve, then it is an example I feel we can follow.  Lincoln understood the importance of  the words:

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;”        Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3:4



Posted in inspirational | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Legacy of Billy the Kid

Billy the KidOn July 14, 1881, Pat Garrett, the sheriff of Lincoln County, New Mexico, received a tip that a dangerous fugitive was hiding out in the nearby vicinity of Fort Sumner.  This particular fugitive had been sentenced to hang only a few months before, when he had escaped from custody and killed two deputies in the process.  He was one of the lone holdouts from New Mexico’s infamous Lincoln County War, a regional skirmish between a faction of local cattlemen and a group of merchants in the area over beef markets.  The fugitive had been hired as a gunman for protection, but had soon turned into an outlaw and gained a reputation as a notorious killer.  His name was William McCarty, alias William Antrim, alias William Bonney, alias Billy the Kid.

Garrett suspected that Billy was holed up in the home of one Pete Maxwell, a resident of Fort Sumner and a well known friend of the Kid’s.  It was rumored that Billy had a romantic entanglement with Pete’s sister, Paulita, and that was one of the reasons he was suspected of being there.  Whatever the cause, Garrett and two deputies left Lincoln and went to Maxwell’s house to question him.  Garrett’s account said while they were there, they saw Billy initially, but did not recognize him:

“We approached these houses cautiously and when within ear shot heard the sound of voices conversing in Spanish. We concealed ourselves quickly and listened but the distance was too great to hear words or even distinguish voices. Soon a man arose from the ground in full view but too far away to recognize. He wore a broad brimmed hat, a dark vest, and pants and was in his shirtsleeves. With a few words, which fell like a murmur on our ears, he went to the fence, jumped it, and walked down towards Maxwell’s house. Little as we then suspected, it this man was The Kid. We learned subsequently that when he left his companions that night he went to the house of a Mexican friend, pulled off his hat and boots, threw himself on a bed and commenced reading a newspaper. He soon, however, hailed his friend who was sleeping in the room, told him to get up and make some coffee, adding “Give me a butcher knife and I will go over to Pete’s and get some beef; I’m hungry.” The Mexican arose, handed him the knife and The Kid, hatless and in his stocking feet, started to Maxwell, which was but a few steps distant.”

After the Kid left, Garrett took another route to the house, where he stationed his deputies on the porch, and went in to see Pete Maxwell.  It was about midnight, and Maxwell was asleep, so Garrett woke him up and questioned him as to the whereabouts of Billy the Kid.  Maxwell said he knew the Kid had been there, but didn’t know if he was still there.

As luck would have it, at that moment, The Kid walked through the door, according to Pat GarrettGarrett “either barefooted or in his stocking-feet.”  He was purportedly still holding the butcher knife but was also holding a revolver.  Garrett waited in darkness as Billy questioned who was there and advanced into the room.  He got close enough that the Sheriff claimed his right hand almost touched the lawman’s knee.  Maxwell positively identified the Kid to Garrett, at which point the outlaw retreated, raising his pistol and calling “Quien es (‘Who is it’)?”

Again, in Garrett’s own words:

“Quickly as possible I drew my revolver and fired, threw my body aside and fired again. The second shot was useless; The Kid fell dead. He never spoke. A struggle or two, a little strangling sound as he gasped for breath, and The Kid was with his many victims.”

An inquest was held the next day, and a coroner’s jury positively identified the body as Billy the Kid.  He was buried on July 15, 1881, at the military cemetery in Fort Sumner.  For all of his exploits, and his legendary status, Billy was only 21 years, 7 months and 21 days old when his life was ended by a bullet from Pat Garrett’s gun.

We are enamored with Billy the Kid, but not for the good that he accomplished.  He certainly possessed a degree of cunning, courage, and intestinal fortitude.  He was loyal to his friends, and according to reports, he had a certain boyish charm.  He was good with a gun (he was said to favor an 1877 Colt .41 caliber revolver).  But while these gifts could have been put to use doing good, that wasn’t the path that he chose.  Instead, he took what he was good at and put it to use doing things that were not so good.  It’s not a big surprise that his short, violent life was put to an end by the very violence he cultivated.

There’s a lesson to be learned from Billy.  It’s doubtful anyone reading this blog will end up as a hired gunman (at least, I hope not!).  But all of us have faced the struggle of what to do with the gifts we’ve been given.  Are we putting them to use doing good, or are we allowing them to be wasted to the point where we will flame out early, never accomplishing what we intended? 136 years after his death, we ultimately remember the life of Billy the Kid for all the wrong reasons.  Let’s make our legacy count for something more.

Posted in inspirational | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment